Blasphemy Of The Holy Spirit

[agnosticator]

The Ten commandments (God's permanent law ) are DIFFERENT fom Moses' law (temporary law because the people broke the permanent law). It even says in the chapter that you cited that Moses was amazed at how God can be forgiving, God could have destroyed everybody.

 

The texts you cited were interspersed with the ten commandment Law to show the people were breaking the Law, it was to remind them of it and therefore encourage them to seek forgiveness. Moses law was annulled at the cross.

 

This is cherry picking at its worst. There was no "temporary" law. Ask any Jewish scholar. Jesus came not to change the law or do away with any law.

 

 

 

 

Thumbelina:Yes they were temporary, why would God perpetuate the killing of animals as well as some rules about ritual cleansings when these things will not occur on the new earth and when they were pointing to our need for Jesus? The ancestors of the Jews had egg on their faces for not paying attention to prophecy or using eisegesis instead of a thus saith the Lord and it is those supposed scholars that cherry pick to cling to wrong beliefs. It is the 10 Commandments that were written in stone and therefore, permanent. Ya can't nail stone to a cross!

 

Then you must include the Ten Commandments in Exodus 34:

 

1 The LORD said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke....

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

 

AlL three versions of the 10 Commandments were part of the Jewish Mitzvot, or commandments. They did not make one more important than the others. The original Christians were Jewish. They argued with Paul over keeping the Law (Acts 15:19-29 for one example). Paul's theology won. Christian theology hijacked portions of the Jewish religion by cherry picking whatever fit their story.

 

Don't forget to cook your young goat in sauce, not its mother's milk!

[mwc]

Thumbelina: Please tell me you're kidding? The parousia or second coming will entail Jesus coming as King of kings and Lord of lords and where EVERY eye will see Him.

And yet he seems to come back without that happening. Apparently this "jesus" coming to earth isn't the big deal we're led to believe it is. So stop with the grilled cheese sandwiches and tree stumps and make some appearances. It won't count in the grand scheme of things. It will be just like old times around Judea. But I think it's important to have our cake and eat it too so we'll say it's a big deal to make appearances for some reason or another. I don't care. It's not what we're talking about.

 

The time line mentions ascending. The stories don't all support doing this that same day. Now we're stuck pretending that some sort of "yo-yo" effect can occur which is not at all in any of the texts.

 

Thumbelina: The bible says that Jesus dematerialized when Cleophas and the other guy finally recognized Him. I think the bible says He appeared through a door that was closed. Oh and I was wrong, Jesus and the angels move faster than the speed of light, light is too slow to keep up with them.

The bible says no such thing. The passage in G.Luke says he went "aphantos" which is to say he went invisible. Phantos is derives roughly from "to show" and we tack on the "a" and *poof* he disappears. But dematerialized? Hardly. This is "now you see it now you don't" territory. All the rest of what you're saying is nonsensical bullshit backed up by nothing. The fact that the story has imaginary creatures appearing and disappearing at will is only the will of the author(s) and the fact people conflate these "reports" only makes things worse.

 

Thumbelina: Oh but I believe he was. The stories in the bible point to Jesus and a lot of them describes the battle between God and Satan and their disciples. The bible uses types in order to get a basic teaching across eg. Is this text talking about literal Elijah?:

 

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:" http://bible.cc/malachi/4-5.htm

I know you believe all this. This isn't at all in question. What is in question are the stories. You're confusing what is believed with what is written. The stories have written down certain bits of information and you're adding information that are not contained withing those stories but you expect me to accept that additional information as-if it *IS* contained within those said stories. That won't be happening. So the stories do not have a unified ascension as much as you would like for them to have this and have tried to insert information in order for them to have such a thing.

