Xian Catalyst
Member
NO, you tell it how you THINK it is, then present it as if it was, hoping you'll ride the point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Blaspheming The Holy Spirit!
- Thread starter Satan's Right Hand Man
- Start date
NO, you tell it how you THINK it is, then present it as if it was, hoping you'll ride the point.
Xian Catalyst
Member
Psycho,
Your great great great great grandfather didn't exist. Therefore, the laws of reproduction tell me that YOU don't exist. Since you don't exist, I don't have to be nice to this manifestation of our imagination, this ghost from the sky, that is typing in this forum.
I'm just telling it like it is.
Your great great great great grandfather didn't exist. Therefore, the laws of reproduction tell me that YOU don't exist. Since you don't exist, I don't have to be nice to this manifestation of our imagination, this ghost from the sky, that is typing in this forum.
I'm just telling it like it is.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
And that is how it should be, just tell it like it is, agreeing and not agreeing is another story, I don,t agree with you and you don't agree with me, and that is how it should be.....lets face it non if us really know anything.
Xian Catalyst
Member
And that is how it should be, just tell it like it is, agreeing and not agreeing is another story, I don,t agree with you and you don't agree with me, and that is how it should be.....lets face it non if us really know anything.
Nope, I know you don't exist. You couldn't without a great great.... grandpappy.
So you aren't here, and as such your opine doesn't matter.
Xian Catalyst
Member
I don't mind disagreeing. In fact I look for the disagreement, that's where you learn stuff. When someone presents a hunch as if it were proven fact, then....... I'll rear up everytime.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Nope, I know you don't exist. You couldn't without a great great.... grandpappy.
So you aren't here, and as such your opine doesn't matter.
Yes in truth I don't exist, for I am not truly the mind body organism with all of its conditioning and programming, in truth I am all there IS, Consciousness, God whatever you want to label it as. The so called holy spirit is the realizarion that I am not this mind body, when this is realized I then become the Christ, and through the Christ I realize that I am one with the father, or Consciousness, its like a three step process in becoming who you truly are.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
That blasphemy is considered such a horrendous sin (much like non belief) has always puzzled me.
Why is it that in so many religious traditions not holding beliefs to the same level of sanctity (let alone accuracy) or expressing amusement or even simple reservation about the beliefs is so immensely wrong? There is something awry when blasphemy / non-belief is comparable to behaviors with directly resultant objectively negative outcomes such as theft or lying let alone murder. But in some religious traditions they go a step further - rather than merely comparable, blasphemy / non-belief are considered orders of magnitude more serious and more deserving of punishment than the most heinous imaginable behaviors (and their outcomes).
To me it smacks of psychosis, attempting to weigh the alleged supernatural outcome of god being unhappy (with no way to determine if this is true or the extent of the negative impact were it true) of blasphemy / non-belief, against the very real and discernible outcomes of real negative behavior (such as drink driving leading to an accident and a child losing their limb as a result, or a man becoming violent during an argument and another man losing their life as a result), behaviors with outcomes that can be objectively verified to actually occur - and we can even to an extent determine the (negative) impact of those outcomes.
Were these religious traditions correct in their claims about the severity of the punishments for blasphemy / non-belief, it would suggest that god(s) (or systems) was predisposed to reward psychosis (of ignoring observable outcomes of behaviors in favor of non observable outcomes claimed to occur) - that it was in effect desiring us to be irrational and just how does that reflect on such god(s) (or systems) other than to suggest a profound, disturbing and contemptible disregard for rationality. That is if they are right, which there is no reason whatsoever to believe is the case even were you to believe in the supernatural, god(s) or even theistic god(s) - there is no reason to suggest that your god(s) (or systems) would hold rationality in such utter contempt and that it would consider the unverifiable supernatural (negative) impacts of the outcomes of our actions so overwhelmingly more important in it's consideration of us than the (negative) outcomes of our behaviors that we could reasonably have been considered to have had the opportunity to be aware of.
