FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Because those are human traits, and there is enough room in my opinion to argue that "made in" (not just his, but their image--whoever the Us is referring too), is physical and not emotional or the likes.
-
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
Because those are human traits, and there is enough room in my opinion to argue that "made in" (not just his, but their image--whoever the Us is referring too), is physical and not emotional or the likes.
Shermana
Heretic
What's wrong with human traits?
Why is it necessarily bad to feel jealousy if you're jilted? Why is a "Supreme Being" supposed to be above that? Why can't he have feelings? What if being made in the "Physical image" means also being endowed with the same kinds of emotional chemicals and circuitry?
I'd think if the Supreme Being wasn't affected from such, he'd be a bit of a loser. Perhaps none of you are familiar with the concept of righteous indignation. Sometimes dignity demands an angry reaction.
Shermana
Heretic
What's the difference between a "local tribal god" and a "Transcendent, Cosmic god" other than their jurisdiction exactly?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
I am. It's a fancy way of saying hissy fit.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If I had a troubled child, I would try to approach the situation with patience, pity, and understanding. Also, parent/child relationships usually involve communication, interaction, and intervention. And as for using marriage as an analogy, that involves two-way trust and commitment between equal partners. So neither are really fitting comparisons.
The point is that it's quite silly to attempt to anthropomorphize an infinite, immanent, all encompassing entity.
So in your eyes god is essentially a space ape? No, your (perception and portrayal of) god was made in man's image, not the other way around.
Incorrect, it simply doesn't make sense for a being of infinite logic, wisdom compassion and understanding to behave in such an all-too-human manner.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Jurisdiction is enough to explain it. A tribal god might be jealous of the other gods in the area. So he would see the whole thing as a contest and be upset to hear people blaspheming him. He wants to be worshipped, while the other gods are blasphemed.
But a transcendent, cosmic God would likely feel no such jealousy.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
They're finite, limiting, flawed and while they serve a purpose for organic lifeforms, would be completely arbitrary and irrational for a supreme being to possess.
It's perfectly fine for simians.
Because they would cease to be "perfect" if they struggled with emotion and ego.
Then such a being is just a human with super powers rather than an actual infinite, omnimax entity.
Your "god" is essentially the projection of your own emotions and ego.
The unpardonable sin as you orthodox call it was at the end of the last age which I will call the age of law; because the new age of the church had not begun. But just like the age of the law their are men of God who could not comprehended the new spiritual principles.
Pharisees and rulers that they might lose their hold on the people and they were willing to do almost anything to keep the people from following Jesus. They were proud of the reputation they had among the people; that fed their pride, supported their power, and filled their purses. They saw very clearly that if the popularity and power of Jesus continued to rise, their power would be absolutely gone. Upon occasion they said, "What can we do?" for "the world is gone after Him." It was necessary for the Pharisees to account for the wonder that had been wrought in some way. Whatever way they chose, it was necessary that they should acknowledge that there was super-human power; the people were fully persuaded of this and no man could deny it. So the Pharisees proclaimed to the people, "This man casts out demons only by and with the help of Beelzebub, the prince of demons."
Jesus addresses these stem words to the self-righteous religious leaders of the Jewish nation. Jesus said. words as these demand our careful attention for two reasons: first, in order that we may place no untrue emphasis on them; and, secondly, that we may by no means minimize their terrible meaning. We are in danger of making both these mistakes. We may read into them meanings which He never intended; or we may explain away the most solemn words Jesus Christ ever uttered. The only way in which we can hope to understand, is by taking them in the simplest way possible. Our Lord declared, in the words of the King James Bible, "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Mat. 12:31-32).
The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is the activity, the action, the motion, the operation, the force, the energy, the influence of God toward men. The English word "spirit" is from the Latin SPIRARE, meaning "to breathe," the words "respiration," "expiration," and "inspiration" all being derived from the same source. Similarly the Greek word PNEUMA comes from PNEO, meaning "to breathe or blow," and the Hebrew RUAHH is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. The Holy Spirit is God's breath, God's out-breathing, God's ENERGY FORCE by which He accomplishes His purpose and executes His will. Many times we have thought of the Holy Spirit as "power," and certainly He has power, but power is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, inactively resident in someone or something. "Force," on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exerted on persons or things, and may be defined as "an influence which produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion." "Power" might be likened to the stored energy in a battery, while "force" could be compared to the current flowing from such battery. "Force," then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God's Spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the scriptures.