 

The stories in the Hebrew bible do not point to "jesus." The authors, and believers, in "jesus" certainly used the stories of the Hebrew bible in an attempt to create such an argument though. They also used Greek writings such as the Sibylline oracles in an attempt to make it appear as-if this "jesus" was predicted beforehand. But using old stories, even what people might consider to be "prophecy," to bolster your position doesn't make your position true. Working these details into your stories doesn't mean anyone was speaking to your case whether they had your in mind or not.

 

Now, why wouldn't Malachi be speaking of Elijah the prophet literally:

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Elijah was lifted up according to the story. So he could be brought down again intact. There's no reason to imagine anything different in the mind of Malachi.

 

But does it matter? If Elijah did live he is long dead. He's not coming back in any form. Malachi may have been fully convinced this was going to happen but he's now long since dead and quite mistaken. He's one of very many dead "prophets" of all religions whose predictions never came to pass. Believing he's right won't make him anymore right. Just like you can't make him anymore not dead. He's dead. And wrong. Dead wrong.

 

mwc

[mwc]

That same day; the bible does not mention the exact hour, minute and second. Can't agree with you, Bub.

So he goes up and comes right back? No witnesses? No details? Just up and back? What's the point of that exactly? To check messages? Do a load of laundry? Harden his shell?

 

mwc

[agnosticator]

So stop with the grilled cheese sandwiches and tree stumps and make some appearances.

 

But how else will God remain within His Mysterious Ways? Since He wants our faith, I'll ask Him to make an appearance in my Fruit Loops.

[Thumbelina]

Yeah, I've always taken Blasphemy of the holy spirit to be knowingly attributing works of the holy spirit to satan or other. Basically, I think that since we're all here at Ex-C, it's likely none of us never truly "knew" the holy spirit to blaspheme it- since if we ever thought it was real, we wouldn't have left. So it's safe to say none of us have done it.

 

I don't agree with what you said, some people genuinely believed and did respond to the wooing of the HS but for some, their misunderstanding of God's character turned them off like in this post: http://www.ex-christ...7-fear-of-hell/ . It is possible to leave your first love --> http://bible.cc/revelation/2-4.htm ; relationships NEED work and misunderstandings can turn a relationship sour. Blaspheming the Spirit is when humans CONTINUALLY choose to remain sour and not be reconciled to God.

 

Pretend to know what it means by "blaspheming the holy spirit". It's a random phrase in the bible that has plenty of different ways of being interpreted. Your "CONTINUALLY" clause is supported by nothing other than your wishful thinking.

 

 

The bible interprets ITSELF (you should try it, compare the scriptures in the margins) but the HS gives lucidity to the verses so a believer can then internalize the biblical teachings. Blaspheming is being callused to the pleadings of the HS and it can include mocking God (an outward expression of an inward belief) but it is persistently doing it that causes and will cause people to be lost. The two thieves on the cross are examples of that, they both were mocking God and not responding to the HS but one of them responded and he will be resurrected when Jesus returns.

 

P.S. Does the "wishful thinking" you mentioned mean that it makes sense to you (objectively speaking)?

 

The bible interprets itself in the minds of the people who read it.

 

you obviously understand what blasphemy is "the outward mocking of", and so therefore the "outward mocking of the holy spirit" gets you eternal hellfire. I'm interested in how you got "continually".

 

And as for the thieves, didn't jesus say that "today" he would be with him in paradise? Not when jesus returns? Also, it seems that Jesus' words about blasphemy say that if they make fun of jesus, then everything is okay, but making fun of the holy derp will get you eternal hellfire. The thief was NOT making fun of the HS. He was making fun of jesus. derp

 

 

 

Derpy Derp: so therefore the "outward mocking of the holy spirit" gets you eternal hellfire. I'm interested in how you got "continually".

 

You did not check the cross references and let the bible interpret itself did you? Do you still have your bible?

