Is blasphemy the greatest sin?

[NikolaiI]

and if so, why?
is saying that God doesn't exist equal to all sinful actions?

[Whifflingpin]

I don't think that blasphemy is saying that God does not exist, I think it is knowing that God does exist and then denying it, in word or action.

"There is one sin: to call the green leaf grey,
Whereat the sun in Heaven shuddereth.
There is one blasphemy: for death to pray,
For God alone knoweth the praise of death" GKC

[Pendragon]

I agree with Wiff to a point. I think that making fun of God and Holy things goes beyond mere disbelief into mockery or hatred.

Gal.6
[7] Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

God Bless

Pen

[Shield&Sword]

Because this question is the goal of life, who created you? the next question is why you were created?
your question is part of the second question and you cant answer it without answering the first one.
If you believe in God you will ask your self what he wants from us? you ask this question in a different manner, if you dont believe then you wont be convinced by any answer, you will keep asking the same question because you already dont believe in him.
I hope i cleared my point, my english is bad, i always decide to imrove it but i get busy.
My point is discuss the existence of God before you discuss his intentions, it will be easier.

[blazeofglory]

and if so, why?
is saying that God doesn't exist equal to all sinful actions?

How can blasphemies can be sinful actions. There is no logically valid points to substantiate this fact.

People are at liberty to follow or not follow particular lines of faith. There are spiritualists of differing views, and it is fundamentalist or fanatic ideas that all those are against gods or religions or to put it somewhat mildly all those who do not follow particular lines of faith are blasphemous.

I know there are people who are not religious and do not hold religions or faiths and yet dedicated their lives to acts of charity and philanthropy. I do not consider them to be sinful.

And there are those who claim they are religious but act irreligiously, that means when they observe people suffer and their minds do not melt away and they do not feel like helping or doing things of charity, I do not call they are religious even if they read all the holy books of the world and meet all the gurus and pundits. They are hypocrites. They know only the surfaces of religions not the cores or depths of them at all.

It is a man of character that is religious, not a word of it or people quoting examples of holy books, chanting hymns but indulging in worldly propensities or luxuriating in things of opulence are phoney, pretenders.

[Jilvin]

It amuses and frustrates me when I see people make the Baconian assumption (I call this assumption Baconian after Francis Bacon, and this position can be read in his essay entitled "On Atheism"), that:

1. If a God or deity exists, he condemns blasphemy (not neccesarily true)
2. Atheists claim not to believe in god (true by definition)
3. All atheists secretly believe in god, and have a secretive and morally repugnant alterior motive for professing non-belief. (Completely absurd)

Perhaps some people just don't think God exists? Is that even possible anymore?

I find that when I profess I am an atheist, that theists are suspiciously good at telling me what I think in regards to this issue.

[Pendragon]

It is a man of character that is religious, not a word of it or people quoting examples of holy books, chanting hymns but indulging in worldly propensities or luxuriating in things of opulence are phoney, pretenders.

Preach it, brother! :thumbs_up

[hellsapoppin]

I do not recall reading in the Bible where there were degrees of sin. In fact, if I recall correctly, all "sin" is viewed as being of equal consequence.

[NikolaiI]

It amuses and frustrates me when I see people make the Baconian assumption (I call this assumption Baconian after Francis Bacon, and this position can be read in his essay entitled "On Atheism"), that:

1. If a God or deity exists, he condemns blasphemy (not neccesarily true)
2. Atheists claim not to believe in god (true by definition)
3. All atheists secretly believe in god, and have a secretive and morally repugnant alterior motive for professing non-belief. (Completely absurd)

Perhaps some people just don't think God exists? Is that even possible anymore?

I find that when I profess I am an atheist, that theists are suspiciously good at telling me what I think in regards to this issue.

It may surprise you that I created this thread for the cause of all people, not just atheists or theists. I don't think atheists or theists should accuse the other of anything, nor be anything but courteous and interested. Bad feeling is generated, and negativity created; I do not wish to insult anyone for their belief. I was an atheist before I was a theist, which I am now, and I have at one time believed most different isms; atheism, pantheism, deism, etc. And I support monotheistic philosophy currently as opposed to monism or impersonalism, etc., and I am fairly certain I will not change my views again, but only because I believe it is the correct understanding.

