Blasphemy or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LiquidMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LiquidMan

Guest
In media, a common phrase used to highlight a particular dire or cruel situation is “God is not here today” or some of its variants (“God has abandoned this place”, “There is no God here”, “God has nothing to do with this” et cetera et cetera)

Point is, while it is used for dramatic effect, is it blasphemy to say that God is not somewhere, no matter how horrible said place is, despite our belief that He is everywhere?
 
I would imagine that it’s a sin.

The phrase “oh my God” is considered to be wrong, so I don’t think this is any different.
 
LiquidMan said:
In media, a common phrase used to highlight a particular dire or cruel situation is “God is not here today” or some of its variants (“God has abandoned this place”, “There is no God here”, “God has nothing to do with this” et cetera et cetera)

Point is, while it is used for dramatic effect, is it blasphemy to say that God is not somewhere, no matter how horrible said place is, despite our belief that He is everywhere?
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting question I’ve never thought of before.

It’s certainly not true to say that God has abandoned the place in question, but is it blasphemy?

What I do know is that it is inappropriate to utter God’s name in any situation that you are not either using His name as a prayer or using His name to instruct others or discuss something pertinent to God (as we are doing right now). Using this criteria, I would say it is inappropriate for a media person to say something like “God has abandoned this place” because it is doing neither of these things.
 
Fascinating. It sounds like something a faithful Jewish person might say. The biggest Caveat tool in Church history is the phrase “It depends.” It all goes to intent, in other words.

Despite the motive behind those who initially coined the phrase your asking about, it really goes down to the intent behind each speaker. I tend to error on the side of caution and discontinue use of the phrase and add it to my confession list.
 
I thought God’s “name” was YHWH, not “God.” I always thought “God” was in effect a title.
 
LiquidMan said:
In media, a common phrase used to highlight a particular dire or cruel situation is “God is not here today” or some of its variants (“God has abandoned this place”, “There is no God here”, “God has nothing to do with this” et cetera et cetera)

Point is, while it is used for dramatic effect, is it blasphemy to say that God is not somewhere, no matter how horrible said place is, despite our belief that He is everywhere?
Click to expand...
It is another of the lies of the adversary, the devil, who already lost.

There is no hope, nothing will change, etc, and the variants you said.

Not true,

We pray, we go to Mass, receive the sacraments. God is here, God never left. Prayer and the celebration of Mass changes the hearts of God’s creatures, us!

Pray often for a return to God, in the hearts of men and women.
 
IMHO, you are reading WAY too much into this.
It’s a literary device, nothing more.
They are commenting on something ELSE, or an event, not God.

**Catholic Dictionary

Term

BLASPHEMY

Definition

Speaking against God in a contemptuous, scornful, or abusive manner. Included under blasphemy are offenses committed by thought, word, or action. Serious contemptuous ridicule of the saints, sacred objects, or of persons consecrated to God is also blasphemous because God is indirectly attacked. Blasphemy is a grave violation of charity toward God. Its gravity may be judged by the capital punishment on the Old Testament, severe penalties of the Church, and in many cases also of the State for blasphemous speech or conduct. In order for a person to sin gravely in this manner, he must use blasphemous expressions and realize the contemptuous meaning of what he says or does. (Etym. Latin blasphemia,blasphemy; from greek blasph_mein, to speak ill of.)**
 
It is not blasphemy. It’s even questionable as to whether it’s even a sin.

Phenomenological language is a valid way of expressing how one perceives the world. It’s just like the Psalmist crying out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”? when in fact God forsakes no one. So when one derides a place as “Godforsaken”, it’s not taking the name of God in vain, or denying the omnipresence of God; only that the place appears to be so.

Is it appropriate to use such speech regularly, as a Catholic? I would say no, because we’re supposed to have more faith than that. That makes it an imperfection, not necessarily a sin, and most certainly not blasphemy. I’m not even sure why blasphemy would even make the question, since the phrases mentioned are nothing of the sort.
 
Well…since some of you have given me affirmative and other negative answers, I don’t…really know what to think (since a couple of you have talked about context, the doubt sprang after watching this trailer

m.youtube.com/watch?v=eB9dABjwa9o ).
 
I feel that there is never a need to use God’s name in any manner other than with the utmost respect and prayerfully.

I saw an answer on CAF the other day when someone answered the OP with something like “GAWD, NO.” Was that necessary?

Very upsetting.
 
porthos11 said:
Wecome to CAF, where one doesn’t really get Catholic Answers. Just a mishmash of opinions.
Click to expand...
It’s called a “forum”. Posters on the forum do not represent Catholic Answers.

What point are you trying to make in denigrating Catholic Answers?
 
dshix said:
It’s called a “forum”. Posters on the forum do not represent Catholic Answers.

What point are you trying to make in denigrating Catholic Answers?
Click to expand...
More like denigrating the forums insofar as its effectiveness for anyone seeking Catholic answers (not with the capitailzed A). This is a hotbed of opinions, and as you said, forums.

If people come here, this is a place to argue. Not a place to seek solid answers from. You will get them of course, but unless you are knowledgeable, you won’t know who’s right or wrong.

This is why I tell the scrupulous that the best place for them on CAF is off it.

And of course, my post does not denigrate Catholic Answers, but if you read that into my post, that’s not my issue.
 
Thing is, even it is used for dramatic effect, it is still disrespectful. Not blasphemy, but still wrong. Most of the times, the media does not mean “God is here, but He doesn’t seem like he is there” but more of “Don’t you get it? God is not here, he is not helping. Wake up!” I remember a headline after a particular shooting “God is not helping” in response to all the “prayers” people are offering. So in your reference to the media, secular media especially, it is almost always wrong.

But as you can see here, there are two sides here. If you think “oh my god” is wrong, you gotta think that phrase is wrong as well. OMG is also a phrase to express fear, shock, etc but most priests will tell you to avoid it. Maybe my priests are more traditional, but they have always advised us not to use God’s name unless we are praying (why have you forsaken him) or talking about him (God says we should____")

The phrase “God has nothing to do with this”, this being the terrible event, is not wrong…he gave us free will and he doesn’t will bad things to happen.
 
esieffe said:
Fascinating. It sounds like something a faithful Jewish person might say. The biggest Caveat tool in Church history is the phrase “It depends.” It all goes to intent, in other words.

Despite the motive behind those who initially coined the phrase your asking about, it really goes down to the intent behind each speaker. I tend to error on the side of caution and discontinue use of the phrase and add it to my confession list.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top