 

Wherefore I say unto you, ( references Mark 3:28; Luke 12:10; Hebrews 10:26; 1 John 5:16)All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: (references Acts 7:51; Hebrews 6:4) but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. http://bible.cc/matthew/12-31.htm Matthew 12:31

 

Links to references http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ForMatthew12:31,32,Mark3:28-30;Luke12:10;Heb6:4-6;10:26;1John5:16&version=KJV

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207:51;%20Hebrews%206:4&version=KJV

 

 

This is one of the verses that plainly states that people who ALWAYS or CONTINUALLY resist the convictions of the HS , blasphemed the Spirit -->

Acts 7:51

 

King James Version (KJV)

 

 

 

 

51 Ye (reference Isa 48:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2048:4&version=KJV ) stiffnecked and (reference Ezekiel 44:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2044:9&version=KJV ) uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

 

 

Ha, Isaiah 48:4 is funny.

 

One needs to go back and forth through the scriptures and let the bible interpret itself. In the description in Acts 7, the circumstances was the stoning of Stephen. Prophecy said it is that year that the Jews would forfeit their right as a nation to evangelize the world because they blocked their ears and kept on resisting the HS even after they got evidence Jesus was God and that God was with the disciples.

[mwc]

But how else will God remain within His Mysterious Ways? Since He wants our faith, I'll ask Him to make an appearance in my Fruit Loops.

The only thing mysterious about these ways are how they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. First, everyone in Judea gets some sort of magic trick. Then there's the post-death poke-fest and buffet. Then there was apparently yo-yo god-man. Then happy-time visions. Now it's don't ask don't tell don't think just believe.

 

mwc

[agnosticator]

The only thing mysterious about these ways are how they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

 

It reminds me of how L.Ron Hubbard started his own religion. He spun his yarn, mixed in a bit of pop psychology, and started raking in the suckers! It really doesn't make any sense to an outsider, but for the believer it's pure gold. Except that it's really fool's gold!

[mwc]

Thumbelina: You don't have the texts quoted so you sort of lost me in this convo'though i think I do have the gist of it . Jesus did not lie about anything, He kept the Sabbath in spirit and in truth. The disciples were hungry and they went and got something to eat which was perfectly lawful for them to do --> http://bible.cc/luke/6-1.htm ; http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-25.htm Those PITAs (Pain In The A **) /Pharisees were after Jesus and accusing Him of reaping, threshing and winnowing , I think. You are right those Pharisees http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pharisaical had a god http://bible.cc/galatians/4-8.htm ; http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/4-4.htm who encouraged them to be PITAs. It matters that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath because it says so in the text

 

I know the Pharisees were just one of the sects of the Jews. In Luke 6 http://kingjbible.com/luke/6.htm, the Pharisees (some of them) were one of the sects that was mentioned and the one that most people talk about. I know there were Scribes and Sadducees and Essenes also.

I have to quote G.John? The part of G.John that you initially referenced in order to keep you from getting lost?

 

We're not talking about disciples eating. So forget all that.

 

Scribes were scribes. They weren't a sect in and of themselves. Don't say something just to say it. You already can't keep up.

 

Thumbelina: Yes, yes there were two sets of ten commandments that were written in stone, the first ones were broken when tMoses saw the people having pagan orgies by the golden calf. God has an everlasting covenant http://bible.cc/genesis/17-7.htm that He kept on renewing with willing participants and during different times He had different symbols for believers to demonstrate that they are entering a covenant with Him ( from Jesus' time to today we have baptism). Moses had to write things down as man was becoming more and more sinful and stupid and forgetful and the oral tradition would have gotten messed up because of that. Writing things down ensured that subsequent generations would rightly understand the covenant with the help of the HS of course.

Too bad the bible never says any of this. The story of the Exodus does not agree with you.

 

 

Thumbelina: It's not magical to those who are perishing http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/4-3.htm

This is meaningless and forms no argument. Since you've said nothing you won't even recall what this is about unless you check back in the thread. This is why you get lost. You say nothing as-if it has meaning then you have no idea what is being discussed when you come across it in the future. I'll do us both a favor in the next quote and give both sides so we can see an example:

 

Thumbelina said: It's only equivocation to waywards. I did not say they were equals, that will be blasphemy. There is no loophole, God knows the heart and David was a man after God's heart. David believed in God even though his flesh was weak at times (he payed for it too, his family was a mess!)

