The circle of error

[quinntar]

What is it to blasphemy the holy spirit? I'd like to know, so I can fucking do it! Why? Because then I can at least have that to discourage Christian's with, who always seem to think "It's OK, Jesus can forgive you"

 

Don't you hate that theology, that even our exeness is just a function of our sin nature and will be forgiven if we turn back to Jesus.

In their minds can we ever leave their god. They say salvation is a free choice, but it can't be if I can't actually leave and I can return anytime.

[1989]

If memory serves, and it probably doesn't, the unforgivable sin is to give credit to the devil for the miracles of Christ.  Many theologians believe that since Christ isn't here, you can't perform the sin, since there are no testable miracles to criticize.  So sorry, you'll just have to be an average blasphemer like the rest of us.

[Geezer]

This is another example of the whole rewards/punishment scheme that is the basis for all religions. Follow the rules and God will reward you, but disobey and God will punish you. And since God knows everything you do, even all of your thoughts, there is no escaping or fooling God. 

 

 

[mwc]

9 hours ago, theanticrash said:

What is it to blasphemy the holy spirit? I'd like to know, so I can fucking do it! Why? Because then I can at least have that to discourage Christian's with, who always seem to think "It's OK, Jesus can forgive you"

 

Don't you hate that theology, that even our exeness is just a function of our sin nature and will be forgiven if we turn back to Jesus.

In their minds can we ever leave their god. They say salvation is a free choice, but it can't be if I can't actually leave and I can return anytime.

     Well, people tend to disagree with me on this since they tend to think it has to be more, but in the olden days it basically worked out to saying that someone wasn't really all they cracked up to be.  So it was essentially blasphemy to say the king wasn't special in all his kingly ways (whatever ways those were).  So blasphemy would be do the same for whatever the holy spirit is supposed to be able to do or is about.  Off the top of my head I don't know what the holy spirit is good for.  That's not a blasphemy though.  That's just me drawing a blank.  I guess it's supposed to maybe give some specific gifts?  Well, to say it can't would be a blasphemy.  It diminishes the poor fellow.

 

     The other folks, the ones that disagree with me, would say a blasphemy would be more like this: "Fuck the holy spirit!"  Pretty simply that.  It's also probably true as well but a little more vulgar (not that I care...I swear like a sailor).  But I don't know if the authors really had the whole idea of people simply using swears like that in mind.  It seems a little out of place for their narratives.  But I can't say either way.  Maybe I'm trying to be too clever for my own good?

 

     Anyhow, just cuss the thing and that should do it.  It annoys xians though and they likely won't listen to you afterwards (that could be good or bad depending on what you're trying to accomplish and they may just see it like "God dammit" or some other curse word instead of you eternal, irrevocable, damnation).

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

On 7/24/2018 at 12:15 AM, theanticrash said:

What is it to blasphemy the holy spirit? I'd like to know, so I can fucking do it! Why? Because then I can at least have that to discourage Christian's with, who always seem to think "It's OK, Jesus can forgive you"

 

Don't you hate that theology, that even our exeness is just a function of our sin nature and will be forgiven if we turn back to Jesus.

In their minds can we ever leave their god. They say salvation is a free choice, but it can't be if I can't actually leave and I can return anytime.

 

Blasphemy, claiming to be god when you aren't god. 

 

Blaspheming the holy spirit, claiming to be or spoken through by the holy spirit if you are not the holy spirit or being spoken through as such. 

