Creating Universes: Danger, Rant Ahead

Assyrian · May 15, 2008

shernren said:
"This is what the LORD says to his anointed (lit. maschiach - Messiah),
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:
(Isaiah 45:1 NIV)

I always knew the righteous prophet Isaiah couldn't have written the second half of the book! His impostor is obviously an insensitive blasphemer.

Thanks for exposing this imposter shernren. As one of our own poets has said:

I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The Lady Kate · May 19, 2008

busterdog said:
Except that we all know that SOME scientists do compare themselves to God in creating life, intelligence and now universes.

The world is full of egotistical blowhards in all walks of life... what of it?

Whether it happens to be these particular guys is quite beside the point.

Is it?

It is similar to the pretention and confusion represented in the following:

"If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!'
But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door,
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!"
-- The Who

When you use the word Mosiach, you best be careful, which they weren't. There was only ever one Messiah.

Only one historical Messiah, but that doesn't mean that Judaism has a monopoly on the word.

You insensitivity to blasphemy is noted. There are worse insensitivities than this. But, it is apparent.

Your oversensitivity is noted, finding anything you consider offenseive to be "blasphemy." There are more annoying oversensitivites than this, but none are apparant.

Now we are ranting in earnest!

Indeed you are... nothing to be proud of, btw...

busterdog · May 19, 2008

The Lady Kate said:
The world is full of egotistical blowhards in all walks of life... what of it?

Is it?

Only one historical Messiah, but that doesn't mean that Judaism has a monopoly on the word.

Your oversensitivity is noted, finding anything you consider offenseive to be "blasphemy." There are more annoying oversensitivites than this, but none are apparant.

Indeed you are... nothing to be proud of, btw...

Come now, is this really about egotistical blowhards, or the bias in favor of those blowhards you agree with? What of it? I told you what of it. I didnt ask for summary execution, I said it was wrong. Unfortunately, the ox being metaphorically gored was an evolutionary ox.

"Oversensitivity" is an interesting word. It is the refuge of intellectual cowards who want to say that the question is one of "degree" and that anyone not favoring their particular shade of grey is out of his mind.

Shernren, Assyrian and you all again begrudge the slightest, tiniest bit of correction on any issue and suggest that a very modest rebuke of any type is a witchhunt.

Tinker Grey · May 19, 2008

In what way were you correct, busterdog?

Are you really suggesting that all uses of the word "messiah" that don't refer to Jesus are blasphemous?

Assyrian · May 20, 2008

busterdog said:
Shernren, Assyrian and you all again begrudge the slightest, tiniest bit of correction on any issue and suggest that a very modest rebuke of any type is a witchhunt.

Come on Busterdog. You are trying to score debate points against science. When you point scoring is refuted, don't try to dress it up in the mask of 'gentle rebuke'.

Of course if you really have some genuine rebuke you feel you led by the Lord to give your TE brothers, I am afraid we will have a hard time telling it apart from the rest of the slander and accusations coming from the other YECs. Perhaps if you spent more time dealing with the nasty gossip from your own side, rather than cheering it on and defending it, a genuine rebuke might come across with a bit more credibility.

IndyPirate · May 20, 2008

busterdog said:
Except that we all know that SOME scientists do compare themselves to God in creating life, intelligence and now universes.

[citation needed]

busterdog · May 20, 2008

Tinker Grey said:
In what way were you correct, busterdog?

Are you really suggesting that all uses of the word "messiah" that don't refer to Jesus are blasphemous?

Tommy cant take anyone to the "highest height." To suggest otherwise is ignorant. The implication is also gnostic, if not blasphemous.

The only true Messiah did not tell people to leave THE Temple. He defended it with whipchords.

The only true Messiah loves His Church, ie, his temples, made of believers, their organizations, etc.

The reference to "messiahs" -- plural -- clearly begs the question of whether all supposed messiahs (buddha, krishna, jesus, etc., as the secular world uses the term) are equivalent. Jesus is absent from Tommy, except that it trivializes the notion of saviors generally.

Tommy is anti-Christian. Is it deep or funny to make "heaven's generosity" an ironic figure? Is the notion of salvation through confession of Jesus Christ to be trivialized by some hypothetical problem of deaf-mutes? Anyone who thinks there was a genuine inquiry into how God brings salvations to deaf-mutes is stupid and not serious about understanding blasphemy. The clear implication is that the Romans 10 confession of Jesus Christ is an absurdity because rock stars can't imagine how Jesus might reach deaf-mutes to offer them salvation by His Word.