 

 

 

I have no idea what the term "to waywards" means. I've not heard it.

 

 

 

Thumbelina:You don't know the meaning of it but you sure are livin' it, huh? *snicker*

The whole damn thing quoted. I admitted I had no idea what "to waywards" meant. You offered in return? That you apparently don't know either. Utterly useless. Had I just posted your part? Even more useless. This entire bit of "discussion?" Useless. My follow-on attempt at simply guessing the meaning (not shown)? Useless. All useless. A pointless digression.

 

 

 

 

 

Thumbelina said: What that means is God permits evil/sin to manifest itself through evil people. It shows WHY the Law is NEEDED. Unfallen beings did not understand it but NOW they do. They know that the rules are for their love and protection. They were appalled by Pharaoh's lawlessness.

 

mwc said: That's not what it says. I gave the verses. There's nothing to state or demonstrate otherwise. There nothing there like you're saying. What is there contradicts you. The bible and you disagree.

 

 

Thumbelina: That is what the biblical narrative states and it is a major theme in the bible. The bible cannot be read superficially otherwise one would conclude that God is malevolent.

God? Malevolent? No. You take a text and that god, or gods, is written to be a certain way. Perhaps malevolent, perhaps not. It's up to the author(s). Then that text gets joined with other texts over time. Redacted. Those changes make this god(s) into a certain "type" as well. Time goes on and other texts are written based on this particular god and so on. Wash, rinse, repeat and you have whatever you have. They ultimately got the basic god they wanted. One they could live with. To me it is on the malevolent side but that way of thinking changed over time to where a supreme god couldn't be malevolent. So it is what it is whether I think so or whether the writings actual say so or not. A supreme god can't be malevolent. So you have to explain how it isn't. This is where we're at. The problem is Exodus appears to be from a time when this wasn't the way of thinking or when it wasn't necessarily wrong for a benevolent god to do these types of things. So it really doesn't matter how you explain it because the words are there. This god did harden his heart and it was intentional. The reasons were stated many times in the story and I gave them.

 

Thumbelina: The hardening that Pharaoh did was akin to this: Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. http://bible.cc/acts/26-28.htm He got evidence and convictions about the truthfulness of the gospel but he hardened his heart, he rejected truth, the truth hardened him instead of softening him! God gets our attention through the Word (this is His main avenue) or through miracles or through permitting the devil to get a go at us or by removing his hedge of protection from us but it is up to us to soften our hearts when convicted and evidence is presented or to harden our hearts and reject it like this bloke --> http://bible.cc/acts/24-25.htm AND Pharaoh.

Nifty. Except Moses wasn't doing any persuading. No converting. No witnessing. And this was pretty out of line for Agrippa II. So it's more a xian fantasy than reality. Hyperbole at best. The story of Exodus states that YHWH would kill the children. No matter what. It was the end result. That YHWH would harden the heart of Pharaoh so that he could work his magic in the land so the Egyptians could see his powers. He wanted them to see his glory. This is all stated. If he wanted them to believe then he could have just plopped down out of the sky onto a pyramid and started the thunder and lightening with the voices coming right out from there. Did a little of the "Hi! I'm YHWH. God of Moses and Aaron. Here's some laws. And let my people go! Grrrr!" But he waited until the desert to play most of these tricks. Like usual he's not too willing to put on the show in public. At least a literate public that will put all this on the walls of a massive temple in stone.

 

 

Thumbelina: God is the supreme potentate and He owns everything (heh, heh --> http://bible.cc/psalms/50-12.htm) . He commanded Pharaoh to let ALL His people go but Pharaoh wanted to retain some of the Israelites as slaves and that bastard kept on consenting to certain terms and then reneging on them when he got a REPRIEVE; read it properly, that is what the narrative says!

