I referenced in another post that the naming of items as miracles was an evil misrepresentation of God, (or some such statement).

I further counter, that the misue of the word "miracle" or "blessing" is blasphemous.

what say ye?

Pinga

A bobblehead Jesus?

Turning Jesus into a little piece of jewelery to hang on a silver chain around your neck?

I could be wrong but blasphemy as defined above, lack of reverence, is going to cover an awful lot of ground.

IT

Russ

I like to think I'm a blasphemous person, but really, it's hard to take blasphemy seriously when there's nothing to be blasphemous about.

That's why I'm always appalled when I hear about modern Western countries still having blasphemy laws (i.e. criminal sanctions for blasphemy) on the books. One person's blasphemy is another's legitimately irreverance or satire.

Mendalla

Hi Pinga,

Attribution of anything to God would only be considered blasphemy if such attribution could be proven to be fallacious.

So, attributing a miracle would not be considered blasphemy unless it could be proven that God had not performed the miracle or the miracle was one that was contrary to our understanding of God's nature.

In the case of miracles they are, by definition, something outside of the norm no matter how one chooses to view the norm.  Because they are outside of the norm they are difficult to repeat and that, from a scientific point of view, is problematic.  We may be able to reproduce results that mimic the "miracle" and yet, since the event was not observed impartially, it will be practically impossible to say that the event was manipulated in the same way we manipulated another event to "match" the miracle.

So attributing a miracle to God does not state that God will always act in the miraculous way it is simply a faith statement that God must have intervened in some way.

We may not have a clear idea why.

We may not have a clear idea how.

The intervention will appear to be arbitrary and it is the optics of arbitrariness which collide with our notion of God as being merciful and just that make miracles sometimes hard to swallow.

I do not have a problem with miracles as a concept.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I firmly believe that the Divine has a sense of humour.  It seems to me that intent is part of what makes for blasphemy.

Shalom

mate

I'd say that attributing an event to Divine intervention (i.e. naming it a miracle) is a matter of faith, not blasphemy. If I recover from a supposedly incurable illness and attribute that recovery to God, I am not in any way insulting or demeaning God or anyone's faith. I am expressing my own faith.

Could misuse of the words you mention be construed as blasphemy? Depends on the misuse and context. I wouldn't say that there is absolute standard here.

Mendalla

Mendalla

The bobblehead sure brought people to a stop when they entered my cubicle.  They didn't quite know what to say or do.

IT

Russ

The Bible says relatively little about blasphemy. The most dramatic reference is probably the account of Jesus on trial before the Sanhedrin, with lines such as "that you, a mere man, claim to be God," and "You have heard his blasphemy." Of course, that was only blasphemy if Jesus weren't God.

Or if he made the claim.  As I recall in that account of the trial Jesus actual response was along the lines of "so you have said".  I hope I am never brought to trial on the basis of that sort of evidence.

According to Matthew 26, the high priest asks Jesus if he is "the Christ, the son of God." Jesus replies "Yes, it is as you say." That's an affirmative answer rather than merely "Well, those are just your words." Jesus' affirmative is the solid basis for finding him guilty - it's hardly flimsy. It's also the engine if you will for the rest of the Passion narrative.

Agreed Steven.  I was remembering wrong, or remembering one of the other versions of the narrative (and was too lazy to actually look it up)

I see blasphemy essentially as a person saying "Ok, I find these certain words and/or concepts as being quite icky."

The problems occur when these personal wishes become some sort of law that affects other people.  It is essentially this person going "Ok, my way of interpreting these words and/or concepts and how I act and react to them HAVE TO BE TAKEN the same way as you do."

Secular laws still have blasphemies.  Things like pornography and censorship.  The PC movement is a kind of secular sacredness.

There are real reasons why religions, the state, et al, would make certain things blasphemous.  Not humanistic reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

wow, first, thanks for all the great responses.

What I have heard people naming, such as RevJohn is someone naming something as a miracle, that truly believes God is accountable for the miracle.   I am going to not discuss those ones at this point, Just as I am going to not discuss the use of Jesus Christ in a wailed lament...or God in a plea to on high...

