Featured Is there a difference between judging a person and blaspheming a person?

I guess it depends on if you cussed while you were judging them.

 

Blaspheme?

I'm confused. I thought one could only blaspheme the Lord?

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by 'blaspheme a person'?

 

You are correct. The OP makes an assumption that is not possible.
Blasphemy is always directed toward God. It is an insult to God.

"the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy

 

A dictionary definition is not Scripture. Blasphemy is not just insulting God, it is attributing His work, especially that of the Holy Spirit, to another entity, usually an evil entity, or attributing God's work to Satan.

While it may be impossible to use blasphemy against a person, one can hold such contempt in their heart for another that the sin of murder has been committed in one's heart.

Although blasphemy cannot be committed against a human, the RCC actually had a law in several countries called "blasphemy against the state" and the penalty could be death.

Not defining blasphemy properly has caused much grief and pain, again, spread mostly by the RCC. Here is a quote from Craig Bluemel on blasphemy. In part he says "Roman Catholicism has done severe damage to the minds and hearts of the human race, causing unwarranted fear, oppression, and untold misery because if its misapplication of the concept of blasphemy. Throughout the dark ages, Roman Catholic popes, prelates, bishops, and archbishops tried, convicted and then, by means of painful torture murdered those in opposition of the Romish church. Men such as John Huss adhered to the scriptures as authoritative in spiritual matters, and were put on trial, falsely convicted of heresy and accused of blasphemy, then condemned to die.

The Christian churches are not far behind the Catholics in this regard, dangling this ‘deadly sin’ over the heads of its parishioners to keep them in line and conformity to the belief system established since the time of the early reformers. Blasphemy was even incorporated into early common law, and certain crimes were punishable as blasphemy against the state."

Blasphemy is not cursing God or any of the three Persons of the Trinity. It is a conscience effort to destroy the work of the Lord and attribute it to another person, ie and evil entity.

Misuse of the word has caused lots of problems in history. There is no need to continue the practice.

 

There is no such thing as "cussed".

 

Do we have the RIGHT....

....to judge in the first place? I believe we've been called as witnesses, not judges, or the jury!

There is a difference between lovingly pointing out the error in the ways of others, and out right judging, BUT most believers don't quite know how top do this! :tear:

 

A dictionary defines words.

That is the sin of murder correctly defined by Jesus in Matthew 5. It is not blasphemy.

Do you believe the assumption Mary and her immaculate assumption as well? Just because the RCC says so does not make it so! I trust the dictionary more than the RCC.

Then why are you relying on the RCC to define blasphemy for you?
Do they also define theotokos for you? Do you believe all their doctrines?
Why not just join them?
We use dictionaries for a reason.

Does that make it right?

First, if one has cursed God, he has blasphemed God. So you are wrong on that account. Blasphemy, by its very definition is insulting God.
Second, if you insult God in any way, you are attacking the work of God, are you not?
Third, When Jesus was accused of blasphemy in John 10:30ff the Jews were correct in their assessment: "...because thou art a man and makest thyself God." That is blasphemy, well defined by the Jews. The place where they were wrong is that they were unwilling to admit that Christ was the Messiah--God. Your definition doesn't hold up.

Then why do it?

 

You tell me since you are the one that misdefined it. Blasphemy is an unforgivable sin that goes way beyond the use of God's Name in slang terms. So, according to your definition, anyone who has ever cursed God has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which means there is no forgiveness for them. The Holy Spirit is God. You seem obsessed with the RCC. I have left the Presbyterian Church behind decades ago.

You asked why I was using the RCC definition. You totally missed the point. I was trying to point out that both your and their definition is in error.

 

Perhaps you are posting in the wrong thread. This thread is about judging and "blasphemy." It is NOT about "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," a sin which is impossible to commit today. Thus your confusion. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin; but it cannot be committed today. The Pharisees were attributing the miracles that Jesus performed (and they witnessed in the flesh) to the power of Satan rather than the power of the Spirit of God. But Jesus is not in the flesh standing in front of you or anyone else performing miracles today. Thus it is impossible to commit that sin.

This thread is NOT on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Start another thread if you wish, but don't derail this one. That is not the topic here.

Blasphemy is speaking irreverently of God; insulting God; or making remarks about God that are not true (hence insulting).

My definition is not in error. Yours is.

 

I cannot believe this post. First of all, it is quite possible to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit today. From Blue Letter Commentary:

How Does Someone Today Blaspheme the Holy Spirit?

When Christ was on earth the Holy Spirit was blasphemed when His works were attributed to the devil. How does one blaspheme the Holy Spirit today?