Ummm. Yeah. That stunt is meaningless. Saying your god is somehow top dog and pulling rank by pointing to your magic spell book is not convincing.

 

I did read the whole thing properly. I posted it here and even noted the verses that would be questionable. You obviously just overlooked it all. Go back and look again. There are only a few verses out of the entire interaction that the Pharaoh is in the position of hardening his own heart. Largely in chapter 8 as I recall (but I might be mistaken...I'm not going to bother checking based on most of the rest of this post and your participation).

 

Thumbelina: Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you. http://bible.cc/exodus/10-16.htm Ex 10:16 That bastard is a type of devil, he only relented when he felt the pinch but when he felt good and safe again he wanted to oppress God's people; that kind will NEVER change.

And what's the type of devil that says from the beginning that he will harden Pharaoh's heart and kill all the babies? Come on. You must know. Someone who would say:

21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go . 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go , that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go , behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Before they even meet it is pretty much decided. YHWH's first born "Israel" (not "jesus"...oh well...) is the same as Pharoah's first born. And since YHWH *will* harden his heart it seems someone is going to get slain. Way back in chapter 4. I can't imagine if I've been dicked around in negotiations, magically so apparently, that I might behave a tad erratic. But maybe not. I don't how having the magic "whammy" put on me could change the old personality.

 

mwc

[AlphaToOmega]

How am I doing on the whole blasphemy thing?

Do I need to dial it up a bit or have I hit the point of no return yet?

 

Oh, you're a goner already!

 

Cooool

 

 

See, Agi is blaspheming by taking the place of God and saying you committed the unpardonable sin and you are doing it too, condemning yourself.

But by your reasoning,YOU are condemning yourself by taking the place of God to say that AtoO condemned himself!

 

 

No my dear, I would be taking the place of God if I said he already condemnED himself. He's in the process of doing so. Is he in a saving relationship with God? Does he know about Christ and is he mocking, mocking, mocking Christ?

 

 

 

OK, so what the hell exactly do I have to do?

I've sworn at him, cursed him, denied him, mocked him, rejected him, told this forum he gives really bad blowjobs too.

If its this damned hard to get yourself condemned then there is no hell other than heaven.

I say that because there will be few that get to heaven as far as the biblay is concerned but if I can't even guarantee myself excused with all I'm doing it must be packed full up there.

But that contradicts the biblay. So it must be the other place, right?

Heaven is really hell and is full of souls and hell is almost empty so must be heaven.

 

 

Oh yeah, and I've worked my way through and convinced people there is no christ or god so I've converted christians to be atheists as well.

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

He has to do it for the greater good of His creatures, to vindicate His character so they can know they can trust Him for their security. God CANNOT lie, He says vengeance is His (NO jihad for Christians!) , people are not to take revenge now so to prevent that God will give out the punishments to suit the crime at a later time; He cannot change His word.

 

"God cannot change his word." "God cannot lie." Therefore he is not all powerful. If god was all powerful he could do any thing he wants. He could lie and he could change his word if he felt like it. A faulty concept is that god must behave the way the bible says, yet god is also all powerful. It does not compute. But really this whole thread is a debate about parts of a fictional book called the bible so why is it important to debate it? Then again I've seen people banter about Star Trek characters too...hmmm. :-)

 

 

 

Omnipotence comes with certain inherent limitations which do not take away from the omnipotent one's power. God CAN"T lie, die (as God) or be deceived, Oh and He CAN"T save someone against their will!

 

Can't be deceived?

Yet the serpent convinced Adam and Eve to eat the fruit and he knew nothing about them being naked till they told him that's why they were hiding.

 

An Omnipotent god would have known about the serpent and the choices Adam and Eve would have made.

If he didn't know what was going to happen then he was deceived.