 

See how this makes more sense about being unpardonable. Falsely speaking as of the holy spirit, unpardonable. But guess what, having said that, how many tongues forging Penta-cost-all's playing make believe with each other have done just that, blasphemed the holy spirit spouting illegible nonsense. Ellen G White, founder of SDA's claimed to have the "spirit of prophecy." But she made several false prophecies such as claiming that, in the late 19th century, she was told by an angel that, " Old Jerusalem will never be built up." There were many more false prophecies, but only one is needed to cement this sort of "unpardonable sin" on her part, blapheming the "spirit of prophecy."  @Davidx

 

Now of course this is based on a jewish context of blasphemy. What's blasphemy for jews was rich spirituality for Buddhists and Hindu's, for instance. And Jesus was, per the myth, supposedly killed on the charge of blasphemy. So blasphemy if true, fine and dandy. Blasphemy if false, unpardonable. People tend to run all over the place with the unpardonable sin but when you narrow it down like this into the context of blasphemy itself it seems pretty straight foward what was probably meant by it. 

 

If you want to blaspheme the holy spirit on purpose, the above is the key to doing so. 

 

And if you did do it as described above, not saying fuck the holy spirit, but claiming that you yourself are filled with the holy spirit (blasphemy of the holy spirit) I bet you'd scare the living hell out at some christians because it's very blatant blasphemy put that way. That's like going around dressed in a robe claiming to be Jesus. 

[quinntar]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Blasphemy, claiming to be god when you aren't god. 

 

Blaspheming the holy spirit, claiming to be or spoken through by the holy spirit if you are not the holy spirit or being spoken through as such. 

 

See how this makes more sense about being unpardonable. Falsely speaking as of the holy spirit, unpardonable. But guess what, having said that, how many tongues forging Penta-cost-all's playing make believe with each other have done just that, blasphemed the holy spirit spouting illegible nonsense. Ellen G White, founder of SDA's claimed to have the "spirit of prophecy." But she made several false prophecies such as claiming that, in the late 19th century, she was told by an angel that, " Old Jerusalem will never be built up." There were many more false prophecies, but only one is needed to cement this sort of "unpardonable sin" on her part, blapheming the "spirit of prophecy."  @Davidx

 

Now of course this is based on a jewish context of blasphemy. What's blasphemy for jews was rich spirituality for Buddhists and Hindu's, for instance. And Jesus was, per the myth, supposedly killed on the charge of blasphemy. So blasphemy if true, fine and dandy. Blasphemy if false, unpardonable. People tend to run all over the place with the unpardonable sin but when you narrow it down like this into the context of blasphemy itself it seems pretty straight foward what was probably meant by it. 

 

If you want to blaspheme the holy spirit on purpose, the above is the key to doing so. 

 

And if you did do it as described above, not saying fuck the holy spirit, but claiming that you yourself are filled with the holy spirit (blasphemy of the holy spirit) I bet you'd scare the living hell out at some christians because it's very blatant blasphemy put that way. That's like going around dressed in a robe claiming to be Jesus. 

That sound's astrologically sound.

[TrailBlazer]

Watch a movie titled: “The Life Of Brian”.  

-blasphemous jokes all around. 

[◊ DestinyTurtle ◊]

On 7/24/2018 at 12:15 AM, sunstring said:

What is it to blasphemy the holy spirit? I'd like to know, so I can fucking do it! Why? Because then I can at least have that to discourage Christian's with, who always seem to think "It's OK, Jesus can forgive you"

 

Don't you hate that theology, that even our exeness is just a function of our sin nature and will be forgiven if we turn back to Jesus.

In their minds can we ever leave their god. They say salvation is a free choice, but it can't be if I can't actually leave and I can return anytime.

Weirdly enough I've thought about this a lot. I tend to be of the opinion (which others in this site might disagree, with varying degrees of good argument -- chill out now, I'm not claiming to be an expert... it's just an opinion :P) that many biblical stories actually have pretty good moral messages (which you don't have to be a Xian to appreciate), which got distorted, probably by some power hungry individual or institution.

 

If I remember correctly the context in which Jesus brings up the idea of blaspheming the holy spirit is when the Pharisees accuse him of healing the sick with the power of the Devil. Now... for the purpose of argument we'll just assume miracles are real (suspension of disbelief). Healing the sick is a pretty nice thing to do, and giving hope and a future to people who otherwise didn't think they could have it is also pretty damn nice... and after ALL THAT, the Pharisees got jealous and accused him of being evil.