Christmas, by P Townsend from Tommy:

Did you ever see the faces of children
They get so excited.
Waking up on Christmas morning
Hours before the winter sun's ignited.
They believe in dreams and all they mean
Including heavens generosity.
Peeping round the door
to see what parcels are for free
In curiosity.

And Tommy doesn't know what day it is.
He doesn't know who Jesus was
or what praying is.
How can he be saved?
From the eternal grave.

Surrounded by his friends
he sits so silently,
And unaware of anything.
Playing proxy pin ball
picks his nose and smiles and
Pokes his tongue at everything.
I believe in love
but how can men who've never seen
Light be enlightened.
Only if he's cured
will his spirits future level ever heighten.

Y'all can keep at it if you wish.

Tinker Grey · May 20, 2008

busterdog said:
Tommy cant take anyone to the "highest height." To suggest otherwise is ignorant.

The only true Messiah did not tell people to leave THE Temple. He defended it with whipchords.

The only true mEss

Your answer implies "Yes, the only way to use the word messiah is in reference to Jesus."

Is this what you mean to say?

We couldn't metaphorically say that "Tommy is a pin-ball messiah". Or, LeeC is CF's messiah. Or Erwin is the messiah on whose return we wait.

Would all such usages be blasphemy?

busterdog · May 20, 2008

Tinker Grey said:
Your answer implies "Yes, the only way to use the word messiah is in reference to Jesus."

Is this what you mean to say?

We couldn't metaphorically say that "Tommy is a pin-ball messiah". Or, LeeC is CF's messiah. Or Erwin is the messiah on whose return we wait.

Would all such usages be blasphemy?

Nonsense. This is a post-modern, Western rock band deliberately invoking religious figures. That doesn't happen unless the Church and Jesus are in view. The only pass you get here is for being very sloppy and making the implication by mistake. Tommy was sloppy, but not that sloppy as you can see from the above edit.

Lets ask this: At the end of North-By-Northwest, the honeymoon couple is in the pullman car and the last seen is the train going into a tunnel. Is that Hitchcock's cinematographic comment on the wonders of rail engineering or is something else being suggested? If you picked the former, that would be about as naive as what you are suggesting about The Who.

Tinker Grey · May 20, 2008

I don't understand what you are saying.

The word messiah doesn't work unless one understands the reference. Of course, using the messiah is going to invoke religious figures. That's how metaphors work!

Let's try this: Define blasphemy.

busterdog · May 20, 2008

Tinker Grey said:
The word messiah doesn't work unless one understands the reference. Of course, using the messiah is going to invoke religious figures. That's how metaphors work!

All I offer is a re-read. I made my case.

The Lady Kate · May 20, 2008

busterdog said:
Tommy cant take anyone to the "highest height."

That would explain why he ultimately fails, doesn't it?

To suggest otherwise is ignorant. The implication is also gnostic, if not blasphemous.

Actually, it was musical. And if you've ever seen Tommy performed (I do recommend the movie) You'd see that Tommy turns out to be somewhat less messianic than he believed.

Society is quick to prop up any celebrity to nearly messianic proportions. Tommy rode the wave of his own fame and eventually wiped out.

The only true Messiah did not tell people to leave THE Temple. He defended it with whipchords.

he also did his best preaching outside of it, not inside.

The only true Messiah loves His Church, ie, his temples, made of believers, their organizations, etc.

but not made of arbitrary rules and regulations, designed solely to separate "us" from "them." Leave that for the Pharasees

The reference to "messiahs" -- plural -- clearly begs the question of whether all supposed messiahs (buddha, krishna, jesus, etc., as the secular world uses the term) are equivalent. Jesus is absent from Tommy, except that it trivializes the notion of saviors generally.

Jesus is absent because Tommy himself is portrayed as a Christ figure... and in the end, a failed one.

Tommy is anti-Christian. Is it deep or funny to make "heaven's generosity" an ironic figure? Is the notion of salvation through confession of Jesus Christ to be trivialized by some hypothetical problem of deaf-mutes?

blind-deaf-mutes, if you please.

Anyone who thinks there was a genuine inquiry into how God brings salvations to deaf-mutes is stupid and not serious about understanding blasphemy. The clear implication is that the Romans 10 confession of Jesus Christ is an absurdity because rock stars can't imagine how Jesus might reach deaf-mutes to offer them salvation by His Word.