If he did know what was going to happen then he made them knowing what they would do and is thus responsible for what they do since they have no other choice due to their faulty manufacture. A good god doesn't blame his creation when it doesn't do what he wanted. A good god makes a creation to do what he wants. Your god is second rate. He can't even make a product to follow instruction for more than short while. He should have given them more will power instead of blaming them for the lack of it. Sounds like a typical boss that provides no training and blames the employee when they don't do what he intended.

 

He doesn't lie eh?

So what about these?

 

 

 

Kings 22:23

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

 

Chronicles 18:22

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

 

Jeremiah 4:10

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

zekiel 14:9And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

 

Thessalonians 2:11

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

He CAN'T save someone against their will???

 

Excellent! You have proven my point so well.

In a battle of wills, god will lose. LOL

My will is greater than gods. So is yours. How pathetic this god must be.

[Margee]

Thumbelina: I don't smoke, my body is the temple of the HS. God says be holy as He is holy, can you picture God on meth? Don't answer that, you are a mischievous one.

 

 

 

 

 

Thumb - all ya gotta do is live on this earth and breathe the rotten air, eat ice-cream and injected chickens and you've wrecked 'the temple' of the holy spirit!.

 

20% above your ideal weight and you've helped 'destoy' the 'temple'. Besides - god's the one who 'made' the tobacco and all the different 'herbs' for this earth! He probably tried some of these things himself!

[centauri]

The Ten commandments (God's permanent law ) are DIFFERENT fom Moses' law (temporary law because the people broke the permanent law). It even says in the chapter that you cited that Moses was amazed at how God can be forgiving, God could have destroyed everybody.

 

The texts you cited were interspersed with the ten commandment Law to show the people were breaking the Law, it was to remind them of it and therefore encourage them to seek forgiveness. Moses law was annulled at the cross.

 

This is cherry picking at its worst. There was no "temporary" law. Ask any Jewish scholar. Jesus came not to change the law or do away with any law.

 

 

Thumbelina:Yes they were temporary, why would God perpetuate the killing of animals as well as some rules about ritual cleansings when these things will not occur on the new earth and when they were pointing to our need for Jesus?

There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that says the laws given to Moses were temporary.

The new covenant as defined in Jer 31 says nothing about only ten laws being in place.

An expected king would lead people into great compliance with all the law. (Ezek 37:24)

In the messianic era, the Levitical priesthood will be functioning and sacrifices will be made.

Jer 33:17-18

For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;

Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

 

Deut 4:2 declares that nothing is to be added or subtracted from the law.

 

It is the 10 Commandments that were written in stone and therefore, permanent. Ya can't nail stone to a cross!

You've just contradicted Deut 4:2.

Christianity doesn't even keep the ten commandments, ignoring the Sabbath.

There is nothing in the Jewish Bible that says the law on circumcision, dietary restrictions, or the Levitical priesthood would be ended.

[CatholiKitty]

I was wondering about the very same thing this morning! I can't really speak for God, but here's the Catholic spin on the issue:

 

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit falls under six categories: despair, presumption, impenitence or a fixed determination not to repent, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, and envy of another's spiritual welfare. ((Actual meanings are longish and not always intuitive.))

These aren't insults directed towards divine persons, but mental states that cause one to fully reject God/repentance/forgiveness. They are unforgivable in that they prevent the acceptance of forgiveness. If one has existed in such a state, then returning to the faith is a likely indication that one has repented from it as in now open to the saving graces. Slap on some official repentance and do some prayer and mediation, and one should be in the clear.

 

On account of all the theologians Catholicism has produced over the year, there are a few other views on the blasphemy thing. This is the one that syncs up best with other doctrines because Catholics are really into the possibility of anyone obtaining forgiveness and salvation, even at the moment of death.

 

((Please note that I'm not trying to advise this to anyone here; I'm just given an established answer to the posted question.))

[centauri]

Sin began in PERFECT heaven in the presence of a PERFECT and Holy God.