 

If I can judge by the rest of the bible Jesus's central message is the exact opposite... which is that everyone can be forgiven by principle because God is love. This obviously raises the question: "Why did he say blasphemy of the holy spirit is unforgivable?" The interpretation of this passage goes all over the place, which is rooted in the fact that the "holy spirit" itself is a vaguely defined and ambiguous thing, much more so what it means to "blaspheme" it. 

 

Without going too much into the precise meaning of those words, I think, given the context, it seems to me like he's saying "If you can look at a nice thing like this and still call it evil, then there really is no goodness in anything for you is there? Even forgiveness is something beyond your reach, in reception or in comprehension." 

 

or to put it more simply... "You can't have ANYTHING nice."

 

I look around at certain brands of Xianity nowadays and there are seriously a lot of people who distorted morality to the point that they'll even claim things like charity and kindness is evil... because any money should go to your paster or your paster's favorite politician, and anyone who is suffering *obviously* did something wrong in the eyes of the LorDeh. It's kind of like they're throwing mud at the very idea of goodness, and in so much as "holy spirit" is a vague marker for something divinely symbolic of goodness in general, it seems to me a potentially sensible interpretation of "blaspheming the holy spirit" is to make a mockery of the idea of doing anything good for other people, in general. I think in the story Jesus might have been trying to freak them out by suggesting that if they believed so poorly of good acts in general... that even they are separate from receiving anything good in the word, spiritually thinking.

 

Or. I may be waaaay overthinking this. Just sharing!

 

@sunstring - I realize I didn't really help your point. Sorry! I hope you figure out some way to shake those pesky Xians who are trying to make everything about them or their religion!

 

[Joshpantera]

Quote

 

²³ So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? ²⁴ If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. ²⁵ If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. ²⁶ And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. ²⁷ In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. ²⁸ Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, ²⁹ but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

³⁰ He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

 

 

From the whole context of the myth, it looks like the writer has the hero character (yeshua) trying to justify his own so called usage of the holy spirit through healing and casting out demons. They accept the miracles, but ascribe them to satan. So the writer of Mark has the hero character reasoning that he can not be blaspheming the holy spirit because satan can not cast out satan. Only god can cast out satan. So it's not a blasphemy, but a demonstration of the truth of his godliness. Oh and BTW, FYI, jewish religious leaders, anyone who does blaspheme the spirit will be eternally guilty and never forgiven. As if to further show that he's not blaspheming the spirit when doing miracles. And trying to distance himself from the accusation by denouncing wrongful miracle working as an unforgivable blasphemy and showing that he's aware of the consequences of blaspheming spirit. It all looks like a defensive move. 

 

If the writer switched usages of blasphemy from the accusation that jesus was blaspheming to introducing a second definition of blaspheming as mocking someone for doing good, it doesn't make a lot of sense. But then again, none of this makes very much sense and it's all full contradiction and error. So maybe I've tried making too much sense of something that has always been nonsense anyways, and correctly interpreted as nonsense that's inconsistent with itself as of the same chapter.  

 

 

[mwc]

     Blasphemy [The Jewish Encyclopedia].

 

     It has no real solid answers either but it does mention that it seems, for the most part, that the actual name of god had to be said for it to be considered blasphemy (not always in all times and places...which you'll see if you read it).

 

     If this is the most general case though, then, it would seem fairly impossible to ever blaspheme the holy spirit unless that is its actual name (which seems silly).  The holy spirit seems like an attribute of god, essentially a circumlocution which evolved into a third entity of the godhead, which means you'd have to say the name of god to commit an actual blasphemy according to the Jews.  Now, will any name for god do or do we have to use the one and only name for god?  The one that no one seems to actually know for certain?  Because even the tetragrammatron is disputed.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     Blasphemy [The Jewish Encyclopedia].