Thus, the Holy Spirit is God's ENERGY FORCE. It is God's energy force projected and exerted upon man. It is God's motion, action and influence in one measure or another upon man. Hence that Spirit is also spoken of as God's "hand" or "fingers." Jesus told the Pharisees, "If I cast out devils by the SPIRIT of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you" (Mat. 12:28). But Luke, in recording the same event, expresses it thus: "If I with the FINGER of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you" (Lk. 11:20). The Holy Spirit is the working, the activity of God usward.
Let's look at that for just a moment. The religious rulers were not in danger of committing the unpardonable sin because they said that Jesus performed miracles by the power of the devil. That is not the condemnation. He says that ALL BLASPHEMIES shall be forgiven men. There is not a sin that you committed yesterday but what if you come to Christ today He would forgive you and accept you. His mercies are higher than the heavens. What then was their problem? They were expressing an attitude of unbelief which was persistent and calculated rejection of the activity of God toward them. They were resisting the Holy Spirit, striving against the influence of God acting upon their minds and hearts. Notice that later on Stephen was brought before this same group, and he said to them the same thing the Lord Jesus had said: "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you" (Acts 7:51). They were doing the same thing their fathers had done. In Christ's day they were resisting the Holy Spirit, and the same condition exists today - they are still resisting the Holy Spirit!
Their sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit ran deeper than this. It was not their attitude toward an unseen and invisible God in heaven. It was not their treatment of God manifested outwardly in the flesh before their eyes. It was, rather, their reviling of God's SPIRITUAL ENERGY FORCE, their utter and complete contempt for His illuminating and transforming ACTIVITY TOWARD THEM BY SPIRIT, their impious response to the GRACIOUS ACTION AND INFLUENCE of God in mighty spirit power as He touched the deepest chords within their hearts by the moving and wooing and brooding of the Holy Ghost.
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaks a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Mat. 12:31-32).
I am glad that Jesus said that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men. I believe that is true. ALL manner. There is no kind of sin, which because of its kind, or manner, is unpardonable. The enemies of the truth of the ultimate salvation of all men have relied on this dissertation about the unpardonable sin given by our Lord, as their outstanding bulwark of defense against those who affirm that Christ is indeed the Saviour of all men, the Saviour of the world. Invariably, when the certainty of eternal torment is discussed and doubted, the sin against the Holy Ghost is brought forward as an impregnable defense against forgiveness hereafter for at least one sin. Few know how to reply. Here is what the Lord said: "But whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." On the surface it seems conclusive to the unthinking; and it has equally seemed so to learned theologians who have been trained in the channels of orthodox thinking. Yet, as a matter of fact, these words of our Lord are among the strongest collateral evidence that can be produced in support of the truth of the reconciliation of all men to God. Hearken! A sin against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven in this "world," nor in the "world" to come.
While the King James version states that the sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come, that is not quite the meaning of the Greek. The Greek word here translated "world" is AION. This word AION has been translated into fifteen different English words and phrases, many of which convey the wrong meaning entirely. The simple meaning of AION is "age." An AION is "an age." Two AION(S) are two "ages." A thousand AION(S) are a thousand "ages." We can discuss aion later; for there will always be a debate until that which is perfect has come.
Pharisees and rulers that they might lose their hold on the people and they were willing to do almost anything to keep the people from following Jesus. They were proud of the reputation they had among the people; that fed their pride, supported their power, and filled their purses. They saw very clearly that if the popularity and power of Jesus continued to rise, their power would be absolutely gone. Upon occasion they said, "What can we do?" for "the world is gone after Him." It was necessary for the Pharisees to account for the wonder that had been wrought in some way. Whatever way they chose, it was necessary that they should acknowledge that there was super-human power; the people were fully persuaded of this and no man could deny it. So the Pharisees proclaimed to the people, "This man casts out demons only by and with the help of Beelzebub, the prince of demons."