If heaven is perfect then sin is not an imperfection.

A perfect creation cannot produce imperfection unless there's a flaw in it to begin with.

 

...we are saved by grace through FAITH[/b]. We ALWAYS fall short of God's glory and trying to be saved by works is LEGALISM and tummy rot (it does NOT work).

Christian salvation requires works unless you believe in predestination.

Belief is required, confessing belief is required, baptism is required, repenting is required, and some good works are required.

Faith alone doesn't do it.

 

Who said God did not Create this world perfect? He said it was good and very good!

Sin/trangressing the Law/disobedience caused pain, suffering, death and decay. to come about.

God also said his creation was bad and very bad.

Gen 6-7

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

Added to your problem is that God knew ahead of time that his creation would be flawed.

So you're stuck with a problem of a perfect creation being imperfect by design.

A truly perfect being, such as Adam, cannot do anything imperfect because as soon as he does, it shows he wasn't made perfect to begin with.

God's solution was also inept.

He flooded the world, knowing ahead of time, that it wouldn't solve the problem.

Wickedness abounded after the flood.

Either God's works are not perfect or "sin" is not imperfection.

 

Satan wanted to do away with God's laws!

There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that says this.

It was Paul that championed doing away with laws.

[ShackledNoMore]

Thumbelina: I don't smoke, my body is the temple of the HS.

Yeah, I used to think that smoking defiled the temple of the hs, too, when I was a xian.

 

It's great that you don't smoke, but 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 actually refers to sexual immorality. That means, by the bible's logic, if you have succumbed carnal desires, or given into temptation to beat the bishop or touch the burning bush, or even experienced urgings and lusted after that hottie, then yes, you too, have defiled the temple of the hs. Yep, that means just about everybody, including the most pious of you xians.

[Margee]

I was wondering about the very same thing this morning! I can't really speak for God, but here's the Catholic spin on the issue:

 

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit falls under six categories: despair, presumption, impenitence or a fixed determination not to repent, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, and envy of another's spiritual welfare. ((Actual meanings are longish and not always intuitive.))

These aren't insults directed towards divine persons, but mental states that cause one to fully reject God/repentance/forgiveness. They are unforgivable in that they prevent the acceptance of forgiveness. If one has existed in such a state, then returning to the faith is a likely indication that one has repented from it as in now open to the saving graces. Slap on some official repentance and do some prayer and mediation, and one should be in the clear.

 

On account of all the theologians Catholicism has produced over the year, there are a few other views on the blasphemy thing. This is the one that syncs up best with other doctrines because Catholics are really into the possibility of anyone obtaining forgiveness and salvation, even at the moment of death.

 

((Please note that I'm not trying to advise this to anyone here; I'm just given an established answer to the posted question.))

 

I like this spin Cathoikitty - I like it way better than the fundamentalists, cause once you've blasphemed (according to them) - you're cooked!

[ShackledNoMore]

I don't know why it took me so long to realize this, maybe because I used to imagine blasphemy against the holy spirit as fake, mocking impressions of glossolalia, or making wise cracks about holy ectoplasm, or calling the holy spirit the pathetic milksop of the trinity, but I see both the catholic and the most common protestant takes on the matter seem to have more to do with the belief that the holy spirit gently points us to the christian god, convicts us, and generally acts as the little cartoon angel over our shoulder.

 

That explains a lot as far as xian responses go, but if blasphemy is ignoring the still small voice, then how do you specifically blaspheme jesus, as opposed to specifically blaspheming the holy spirit? (Mt 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.)

[Thumbelina]

Thumbelina: I don't smoke, my body is the temple of the HS.

Yeah, I used to think that smoking defiled the temple of the hs, too, when I was a xian.

 

It's great that you don't smoke, but 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 actually refers to sexual immorality. That means, by the bible's logic, if you have succumbed carnal desires, or given into temptation to beat the bishop or touch the burning bush, or even experienced urgings and lusted after that hottie, then yes, you too, have defiled the temple of the hs. Yep, that means just about everybody, including the most pious of you xians.