 

     It has no real solid answers either but it does mention that it seems, for the most part, that the actual name of god had to be said for it to be considered blasphemy (not always in all times and places...which you'll see if you read it).

 

     If this is the most general case though, then, it would seem fairly impossible to ever blaspheme the holy spirit unless that is its actual name (which seems silly).  The holy spirit seems like an attribute of god, essentially a circumlocution which evolved into a third entity of the godhead, which means you'd have to say the name of god to commit an actual blasphemy according to the Jews.  Now, will any name for god do or do we have to use the one and only name for god?  The one that no one seems to actually know for certain?  Because even the tetragrammatron is disputed.

 

          mwc

 

 

It says attributes are considered blasphemy. It seems that if I said, "I am the aleph and tau," garments would have to be rent. If I said, "fuck the everlasting," they'd be ripping garments to shreds. It seems whether claiming to be god or cursing god, they call both blasphemy. This is generally consistent with most christian beliefs from what I know. In my church they taught that denying the holy spirit trying to speak to you, shutting him out, is the unpardonable sin. How they got that from the verses in question seems a far stretch. The idea was that if you deny the spirit for too long then it's over and he'll drop you like a rock. But at the same time they would have considered either claiming to be god or cursing god to be a blasphemy. So they take the inconsistent within the same chapter, abrupt change in definition route. 

 

On 8/2/2018 at 8:17 AM, Joshpantera said:

So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? ²⁴ If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. ²⁵ If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. ²⁶ And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. ²⁷ In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. ²⁸ Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, ²⁹ but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

³⁰ He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

 

I was doing some thinking on this today. Another thing occur'd to me about the writers problem with consistency. 

 

He has the hero myth character (jesus) making the assertion that satan can not drive out satan. Because evil can not drive out evil, basically. But this fails to consider several issues. In the first place, satan is said to masquerade as being of light. The ultimate deceiver, more often than not, comes as if an angel or god, claiming to be light, not claiming to be darkness and certainly not claiming to be the devil.

 

There's no deception in coming as the darkness, as the devil point blank and obvious. The whole point of master deception is tricking people into thinking it's god they're dealing with, not satan. So the whole argument coming from jesus (the writer putting words into the hero characters mouth) is extremely short sided, and contradicted by the rest of the bible. Of course satan would do something like pretend to cast out demons so that everyone watching would think he was god. That's actually the very point of the mythological trickster character and his role in the mythology. So this is probably one of the dumbest biblical arguments made by a gospel writer:

 

2 CORINTHIANS 11:14

 

KJ21

And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

[mwc]

On 8/3/2018 at 5:21 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

It says attributes are considered blasphemy. It seems that if I said, "I am the aleph and tau," garments would have to be rent. If I said, "fuck the everlasting," they'd be ripping garments to shreds. It seems whether claiming to be god or cursing god, they call both blasphemy. This is generally consistent with most christian beliefs from what I know. In my church they taught that denying the holy spirit trying to speak to you, shutting him out, is the unpardonable sin. How they got that from the verses in question seems a far stretch. The idea was that if you deny the spirit for too long then it's over and he'll drop you like a rock. But at the same time they would have considered either claiming to be god or cursing god to be a blasphemy. So they take the inconsistent within the same chapter, abrupt change in definition route. 

     I don't know how true any of this might be.  At least in common usage.

 

     We're told that jesus was accused of blasphemy and no one bothered to rend their garments.  If this was so common (the rending of garments) then the author should have known this and included it but they didn't know/bother.  Or maybe we should assume that they would have rent their garments had jesus not had that really cool explanation for his supposed blasphemy and people were really reasonable about getting explanations when people committed this error?  They had their hands ready to rip their clothes apart like those guys in movies with their fingers on the triggers "Just give me an excuse, punk!"

 

     Even the encyclopedia entry seems to land on the hyperbolic reason that everyone stopped because their clothes would just be shreds because everyone was just doing it so often. 