As to your concerns;

1: God may condemn blasphemy, I do not know if it is the greatest sin; but no matter what God condemns, we are forgiven if we accept God's will, the inner law of love, because God's essence is love. This is what I believe.
2: I think atheism is not true in regards to understanding the universe; yet I would not call atheists by any degrading label. I have faced scorn on this website, as well as condescension, and it bothers me even though it is anonymous; it's a bully mentality. I've experienced this from atheists, and I know, I do not ignore the same is true of certain (minority) of "believers." However, the vast statistical majority of people in my life are kind to all people, live harmoniously, regardless of religion-- this is why I am against pessimism about people, because they people I know are really good people. How can I say I am better than them? We can learn from all.

Everyone believes what they believe to be true; and it's very offensive to call them delusional, at worst, or so many other things. An atheist might think a believer has given up on truth, etc., or they believe things despite knowing it's wrong, or... well, the thing atheists often might say is that the belief in God is absurd, etc... this other side also accuses, so to speak, the believers of "actually not believing in God.." so it is this absurd accusing I wish to disperse with. As for myself, I will always tell why I believe in God, believe in Love; why I believe that all is following God's plan although we as humans could take this world into a hellish realm or a heavenly realm if we so choose. But if this world becomes worse, I will always keep in mind that it is a very small part of the universe. Atheists generally don't believe because they don't see reason for it, and generally theists, I take it, come to terms that "God is Truth." So there are many things to consider about this issue.

There are many different ideas about God or atheism and I am interested in learning from people who have good intentions about their philosophy. I am not so much interested in pessimistic philosophy no matter what it comes from-- any philosophy that is tyrranical or says we should give up. I do not agree with philosophy says that "all people are like...this!" And I see this in Dawkins, etc... this is so limiting because humanity as a whole is so vast, almost near infinite.

I see very intelligent and good people who believe in the soul, those who don't, etc., and I believe in order of the universe, I think there are reasons for what happens, and we should share our ideas. I don't wish to be seen as rigid, because I know all is in flux. We are always learning and it's been said that to remember this is the key to coming to terms with this life, because nothing remains the same for axioms, facts or rules to define and pin down. Like I said though, I used to be an atheist, and I did not believe because I did not see any reason for it. If I were still an atheist I would take interest if someone said this; without judging or with an open mind I would be interested if some intelligent atheist found reasons to consider the soul, the spirit, things such as this to be in existence. And I can also tell you I've learned a lot about these subjects and wish to share them.

Personally I believe the universe, but more specifically God, who is the source of all material and spiritual worlds, to be Infinite, and I believe foremost that we are part of God and that the Lord exists in the hearts of all living entities. The consequences of this are very far ranging.

3: I know I've already addressed this; I don't think that atheists secretly believe and have a morally repugnant reason, etc... nor do I believe the opposite of mono-theists. As I said, I deplore pessimistic, and by my own label, tyrranical philosophy which says all are a certain way. I am a humanist and believe in the good of people. This is not all I believe; a pessimist might cry bloody Mary that I am creating something that is not there... or I am saying people are so much better than they actually are. But then I think pessimism fails of itself. What can pessimism say on its own behalf? By its nature pessimism is pessimistic, so about its own future as philosophy it also must fail. So therefore it doesn't need defeating. Yet it can do damage if people give up hope, so I am writing about this. It's so absurd and I feel it's opposite of how we should be. We should be always encouraging good qualities in ourselves and others, not thing pessimistically or darkly about things are, have been, or will be.


I do not recall reading in the Bible where there were degrees of sin. In fact, if I recall correctly, all "sin" is viewed as being of equal consequence.

Well, I didn't mean from the Bible only; the Bible is not my main source for understanding the spirit soul; nor is the Koran, etc...

But if all "sin" is of equal consequence, wouldn't it follow that each sin is equal to all others? Not that this is my main argument or thread of reasoning.


How can blasphemies can be sinful actions. There is no logically valid points to substantiate this fact.

