Denying the Holy Spirit pisses people off (videos of dissent)

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Denying the Holy Spirit pisses people off (videos of dissent)

I'm actually surprised how pissed off people get. Some of the comments on the videos for one thing. I also put a link to mine on another site and someone said it was the most offensive thing she ever saw in her life! Shocked

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
  Maybe if we gave him a

 

Maybe if we gave him a toy for children he'd deny the holy spirit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzn81zvuXLM

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:   Maybe if

Sapient wrote:

 

Maybe if we gave him a toy for children he'd deny the holy spirit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzn81zvuXLM

 

 

OH MY THOR! HE QUOTED THE BIBLE QUICK EVERYONE CONVERT!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_4PI9Umns

To the "be nice" atheists I ask you do you really think being nice is always the solution? You want respect you have to fight for it. People like this can be and will be bullies if given the chance. I have absolutly no respect for ignorant bigots like this.

Respect is earned not given and being nice 100% of the time does not always work.  

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_4PI9Umns

To the "be nice" atheists I ask you do you really think being nice is always the solution? You want respect you have to fight for it. People like this can be and will be bullies if given the chance. I have absolutly no respect for ignorant bigots like this.

Respect is earned not given and being nice 100% of the time does not always work.

 

 

My impression I got from this video was that if he were to meet an atheist in a bar after having a few, I could imagine an ass kicking to follow that would go something like this:

BtotheK:You fuckin retarded atheist!

Atheist: Hmm?

BtotheK: How dare you deny Jesus?  Let's go outside you fuckin idiot!

Atheist: Nah, just came in to drink my beer.  

BtotheK gets more irate, commencing the staredowns, along with pacing around doing shoulder bumps every chance he gets. 

Atheist says good night and is heading out the door.  Outside BtotheK is waiting.  He comes toward Atheist and says nothing at first.  He just stares, waiting for Atheist to make a move.  Atheist tries to sidestep.  BtotheK blocks him.  I forgot to mention that BtotheK has his "bros" egging him on to hit him.  So then he starts to pummle Atheist. I will skip the fight scene and get to the point when dialog picks up again.  

BtotheK:  Now, do you believe in God, Mother Fucker?

Atheist: (trying to formulate sound)...sure, whatever you say there.

BtotheK: There, I told you God is real.  (thinks he made his point and leaves Atheist gasping in his blood).

*** 

Me: Sorry this is just the impression I get when I see guys like that. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Resistance for Christ

The Resistance for Christ is resisting rationality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dnL62770PU

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


stirbaby
stirbaby's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-12-28
User is offlineOffline
yes sir yes sir

yes sir yes sirCool


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Wow.  Just wow.  This

Wow.  Just wow.

 This guy,  Patrick Henry, has a lot of things confused.  There are so many flaws with his reasoning that I would not know where to begin.  To listen to that again, get all those quotes, facts, etc checked out would be a project.  

 But part of me wonders if that effort would not simply be wasted.  One could do the research, respond to his points, and it might amount to him saying that we're simply deceived by Satan.  That kind of "reasoning" has no easy counter because everything that disagrees with it is either part of the conspiracy or decieved by the mechanisms of said conspiracy.

I doubt that you'd want him on the show, but responding to him via video would be a project of similar proportions.

 Anyone want to step up? I'm tempted to, but I'm not as comfortable with the video format.  I'd be willing to do some of the research for anyone who would be willing to respond with a video.

Anyway, let me know if any help is needed to respond to this guy.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I didn't realize he

I didn't realize he warranted a response, I was just posting for comic relief.  I don't have the time to engage in a video response, but support the idea.  Actually having him on the show for more comic relief isn't a very bad idea.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't know whether anyone

I don't know whether anyone has said this, but the Blasphemy Challenge, apart from other considerations, is paritcularly ignorant of Christian teaching. Maybe some radical Protestant sects interpret this passage that way, but most Christians today and throughout history have not interpreted the Gospels in this superficial manner.

The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit spoken of by Christ in the Gospels is the sin of final unrepentance (lack of final perseverance). This has been the interpretation of most theologians throughout history. On another level, it would make no sense if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit meant pure insult against God as every sin would be unforgivable (as every sin is an insult against God). I think a deeper look at what Christians taught would be in order before going off half-cocked.

 

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: but most

StMichael wrote:

but most Christians today and throughout history have not interpreted the Gospels in this superficial manner.

 Yes we're well aware of Cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which parts to accept.  We're also well aware of the rationalizations one goes through to try and justify the buy-bull.  You could've posted these thoughts in one thread to contain the discussion, this will get cumbersome responding to the exact same thing in two threads.