You really have no idea what Tommy was really about, do you?

Christmas, by P Townsend from Tommy:

Did you ever see the faces of children
They get so excited.
Waking up on Christmas morning
Hours before the winter sun's ignited.
They believe in dreams and all they mean
Including heavens generosity.
Peeping round the door
to see what parcels are for free
In curiosity.

And Tommy doesn't know what day it is.
He doesn't know who Jesus was
or what praying is.
How can he be saved?
From the eternal grave.

Surrounded by his friends
he sits so silently,
And unaware of anything.
Playing proxy pin ball
picks his nose and smiles and
Pokes his tongue at everything.
I believe in love
but how can men who've never seen
Light be enlightened.
Only if he's cured
will his spirits future level ever heighten.

Proving that Tommy's mother and uncle were shallow, superficial people. You don't get it?

Y'all can keep at it if you wish.

It's certainly wasted on you... having already denounced it as "blasphemy" solely because you found your own interpretatino to be offensive.

Tinker Grey · May 20, 2008

busterdog said:
All I offer is a re-read. I made my case.

You never made any case.

I asked you several times, "are all uses of the word messiah that don't refer to Jesus blasphemous?"

You didn't answer. The only answer required is a simple yes or no.

I asked you to define blasphemy. You won't.

As it stands, I have to believe your definition is "stuff that offends busterdog."

The stuff about The Who is nothing but a red-herring. I regret entertaining the question. A meaningful discussion about blasphemy cannot be had until you tell us what you mean by it.

Let's see if you'll answer this yes or no question: Is blasphemy bad?

The Lady Kate · May 20, 2008

Tinker Grey said:
You never made any case.

I asked you several times, "are all uses of the word messiah that don't refer to Jesus blasphemous?"

You didn't answer. The only answer required is a simple yes or no.

Because a "no" shoots down whatever case he thinks he's made, and a "yes" establishes him as some sort of policeman for the English language... neither of which do him any good.

I asked you to define blasphemy. You won't.

Don't expect him to anytime in the near future.

As it stands, I have to believe your definition is "stuff that offends busterdog."

That's my best guess as well... keep the definition nice and loose so you can unleash it when rational debate fails.

The stuff about The Who is nothing but a red-herring. I regret entertaining the question. A meaningful discussion about blasphemy cannot be had until you tell us what you mean by it.

Well, if he can't/won't find any interpretation of an opera that doesn't equate to blasphemy, then his interpretations of Scripture (arguably a more complicated topic) must be suspect as well.

shernren · May 20, 2008

busterdog said:
Come now, is this really about egotistical blowhards, or the bias in favor of those blowhards you agree with? What of it? I told you what of it. I didnt ask for summary execution, I said it was wrong. Unfortunately, the ox being metaphorically gored was an evolutionary ox.

"Oversensitivity" is an interesting word. It is the refuge of intellectual cowards who want to say that the question is one of "degree" and that anyone not favoring their particular shade of grey is out of his mind.

Shernren, Assyrian and you all again begrudge the slightest, tiniest bit of correction on any issue and suggest that a very modest rebuke of any type is a witchhunt.

I'm sorry, but you know what I saw? The moment I mentioned an instance in the Bible where "messiah" was used of someone other than Jesus - someone entirely pagan, in fact - you refused to engage with both your previous accusation and the modification that my note would have required of it. All I offered was the tiniest correction. I didn't even say that you were wrong - I just tried to look at Isaiah from your point of view. You felt pricked. You felt wronged even though I never said a word directly against you.

In Malay we have a proverb, loosely rendered: "The one who eats the birds'-eye chilli, is the one who feels the burn on his tongue." What've you been eating?

You begrudge the slightest bit of correction and suggest that a very modest rebuke of any type - one that involves Scripture, even - is a witchhunt against you for having anti-evolutionary motives.

busterdog said:
Tommy cant take anyone to the "highest height." To suggest otherwise is ignorant. The implication is also gnostic, if not blasphemous.

The only true Messiah did not tell people to leave THE Temple. He defended it with whipchords.

The only true Messiah loves His Church, ie, his temples, made of believers, their organizations, etc.

The reference to "messiahs" -- plural -- clearly begs the question of whether all supposed messiahs (buddha, krishna, jesus, etc., as the secular world uses the term) are equivalent.