There is something very wrong with the concept that blasphemy / non-belief are infinitely worse than murder, pedophilia, rape or torture... something indescribably twisted.
edit:
Why is it that in so many religious traditions not holding beliefs to the same level of sanctity (let alone accuracy) or expressing amusement or even simple reservation about the beliefs is so immensely wrong? There is something awry when blasphemy / non-belief is comparable to behaviors with directly resultant objectively negative outcomes such as theft or lying let alone murder. But in some religious traditions they go a step further - rather than merely comparable, blasphemy / non-belief are considered orders of magnitude more serious and more deserving of punishment than the most heinous imaginable behaviors (and their outcomes).
To me it smacks of psychosis, attempting to weigh the alleged supernatural outcome of god being unhappy (with no way to determine if this is true or the extent of the negative impact were it true) of blasphemy / non-belief, against the very real and discernible outcomes of real negative behavior (such as drink driving leading to an accident and a child losing their limb as a result, or a man becoming violent during an argument and another man losing their life as a result), behaviors with outcomes that can be objectively verified to actually occur - and we can even to an extent determine the (negative) impact of those outcomes.
Were these religious traditions correct in their claims about the severity of the punishments for blasphemy / non-belief, it would suggest that god(s) (or systems) was predisposed to reward psychosis (of ignoring observable outcomes of behaviors in favor of non observable outcomes claimed to occur) - that it was in effect desiring us to be irrational and just how does that reflect on such god(s) (or systems) other than to suggest a profound, disturbing and contemptible disregard for rationality. That is if they are right, which there is no reason whatsoever to believe is the case even were you to believe in the supernatural, god(s) or even theistic god(s) - there is no reason to suggest that your god(s) (or systems) would hold rationality in such utter contempt and that it would consider the unverifiable supernatural (negative) impacts of the outcomes of our actions so overwhelmingly more important in it's consideration of us than the (negative) outcomes of our behaviors that we could reasonably have been considered to have had the opportunity to be aware of.
There is something very wrong with the concept that blasphemy / non-belief are infinitely worse than murder, pedophilia, rape or torture... something indescribably twisted.
edit:
It would be like putting a subject in a room with a two-way mirror, two pressure sensitive floor tiles (one red, one blue) and a dog in a glass cage attached to the roof (with air conditioning). By standing on the red plate the dog will be given a small electric shock and yelp in pain, yet standing on the blue has no observable impact within that room. Subject A decides to stand on the blue square because they do not want to cause the dog harm (and because they do not like the noise it makes).
Suddenly one of the walls (not the mirror) suddenly became transparent and in the next room the same experiment was being run under what appeared exactly the same conditions (when subject B stood on red the dog suspended in their ceiling was being shocked, while on the blue nothing seemed to happen). Yet unlike in the first case, Subject B (standing on red yet looking at the repeatedly electrocuted dog with regret). Yet before subject A could respond to B's behavior, B tells them that in another room a small child was being electrocuted if he stands on blue and that B knew this not as a result of a wall being made transparent for him/her but rather as a result of a 'vision'. Subject A has never had a vision and does not know what they entail or how it could be considered real enough to ignore the objectively negative outcome of the dog being electrocuted right before him/her, but: If B is right, then perhaps A should stand on the red square too because although making the dog suffer is bad, it is worse not to prevent the child being electrocuted.
Another wall becomes transparent, and subject C (seated comfortably on red ignoring the screaming dog) enters the discussion having heard the previous claims they insists that they had a vision, and that there was no child being electrocuted but rather a canary; also that the dog was merely an illusion. If C is right, then perhaps A should stand on the red square too since the dog is an illusion its 'suffering' while disheartening is not real, and could not even be compared to the canary's True suffering.
It is then that the third wall becomes transparent and subject D (standing on the blue) enters the discussion, they once had a vision too - in that vision when he stood on red the dog was not in pain and when he stood on blue the dog was in pain - the precise opposite of the experiment's conditions; yet when D had tested the claims and realized that the vision had been incorrect as it pertained to the room he was in (indeed the dog was shocked when they stood on red and not when standing on blue).
What can we reasonably assume Subject A to be able to recognize:
What possible reason would an observer behind the two-way mirror have to condemn Subject A for standing on the blue tile under such a circumstance?