Jesus addresses these stem words to the self-righteous religious leaders of the Jewish nation. Jesus said. words as these demand our careful attention for two reasons: first, in order that we may place no untrue emphasis on them; and, secondly, that we may by no means minimize their terrible meaning. We are in danger of making both these mistakes. We may read into them meanings which He never intended; or we may explain away the most solemn words Jesus Christ ever uttered. The only way in which we can hope to understand, is by taking them in the simplest way possible. Our Lord declared, in the words of the King James Bible, "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Mat. 12:31-32).
The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is the activity, the action, the motion, the operation, the force, the energy, the influence of God toward men. The English word "spirit" is from the Latin SPIRARE, meaning "to breathe," the words "respiration," "expiration," and "inspiration" all being derived from the same source. Similarly the Greek word PNEUMA comes from PNEO, meaning "to breathe or blow," and the Hebrew RUAHH is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. The Holy Spirit is God's breath, God's out-breathing, God's ENERGY FORCE by which He accomplishes His purpose and executes His will. Many times we have thought of the Holy Spirit as "power," and certainly He has power, but power is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, inactively resident in someone or something. "Force," on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exerted on persons or things, and may be defined as "an influence which produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion." "Power" might be likened to the stored energy in a battery, while "force" could be compared to the current flowing from such battery. "Force," then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God's Spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the scriptures.
Thus, the Holy Spirit is God's ENERGY FORCE. It is God's energy force projected and exerted upon man. It is God's motion, action and influence in one measure or another upon man. Hence that Spirit is also spoken of as God's "hand" or "fingers." Jesus told the Pharisees, "If I cast out devils by the SPIRIT of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you" (Mat. 12:28). But Luke, in recording the same event, expresses it thus: "If I with the FINGER of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you" (Lk. 11:20). The Holy Spirit is the working, the activity of God usward.
Let's look at that for just a moment. The religious rulers were not in danger of committing the unpardonable sin because they said that Jesus performed miracles by the power of the devil. That is not the condemnation. He says that ALL BLASPHEMIES shall be forgiven men. There is not a sin that you committed yesterday but what if you come to Christ today He would forgive you and accept you. His mercies are higher than the heavens. What then was their problem? They were expressing an attitude of unbelief which was persistent and calculated rejection of the activity of God toward them. They were resisting the Holy Spirit, striving against the influence of God acting upon their minds and hearts. Notice that later on Stephen was brought before this same group, and he said to them the same thing the Lord Jesus had said: "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you" (Acts 7:51). They were doing the same thing their fathers had done. In Christ's day they were resisting the Holy Spirit, and the same condition exists today - they are still resisting the Holy Spirit!
Their sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit ran deeper than this. It was not their attitude toward an unseen and invisible God in heaven. It was not their treatment of God manifested outwardly in the flesh before their eyes. It was, rather, their reviling of God's SPIRITUAL ENERGY FORCE, their utter and complete contempt for His illuminating and transforming ACTIVITY TOWARD THEM BY SPIRIT, their impious response to the GRACIOUS ACTION AND INFLUENCE of God in mighty spirit power as He touched the deepest chords within their hearts by the moving and wooing and brooding of the Holy Ghost.
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaks a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Mat. 12:31-32).
I am glad that Jesus said that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men. I believe that is true. ALL manner. There is no kind of sin, which because of its kind, or manner, is unpardonable. The enemies of the truth of the ultimate salvation of all men have relied on this dissertation about the unpardonable sin given by our Lord, as their outstanding bulwark of defense against those who affirm that Christ is indeed the Saviour of all men, the Saviour of the world. Invariably, when the certainty of eternal torment is discussed and doubted, the sin against the Holy Ghost is brought forward as an impregnable defense against forgiveness hereafter for at least one sin. Few know how to reply. Here is what the Lord said: "But whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." On the surface it seems conclusive to the unthinking; and it has equally seemed so to learned theologians who have been trained in the channels of orthodox thinking. Yet, as a matter of fact, these words of our Lord are among the strongest collateral evidence that can be produced in support of the truth of the reconciliation of all men to God. Hearken! A sin against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven in this "world," nor in the "world" to come.
