Unforgivable sin?

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, thats a hell of a response considering it's my thread and you have yet to give an answer to THAT question. I wasn't looking for a question for a question, lets just get to the point.

But just for ***** and giggles, I don't have desire either way to go to fictitious places. I also don't care if I ever get to never land, Jurassic park or narnia.

Well, there you go. You don't want to be "barred from ever entering heaven", so it's useless to know the way to attain that status.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I also don't care if I ever get to never land, Jurassic park or narnia.

Do you mean "never" instead of "ever?"

I am sure that you can reach all three places with the proper shroom (Jurassic Park may be a bit difficult, but it is possible).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well, there you go. You don't want to be "barred from ever entering heaven", so it's useless to know the way to attain that status.

Cop out.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Do you mean "never" instead of "ever?"

No, I prefer to use proper grammar, but thanks.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm currious too. How exactly do you blaspheme correctly?

I had always assumed that renouncing the Holy Spirit-- rejecting Christianity after one had been a Christian-- was what the verses were talking about.

Blasphemy is slander and libel directed towards God. It's quite easy to do.

But to blaspheme in such a way that God will never forgive is a delicate practice. I don't see how a person who doesn't believe in God can truly blaspheme God.

However, a person who doesn't believe in God can set up strawmen and make fun of it as long as they wish as an artless display of misanthopy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, I prefer to use proper grammar, but thanks.

:biglaugh:

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

However, a person who doesn't believe in God can set up strawmen and make fun of it as long as they wish as an artless display of misanthopy.

This is quite a disingenuous response, as it assumes I have setup a straw man, which I certainly have not. The passages from the gospels in the OP are pretty clear in their meaning, and I don't see how, short of some creative eisegesis, that can be avoided. (other than offering up glib and flippant responses that avoid the subject, as you have been doing)

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

:biglaugh:

Does it amuse you that I corrected your correction? To each their own I suppose.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is quite a disingenuous response, as it assumes I have setup a straw man, which I certainly have not. The passages from the gospels in the OP are pretty clear in their meaning, and I don't see how, short of some creative eisegesis, that can be avoided. (other than offering up glib and flippant responses that avoid the subject, as you have been doing)

It's not my fault you can't intelligently engage your own topic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does it amuse you that I corrected your correction? To each their own I suppose.

Yes, especially considering that in your "correct grammar" you failed to capitalize "Neverland" and "Narnia."

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It's not my fault you can't intelligently engage your own topic.

Hah. It has become clear you are not interested in any kind of honest discussion. If all you are going to do is avoid the subject and engage in ad-hominem arguments, you can kindly get lost

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So in your eyes then, I am d00med? Are their no christians out there with the intestinal fortitude to come out and just say it?

You're doomed...until you change your mind.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hah. It has become clear you are not interested in any kind of honest discussion. If all you are going to do is avoid the subject and engage in ad-hominem arguments, you can kindly get lost

But you don't want discussion.

You just want people to agree with you.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't see how a person who doesn't believe in God can truly blaspheme God.

Your disbelief is irrelevant.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You're doomed...until you change your mind.

Hi Sandy.

The thing is, if blasphemy against the holy spirit is 'unforgivable', wouldn't that mean once it's done there can be no forgiveness?

Wouldn't it be a one way door from which you can not return?

And if not, how can those passages be read otherwise?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your disbelief is irrelevant.

As is your reason.

This is a classic strawman. As soon as you assent to his interpretation, he'll berate you for it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hi Sandy.

The thing is, if blasphemy against the holy spirit is 'unforgivable', wouldn't that mean once it's done there can be no forgiveness?

Wouldn't it be a one way door from which you can not return?

And if not, how can those passages be read otherwise?

you're misunderstanding the concept. Denying God/Holy Spirit is to deny the only thing that brings salvation. You have until you die to repent of that stance. Once you stand before the Judgement Seat and have died deying then you are sent to the Lake of Fire without forgiveness.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And if not, how can those passages be read otherwise?

Shouldn't you be able to come up with alternative interpretations yourself - that is, interpretations that are not absurd to begin with?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

How is the idea of an unforgivable sin any more absurd than a talking bush or the dead rising from the grave?

Extensive amounts of eisegesis would be required to eliminate absurdity from the book in question, I have no agenda to perform mental gymnastics to reconcile the bible with reality.

I am curious to see what extent others are willing to mentally contort to explain this one, though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How is the idea of an unforgivable sin any more absurd than a talking bush or the dead rising from the grave?

Extensive amounts of eisegesis would be required to eliminate absurdity from the book in question, I have no agenda to perform mental gymnastics to reconcile the bible with reality.

I am curious to see what extent others are willing to mentally contort to explain this one, though.

See what I mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]