What actually constitutes blasphemy?

As are most of us, I'd imagine...

Oh, I am in the clear then!

www.666man.net/Blasphemy_Bible_Definitions_of.html

I've never considered the question of what actually constitues blasphemy before either, but I thought this article was quite interesting.

It seems to be saying that the Bible definition of blasphemy is rather more specific than the usual dictionary one and that there are three main criteria - to claim to be God, to claim to have the powers of God and to stubbornly refuse to repent of one's sins.

Taking the Lord's name in vain etc. or defiling a church would therefore presumably not be considered blasphemous.

At one time it was common not to pile any other books on top of a bible - that was insulting to it.

I suppose it comes down to definition. Who decides if something is profane? As I don't believe in any god, I don't see how I can show contempt.

Blasphemy :Any contemptuous or profane act or utterance .

Once again, we are completely in agreement, Micelf. Whilst not sharing their beliefs, I would, figuratively, defend to the death anybody's right to worship in any way they choose, always with the proviso that their right does not infringe somebody else's rights (including women and children).

The need for something to believe in seems to have survived under Communist rule - I think many Catholic churches in England are now attended primarily by Poles and they have had to recruit Polish priests.

Not in this country, happily. But we all know there are oppressive regimes in other parts of the world which deny the freedom to worship, and which impose, to me at least, abhorrent practices. The one child policy in China for example, which was aborting babies almost at term.

Once again we are in agreement, Micelf. It has never been part of my thinking to prevent anybody worshipping in any way they choose, so long as their choice is not imposed on me. I am opposed to the use of Sharia courts in the UK because I believe they are unfair to women in many cases. Anybody is free to protest within the law. Are you thinking of any specific instance where a group has not been allowed to do this?

I agree with you Greatnan. What does exasperate me though, is when I read gross misrepresentation of a carefully considered position or the lumping together of all people with a religious belief of any description. There are many easy targets but dividing people into atheists and believers by some, is not helpful.

I also feel that imposition of certain behaviours by reason of the religious belief of a ruling hegemony is wrong. However, I would strongly defend the right of any group or person to say / proclaim / demonstrate in favour of what they believe to be morally right.

Apologies for a couple of typos - I need another cup of tea.
Some of the best Jewish jokes I heard were told by Rabbis and I have heard some great jokes from priests too.
Surely a religion should be strong enough to be able to have a laugh at itself?

Cathy, we don't 'have a go' at believers - we just don't share their beliefs. We are sometimes very critical of the actions of some religious organisations, for example the way the Catholic church failed to deal with many years of child abuse. This did not mean we were critical of individual Catholics, most of whom were as sickened as the rest of us.
Other denominations have been equally guilty of colluding in child abuse, such as sending children out to Australia to be used as virtual slaves.

Some beliefs do not deserve respect , such as the commonly held belief in most world religions that women are not capable of taking an exactly equally role in the life of the religion.

Do you respect the belief that anybody who wants to cease to be a muslim should be put to death?

There is a difference in respecting an individual and respecting their beliefs. Most of us who are atheists are very happy for believers to be able to follow their own religion as long as there is no effort to impose their beliefs on us through the law. That is why we do not think religious beliefs should be allowed to influence the laws on same-sex marriage, divorce, abortion, contraception, the right to die, etc. If believers want to follow their own church's guidance on these matters, that is up to them, but their beliefs should not be imposted on everybody. Most of my friends who are believers agree with me in this.

I laugh at atheist jokes too: the subject of religion is just too tempting though...... I've heard priests and vicars making jokes about their own religion. And why not?

Its soooo annoying that people ridicule and do not respect other people beliefs.

When I say in Gods name I mean in the name of God but I think you probably knew that already

Why is it ok to have a go at people that do believe in God, I dont have a go at people that are atheist because I respect its their choice, I would have alot to say about non believers but choose to live and let live.

A bit more respect for believers is called for I think.

Very funny, Joan......and true!

Joan, thanks

So what is god's name? I mean 'God' isn;t a name - it's a job description.

jeni The dominant role of the female seems to be confined to the Jewish home.

I like "the act of depriving something of its sacred character" as a definition of blasphemy. But then I don't hold anything to be 'sacred' anyway - which doesn't mean there aren't things and folks that I respect.

Blasphemy is when you use the name of God with bad intention

Just found this:

theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

I think it would probably count as blasphemy, but a lot of it is very funny.

I've read somewhere, that in early Hebraic religion, God had a wife!
This was gradually phased out.
Presumably by men.
Although you can only be Jewish if your mother was.
Jewish mothers traditionally seem to have dominant role!

It's all very confusing.

I was beginning to feel a glimmer of enlightenment – thank you posters – but haven't a clue what this last bit is about.

and not much point to any of it #circlesroundin

On the one hand, theoretical discussion about the nature of God. On the other hand, concrete examples of human stupidity.

Isn't there just, lilygran!

Lilygran I don't think the Spanish Inquisition was especially enthusiastic about inquiring minds. Blasphemy certainly came within its remit and querying orthodoxy in any way counted as blasphemy. The Inquisition may have been abolished some 180 years ago, but there is definitely still a whiff of it in today's Vatican.