While the King James version states that the sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come, that is not quite the meaning of the Greek. The Greek word here translated "world" is AION. This word AION has been translated into fifteen different English words and phrases, many of which convey the wrong meaning entirely. The simple meaning of AION is "age." An AION is "an age." Two AION(S) are two "ages." A thousand AION(S) are a thousand "ages." We can discuss aion later; for there will always be a debate until that which is perfect has come.
Wuest translates, "Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the one about to come." The Weymouth New Testament reads, "Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit shall obtain forgiveness neither in this age nor in the coming age." The New International Version renders, "Anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." The Emphasized Bible (Rotherham) says, "Whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him either in this age, or the coming." The Concordant New Testament reads, "Whoever may be saying aught against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be pardoned him, neither in this eon nor in that which is impending."
These words of our Lord, so far from proving that the sin against the Holy Spirit is "unpardonable," distinctly assert, - first, that ALL MANNER of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, - secondly, that some sins, those, namely, against the Son of man, can be forgiven in the present age, - and, thirdly, that other sins, against the Holy Ghost, cannot be forgiven either in the age when Jesus came to earth, nor in the age that would immediately follow; which last words clearly indicate that some sins not here forgiven may be forgiven in the next age. That is what the text plainly says. It says absolutely nothing about a sin that is "unpardonable" throughout endless ages to come
We should not fail to note the wording of our Lord's pronouncement as given in Mk. 3:28-30. To overlook this would invite a charge that it was unanswerable. "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith so ever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost has never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." The correct original is "has not for the eon (age) forgiveness, but is in danger of eonian (age-during) by judgment," - thereby giving it quite a different meaning from the translation in the "Authorized." My Greek-English Interlinear reads, "But whoever may speak evil to the spirit the holy, not has forgiveness to the age, but liable is of age-lasting judgment." A free translation would be, "HE that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has not forgiveness to the age, but is held in and liable to the age-lasting process of judgment: because they said, He has an unclean spirit. J Preston Eby
These words of our Lord, so far from proving that the sin against the Holy Spirit is "unpardonable," distinctly assert, - first, that ALL MANNER of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, - secondly, that some sins, those, namely, against the Son of man, can be forgiven in the present age, - and, thirdly, that other sins, against the Holy Ghost, cannot be forgiven either in the age when Jesus came to earth, nor in the age that would immediately follow; which last words clearly indicate that some sins not here forgiven may be forgiven in the next age. That is what the text plainly says. It says absolutely nothing about a sin that is "unpardonable" throughout endless ages to come
We should not fail to note the wording of our Lord's pronouncement as given in Mk. 3:28-30. To overlook this would invite a charge that it was unanswerable. "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith so ever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost has never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." The correct original is "has not for the eon (age) forgiveness, but is in danger of eonian (age-during) by judgment," - thereby giving it quite a different meaning from the translation in the "Authorized." My Greek-English Interlinear reads, "But whoever may speak evil to the spirit the holy, not has forgiveness to the age, but liable is of age-lasting judgment." A free translation would be, "HE that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has not forgiveness to the age, but is held in and liable to the age-lasting process of judgment: because they said, He has an unclean spirit. J Preston Eby
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Or maybe along with the other nonsensical attributions (such as all loving, all just etc) we might posit other arbitrarily (and indeed many sources of so called 'revelation' would back such claims, such as certain holy books) emotions and characteristics, such as jealousy. Indeed, there would need to be a transcendent level of self-absorption, an inexhaustible supply of pettiness, an unlimited font of callousness - after-all, it must needs offset the supposed other 'omni' characteristics; all merciful, all-just, all-loving etc in order for the assertion (such as with regards to blasphemy to be considered by the divine to be an unforgivable act) to be held as true.
The problem is that we as humans attribute these characteristics, assert their 'supreme' nature such that they can only refer to an abstract concept as opposed to something that we can actually conceive of, all loving for example, fails to actually have meaning, instead we examine the term in a light similar to 'utmost' love - we can only really consider the term in regards to comparisons and contrasts with other terms - for example with regards to other forms of love, or with regards to the concept of the absence of apathy and hate.