People are at liberty to follow or not follow particular lines of faith. There are spiritualists of differing views, and it is fundamentalist or fanatic ideas that all those are against gods or religions or to put it somewhat mildly all those who do not follow particular lines of faith are blasphemous.

Your points are well thought-out and stated, and they deserve consideration.

My opinion would not include the term blasphemous. There are so many souls in the material universe; and also so many surrendered souls in the spiritual universe. I believe in God and I believe that surrender to Him is the only way to regain the spiritual. But if God wishes for us to learn about Him and surrender to Him, he still does not punish us unduly for disobeying. The entire material universe was created for all those jivas who wished to enjoy separately from the Lord. But we are suffering from our separation from Him. The Lord does not begrudge us for our forgetfulness of Him, rather He is the sustainer and controler of the whole universe; and all is bestowed by Him alone. It is by Krishna's potency both that we are blessed enough to remember Him, and forgetfulness is also bestowed by Him alone, if we wish to forget.


I know there are people who are not religious and do not hold religions or faiths and yet dedicated their lives to acts of charity and philanthropy. I do not consider them to be sinful.

My dear friend, those that you describe are undoubtedly in the mode of goodness. But as the Christians say we cannot earn salvation. Actually charity and philanthropy are in the mode of goodness. They take care of the body but not necessarily the soul. The analogy may be given of a drowning man. What use is it to a drowning man to take care of his outer garb? The material body is like the outer garment of the soul. It is important that we take care of it, but more important is to take care of the soul. And the only one who can do this is the Lord. Lord Jesus Christ says something in the Bible which is like a similar message in Srimad Bhagavatam.


24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. 25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, `What shall we eat?' or `What shall we drink?' or `What shall we wear?' 32 For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. 34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.

Compare this to the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam,


SB 2.2.3: For this reason the enlightened person should endeavor only for the minimum necessities of life while in the world of names. He should be intelligently fixed and never endeavor for unwanted things, being competent to perceive practically that all such endeavors are merely hard labor for nothing.

SB 2.2.4: When there are ample earthly flats to lie on, what is the necessity of cots and beds? When one can use his own arms, what is the necessity of a pillow? When one can use the palms of his hands, what is the necessity of varieties of utensils? When there is ample covering, or the skins of trees, what is the necessity of clothing?

SB 2.2.5: Are there no torn clothes lying on the common road? Do the trees, which exist for maintaining others, no longer give alms in charity? Do the rivers, being dried up, no longer supply water to the thirsty? Are the caves of the mountains now closed, or, above all, does the Almighty Lord not protect the fully surrendered souls? Why then do the learned sages go to flatter those who are intoxicated by hard-earned wealth?

SB 2.2.6: Thus being fixed, one must render service unto the Supersoul situated in one's own heart by His omnipotency. Because He is the Almighty Personality of Godhead, eternal and unlimited, He is the ultimate goal of life, and by worshiping Him one can end the cause of the conditioned state of existence.




And there are those who claim they are religious but act irreligiously, that means when they observe people suffer and their minds do not melt away and they do not feel like helping or doing things of charity, I do not call they are religious even if they read all the holy books of the world and meet all the gurus and pundits. They are hypocrites. They know only the surfaces of religions not the cores or depths of them at all.

Indeed, this is the result of the place we live in, it is the result of Maya, the cheater. We live in the place of the cheaters and the cheated. Those who you speak of are cheaters. I would give other examples, such as have relation to eating meat, or something like this, but would you think that my admonition would get people to think twice about eating meat?? I wish it would, I care greatly about it. But people go on cheating and being cheated.

You are right that we can't ignore suffering. I don't think different human beings have more value than others. I don't know the solution to our problems, but I don't think atheism is the answer, because I don't think it's true. I don't think it's right that atheists and monotheists should clash violently though. In the history of the human race; proximity alone has done the greatest to destroy prejudices and hatreds. Whites and blacks in America, who used to have a master/slave relationship, now sit together, and, jointly and incorrectly are racist against "Japs!" when watching some film about the Korean war. Time acts on us and we learn better about bodily relationships.