We must first understand that His situation was unique. Christ was physically present, performing miracles through the Holy Spirits power to testify that He was the Messiah. But He is not with us today in a physical presence. How then does blasphemy of the Holy Spirit occur?

The work of the Holy Spirit is still the same: to speak of Jesus Christ and to show the world it needs His forgiveness:


“Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged”
(John 16:7-11 NKJV).

Therefore, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unbelief. Those who continually reject the Holy Spirits work portraying Christ as Savior are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. If this state continues they will not receive forgiveness for their sins.

Thus, today, as in Christs time, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a continuous state of being rather than one particular sin. It is the state of unbelief.

We conclude regarding the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:

1. People today are not in the same situation as when Christ was physically present.

2. Today one blasphemes the Holy Spirit by rejecting the ministry of the Holy Spirit that speaks of Christ.

3. Thus the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the state of unbelief in Christ as Savior. It is more of a continuing and persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit than one particular sin.

4. The only way to avoid the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to turn to Christ for forgiveness.

Since it is possible to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, thus your confusion.

You really need to explain how one can blaspheme God and not the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is God, and you have come to the conclusion it is not the same subject.

If the two subjects are technically different, they are very similar. Why do you bring up accusations of derailing a thread? I am not going to be lead into another infraction.

 

He has this much correct. It cannot be committed today.
Don't believe everything you read.

Again, don't derail the thread. This thread is not about this one passage of the Bible "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." It is about judging and blasphemy in general. In fact the OP asked if it was possible to commit blasphemy against a person, not the Holy Spirit. You are off topic.You really need to explain how one can blaspheme God and not the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is God, and you have come to the conclusion it is not the same subject.

They are different because the one cannot be committed today. It is a moot point.
Bring it up in the theology section on a separate thread, not here.

 

The original post in this thread asked "Is there a difference between judging a person and blaspheming a person?" Now, compare that with your quote above. How is that not derailing a thread? No where did the question ask about God.

 

The title of the thread:

I answered in order to correct the OP. Blasphemy, by very definition, is against God not against a man. I have pointed that out both by dictionary and by Scriptures.
John 10:30ff defines blasphemy: "you commit blasphemy because being a man you claim to be God."
That was the greatest insult a man could make--to claim to be God.
God is holy; man is unholy. What an insult to claim to be God. Totally irreverent!
The Jews knew what blasphemy was.
Stephen was stoned for blasphemy.
Christ went to the cross for blasphemy.
Read the Scriptures and learn what it is.

 

Evaluation or slander?

So, I may understand your question as "Can I judge or evaluate a person and not slander that person? Or is 'judging' and slander essentially the same thing.

When Jesus warned us not to 'judge' He was talking of taking the place of God. God is the final judge of human conduct. On the other hand, John the Revelator says (1 John 4:1) we are to '... test ... spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets ...[exist in] ... the world." Isn't that 'judging' after a fashion?

Do we not 'evaluate' preachers and 'prophets' all the time. Do we not 'evaluate' requests - for money, for instance - to determine if the Holy Spirit urges us to donate to a person or cause? I do, and I cannot see where God would have me stop doing so.

However, not all this results in a negative result. If I 'evaluate' someone and determine to the best of my ability and the Spirit's urging that such a person is 'worthy' of whatever, I am not slandering that person.

For that matter, if I evaluate - judge - someone or something and decide not to support it, I am not slandering that something, I may simply be deciding something else has more precedence. (I don't contribute to all 'worthy causes'; I simply do not have the funds. I have to decide which are the ones to which I will donate.)

And even in those instance where I find the spirit or person or cause is NOT worthy, a determination is not slander, if the reasoning is sound. As is the case where a jury finds a defendant guilty of an alleged crime; the finding of guilty cannot be considered 'slander'.

 

OK, lets talk about your underailed thread that you redefined. The verse you use for the definition of blasphemy is John 10:33, not John 10:30. So the question is, according to your own definition, if the Jews knew what blasphemy was, why did they keep committing it? How was Stephen stoned for blasphemy? Did he claim he was God? He did claim Christ was God, but since He is, how is that blasphemy? Christ did not go to the cross for blasphemy. It is kind of difficult for God to commit blasphemy against Himself.

Had you said in the understanding of the Jews, all these people committed blasphemy, then you would have been less wrong. Read the Scripture and learn what context means.

 

We are to examine their fruits(insert works here, too), but not judge them. God is the one who judges. I would think this is pretty close to the OP's questions.

 

One time Obama funded Ky money to finally purchase some dictionaries for their school systems. When they got their shipment in to dole out to all the schools, they ended up with a bunch of wagon wheels and "Grand Funk Railroad" LP's. The order was for "Funk and Wagnalls", and they had never of of them.