I was quite surprised at your suggestion that I'm free! was blasphemous. Not because I've ever heard The Who before, but because my first encounter with this song was a cover in a Christian rock album, surrounded by luminaries like Kutless and The Echoing Green. To me this chorus comes across instantly as Christian:

If I told you what it takes
to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'nothing's that simple'
But you've been told many times before
Messiahs pointed to the door
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!

Firstly, Townsend never claims to take anyone to the highest high. He wants to "tell you" what it takes. I can tell you what it takes to reach the highest high too: believe in the Lord Jesus and repent of your sins and you will be saved. Isn't it simple? Isn't it too simple? Indeed, when I share with any of my friends what the gospel means, that's exactly what they do: laugh and say "nothing's that simple"! I love these lyrics because they tap into a very fundamentally Christian experience that is a part of my life.

How is that ignorant? How is that gnostic? The chorus taps into the most fundamental human instinct: the urge to earn salvation. "We need to do everything on our own. Even if God offers it for free we certainly can't take it. Nothing's that simple; our rules have to apply. And if we can get it for free, why, our enemies, the evil, the social outcasts - they can get it for free too! Nothing's that simple; it must be just us who are hardworking and good who are saved, and nobody else." That's exactly the first response many people have to the news of Jesus' free salvation. That's certainly how the Pharisees responded in Jesus' day, always asking why He was healing on the Sabbath or why His disciples don't wash hands or why He hung out with sinners, laughing at His offer of salvation instead of taking it up - because it would do away with the intricacies of an engorged Law that only they were the experts of. (Do you even know what "gnostic" means?)

As for the Temple. Note that the Temple is not intrinsically necessary to Biblical Judaism; the first Temple was built by Solomon, long after the Torah had been given and completed. Indeed, even from right after its consecration, God knew how it would end:

"But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, 'Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple?' People will answer, 'Because they have forsaken the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them--that is why the LORD brought all this disaster on them.' "
(1 Kings 9:6-9 NIV)

In due time the Temple did indeed become a symbol of idolatry and wickedness:

He [Manasseh] built altars in the temple of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, "In Jerusalem I will put my Name." In both courts of the temple of the LORD, he built altars to all the starry hosts.
(2 Kings 21:4-5 NIV)

And what was God's response?

Nevertheless, the LORD did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh had done to provoke him to anger. So the LORD said, "I will remove Judah also from my presence as I removed Israel, and I will reject Jerusalem, the city I chose, and this temple, about which I said, 'There shall my Name be.'"
(2 Kings 23:26-27 NIV)

And what did Jeremiah have to say to God's people?

"Stand at the gate of the LORD's house and there proclaim this message:
" 'Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. Do not trust in deceptive words and say, "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!" If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever. But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.
(Jeremiah 7:2-8 NIV)

And was not Jeremiah even more an anointed of God - even more a messiah - than Cyrus the pagan was? ... "You've been told many times before, Messiahs pointed to the door; but no one had the guts to leave the Temple!"

"What is my beloved doing in my temple
as she works out her evil schemes with many?
Can consecrated meat avert your punishment ?
When you engage in your wickedness,
then you rejoice."
(Jeremiah 11:15 NIV)

"Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you," says the LORD Almighty, "and I will accept no offering from your hands.
(Malachi 1:10 NIV)

Did God desire for His people to build a Temple to serve His name? Certainly! But every temple they built was invariably corrupted with idolatry, the desire for man to decide how to please God instead of following God's commands. And so every temple became a symbol of corruption, whether it was Solomon's Temple that got overrun with idols, Zerubbabel's Temple that nobody even wanted to build amidst an amoral, apathetic society, or Herod's Temple that became the centerpoint of a legalistic religion that emphasized slavish obedience to a set of rules that could never save you in the first place.

What did Jesus have to say, when the Samaritan woman asked Him about the Temple?

"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
(John 4:19-24 NIV)

Messiah pointed to the door. Who had the guts to leave the temple? Certainly Jesus taught at the Temple. But He knew that the only real temple, the one true place where man could meet God, was in His flesh:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me." Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
(John 2:13-21 NIV)

Who left the Temple? Was it the Pharisees and the Sadducees? No; it was the early disciples of Jesus. Certainly they still met in the Temple - but they knew now that they could meet God anywhere and everywhere they wished, without ritual, without separation, because the blood of Jesus had torn the heavy wall of separation between man and God. Indeed, when the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost, they weren't in the Temple; they were in an anonymous, unmarked upper room.