It is a man of character that is religious, not a word of it or people quoting examples of holy books, chanting hymns but indulging in worldly propensities or luxuriating in things of opulence are phoney, pretenders.

It is by the qualities we manifest that determine our qualification. Maybe those words have something in common based on how they are spelled! Indeed one thing you say is straight from the Gita.


BG 3.6 One who restrains the senses and organs of action, but whose mind dwells on sense objects, certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender.

BG 3.7 On the other hand, he who controls the senses by the mind and engages his active organs in works of devotion, without attachment, is by far superior.

If you are interested, the links below have the text of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's purports to these verses, which are very enlightening.

http://www.asitis.com/3/6.html
http://www.asitis.com/3/7.html

[El Viejo]

and if so, why?
is saying that God doesn't exist equal to all sinful actions?

Blasphemy is dishonoring God in one's speech. Jesus was accused of blasphemy when he made statements that put him on par with God. Atheistic statements may be heretical, but I don't think they're blasphemy.

Dante made a case for betrayal being the lowest of sins. My father put lying at the bottom. Ali's father (The Kite Runner) considered theft the worst and only sin. Certain zealots name blasphemy as the ultimate sin. Jesus seemed to regard misleading children in spiritual matters as exceptionally serious.

Once we decide which sin is 'worst,' what do we do then?

[hellsapoppin]

''I didn't mean from the Bible only; the Bible is not my main source for understanding the spirit soul; nor is the Koran''


I see. You used the term "God" and this led me to believe you were making a reference to the Bible exclusively. Other religious texts use different names and I was not aware which other teachings you were referring to.

[RG57]

According to one reference the only true blasphemy is against the the Spirit.

Jesus said:

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him: but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matthew 12:31-32).

According to that it will be forgiven you if do blaspheme against God. But here I see a problem. As a Christian I believe in the Trinity, this being the Godhead three-in-one - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one in three and three in one. So if you blaspheme against the Father and/or the Son you will also be blaspheming against the Spirit. Which means it is a sin to blaspheme against God.

[blazeofglory]

and if so, why?
is saying that God doesn't exist equal to all sinful actions?

Nikolai, I never can agree. God does want us to believe or un-believe. God teaches us to rise above worldly attributes.

[ruhbr_ducky]

well... i do not believe that there are degrees of sin but i belive there is only one unforgivable sin and that is the rejection of the salvation that Jesus Christ offers to everyone and anyone who will belive on Him :)

[lupe]

If blasphemy is the questioning and critical review of human superstitions and beliefs, then it's the obligation of every thinking person.

[kiki1982]

Like ElViejo said, blasphemy is dishonouring God in one's speech and Jesus was accused of blasphemy. Blasphemy, in essence, is a man-made sin, for me.
We do not know what God wants from us, so we cannot know if he will be angry if one dishonours him in His speech and what He considers as 'dishonour' in itself anyway. Furthermore, as God is not human, we cannot assign to him human feelings as dishonour, anger, disapproval. If we do not know God, as such, how can we say He feels dishonoured when spoken about in a certain way? If God is love, then surely He does not get excited about petty things as 'dishonour'.
If Jesus was accused of blasphemy, how can that be if He was the son of God? Did the Jews not have the right God to believe in? That cannot be right, because they were created by that same God. For a time the Catholic Church has claimed to be the only true religion, but on that note, they have come back.

To me, blasphemy, is more an utterance of over-piety of the accuser than it is a real sin.
Killing is a sin, stealing is a sin,... but those things are all universally wrong anyway and are disapproved of in all societies. Blasphemy has no definition and no moral ground apart from a human non-universal one. And thus for me it cannot be a sin, far less the greatest sin. It is man-made 'sin' out of fear, which should not be felt for God if God is love.

This was an interesting question...

Now, don't think I am over-pious as well... I sometimes get scorned on another forum for religious assertions about certain works. Religion is not very popular and somehow unreligious people can't stand religious people, I have the impression. I have no problem in this scientific world and I embrace everything and do not se God in every plant and every little cobble stone as some Christians do, but I do have certain beliefs which I do not hide.