What about the usage of it's a miracle...like...yes, a baby was born, what a miracle, or ...It"s a Miracle...my son has graduated from highschool....for those who are just using the words without any weight in their analysis of it was truly divine intervention by God.

or..it's a blessing....presuming God gifted them with this item.

or...i'll pray for you....when no prayer will be forthcoming.

Are they, like Xmas , words that are being misused and in so doing, reducing the actual words intent ....

Speaking as someone who has had cause to research the nitty-gritty of this process (long story, too personal), I'd say that's a legitimate use of the term "miracle". 

If they are being casually tossed off, perhaps they are cheapening the words a bit. However, in many cases, esp. for "it's a blessing" and "I'll pray for you" the expression is legitimate expression of one's feelings. That is, "I'll pray for you" is a way of expressing caring and support for them even if you don't actually say a prayer. "It's a blessing" can really mean that the event or item is a boon to the person receiving it even if you don't really mean that it came from God. Cheapening the meaning a bit, perhaps. But hardly in blasphemy territory.

Now, saying that it's a miracle that x graduated or that y got a job? That's exagerration, a rather overused linguistic device that does, indeed, cheapen things a bit. Again, I don't see it as blasphemy, though.

Mendalla

I don't believe in a separate, supernatural creator deity. To me, in and through the act of creating, the ultimate creator poured ITs substance into creation, thereby rendering all of creation sacred, godly, and divine.

According to Webster's definition b, this is blasphemy. I, however, consider the reverence for all of natural creation as the ultimate reverence, and irreverence for natural creation as the ultimate blasphemy or irreverence.

Honouring God by honouring Nature.

—Goethe

aaah, but you see, Mendella, for you, yes, the word is Miracle, in the sense of the value you are placing on it....

i am referring to the ...wow, what a miraculous stock rise...sigh..or..those, as you say, thrown off uses of the term.

now...at some point, I would like to get into the "something finally happened that i have been waiting for, doctors have been working for, etc..and wow, what a miracle".....dialogues..but, that is secondary for me

what i am getting at is the overused, thrown away, usage of words that we as Christians consider as part of our faith:  Lord, God, Jesus the Christ, Jesus Christ, Miracle, Prayer, Blessing.....the list could go on.

Are you thinking of for these types of words, there is a kind of reservoir that is depleted every time it is used?

No, that it devalues the word...so when it is used..that it holds little merit.

I mean, think of Xmas...it is now a secular holiday for many...no longer Christmas.

When we use miracle in a throw-away manner, it cheapens it.   It is like if all of a sudden there were zillions of degree granting places and everyone was a dr. ..shucks, how about we let anyone get accredited...it devalues the real meaning of what being a doctor is....the word no longer has value..but, requires more specific information.

so..let's say..it's a miracle...a standard random act, a result of chaos, luck, whatever, which happens to turn out ok...is a miracle?  or..maybe...someone who didn't deserve something but got it anyhow..is a miracle? or maybe, maybe..someone who worked really really hard for soemthing...it's a miracle...

actually, no, they are all explainable...but yet...the term is used so randomly, so...flippantly...that it becomes valueless

In addition, we claim , in a way, the actions of God, by naming the randomness of life, as one of God's miracles.....

When someone insults "my" religion, it's blasphemy.

When "I" insult somneone else's religion, it's discernment.

Blasphemy is entirely directionally dependant.

But why would a word become more valueless the more it is used?

Can you think of any benefits to a word becoming more valueless the more it is used?

Hi Pinga:

If a miracle is a supernatural intervention by a supernatural deity, and one doesn't believe in supernaturalism, then there is no such thing as miracles.

If, on the other hand, a miracle is any profound, life- or mind-changing event, then there can be many miracles.

What some people consider mundane is profound for others. What seems like the mindless unfolding of the cosmic chaos to some is the miraculous unfolding of God to others.

SPRING EQUINOX 1984

Nowhere to turn,

No one to ask,

Nothing to go by.

Only cherryblossom petals dancing in the spring breeze,

And miracle upon miracle unfolding on Earth.

Inawhimsey -- ask Kleenex that question

Edited...

Thought I had a valid point.

I was wrong...

Cool!

sadly, there is much truth in this statemednt

No, I'm asking for your opinion.

Can you think of any case where a word becoming more valueless would be good? 