I have every right to find this profoundly Christian, profoundly Biblical.

busterdog said:
Jesus is absent from Tommy, except that it trivializes the notion of saviors generally.

Tommy is anti-Christian. Is it deep or funny to make "heaven's generosity" an ironic figure? Is the notion of salvation through confession of Jesus Christ to be trivialized by some hypothetical problem of deaf-mutes? Anyone who thinks there was a genuine inquiry into how God brings salvations to deaf-mutes is stupid and not serious about understanding blasphemy. The clear implication is that the Romans 10 confession of Jesus Christ is an absurdity because rock stars can't imagine how Jesus might reach deaf-mutes to offer them salvation by His Word.

Christmas, by P Townsend from Tommy:

Did you ever see the faces of children
They get so excited.
Waking up on Christmas morning
Hours before the winter sun's ignited.
They believe in dreams and all they mean
Including heavens generosity.
Peeping round the door
to see what parcels are for free
In curiosity.

And Tommy doesn't know what day it is.
He doesn't know who Jesus was
or what praying is.
How can he be saved?
From the eternal grave.

Surrounded by his friends
he sits so silently,
And unaware of anything.
Playing proxy pin ball
picks his nose and smiles and
Pokes his tongue at everything.
I believe in love
but how can men who've never seen
Light be enlightened.
Only if he's cured
will his spirits future level ever heighten.

Y'all can keep at it if you wish.

But: Tommy doesn't know what day it is. He doesn't know who Jesus is. There are deaf-mutes who know who Jesus is and who have been saved; Tommy's ignorance is far more profound and deep than that. In that same Romans 10 you think Townsend mocks, Paul says:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
(Romans 10:14 NIV)

"How can men who've never seen light be enlightened?" If the sentence is inaccurate at points it still reflects the heart of Christian mission.

Someone in this discussion is indeed nit-picking, missing the truth for the trees and finding every irrelevant detail to prove that he is right about someone being wrong. I'm just not sure it's me.

Assyrian · May 21, 2008

busterdog said:
The only true Messiah did not tell people to leave THE Temple. He defended it with whipchords.

And prophesied its destruction... And ripped its curtain apart...

The only true Messiah loves His Church, ie, his temples, made of believers, their organizations, etc.

So the true messiah led his people out of man made temples, whether Jewish or Pagan and into the reality the man made temples are a dim reflection of. Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man...

The reference to "messiahs" -- plural -- clearly begs the question of whether all supposed messiahs (buddha, krishna, jesus, etc., as the secular world uses the term) are equivalent. Jesus is absent from Tommy, except that it trivializes the notion of saviors generally.

Jesus was absent from Cleanthes' poem too, yet Paul quoted it. Acts 17:28 ...as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.' Does the Hymn to Zeus recognise Yahweh, or Jesus his Messiah? Or does it claim a Greek god is the most glorious of immortal beings?

Most glorious of the Immortals, many named, Almighty forever.
Zeus, ruler of Nature, that governest all things with law.
Hail! for lawful it is that all mortals should address Thee.
For we are Thy offspring, taking the image only of Thy voice,
as many mortal things as live and move upon the earth.
Therefore I will hymn Thee, and sing Thy might forever.

Is it legitimate for Christians to quote secular, even pagan poets, for a truth revealed in their work, even if the truth is wrapped in paganism? Or should we jump on people who quote works like that and condemn them for every trace of paganism in the work they quote? Congratulations BD you have just out Phariseed Paul. Even the former Pharisee of Pharisees would not survive your withering gaze.

The thing is busterdog, I don't think that is what you are normally like. Behind all the debate you seem a good humoured, gracious follower of Jesus who knows the love of God and is not quick to lash out, to judge and condemn.

So, what is it in YEC that brings out the judgmentalism and condemnation in followers of Jesus? It was the ugliness of anti evolution preaching that finally turned me against YEC. It seemed cultic and Pharisaic, as though it could only make its case through fear and intimidation. And I see gracious and loving followers of Jesus drinking from the same fountain and turn just as nasty. Doesn't that grieve your spirit deep inside busterdog?

Creating Universes: Danger, Rant Ahead

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Veteran

Wanderer

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

The King of Carrot Flowers

Senior Veteran

Wanderer

Senior Veteran

Wanderer

Senior Veteran

The Lady Kate

Guest

Wanderer

The Lady Kate

Guest

you are not reading this.

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency