Blasphey: What It Really Means "NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH"


-noun, plural -mies.
1. Impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.
2. Judaism
A. an act of cursing or reviling God.
B. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton in the original, now forbidden manner
instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3. Theology. The crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4. Irreverent behavior toward anything held scared, priceless, etc. “ He uttered blasphemies against life itself.

Origin” 1175-1225
Synonyms 1. Profanity, cursing, swearing; sacrilege, impiety.

1. A. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God
or a sacred entity.
B. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something
considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

[Middle English blasfemie , from Late Latin blasphemia , from Greek blasphemia , from blasphemein , to blaspheme ; see blaspheme .]

early 13c., from O.Fr. blasfemie "blasphemy," from L.L. blasphemia , from Gk. blasphemia "a speaking ill, impious speech, slander," from blasphemein "to speak evil of." Second element is pheme "utterance" (see fame); first element uncertain, perhaps related to blaptikos "hurtful," though blax "slack (in body and mind), stupid" also has been suggested.

Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: blas·phe·my
Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -mies
:the crime of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or a religion and its doctrines and writings and esp. God as perceived by Christianity and Christian doctrines and writings —see
also Amendment I to the CONSTITUTION in the back matter
NOTE: In many states, blasphemy statutes have been repealed as contrary to the First Amendment. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

irreverence toward a deity or deities and, by extension, the use of profanity.

Main Entry: blas·phe·my 
Pronunciation: \'blas-f?-me\Function: noun Inflected Form(s):
plural blas·phe·miesDate: 13th century
a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

Views: 117


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by David Sensei on July 26, 2010 at 7:37pm
Ha ha ha ha. Mary was shafted by the Angel of the Lord's steel prick, apparently. With simultaneous multiple orgasms, of course.

One can only imagine the foreplay.'I love it when you flap your wings like that. Can I stroke your halo again?'

Seriously though, it was the next sentence after what you quoted that was the important one. By actually ascribing a sex to their own god, believers are being blasphemous by their own definition. One of the best ways to upset a Christian is to ask them to describe their makers' genitalia. While for us, the whole concept is irrelevant. Of course we're blasphemous. That's what we do - say 'Fuck you' to God. Best wishes and thanks.

Thanks also for giving me licence to cut loose a bit. I was unsure of my ground in that area. Best wishes
Comment by Jim DePaulo on July 26, 2010 at 6:29pm
@David, To discuss the sexuality of God is the ultimate blasphemy, it seems, and yet most believers will insist their god is one sex or the other
Then who the hell fucked Mary? And don't give me that virgin birth shit.
You will find a very high tolerance for "inappropriate language" on this site; about the only things not tolerated are theists, purveyors of nonsense conspiracies theories (9/11 truthers, Moon hoax loons...) and anything that posits unprovable woo woo theories (ancient aliens, 2012 delusions, Nostradamus prophecies, etc ).

Personally, I find the use of "cuss words" useful as a descriptive emphasises. Calling some cretin an idiot does covey the same feeling as calling them a fucking idiot.
Comment by David Sensei on July 25, 2010 at 11:45pm
Thanks Rick. Glad you enjoyed my post - I enjoyed writing it. Perhaps not the appropriate forum, though. I'm just getting started, so look out for more.
Comment by Rick on July 25, 2010 at 11:25pm
LOL...I just wanted to share what the English definition of blasphemy was....LOL
But I enjoyed your post.... It is nice to see the cultural differences we have in the world.
Comment by David Sensei on July 25, 2010 at 6:25am
Blasphemy and its relationship to 'cussing' in general is interesting. There seem to be two basic types - references to god and references to obscenity - usually involving illicit sex or uncleanness (in the sense of virtuousness) - you know the ones I mean.

I don't know if graphic examples are permitted here, but it's difficult to discuss without them, so I'm just going to use them and see what happens. I'll try to be moderate.

First we have the mild, ubiquitous blasphemies - 'Oh my god', 'Good Lord', 'Good Heavens', 'Hell', 'Dammit' and so on. Apart from a few puritans, nobody bats an eyelid at these nowadays, though they used to. Pious, churchgoing women will use 'For Heaven's sake', but blanch at 'Damn' or 'Go to hell' and certainly 'Jesus Christ', which is never used by so-called 'practising Christians' (genuine believers).

I live in Japan and it's interesting to note that in their own language and culture there are no such expressions. They don't go around saying 'Oh my Buddha'. 'For Kukai's sake', or 'Good Nirvana'. Which is not to say they don't have some strong language - it just doesn't involve religion. Don't ask me why this is.

The second category involves a sexual slur. This may reflect on the recipient's social respectability ('bastard', 'whore', 's.o.b.' etc.) or simply the use of a graphic, slang reference to the sexual act itself (many examples) and who's involved (your mother is a popular target).

Also belonging in this category are references to defecation (both kinds). Again, you know the ones. As with the slang references to sexual congress, the words are explosive in nature and usually expressed automatically in response to frustration or exasperation. Strangely, the two are sometimes combined in absurd ways, please pardon this excellent example: 'Fuck this shit!'

But when this latter category is combined with religious blasphemy, that's when all hell breaks loose. An outburst of 'Jesus Christ' might be forgiven in polite company where people's religious sensibilities are not known, if the utterer is genuinely taken aback and upset, but not the expression 'Jesus F -- Christ'. Yet, it's just a standard personal expletive and not even meant to be disrespectful to Christians.

That's in situations where we're careful not to offend. But for atheists, simply challenging religious belief invariably causes offence, so what difference does it make? If I say 'Dogmatic faith in any supreme being is irresponsible and foolish', am I being more offensive if I put it like this? 'The Bible? You don't really believe that shit do you?'

I could give many more examples but I think I've made my point. In conclusion, I'd like to quote an interesting exchange about blasphemy I saw on YouTube recently. It was titled something like 'Jesus is Cumming'. In it, a young lady was relating a lucky escape from a serious accident to a Christian friend, who responded by saying 'So, you see, Jesus was there for you!' Her reaction 'So, I'm like ... what???'

By not taking her friend seriously, and actually being irritated by him introducing an irrelevant deity into the conversation, was she being 'blasphemous'? Of course she was, she did not respect his comment, and therefore did not respect either jesus or her friend's belief. And all power to her.

But the interesting part is what someone posted negatively about it. Not that she challenged her friend's right to insinuate his religious beliefs into the conversation, but that you can't say 'Jeus is cumming'! That's blasphemy!

The point is that atheists are blasphemous by definition. The concept of blasphemy has no meaning if the object of the blasphemy is imaginary. Why shouldn't Jesus 'come' in more ways than one? Wasn't it God who gave him earthly form? What was he thinking when he chose the male sex for his child and human savior. Aren't men designed by nature to be prolific reproduction machines, to ensure the survival of the species? Or if the 'Prince of Peace' is to be excepted from this trait, why give him/her/it a sex at all?

To discuss the sexuality of God is the ultimate blasphemy, it seems, and yet most believers will insist their god is one sex or the other. Is that not blasphemous in itself?

Thank you if you've made it this far. Comments welcome.

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service