 

     What I'd like to find would be some actual examples of blasphemy from that time period (beyond what jesus said) but I'm coming up empty handed so far.  I'm thinking this wasn't something they recorded.  It seems this was something you sort of knew as a part of the culture which makes it tricky for us to define in concrete terms.

 

     The bible really only has blasphemy against the name punishable by death.  Any other sort of blasphemy would then have to carry a lighter sentence.  My reasoning would then be that blasphemy against the holy spirit would have to be the same as a death sentence in that it is permanent.  Once done it is done.  It can't be a lesser form with a lesser punishment even if the initial response is the same.

 

     If the holy spirit is an attribute of god then it seems unlikely that anyone would get the death penalty for blaspheming it under the law.  The initial response may well have been the same but the punishment would have been something less than death.  Less than permanent.  It could be the xians created a new class of blasphemy putting this equal, or above, saying the holy name. 

 

          mwc

 

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

We're told that jesus was accused of blasphemy and no one bothered to rend their garments.  If this was so common (the rending of garments) then the author should have known this and included it but they didn't know/bother. 

 

For some reason that scene didn't warrant it. But the writer knew about the custom because further along at the trial it comes up: 

 

Matthew 26:63-65 New International Version (NIV)

⁶³ But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God:Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

⁶⁴ “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”^[a]

⁶⁵ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

 

 

2 hours ago, mwc said:

What I'd like to find would be some actual examples of blasphemy from that time period (beyond what jesus said) but I'm coming up empty handed so far.  I'm thinking this wasn't something they recorded.  It seems this was something you sort of knew as a part of the culture which makes it tricky for us to define in concrete terms.

 

Yeah, that would make for a good study. 

 

 

[mwc]

10 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

For some reason that scene didn't warrant it. But the writer knew about the custom because further along at the trial it comes up: 

 

Matthew 26:63-65 New International Version (NIV)

⁶³ But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God:Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

⁶⁴ “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”^[a]

⁶⁵ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

 

     Ah.  Well there you go.  I didn't bother to look anything up and I obviously forgot about this time.

 

     I have to say that I'm not any closer to knowing what blaspheming the holy spirit is then.  If they didn't tear their clothes at one accusation of blasphemy but did at another then I'm at a loss.  It's not like they waited for any explanation here.  So apparently blasphemy can be an "eye of the beholder" thing?  I don't know.  I'm almost back to thinking it's cultural and to know it you'd have to be in that culture (without ample examples which we don't seem to have).

 

     At no point is blasphemy against the holy spirit explained.  It just is.  I started off thinking it was simply diminishing the spirit (or attributes) but since the laws only define a single thing that amounts to death I started leaning that direction only how can something with no name ever be blasphemed?  I've painted myself into a corner.  It can't be that unless the holy spirit has a name.  Either the same as god and we're to know that or another name that we're not privy to?  Or maybe we are?  Perhaps jesus (I'm just spit-balling since the name was never actually written out and was instead nomina sacra)?

 

          mwc

 

[L.B.]

On 7/24/2018 at 9:12 AM, Geezer said:

This is another example of the whole rewards/punishment scheme that is the basis for all religions. Follow the rules and God will reward you, but disobey and God will punish you. And since God knows everything you do, even all of your thoughts, there is no escaping or fooling God. 

 

 

 

I have to object slightly - not ALL religions teach that obeying rules brings reward and disobeying brings punishment. There is a philosophy/religion that teaches that "disobedience" is really more just a matter of self-sabotage - in other words, you don't get "punished" by some standalone god-being somewhere; rather, you just don't grow and advance in all the ways that are possible. It's just like eating crappy. processed foods - yes, they can nourish you to a point, but the crappier and less natural your food choices are, the less good they will do, and the more side-effects you'll have to deal with. Making the better choices just doesn't have a down side.

 

Hope that made a little bit of sense.