I think we have gone why off topic but what is the original word that blasphemy was translated from and what are some of its possible meanings?
From the Catholic Encylopedia:
Blasphemy
Blasphemy (Greek
blaptein, "to injure", and
pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any
person or thing worthy of exalted esteem. In this broad sense the term is used by
Bacon when in his "Advancement of Learning" he speaks of "blasphemy against learning".
St. Paul tells of being blasphemed (
1 Corinthians 4:13) and the
Latin Vulgate employs the word
blasphemare to designate abusive language directed either against a people at large (
2 Samuel 21:21;
1 Chronicles 20:7) or against
individuals (
1 Corinthians 10:30;
Titus 3:2).
MEANING
While etymologically blasphemy may denote the
derogation of the
honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to
God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Francisco Suárez as "any word of
malediction, reproach, or
contumely pronounced against
God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a
sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising
God. (2) It is said to be against
God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the
saints or of sacred things, because of the
relationship they sustain to
God and His service.
Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.
- It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of man is God".
- It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God".
- It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has conquered, O Galilaean".
Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such
intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import.
THE MALICE OF BLASPHEMY
Blasphemy is a
sin against the
virtue of religion by which we render to
God the
honour due to Him as our first beginning an last end. St. Thomas says that it is to be regarded as a
sin against
faith inasmuch as by it we attribute to
God that which does not belong to Him, or deny Him that which is His (II-II, Q. xiii, art. I).
De Lugo and others deny that this is an essential element in blasphemy (De just. et jure caeterisque virt. card., lib. II, c. xiv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Escobar (Theol. mor., lib. xxviii, c. xxxii, n. 716 sqq.) observes, the contention on this point concerns words only, since the followers ofSt. Thomas see in the contempt expressed in blasphemy the implication that
God is contemptible--an implication in which all will allow there is attributed to
God that which does not belong to Him. What is here said is of blasphemy in general; manifestly that form of the
sin described above as
heretical is not only opposed to the
virtue of religion but that of
faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole
nature (
ex toto genere suo) a mortal
sin, the gravest that may be committed against religion. The seriousness of an affront is proportioned to the dignity of the
person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in blasphemy is offered to the ineffable majesty of
God, the degree of its heinousness must be evident. Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial
sin only or no
sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in
anger escape the enormity of a grave
sin, except as is clear, when the
anger is vented upon
God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave
sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal
sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst. It has been said that
heretical blasphemy besides a content directed against religion has that which is opposed to the
virtue of
faith. Similarly, imprecatory blasphemy is besides a violation of charity. These forms of the
sin being specifically distinct from the simpler kind, it is
necessary to specify their
character in confession. Whether blasphemy has been direct or indirect, however, calls not for specification on the part of the penitent, since both these forms are specifically the same, though clearly differing in the degree of malice. The question has been raised whether blasphemy against the
saints differs in kind from that uttered immediately against
God. While
De Lugo thinks that such a difference obtains (De Poenit., disp. xvi, n. 178 sqq.) the opposite opinion of St. Alphonsus seems more tenable, for as the latter
theologian observes, the
saints, ordinarily speaking, are not blasphemed because of their own excellence but because of their close
relationship to
God (Theol.
Moral., lib. IV, n. 132).
THE PENALTIES ATTACHED TO BLASPHEMY
In the
Old Law the blasphemer was punished by death. So
God appointed on the occasion of the blasphemy of Salumith's son: "The man that curseth His
God, shall bear his
sin: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He thatblasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die" (
Leviticus 24:15-16). Upon hearing blasphemy the
Jews were wont in detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (
2 Kings 18:37,
19:l;
Matthew 26:65).
Among the Athenians blasphemy was actionable and according to Plutarch, Alcibiades was made to suffer the confiscation of his goods for ridiculing the
rites of Ceres and Proserpine (Plutarch, Alcibiades). Among the ancient Romans blasphemy was punishable, though not by death. In the
time of
Justinian we find most severe enactments against this
sin. In a constitution of A. D. 538 the people are called upon to
abstain from blasphemy, which provokes
God to
anger. The prefect of the city is commanded to apprehend all such as shall persist in their offence after this admonition and
put them to death, that so the city and the empire may not suffer because of their impiety (Auth. Col., Tit. vii, 7 November). Among the
Visigoths, anyone blaspheming the name of Christ or expressing contempt of
the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred stripes, and suffered perpetual
imprisonment in chains. Among the
Franks, according to a
law enacted at the Diet of
Aachen, A. D. 818, this
sin was a capital offence. In the
Gospels blasphemy is described as one of "the things that defile a man" (
Matthew 15:20;
Mark 7:21-23).
Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a
decree of the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at the door of the church during the
solemnities of the Mass for seven
Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck.
Obligations of
fasting and alms-giving were likewise imposed under heaviest penalties (Decret., lib. V, tit. xxvi). The rigours of the ancient
discipline were insisted upon by
Pius V in his Constitution "Cum primum apostolatus" (p. 10). According to the
law herein laid down, the
layman found guilty of blasphemy was fined. The fine was increased upon his second offence, and upon his third he was sent into exile. If unable to pay the fine, he was upon the first conviction condemned to stand before the door of thechurch, his hands tied behind him. For the second offence he was flogged, and for the third his tongue was pierced, and he was
sentenced to the galleys. The blasphemous
cleric, if possessed of a
benefice, lost upon his first offence a year's income; upon his second he was deprived of his
benefice and exiled. If enjoying no
benefice, he was first subjected to a fine and bodily punishment; on repeating the offence he was
imprisoned, and still persisting, he was
degraded and condemned to the galleys.
BLASPHEMY IN CIVIL LAW
Blasphemy cognizable by
common law is defined by Blackstone to be "denying the
being or
providence of
God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, profane scoffing at the
Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt or ridicule". The
United States once had many penal
statutes against blasphemy, which were declared constitutional as not subversive of the freedom of speech or liberty of the press (Am. and Eng. Ency. ofLaw, Vol. IV, 582). In the American Decisions (Vol. V, 335) we read that "
Christianity being recognized by
law therefore blasphemy against
God and profane ridicule of Christ or the
Holy Scripture are punishable at
Common Law", Accordingly where one uttered the following words "
Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a *****", it was held to be a public offence, punishable by the
common law. The defendant found guilty by the court of common pleas of the blasphemy above quoted was
sentenced to
imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars.
And like the three mentioned, their entire basis for their beliefs rests on those two magic words that they seem to feel gives them authority. "I think", which is probably the most annoying way to begin any discussion as deeply layered as theology. Sometimes they think God is whispering in their ears, and we are obliged to read about numerology and raptures and idiotic end-time scenarios. Other time we get to read five and half mile long pages peppered with Bible quotations. They feel that grabbing verses out of context to the books they were drawn from gives their "I think" theology intellectual merit.
