Unforgivable sin?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I think the fact that I am on the 'other side' so to speak is apparent, but that doesn't mean I am not open to reasonable discussion.(should any be offered)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think the fact that I am on the 'other side' so to speak is apparent, but that doesn't mean I am not open to reasonable discussion.(should any be offered)

Quite right.

Your close-mindedness and hostility demonstrates your bias, not your position itself.

Examples:

I hereby renounce the holy spirit, I deny it's existence and were I find that it did exist, I would do what I could to destroy it..

Am I, according to what the bible teaches, now barred from ever entering heaven?

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?

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.

I just find it interesting to watch believers squirm when confronted with uncomfortable parts of their dogma.

Doesn't it bother you, at least a little, that your god would rate slander higher than rape or murder or even genocide on the scale of atrocity? That you might see 'Hitler' in heaven but not any number of people who's only 'crime' was to not believe and be vocal about it?

Seriously...

So you could break bread with a child molester or a rapist as brothers just as long as they share your superstitions? I find that right F-d up.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Your close-mindedness and hostility demonstrates your bias, not your position itself.

That I have opinions and am not afraid to express them does not make me closed minded. Are you capable of focusing on the arguments and not the person making them?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That I have opinions and am not afraid to express them does not make me closed minded.

I can't think of a clearer way to demonstrate an unwillingness to dialog.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The only thing impeding dialogue here is your incessant need to divert the conversation away from the topic. If you are not going to address the topic, please stop posting. Your opinions about me are irrelevant.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only thing impeding dialogue here is your incessant need to divert the conversation away from the topic. If you are not going to address the topic, please stop posting. Your opinions about me are irrelevant.

Indeed they are.

That you have constructed a strawman and are looking for fuel to burn it with are obvious, but they say nothing about you personally, of course.

It is, however, relevant to the debate to point out your fallacy.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That you have constructed a strawman and are looking for fuel to burn it with are obvious, but they say nothing about you personally, of course.

It is, however, relevant to the debate to point out your fallacy.

You have yet to offer any sort of basis or argument for my having done any such thing, aside from your asserting it true. Do you feel a bald assertion constitutes an argument?

All you have done here is laid out unsupported (and off topic)accusations. Bravo.

Now are you going to address the topic or are you going to continue to troll my thread?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All you have done here is laid out unsupported (and off topic)accusations. Bravo.

On the contrary, I provided numerous examples that support my case in post #42.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, you didn't. None of those quotes you pulled in any way show me making a caracature position in regards to the passages from the gospels that describe 'blasphemy against the holy spirit' as an unforgivable sin. You are being dishonest again.

Again, are you going to address the topic or not?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, you didn't. None of those quotes you pulled in any way show me making a caracature position in regards to the passages from the gospels that describe 'blasphemy against the holy spirit' as an unforgivable sin. You are being dishonest again.

Again, are you going to address the topic or not?

You mean a strawman?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes ...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes ...

There's even a more specific name for the fallacy that you're employing:

StateMaster - Encyclopedia: Straw man

Such straw men are often part of the process of "demonization", and we might well call the subfallacy of the straw man which attacks an extreme position instead of the more moderate position held by the opponent, the "Straw Demon".

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That's all very nice, however you have yet to show in any way that I am doing any such thing. I have asked multiple times for alternative explanations for the seemingly clear messages offered by those gospel passages, and none have yet been offered.

Further, just because you choose to employ eisegesis to the bible does not mean others do not read those passages literally. If anything it is you that is employing a strawman argument!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's all very nice, however you have yet to show in any way that I am doing any such thing. I have asked multiple times for alternative explanations for the seemingly clear messages offered by those gospel passages, and none have yet been offered.

Further, just because you choose to employ eisegesis to the bible does not mean others do not read those passages literally. If anything it is you that is employing a strawman argument!

First, I did show how you produced a strawman, and attacked it. Again, examples are in post #42. You can deny that those posts are there...

Second, show the post where I "employ eisegesis." Now that is a baseless accusation.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, you didn't. As I have already pointed out, none of those quoted passages were relevant to the topic. Do you understand what a strawman argument is?

I took passages straight from the bible that explicitly claim that blasphemy against the holy spirit is an unforgivable sin. I did not 'invent' that position and try to designate it to you, or anyone else, In fact, I have not ascribed you, or anyone else, this position whatsoever. It is in fact, the bible, which seems to hold this position. If you disagree with the bible, please remove yourself from this thread to make way for someone that does. If you do see the bible as the word of god and inerrant, please explain how you can take a bold faced statement such as posted from the bible in the OP and read a completely different meaning into it without employing eisegesis? If you can do that I will retract my claim that you are, in fact, employing it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, you didn't. As I have already pointed out, none of those quoted passages were relevant to the topic. Do you understand what a strawman argument is?

I took passages straight from the bible that explicitly claim that blasphemy against the holy spirit is an unforgivable sin. I did not 'invent' that position and try to designate it to you, or anyone else, In fact, I have not ascribed you, or anyone else, this position whatsoever. It is in fact, the bible, which seems to hold this position. If you disagree with the bible, please remove yourself from this thread to make way for someone that does. If you do see the bible as the word of god and inerrant, please explain how you can take a bold faced statement such as posted from the bible in the OP and read a completely different meaning into it without employing eisegesis? If you can do that I will retract my claim that you are, in fact, employing it.

Of course I do. I supplied the definition and then your strawman. In denying this, you're only embarrassing yourself. You were presenting the most radical and inflammatory interpretation possible for these texts, and demonstrating that you were ready to flame anyone who took your view.

Touting your strawman as the only intellectual honest way to "exegete" the passage is as insipid as it is arrogant.

There is no requirement for anyone on this thread to believe in inerrancy or anything else as a guiding principle in interpretation.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You aren't being rational. As I said, you can either read it as literal, or not literal. If literal, is the sin unforgivable, or not? If not literal, on what basis do you change the meaning of the passages, or by what method do you ascertain their 'true meaning'?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

please explain how you can take a bold faced statement such as posted from the bible in the OP and read a completely different meaning into it without employing eisegesis? If you can do that I will retract my claim that you are, in fact, employing it.

Luke 12:10 is spoken to the disciples of Jesus (Luke 12.1b), who believed in God, and it is with respect to withstanding persecution.

Mark 3:29 is with respect to the power of Satan. The Pharisees [who believe in God] accuse Jesus of casting out demons “by the prince of demons” and Jesus goes on to say that it is impossible [a house divided cannot stand, etc]. The ‘eternal guilt’ is on the one who believes in God but says that Jesus’s miracles are done by the one who hates God and humanity.

Matthew 12.31-32 - similar context as Mark

*Like I said previously*

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I don't believe this particular mythology to be anything more than that, I of course do not 'reject god' as that would imply I recognize him as existent.

It seems to me there's your answer.

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

... if you believe in God. I don't have the first clue about how to direct anything at something I don't believe in.

I personally think the whole "denying the Holy Spirit" thing in the style of the OP is more about personal feeling than anything. I think that for atheists who used to be Christians, it can help them feel like they're making a clean break with the baggage of their past if they do something that feels irrevocable. In that respect, I don't think it matters too much if it actually is irrevocable.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You aren't being rational. As I said, you can either read it as literal, or not literal. If literal, is the sin unforgivable, or not? If not literal, on what basis do you change the meaning of the passages, or by what method do you ascertain their 'true meaning'?

Only for one who has no education at all.