Is "blasphemy" really specific enough for confession so that one could just say *"blasphemy 10 times"* etc.? I wouldn't think so but then I read in the *Summa Theologiae*, >"Properly speaking, the sin of blasphemy is not in this way divided into three species: since to affirm unfitting things, or to deny fitting things of God, differ merely as affirmation and negation. For this diversity does not cause distinct species of habits, since the falsehood of affirmations and negations is made known by the same knowledge, and it is the same ignorance which errs in either way, since negatives are proved by affirmatives, according to *Poster. i*, 25. Again to ascribe to creatures things that are proper to God, seems to amount to the same as affirming something unfitting of Him, since whatever is proper to God is God Himself: and to ascribe to a creature, that which is proper to God, is to assert that God is the same as a creature" (II-II.13.1.3) But you can also commit blasphemy against creatures such as the saints (see CCC 2148), so is this just for blasphemy against God?

Non-Christian here. I have heard that "God damn it" or "God damn [that person]" is blasphemy because you are telling God what to do. But other interpretations are that it's only blasphemy to misrepresent what God told you to do, like "God told me to hurt that person".

Latter-day Saints, like many Christians, are encouraged to not use phrases like "Oh my God!" because they are seen as violations of the commandment to not take the name of God "in vain." However, in some languages (e.g. Arabic), God's name appears frequently in common phrases and is not considered offensive by most. Has an LDS leader ever commented on the application of this commandment in other cultural contexts? Has an exception ever been made for cultures, like Arab culture, where it is so common? (I am asking this in an LDS context specifically, although I understand this issue is applicable more broadly as well.)

A lot of things in today's culture have names with the word ***"damn"*** in them, e.g., the restaurant Hattie B's Hot Chicken has a menu option named "Damn Hot". I'm sure it was a sin for whoever came up with that name, but what about for the rest of us? Is it okay for Catholics to use those names when talking about those things, e.g., while ordering at that restaurant, or would that be sinful too? If the latter, then how should we refer to them?

A few times questions about “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit” have been asked on this site and then closed as either “off topic” since they are interpretative per denomination, or closed as “duplicate” which then links to a different closed question. To try to remedy this, since I believe it’s an important topic to discuss, I am curious how various denominations interpret this “unforgivable sin”. > How is “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” interpreted by various denominations? > What are some of the key disagreements between various denominations on this topic? > What do they [an aforementioned denomination] use as supporting evidence for their interpretations? An answer of any specific denomination is helpful, you (of course) don’t have to answer how each and every denomination interprets this.

Matthew 12:22-32 and Mark 3:22-30 both tell the account of the Christ casting out devils while Pharisees accused Him of being possessed by Beelzebub. The Christ rebukes them and declares the following from Matthew 12:31-32: > 31Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. It appears that the Christ is telling us that blasphemy against the Father or the Son (i.e. *"God damn it!"* or *"Jesus Jumping Christ!"*) is forgivable, but not of the Holy Spirit. However, most preachers and theologians I have listened to believe that it really means that it means living an unrepentant life. My question is how Christian theologians have made this conclusion and if it holds up to biblical doctrine.

In Mtt 12:32-33, Jesus speaks about the Sin against the Holy Spirit. He elaborates that blasphemy against the Son of God will be forgiven, but that against the Holy Spirit will not be. Now, forgiveness of a sin presupposes a pardoning authority. Let us presume that God the Father is the pardoning authority for blasphemy against the Son. A doubt naturally arises as to who the pardoning authority for sin against the Holy Spirit is: the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit himself, or all the Holy Trinity put together ? My question therefore is : According to the Trinitarian and Non- Trinitarian precepts, who is the pardoning authority for Sin against the Holy Spirit.

Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is one of the core beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses: [Jehovah’s Witnesses View of Christ](https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/jehovah-s-witnesses-view-of-christ/) . John 5:18 states, > For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill > Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was > calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 8:59, > Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid > Himself, and went out of the temple. John 10:31, > The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him. John 10:33, > The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God. Also, according to the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66, and specifically at vs65 the high priest Caiaphas makes a strong accusation: > The high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, have you not heard the blasphemy;" What was the blasphemy, according to the Jews, that Jesus committed that resulted in His crucifixion and eventual death? Related question asked here