Suddenly one of the walls (not the mirror) suddenly became transparent and in the next room the same experiment was being run under what appeared exactly the same conditions (when subject B stood on red the dog suspended in their ceiling was being shocked, while on the blue nothing seemed to happen). Yet unlike in the first case, Subject B (standing on red yet looking at the repeatedly electrocuted dog with regret). Yet before subject A could respond to B's behavior, B tells them that in another room a small child was being electrocuted if he stands on blue and that B knew this not as a result of a wall being made transparent for him/her but rather as a result of a 'vision'. Subject A has never had a vision and does not know what they entail or how it could be considered real enough to ignore the objectively negative outcome of the dog being electrocuted right before him/her, but: If B is right, then perhaps A should stand on the red square too because although making the dog suffer is bad, it is worse not to prevent the child being electrocuted.
Another wall becomes transparent, and subject C (seated comfortably on red ignoring the screaming dog) enters the discussion having heard the previous claims they insists that they had a vision, and that there was no child being electrocuted but rather a canary; also that the dog was merely an illusion. If C is right, then perhaps A should stand on the red square too since the dog is an illusion its 'suffering' while disheartening is not real, and could not even be compared to the canary's True suffering.
It is then that the third wall becomes transparent and subject D (standing on the blue) enters the discussion, they once had a vision too - in that vision when he stood on red the dog was not in pain and when he stood on blue the dog was in pain - the precise opposite of the experiment's conditions; yet when D had tested the claims and realized that the vision had been incorrect as it pertained to the room he was in (indeed the dog was shocked when they stood on red and not when standing on blue).
What can we reasonably assume Subject A to be able to recognize:
- Similarities between cells: identical structure of each cell and the observable outcomes of actions in those cells (rectangular room, one two-way mirror, dog attached to ceiling cage, red/blue floor tiles - standing on red resulting in dog apparently being shocked, blue resulting in no apparent outcome in a row of adjacent cells) means that we can reasonably assume that A can assume that A, B, C and D are in near identical circumstances. Therefore A has no reason to believe the possible non observable outcomes of standing on the blue square might be different between cells.
- Fallibility: Subject A has never had a vision, but both B and C claim to have had visions which they claim to be true; D has also claimed to have had a vision yet which they claim to have been false; A cannot know if D really had a vision which was false, but A can know that a claimed vision can be false.
- Falsity: A has no reason to believe blue outcomes differs between cells and the visions of B and C with regards to the blue square are incompatible; therefore A can reasonably assume at least one of these is false.
What possible reason would an observer behind the two-way mirror have to condemn Subject A for standing on the blue tile under such a circumstance?
- Even were two dogs (in the observer's room) to be electrocuted were A to stand on blue - this does not match any of the visions (indeed amusingly enough, D's vision comes closest) nor is there any reason for A to believe that such a circumstance might eventuate were they to stand on blue. Despite two dogs being electrocuted (and thus twice the negative outcome) there is absolutely no reason for the subject to believe this occurs and a rational decision would be to stand on the blue tile. For what reason would this possibly be considered by an observer to be worse than standing on the red?
- Even assume if you like, that C was correct with regards to the dog being an illusion in that the glass cage is an incredibly realistic 3D computer screen. There is still absolutely no rational reason to believe that A has sufficient reason to assume as much or to believe that standing on the red might be better than standing on the blue.
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
That's fine, but when you rear up, where did you get your back up from, did you read it or did someone tell you it was so.....you must find the answer for yourself, this is the only way you will ever realize the truth.
Apparently our God is not merciful enough for you?
Or did you want murderers and rapists to suffer forever?
No, I think I get it? You want to be God and make all the rules. You, like all of humanity, have a very limited understanding of God, but you demand he follow your code of morals ---- even though He says your ways are not My ways and My thoughts are far above your thoughts.
You see this is where humility becomes such a prized virtue. If we do not practice this to some degree, there is no chance of going directly to heaven. To sum: God has made Himself known well enough to mankind and He has revealed all we need to know to be blessed and forgiven and allowed into His kingdom. If that is not good enough for some --- such as those who demand an accounting of a blasphemy charge --- well, I wish you well.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
There is absolutely no consequence to blaspheming something that isn't real. I can blaspheme Santa Claus all day long, it doesn't affect whatever Christmas presents I receive.