I can't think of a time where a word which has a specifc meaning and / or branding becoming lesser would be good.  if you have an idea in mind, let me know.

I think it devalues it...cheapens the word...

Now, if it is more often used because the item is recognized for what it is..yes...ie, the internet....the reason that word is more understood is that the internet is more pervasive in our society.  rpg is another one..and i don't mean the language, or email...all are more widely recognized..but the basic understanding has been shared.

in these cases, we are talkign about a lack of reverence...and divine gift...

it's a miracle he made it home ..he was so drunk...he should have got pulled over , but he pulled it off..the guy has horseshoes up his ass.   --- yeah, you know, i don't see that as a miracle.

I can't think of a time where a word which has a specifc meaning and / or branding becoming lesser would be good.  if you have an idea in mind, let me know.

I think it devalues it...cheapens the word...

Now, if it is more often used because the item is recognized for what it is..yes...ie, the internet....the reason that word is more understood is that the internet is more pervasive in our society.  rpg is another one..and i don't mean the language, or email...all are more widely recognized..but the basic understanding has been shared.

in these cases, we are talkign about a lack of reverence...and divine gift...

it's a miracle he made it home ..he was so drunk...he should have got pulled over , but he pulled it off..the guy has horseshoes up his ass.   --- yeah, you know, i don't see that as a miracle.

Well, how aboot the time, not that long ago, when being poor was against the law?  If you were poor, you went to jail/the workhouses?

Poor was a blasphemy.  But that changed, thank goodness.

I can think of others as well.  Like 'Jap'.  That was a more extensive blasphemy not that long ago.  Now it isn't as such.

I can think of others as well.

So, is it really the devaluation of the word that is the problem?

Why would a group or such, do you think, want to make a word a blasphemy?  What do they stand to gain?

the word "jap" would have been a derogatory term however, i don't see how you fit it into the definition of blasphemy.....umm...do you have a different definition than I do?

Yes, I am using a broader usage.  In this sense:  everyone has certain words and concepts that they find disturbing or somehow, inherently, 'bad', 'wrong', 'immoral'.  These are the person's blasphemies :3

But, for your sake, let us keep with your religious usage, then.

Ok, so, it sounds like blasphemy then, where we are in the conversation right now, is using a term so much that it loses its value.

How aboot the concept of Hell?  How aboot if someone was brought up to think of Hell in the stereotypical 'I must never falter in my belief or I will go to Hell' kind of thing?  Could you see how someone like that could benefit from the concept/word of Hell becoming more valueless?

They may devalue the words for the broader society, Pinga, but it doesn't mean that you and I have to devalue them in our own lives. Consider chansen. These words already are valueless for him as an atheist. But for you and me, they have great value. Just because he doesn't value them and uses them as throwaways doesn't mean you and I have to accept that in our use of and engagement with them. We can continue to value them and use them in a way is valuable and meaningful for us. Your Christmas example is a good one. I have chosen to tune out the clutter that society has built up around it and focus on the spiritual meaning of the day. Christmas still means something special and spiritual to me regardless of how much broader society has devalued and secularized it.

Mendalla

Agreed, Mendella...thank-you....and I also think by exploring what we mean by a miracle or a blessing  or looking at the root words, understanding what they mean, then we do a service to our faith.

When they, or any other element, become common place...and we presume to take on the role of God ..then..well..i think it is not a good representation of our faith...and so , i wondered about the word...blasphemous...

If you were intentionally looking at and taking apart the word Hell in a faith-based way, then I would say no.. If though, you were just using the word, thinking that it would get rid of the pain of the word, then i would say no... no more than the use of the word rape takes way from the pain of being raped.

Arminius

I was in Washington, DC one February day.  It snowed the day I arrived and the next day I went for a walk.  The cherry trees were all in bloom.

It was a miracle.  The pink/red flowers against the white snow.  Requires a poet to explain the feeling.

The same feeling we get when hiking.  You turn around and look over the hills, and all that comes out is Holy Sh*t!!! 

Blasphemy?  Or just a sudden WOW, this just couldn't have just accidently happened!  There is some power behind this.

IT

Russ

aaah, then, russIT are you not giving credit to that which we do not understand...the creation of the earth and the amazing diverse creatures/organisms/structures on it.