By doing this, we assert (without basis) attributes for which no meaningful discussion can be forthcoming without defining our terms. This is particularly problematic when we come to the idea of conflicting characteristics - particularly given the extremely commonly attributed characteristic of freedom from logical constraint. One can thus assert absolutely contradictory, diametrically opposed claims about such an existence (for example with relation to its comprehension of and reaction to 'blasphemy') despite the acceptance (of the claimer) of directly contradictory characteristics. It is a situation we have created with such attributions lead to the inability to discuss even the most rudimentary issues with regards to such an existence due to the removal of any form of rational framework (to be clear, I believe this is non rational as opposed to irrational).
The problem is that we as humans attribute these characteristics, assert their 'supreme' nature such that they can only refer to an abstract concept as opposed to something that we can actually conceive of, all loving for example, fails to actually have meaning, instead we examine the term in a light similar to 'utmost' love - we can only really consider the term in regards to comparisons and contrasts with other terms - for example with regards to other forms of love, or with regards to the concept of the absence of apathy and hate.
By doing this, we assert (without basis) attributes for which no meaningful discussion can be forthcoming without defining our terms. This is particularly problematic when we come to the idea of conflicting characteristics - particularly given the extremely commonly attributed characteristic of freedom from logical constraint. One can thus assert absolutely contradictory, diametrically opposed claims about such an existence (for example with relation to its comprehension of and reaction to 'blasphemy') despite the acceptance (of the claimer) of directly contradictory characteristics. It is a situation we have created with such attributions lead to the inability to discuss even the most rudimentary issues with regards to such an existence due to the removal of any form of rational framework (to be clear, I believe this is non rational as opposed to irrational).
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Pretty Much
Shermana
Heretic
When do I get to hear reasons behind the repeated assertion why a "Supreme Being" is somehow above legitimate righteous indignation?
Apparently, it's just a "hissy fit" and "ego" if you are angry at being betrayed if you are a "Supreme being" as opposed to a "Simian"? I fail to see how that makes any sense.
But I suppose I should be used to getting nothing but baseless assertions and value statements by now from the naysayers.
Apparently, it's just a "hissy fit" and "ego" if you are angry at being betrayed if you are a "Supreme being" as opposed to a "Simian"? I fail to see how that makes any sense.
But I suppose I should be used to getting nothing but baseless assertions and value statements by now from the naysayers.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
It is not to say that such a being could not have a strongly negative, internal emotional response to events (such as blasphemy), however positing infinite wisdom or intelligence would suggest that any manifestation of this internal emotional response would need be tempered by the recognition of both the insignificance of the consequences of that action (in comparison to other actions we might take and indeed in terms of effects that we could reasonably be expected to perceive) as well as the comprehension of the very real factors which inhibit reasons for us to uncritically accept supernatural claims. Under such circumstances, the claim that blasphemy might result not merely in an internal emotional response but in a disproportionately harsh reaction would provide contingent (on the blasphemy consequences claim being true) evidence to suggest some very significant negative characteristics within the evaluation mechanism (god's decision making processes).
Last edited:
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Betrayal implies lack of control. A supreme being who cannot control a situation isn't supreme, and a supreme being who refuses to control a situation has no right to be angry when things don't follow it's "plan".
So, pick your poison. Inept or infantile.
Thana
Lady
Wow, Super duper mature there mate.
Why not go kill someone since the bible says not to yeah?
Shermana
Heretic
So granting free will and the ability to break away is ineptitude?
So your dichotomy is to either have total deterministic control without testing humans and making them robots, or to be infantile.
Shermana
Heretic
Let's put it this way.
Think of it as a loyalty thing.
Imagine a Wise old white-haired Chinese emperor presiding over the Kingdom.
Suddenly some rascally rebel comes in and calls him a $h!t-head out of nowhere.
Or say the wise, powerful, King of Siam finds out one of his wives has cheated on him with another man.
The protocol requires that these people are put to death for the sake of the stability of the kingdom and the recognizing of the status of the leader. Regardless of any feelings involved, whether they matter or not, it is for the sake of preventing dishonor and discord upon the status quo, and rightfully so.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Actually the bible does instruct you to kill people, and for rather nonsensical reasons at that.