It’s the first definition that causes all the trouble because we have to accept some one else’s definition of what does and does not injure God – a ridiculous position really. The claim immediately shuts down discussion and growth by setting out boundaries (you cannot say this/think this/question this for it hurts God/church/saint/prophet). But if, instead, you choose the second definition and say that blasphemy is simply a statement of ignorance then the opposite happens; by defining ignorance you then define new avenues of exploration and questioning. Instead of saying ‘don’t go there,’ you say, ‘find out more, ask more, learn more.’

“Blasphemy” a powerful word, a hateful word, and like “queer” and “bitch” and “cunt,” I think it’s positive to reclaim it. I describe myself as an apostate quite openly, which at least gets an uncomfortable “heh. heh.” out of believers. In part, I hope it causes them to pause and think about ascribing that word to others, especially with the typically-dismissive tone in which it is used, and especially because I use it with believing members who are otherwise my friends.

Paul, you are also attempting to moderate John in this discussion with your reference to “right speech.” You refer to right speech to chastise John for using a word that you consider useless and unkind. You are using right speech as a doctrine with which to correct others’ behavior. This is exactly the attitude that Blasphemy Day is addressing.

Personally, I find the idea of blasphemy quite instructive in considering the different ways that we are resistant to challenges and change. Blasphemy makes us all a little more flexible, I think, and flexibility allows us to appreciate each other better, and to evolve.

A most venerable, spiritual, (and courageous) person that I have come to know by reading many of his books, listening to him speak and visiting one of his satellite Sanghas, is Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk born in 1926 and still living today.

His book (among many, and most notable, “Peace Is Every Step”) “Living Buddha, Living Christ” contains the following statements (I’ll share them with you):

p. 151 “The Buddha was not against God. He was only against notions of God that are mere mental constructions that do not correspond to reality, notions that prevent us from developing ourselves and touching ultimate reality.”

p. 170 “Simple and primitive images may have been the object of our faith in God in the beginning, but as we advance, He becomes present without any image, beyond any satisfactory mental representation.” and then he says, “We come to a point where *any notion* we had can no longer represent God.” (asterisks added for emphasis).

He states on page 21, “In Buddhism, we never talk about nirvana, because nirvana means the extinction of all notions, concepts, and speech.”

T.N.H. emphasizes the importance of “communtity” (worshiping together — the Sangha, “Without a Sangha, you will be lost.”) and the presence of the Holy Spirit (a seemingly strange doctrine for a Buddhist monk to advance).

I don’t think he would use the term, “blasphemy” in a positive way to advace spiritual understanding. With all due respect to you, John, I understand “where you are going with and coming from” by using this term (at least I think I do), but I just wouldn’t use this word. The Jews that wanted to destoy the Christ used the term, but the Christ (or the Buddha as far as we know) never used the term to promote spirituality and enlightenment. Using the term in your post can, perhaps, smack of bitterness or allude to an ulterior, derogatory or deleterious agenda.

You stated, “Blasphemy in one context is a sublime truth in another one.” Mmm… do you really believe that is “right mind” to think that way? A rose by any other name is still a rose. “Shit on a stick” still stinks and is somewhat revolting; I wouldn’t employ the concept of shit (or even have it as a thought) to promote enlightenment or for the purpose of inviting the Holy Spirit to attain same.

Is there another word which can be used instead of “blasphemous” to illustrate the point(s) you are making?

Just my thoughts.

Peace.

One comeback I’ve found useful when some Protestant is raving about Mormons being “polytheist” is:

If you can make “One God” out of three beings, why can’t I do it with three thousand?

Via another blog, found this wonderful quote from Robert Ingersoll:

“Imagine a vine that grows at one end and decays at the other. The end that grows is heresy, the end that rots is orthodox. The dead are orthodox, and your cemetery is the most perfect type of a well regulated church. No thought, no progress, no heresy there. Slowly and silently, side by side, the satisfied members peacefully decay. There is only this difference — the dead do not persecute.”

Nicely stated.

Some truths, though, are eternal. Cheese, for instance. Blasphemy against Gruyere can neither be forgiven in this life, nor in the life to come.