Why would you think there is a consequence?
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Which is exactly the same thing theists do, yet they don't acknowledge the point you just made with regard to their faith.
Imagine that.
Shermana
Heretic
There is absolutely no consequence to blaspheming something that isn't real. I can blaspheme Santa Claus all day long, it doesn't affect whatever Christmas presents I receive.
Why would you think there is a consequence?
If it's not real, you should be able to prove conclusively that it's not.
Why do you suppose the text says the Father and Son will forgive blasphemies against them, but not the Spirit? What do you suppose was the theological reason and cosmological justification behind this position whether you realize it or not.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Prove unicorns aren't real. If they're not, you should be able to prove they're not, right?
Why should I care what some ancient book of primitive mythology says? You don't care what any of the other ancient books of primitive mythologies say, why should I take yours seriously?
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I dont think anyone should. However if a blasphemer or non believer should suffer forever then absolutely a murderer or rapist should - far more so.
For the record since I don't believe I have ever spoken with you (unless you have changed your name) and therefore likely you do not know what my theological position is, I am a user of the ignostic (no not agnostic) approach to theological positions (though I am not strictly an ignostic). I suppose if it makes it easier for you to understand I do not believe in anything that you would likely consider a god, but I am not atheistic. I do not want to be god, I do not believe any god (which actually exists) is anything more than a term we give to a psychological construction of humans (or other intelligent beings) as such he/she/it/they can make no rules, but rather believers in god(s) make rules and either believe or pretend to believe that they are divine rules. It may be possible for god(s) to exist (depending on how one defines the term) but I do not believe in any other than as natural concepts such as psychological constructions or as a term given to natural laws etc.
If his/her/it's/their thoughts are 'above' (or rather more fully developed than) my own thoughts, that would merely mean that they have additional reasoning - which would mean that upon further consideration that it would be possible (though perhaps impractical) for us to arrive at the same conclusion. See the problem is, there is no reason to suggest that 'my thoughts are above yours' implies that it can fail to meet even mere human levels of intelligence or ethics, if god is 'above' us then there should clearly be a far more accurate and elegant refutation of my position, one that I would therefore be willing to engage with were it to presented to me. So then why is blasphemy / non belief more deserving of punishment than genocide? Go for it. Now perhaps it is impossible for you to do so, that would not of course inherently mean some god(s) could not refute my reasoning (that would be a ridiculous assertion), however it would demonstrate that I have no rational reason to assume that it is reasonable that blasphemy / non belief is orders of magnitude more deserving of punishment than observable outcomes of real negative behavior.
Which god(s)? Because if any of the other gods are real and the one(s) you adhere to is not - you are committing blasphemy and yet there is no way to suggest that the god(s) that you happen to believe in are the correct ones if there even are god(s) to begin with which there is no way to suggest need be the case. Perhaps a little humility with regards to your assertion of theological claims might be in order.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Prove unicorns aren't real. If they're not, you should be able to prove they're not, right?
Okay, burden of proof for your own assertions is not your thing I see.
Okay, so you're not really interested in a discussion on the specific issues of this theological concept, thank you for your input.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
Yeah, it doesn't work that way, not believing in something is one thing, proclaiming that zero of something is not the same thing.
The burden of proof still rests with the person who made the original claim. Any suggestion relies on it's own evidence so to speak.
If i were him i'd at the very least refrain from discussing it with you and other dishonest people who will do their damnedest to twist your words to "win" the debate.
That's an interesting question. Why do you think a distinction was made?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Of course I tell it how I think it is, its my experience, not secondhand, and riding the point, there is nothing for me to prove to you or anyone else, that is why you can never argue with me, what I experience within myself is what i share, what you experience is what you share, if its wrong its wrong, if its right its right, no big deal.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I think that everyone creates and embraces his own God and that everyone insists that God follow his own moral code.
Would you follow a God who approved of rape and murder? I doubt it. You would likely insist that any true God not approve of rape and murder. If faced with a God who approved of those, you would reject Him as a true God, I think.
For myself, I reject any God who would send physical words to physical men and expect me to take those words as somehow holy. There would be too much confusion in such behavior, and no true God would want to confuse us.