 

Those instructions are for the whole person and not just sexuality, everything starts in the mind, if the thoughts are correct then the actions will be correct. Yes, you are agreeing with the bible, we all fall short of God's standard which is why the bible stipulates we need a savior.

[Ouroboros]

If the HS can be offended by words or actions, then he's a very thin-skinned SOB.

[Thumbelina]

I don't know why it took me so long to realize this, maybe because I used to imagine blasphemy against the holy spirit as fake, mocking impressions of glossolalia, or making wise cracks about holy ectoplasm, or calling the holy spirit the pathetic milksop of the trinity, but I see both the catholic and the most common protestant takes on the matter seem to have more to do with the belief that the holy spirit gently points us to the christian god, convicts us, and generally acts as the little cartoon angel over our shoulder.

 

That explains a lot as far as xian responses go, but if blasphemy is ignoring the still small voice, then how do you specifically blaspheme jesus, as opposed to specifically blaspheming the holy spirit? (Mt 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.)

 

All of what you described is blasphemy but blaspeming the Spirit is like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. The HS is the one who leads us to repent and if we don't repent we can't be saved.

[mwc]

The HS doesn't like to live in a body with a bit of smoke but a massive colon packed with gas and shit is A-OK?

 

mwc

[ShackledNoMore]

Thumbelina: I don't smoke, my body is the temple of the HS.

Yeah, I used to think that smoking defiled the temple of the hs, too, when I was a xian.

 

It's great that you don't smoke, but 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 actually refers to sexual immorality. That means, by the bible's logic, if you have succumbed carnal desires, or given into temptation to beat the bishop or touch the burning bush, or even experienced urgings and lusted after that hottie, then yes, you too, have defiled the temple of the hs. Yep, that means just about everybody, including the most pious of you xians.

 

Those instructions are for the whole person and not just sexuality, everything starts in the mind, if the thoughts are correct then the actions will be correct. Yes, you are agreeing with the bible, we all fall short of God's standard which is why the bible stipulates we need a savior.

Not agreeing, just reporting.

[blackpudd1n]

From my understanding of blasphemy against the holy spirit, I've done it, am doing it, and will continue to do it 'cause i've never felt so damn free and peaceful in all my life!!!

 

Now, I'm not going to berate thumbelina here. I find it interesting that she is on these forums, arguing so hard for god's case. To me, it begs the question of why. You know, thumbelina, I am a recent deconvert. My doubts started long ago, but I only, in the last couple of weeks, finally saw the true light and realised my whole belief system was little more than a lie. That being said, along my doubtful way, there were many times I screamed at the top of my lungs (metaphorically) the case for god. Really I was only desperate to convince myself, to hold onto the faith, to block out any and all arguments.

 

Don't feel you've backed yourself into a corner, thumb. I'm sure you will still be welcome here when you jump ship

[Foxy Methoxy]

Hold up. Serpent is a metaphor for a man with a really big penis. Forbidden fruit is a three way between Adam, Eve, and the walking, talking, lying naughty serpent. Adam, Eve, and Mr Serpent got naughty together and afterward, Adam and Eve were so ashamed, they hid their genitals from God. Eve gave birth to fraternal twins, Cain and Abel. Cain was of the serpent's sperm and Abel of Adam's. Thus, when Cain murdered Abel the original sin of hot three way sex begat the sin of murder.

 

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the issue of blasphemy.

 

Carry on.

[Suzy]

From my understanding of blasphemy against the holy spirit, I've done it, am doing it, and will continue to do it 'cause i've never felt so damn free and peaceful in all my life!!!

 

 

 

Amen! Same here.

 

As a Christian I was constantly worrying about not to accidentally commit the unforgivable sin. Now all that fear is gone. Great to be free of all the BS!