[Ohmyscience]

What constitutes as blasphemy in the absolute sense? I am not religious therefore can I possibly be accused of blasphemy if I were to mock something I do not believe in?

I often poke fun at all religions indiscriminately and for the most no one has accused me of blasphemy. Should I be made aware of it I would stop but is mocking and censuring God really that serious? I would think an all loving God would have an all loving good sense of humour.

Is there ranking of sins in the bible which go most severe to just three hail marys and you're forgiven. Perhaps someone in the catholic church ought to in order to shut up the self righteous followers and make them more aware of cardinal sins.

[kiki1982]

Actually blasphemy is not even in the list of cardinal sins!

I didn't know that, but wikepedia helped out (:D).

There are seven cardinal sins (formerly eight, which pope Gregory in 590 reduced to seven):
lust, gluttony, greed, sloth (spritual apathy), wrath, envy and pride

they correspond with the seven virtues:
chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility

They could be forgiven by either absolution of a priest or remorse on the subject's side.

Although... blasphemy is maybe included in one of them: wrath which is hatred or anger, which can manifest itself by denial of the truth. self-denial or frustration with the procedure of the law.
In essence, blasphemy could be seen as 'denial of the truth' or even an extreme act of pride, but that is a subjective questions which fundamental Christians would probably address, but which more liberal ones would just pass by.

[lupe]

Indifferently from each one metaphysical concerns and beliefs, there is something which I personally find extremely disturbing in some posts discussing the idea of “blasphemy”. Countless persons throughout human history have been singled out, punished, tortured and even killed, just because they had the courage to mark their opposition to the established religions. From Socrates to Rushdie, the suffering cause by those who pretend to represent the Truth has been enormous.

Some of the posts above show a deep disrespect to all those victims of religious power and persecution. And - even worse – they might reveal what would be the stance of their authors, in case they had the opportunity to take action against the “blasphemous”.

[skasian]

I have to ask, are there different levels of sins in God's eye, or are they all equal? To us in this world, stealing is seen as a lesser sin than murder. But that is to our senses. What about God, does He thinks this way too? If all sin is equal to Him, stealing or bulling next door kid be would be nothing more than the same sin as blasphemy.

[Rush_of_Blood]

and if so, why?
is saying that God doesn't exist equal to all sinful actions?

RC Sproul did a wonderful job of answering this question. Here's his thoughts.

"Scripture says that Christ stated the unforgivable sin as being blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Can you expand on that?......"

There's alot of confusion over the sin that Jesus says cannot be forgiven either in this world or in the world to come.....I think Jesus is clear. He does identify it. He says that the sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. What does that mean? First of all, let's understand that blasphemy is a sin that can only be done with words. It's a sin that you commit with your mouth or with your pen-- it's a verbal sin. It has to do with saying something against the Holy Spirit. You remember that the religious leaders--the clergy, the Pharisees, and the Sadducee s-- were the ones who were constantly being hostile toward Jesus and stirring up a conspiracy to do him in. They plotted to kill Jesus, and they were constantly attacking him and charging him with this and that. On one occasion they said that Jesus was casting out Satan by the power of Satan. It's almost as if Jesus said, "Hold it right there, guys. I've been patient with you, I've been tolerant with you, I've been long-suffering with you, but you are coming perilously close now to making an accusation against me that's going to wipe you out now and forever." He said that any sin against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit ( to ascribe the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan, or equate them), you've had it. Notice also, that when Jesus was on the cross, he prays for those very men who have put him there:"Father forgive them---" Why? "--for they know not what they have done.".........[Also] if you read the book of Hebrews, you'll see the distinction between blaspheming Christ and blaspheming the Holy Spirit fall away.

[blazeofglory]

Blasphemy is not a sin. However one should not be critical of others' religions as long as they are not fanatical.

[krymsonkyng]

Claiming belief in any one god is Blasphemous against the rest. Claiming belief in multiple gods is blasphemous against the jealous one(s).

Pick your poison ladies and gents, we're all blasphemers by definition. The question isn't whether or not you're a sinner or to what degree, in someone's eyes you are wrong. The question is, "What do you think is right, and wrong?"