A far cry from..miracle...daily overuse..

You are seeing something profound...we are hearing of the mundane.

hmm.re inawhimsey..maybe the overuse of a swearword.. yup, that would do it. it's usage everyday takes away from the brilliance of the word, when sworn loudly by someone who is truly fed up.

Pinga

I am.

The great whatever.

The WOW that comes from the heart.

IT

Russ

Sometimes I come upon a long thread that looks interesting but that I hadn't noticed before.  I start reading.  Then I find something that I am just itching to reply to. 

That happened in this thread in a brief exchange with the Revs. - Gord and Steven Davis. 

Rev. Gord -  Speaking about the trial of Jesus and the accusation of the high priest - " . . . Jesus actual rsponse was along the lines of 'so you have said'."

Rev. Steven - "According to Matthew 27, the high priest asks Jesus if he is 'the Christ, the son of God.'  Jesus replies, 'Yes, it is as you say.'"

Then Gord admits that he was going from memory and hadn't looked it up.

Steven, what translation did you use.  I looked it up in my New Revised Standard Version.  It reads - "tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God."

Jesus said to him, "You have said so.  . . ."

Not 'yes, it is as you say' but very similar to Gord's "So you have said".   

Hi seeler,

Actually depending upon which Gospel witness one turns to it isn't a question of Jesus saying either this or that but rather Jesus says both.

The Gospel of Luke records the following exchanges:

And then later, before Pilate in the next chapter we read:

I don't think that GordW or Rev Steven Davis have a particularly faulty memory.  I think the problem is that we tend to conflate the four separate Gospel accounts into one seemless narrative (probably because we a lazy and remembering 1 compilation is easier than remembering 4 similar, yet different, accounts).

At any rate, the translations "you have said so" and "yes, it is as you say" while not both being proclamations by Jesus that he is the Messiah function as Jesus not denying that he is the Messiah.

For the record I took my translation from the NIV.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The biggest blasphemy of all is to sit in complacency while millions starve to death within the midst of plenty.

Mine is NIV. The translation will admittedly work either way. The "affirmative" answer is more implied than outright stated (NIV chooses to state it outright, which is, of course, an example of interpretation) - implied by the fact that immediately after the answer, Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy, suggesting that he didn't say "those are your words" but rather "You've said it and you're right" - the point about the Son of Man coming on the clouds being apparently interpreted by the high priest as a statement of "messiah-ship" or "divinity."

Who was the one that was listening to these conversations to write it down for scripture?

"In DC, against white snow did pink and red flowers blossom. WOW man, it was like totally was awesome."

 As we know waterfall, 'tis all based on many decades of oral tradition.

And we all know how faulty oral tradition can be. 

Potentially, although it can also be very accurate. There are tribes in Africa who've never written their history down but who have people specially designated to tell the history - and they can do so in great detail going back many centuries.

The fact that a written document is based on oral history is no guarantee of either its accuracy or inaccuracy. Oral tradition has largely been lost in modern Western society, and so we think of it as inaccurate based on silly games we play with children. "You whisper something to the person beside you and so on and by the time it gets back it's different." In a culture that had a very vested interest in oral tradition, the oral tradition was likely much more accurate and carried much more weight.

Blasphemy???????????

Miracles??????

Imagine a lump of dirt, water, air and phlogistion (flame, plasma) that is sentient and can care (sometimes)!

Now is that bloody light or not ... like a spark in the shadow of mortal doubts?

God indeed is a funny thing to a sojourner who just isn't out there ...

A duality of a two directional tensor ... emotional when it stikes ... never see as intellect until the emotions are going ...

Which could account for all versions of Jesus dialogue all sounding vague(in reference to the above). At least they all kept it in the same context. (A guessing game as to what he meant)

Was there a reason for Jesus to be so vague?

The authorities on God, Love, personal emotions didn't wish anyone to know what they were doing so ... bury the Light of it!

You did know that Christ is an old symbol of Light, IC, IH§, and many other inherent energies ... that make the cosmos go ... flogistion? Sort of etherial stuff like ghosts drifting through your thinking dimension ... some don't believe in this tier of existence in common collective folk ... the demos ... or other half of creation Eire thought ...

Makes us shadowy folk chimera ... or shimmer with wee sparks ...