From misunderstanding to blasphemy...

[angellous_evangellous]

It is obviously quite difficult for humans to understand God... or at least humans have made it difficult to understand Her.

This is evidenced not only by the amount of theologies represented generally by the vast number of religions, but also by the dazzling amount of theological methodologies that can be found within each one of them. Christianity has its own large set of theologies - enough for hundreds of professors of theology to take a lifetime to read and write on just one of them!

Anyway, I have a lot of patience for people, including myself, when it comes to the struggle of understanding God.

But when does a simple misunderstanding become libel or slander? When is someone simply expressing an honest misrepresentation of God, or just lying about God in an attempt to insult, deride, or corrupt an otherwise useful theology?

I suggest that a rather useful example of blasphemy is the argument that God hates a certain group of people - like homosexuals or women, and then saying that AIDs or childbearing is a punishment on these people for their sin.

This concept of course slanders the nature of God as a benevolent Creator, the foundation of many theisms. It is libel for the theologies that portray God as the ideal Father, the Provider and Protector of peoples, who loves Creation and provides abundantly for it.

[Dunemeister]

In order to blaspheme, you have to have some sort of authoritative statement on what theology is correct. Barring that, saying "God hates xxxx," where xxxx is any people group, cannot be blasphemy.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Anyway, I have a lot of patience for people, including myself, when it comes to the struggle of understanding God.

But when does a simple misunderstanding become libel or slander? When is someone simply expressing an honest misrepresentation of God, or just lying about God in an attempt to insult, deride, or corrupt an otherwise useful theology?

When it stops being honest, maybe?

I suppose there may be a grey region as well: in other areas, between honest misunderstanding and wilful lie, there's negligent misrepresentation, i.e. when people don't know for sure that what they're saying is false, but don't put the effort they should into figuring out whether their statement is true before they say it.

[oldcajun]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

It is obviously quite difficult for humans to understand God... or at least humans have made it difficult to understand Her.

This is evidenced not only by the amount of theologies represented generally by the vast number of religions, but also by the dazzling amount of theological methodologies that can be found within each one of them. Christianity has its own large set of theologies - enough for hundreds of professors of theology to take a lifetime to read and write on just one of them!

Anyway, I have a lot of patience for people, including myself, when it comes to the struggle of understanding God.

But when does a simple misunderstanding become libel or slander? When is someone simply expressing an honest misrepresentation of God, or just lying about God in an attempt to insult, deride, or corrupt an otherwise useful theology?

I suggest that a rather useful example of blasphemy is the argument that God hates a certain group of people - like homosexuals or women, and then saying that AIDs or childbearing is a punishment on these people for their sin.

This concept of course slanders the nature of God as a benevolent Creator, the foundation of many theisms. It is libel for the theologies that portray God as the ideal Father, the Provider and Protector of peoples, who loves Creation and provides abundantly for it.

"If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped."... Evelyn Underhill

In reply to: "suggest that a rather useful example of blasphemy is the argument that God hates a certain group of people - like homosexuals or women, and then saying that AIDs or childbearing is a punishment on these people for their sin."

I agree with this, I think it's the terminology used at times that doesn't come across right. As an example, instead of saying God hates homosexuals, we should say that God hates the practice of sodomy, as it is well documented in the old and new testaments.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

When it stops being honest, maybe?

I suppose there may be a grey region as well: in other areas, between honest misunderstanding and wilful lie, there's negligent misrepresentation, i.e. when people don't know for sure that what they're saying is false, but don't put the effort they should into figuring out whether their statement is true before they say it.

This sounds about right to me.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

In order to blaspheme, you have to have some sort of authoritative statement on what theology is correct. Barring that, saying "God hates xxxx," where xxxx is any people group, cannot be blasphemy.

I think what Angellous was getting at is it's blasphemy against any concept of god that's greater than that cooked up by a petty mind.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I think what Angellous was getting at is it's blasphemy against any concept of god that's greater than that cooked up by a petty mind.

Alright, but that just pushes the question back a notch. Who decides whether a concept is "greater than that cooked up by a petty mind"? If there's no authority, then there's no basis for saying that a belief is actually blasphemy. It may be contrary to your beliefs, but why does that mean the belief in question is blasphemous rather than merely contrary?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Alright, but that just pushes the question back a notch. Who decides whether a concept is "greater than that cooked up by a petty mind"? If there's no authority, then there's no basis for saying that a belief is actually blasphemy. It may be contrary to your beliefs, but why does that mean the belief in question is blasphemous rather than merely contrary?

Why must there be an authority other than each of our own judgments?