C.S. Lewis is widely known to have been a devout Christian. In Narnia, the lion Aslan seems to symbolize Jesus. He is executed in the first book in a manner not entirely unlike crucifixion and rises from the dead, for example. Another character by another author is Franklin, in J.D. Salinger's "Just Before the War with the Eskimos." He injures his feet and hands and is also considered by many to be a reference to Jesus. These are of course just two of many, many times when authors have given a character qualities that symbolize Jesus, or when a major plot point is reminiscent of crucifixion. These symbols have me wondering, though, isn't it some sort of blasphemy? In the first case, Aslan is a powerful and noble hero who works miracles. Could writing this book be akin to worshiping a false idol? In the second, Franklin is unkind and has many vices. He seems rather a poor choice for a Christ symbol. **Under what conditions is it actually appropriate from a religious standpoint to create a Christ figure?** EDIT: I see a downvote wondering what definition of blasphemy I have in mind. My source is [Merriam-Webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy) : > **blasphemy** > > 1. The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. > 2. The act of claiming the attributes of a deity. C.S. Lewis fits definition 2, where a character he imagines claims the attributes of Jesus. Salinger fits definition 1, for the lack of reverence especially.

In the context of a conversation about cultural appropriation, I was trying to convey to another person how offensive it can be to see one’s cultural traditions turned into a performance by someone from another background. The specific example under discussion involved a university course on Comparative Religions, in which students were encouraged to demonstrate a religious ritual from a tradition other than their own. I felt that this was potentially very offensive. In an attempt to convey my point, I said to the other person (who is, I know, a practicing Catholic), “How would you feel I dressed up as a Priest and performed a communion ceremony?” He insisted that this would not bother him, which surprised me. I am not myself Christian, let alone Catholic (in fact I am a traditionally observant Jew), so I do not have a frame of reference for evaluating whether this would be offensive, and if so, how much. So I thought I would come here for advice. Would this be regarded as blasphemy, mockery, as something completely innocuous, or something else?

Which biblical verse was used against Galileo by the Church to punish him for his blasphemy ? Which biblical doctrine was erroneously interpreted by Galileo for such a punitive action by the Church?

[According to Martiniz A. A.](https://www.theologie-naturwissenschaften.de/en/dialogue-between-theology-and-science/editorials/giordano-bruno-en/) , the main accusation of Giordano Bruno from the inquisition is simply the ideas of many-worlds: No other accusation was invoked even half as much. [In another reference](https://notevenpast.org/giordano-bruno-and-the-spirit-that-moves-the-earth/) Martinez goes on to describe the horror of the Catholic’s response: > “First, Bruno had said in nine books that many worlds exist: not just the Earth, but the Moon, the planets and the stars: “innumerably many worlds.” Apparently he didn’t know it was a heresy to claim that “innumerably many worlds exist.” This belief had been denounced as a heresy by many authorities including Saint Philaster, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, and Pope Gregory XIII. Catholics were horrified by this idea, because if many worlds exist then Jesus Christ would have to be born and crucified in each of those worlds to offer salvation to the beings in such worlds.” If we now were in the clothes of the Inquisition, we could examine the idea, as the devil's advocate, that the earth actually moved around the sun and that the sun then became the center. If the Earth were not the center of the world, one might argue that the central place might also be possessed by another planet. Here then immediately comes Martinez'question whether really Jesus was also crucified on that planet. Being at the center also means a hierarchically advantageous status, and the idea is unreasonable that beings (humans) have experiences of Jesus that are completely undocumented in the Bible. (Even Copernicus' system with the sun in the center passes Jesus out into orbit.) Although I see no reference to this, I wonder of it is close to conceivable that the theory of many extraterrestrial worlds constituted a blasphemy solely because of the inherent denial of Jesus also as a spatial central figure in Christianity. Edit: Let me add that if cosmology had been the only concern from the inquisition, Bruno might have been included in the excuse extended to Galileo. Therefore it is obvious that traditional theological errors (regarding his behavior as a priest, his views on Trinity, Virgin Mary etc.) must have had some weight in Bruno’s verdict. Unfortunately the Inquisition protocols do not contain explicit reason for judgment, where proof is compared to a standard for accusations neither individually or taken together.