Really that's the only truth you can count on, and do count on whether you admit it or not.

[Redzeppelin]

By "greatest" I will assume you mean the worst sin, perhaps the "unforgivable sin."

Technically, all sins are equal in God's eyes - all are a violation of relationship - either to Him or to other people. That doesn't mean the violators are judged equally, but that there really aren't such things as sins that are "worse" than others in God's eyes.

Jesus tells us that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Most commentators/theologians explain this to be the sustained and persistent refusal to heed the Holy Spirit's conviction on the heart of the individual's need of God. To refuse to acknowledge God's ownership and authority over us is rebellion.

In other words, the unforgivable sin isn't a one time comission - it is created over time. Many pastors will tell you that if you are worried if you've done this, you haven't done it. Those who commit the unforgivable sin don't care.


Claiming belief in any one god is Blasphemous against the rest. Claiming belief in multiple gods is blasphemous against the jealous one(s).

Not if my God is stronger than the others :)


Pick your poison ladies and gents, we're all blasphemers by definition. The question isn't whether or not you're a sinner or to what degree, in someone's eyes you are wrong. The question is, "What do you think is right, and wrong?"

Really that's the only truth you can count on, and do count on whether you admit it or not.

So right and wrong are my subjective opinion, right?

Then why should I take your expressed opinion as having any truth in it whatsoever, since it has no inherent "rightness" (or "truth") in it?

You're not trying to state a universal truth - are you - by claiming that there is no universal truth? That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

[krymsonkyng]

Not if my God is stronger than the others :)



Only if Divine Might makes right. ;)




So right and wrong are my subjective opinion, right?

Then why should I take your expressed opinion as having any truth in it whatsoever, since it has no inherent "rightness" (or "truth") in it?

You're not trying to state a universal truth - are you - by claiming that there is no universal truth? That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

Opinion and truth are not synonymous my friend! It's exactly why you prolly don't believe me. Opinion is an observation made of truth; merely a perception. Truth is reality. Or should be. That's the difference between what is Objective and what is Subjective.

All we know is what we are seen and told. Whether we realize it or not we live life through the lens of our upbringing, and bias' not through hard tacks truth. There is a degree of uncertainty in anything we perceive (even if that degree is minuscule). This is why it is incredibly hard to approach Objective knowledge. It's why Science isn't always accepted. Science is observation over belief. Religion is belief through observation. You pegged me though -it is true- I am a firm believer in soft beliefs.

But I digress...

My point is, the question is being approached from a purely christian point of view. A good point of view to take if you happen to be christian, but if you believe in a different god, everyone else is the blasphemer/sinner.

I agree though, sin is a label, not a degree. The severity of denying any one god would be too intense if that were the case. When you think about it though, it kind of is. People kill over opposing religious viewpoints. If denial can only lead to conflict, then maybe blasphemy is the root of many sins, but not the greatest. Either way, both sides in opposing viewpoints blaspheme against the other...

Edit: I see I used truth too loosely in my first post. Thanks for catching that red :) Replace truth with philosophy plz...

[Babyguile]

It is the most ridiculous crime.

[blazeofglory]

What constitutes as blasphemy in the absolute sense? I am not religious therefore can I possibly be accused of blasphemy if I were to mock something I do not believe in?

I often poke fun at all religions indiscriminately and for the most no one has accused me of blasphemy. Should I be made aware of it I would stop but is mocking and censuring God really that serious? I would think an all loving God would have an all loving good sense of humour.

Is there ranking of sins in the bible which go most severe to just three hail marys and you're forgiven. Perhaps someone in the catholic church ought to in order to shut up the self righteous followers and make them more aware of cardinal sins.

I subscribe the ideas expressed here. For everyone is at liberty to beleive or not beleive and this is not a sin. Sins happen when you injure others. Or you do something amoral, unethical.

People can be altruistic, benign without being religious.

[MarkBastable]

Blasphemy is not a sin. However one should not be critical of others' religions...

Why not?

[Judas130]

God is perfect, and can see no sin - nor is he aware of it.

[grotto]

The biggest sin is to say, “I believe”, in it comes the birth of all sin.