At John 8:58, Jesus says > "Before Abraham was born, I am the one." (REV) The Greek is πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί Because the Jews then pick up stones, some Trinitarians believe there is an inference here that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh, with a connection between God's name as revealed in Exodus and the Greek term ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi). So they would translate this as > "Before Abraham was, I AM." (NKJV) where the 'I AM' is capitalized by the translator to indicate a reference to Yahweh, in the style of how 'LORD' is capitalized in various translations to replace Yahweh in the Old Testament. Yet, if you go back to just John 8:24, Jesus uses the same phrase. > "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless > you believe that **I am He**, you will die in your sins." Here, most translations say "I am he" (ego eimi) instead of just "I am" (or "I AM"), because that's the sort of meaning the phrase imparts in Koine Greek. Even closer, at John 8:28, Jesus says > "“When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that **I am > He**" Similarly, most translations say "I am he" (ego eimi) because, again, that's just what the phrase means in this sort of context. Furthermore, if you just skip ahead 10 lines from John 8:58, someone *else* says 'ego eimi' at John 9:9. > "But the man kept saying, “**I am the one**.”" Again, 'I am the one' is just a normal translation of 'ego eimi'. Not only did the man say 'ego eimi', he kept saying it. We have 3 proximate uses of 'ego eimi' to John 8:58, yet none of them are typically translated 'I AM' or even just 'I am' and there is no recorded reaction to the use of the words. According to those who think the picking up of stones is due to a reference to Yahweh because of the phrase 'ego eimi', how is this discrepancy explained?

What are the 5 blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary that Our Lady of Fatima mentioned? Which sects utter these blasphemies?

Jesus claiming to be God would have been a clear case of blasphemy (unless, of course, he actually was God). Yet before his trial, according to Matthew 26 > "Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrini were seeking false > testimony against Jesus in order to put Him to death. 60 But they did > not find any, though many false witnesses came forward." Given Trinitarians claim there is clear evidence of Jesus claiming to be God (such as 'Before Abraham was, I am' and 'I and the Father are one') and that the statements were made publicly in front of a hostile group of scribes and Pharisees, why couldn't Caiaphas find any witnesses to attest to these statements, and instead had to seek false testimony in order to put Him to death?

How did the early Christians and Apostles get into the temple? Shouldn't they have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Jesus as God? Acts 2:46-47 reads: **"Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."** But how is it possible they could get into the temple every day? Wouldn't the Jews stone them to death for preaching Jesus as God? The Jews would have heavily outnumbered them, I don't understand how this could have happened. Why did they "enjoy the favor of all the people?" Wouldn't the people hate them for declaring that a man is God? Or at a minimum, wouldn't at least the Pharisees hate them? I just don't understand how this could have happened. Even in 2021, if a Christian were to walk up to the wailing wall (the last remnants of the temple) and started declaring that Jesus is God, they would at a minimum be escorted away, but they might get worse treatment than that. Surely in 30 AD they would have been killed for this? Or at least permanently banned with the threat of death if they ever entered again? Can anyone shed light on this issue? It makes me question how the Bible can be true, because logically this just doesn't make any sense at all at first glance. What am I missing?

Are jokes like those listed here blasphemous? 1. Whisky is the real holy water [source ] 2. They want to know what the doctor gives me so that they can take it too, they who struggle just as I do. But I do not go to the doctor, I go to the witch! [source ] 3. A priest who never missed an opportunity to attack the Jews. One day, in a sermon, the priest found a pretext and began to attack Jews, as always. Suddenly, Jesus came down from the cross, looked to the Virgin and says, 'Mom, let's go, it seems that they do not like us here. , 2 ] (told the same thing on different occasions) 4. Peter was crucified head first so that God could wash his feet. [source ] 5. Because of my big ego, I should call myself, "Jesus II" [source ] 6. The Holy Trinity only give a picture of unity on the outside, but inside, behind closed doors, the they’re all arguing [source ] I, with a reformed perspective, see these kinds of comments as blasphemous and sinful, but I want to know the Catholic perspective of these kinds of jokes. And what actions should be taken with people who make these kinds of jokes? What are the consequences for a layman and for a member of the clergy?

>There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary: >1. Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception. 2. Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity. 3. Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men. 4. The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother. 5. The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images. [Top 5 Sins Against the Immaculate Heart of Mary](http://www.vcatholic.com/articles/top-5-sins-against-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary/) **Why are the offenses against Blessed Virgin Mary are called blasphemies instead of sin?** Looking for Catholic Foundational Teaching and explanation on blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary.

At Matt 26: 63-65 we see: "But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy." I wish to know when the practice of tearing one's own garments in order to show protest, especially when one was witnessing apparent blasphemy, started among the Jews. Did such a practice have its origin in the scriptures ?

In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says: > Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, > but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever > speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever > speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this > age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32 ESV) In the KJV, this is called "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost". What does this refer to? PS: I have taken a look at a related question(Are there unforgivable sins? ), but I would like more answers to this specific question.