 My post from the other thread:

And this is why theologians aren't credible.  You go ahead and point out the surrounding text of the three passages in the bible explaining that blasphemy of HS is an unforgivable sin that explains that to do it properly one must be repentant til death.  

 

Quote:
The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit spoken of by Christ in the Gospels is the sin of final unrepentance (lack of final perseverance).

Feel free to point out the passage that corrects Mark 3:29 to fit your interpretation.

 

Quote:
This has been the interpretation of most theologians throughout history.

Need I say more?  Your presenting the claims of professional liars as reason to believe something?  This only makes me more firm in reading the text as it's written, not with some extra context that is not mentioned anywhere in the buy bull.

Yours in Reality,

Sapient

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I don't

StMichael wrote:

I don't know whether anyone has said this, but the Blasphemy Challenge, apart from other considerations, is paritcularly ignorant of Christian teaching. Maybe some radical Protestant sects interpret this passage that way, but most Christians today and throughout history have not interpreted the Gospels in this superficial manner.

The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit spoken of by Christ in the Gospels is the sin of final unrepentance (lack of final perseverance). This has been the interpretation of most theologians throughout history. On another level, it would make no sense if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit meant pure insult against God as every sin would be unforgivable (as every sin is an insult against God). I think a deeper look at what Christians taught would be in order before going off half-cocked.

 

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

 

Hi StMichael,

I would love you to see the part of The God Who Wasn't There where Brian Flemming shows what he was taught at Village Christian School about blasphemy. The children there are certainly taught some pretty frightening things about eternal damnation for blaspheming the holy spirit. They do not differentiate age, time, place or "final unrepentance."  It's more of: "Oops.  You blasphemed the holy spirit.  It's too late for you regardless of how sorry you might be later.  You are now officially damned for eternity."

It's the stuff nightmares are made of, especially considering the scare tactics being used to teach impressionable young children who might think that adults are telling them the truth.

At the time of the filming, there were 1800 children at Village Christian Schools and they've been in business for 55 years so who knows how many children they have indoctrinated to this thinking.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
The Catholic Church thinks

The Catholic Church thinks that it's interpretation is correct because they are the ones responsible for deciding what books to put into the collection. 

The hundreds of years of being in control of the message allows them the license for arrogance in saying that it is the Protestants that get it wrong. The sophistry of the theologians and the sense of authority they give themselves.

Our dissent is necessary more to the Church than anyone else.  Although the Catholics tend to be less wacky in general, the Church itself is seething in arrogance and obnoxiousness. When Church thinkers have had centuries to frame your message in such a way that makes it sound invincible to them, they don't even realize that they sound like medieval sophists making a mockery out of intellectual progress.

A fundamentalist only has to have it shown that the Bible is not literally true to start really seeing their position as irratinal.  A theologian steeped in the church doesn't have to realize this, because they have hundreds of years of distinctions, creeds, and philosophical subteties that would take years of study to show as equally irrational. 

Omce seen, the irrationality is obvious.  To get them to see it, however, takes more time than it does for literalists.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Fuck religion!

I am not politically correct by any means. I get pissed at the lack of introspection and self examination of a claim a person makes.

I understand the sentiment, and certainly some of the coments I have made about religion could be precievd as "Fuck religion".

But, in blasphemy and criticism and even bitching about something you dont like what someone else is doing, you really dont want to make it sound like you are Stalin or Hitler.

I know you are not, nor do I think you'd commit the same crimes by the Churches of the Dark Ages.

So, a little clarity on your words.......

"I hate people who refuse to back up their claims"

"I hate the division religion has caused in the world"

"If you want your penis mesuring contest, leave me out of it"

"If I died for Tom and Jerry believing that they were real, and not a cartoon, you'd give me a room at the Rubber Room Hilton. But popular myths such as Vishnu, Zen, Jesus and Allah all are exalted beyond criticism because these super hero's have fragil egos. There defense is marterdom, I just think it is just plain dumb."

"I hate religion" shoud mean:

"I hate when people dont think about what they claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael

Quote:
StMichael wrote:

but most Christians today and throughout history have not interpreted the Gospels in this superficial manner.

 

 Yes we're well aware of Cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which parts to accept.  We're also well aware of the rationalizations one goes through to try and justify the buy-bull.  You could've posted these thoughts in one thread to contain the discussion, this will get cumbersome responding to the exact same thing in two threads.

 My post from the other thread:

And this is why theologians aren't credible.  You go ahead and point out the surrounding text of the three passages in the bible explaining that blasphemy of HS is an unforgivable sin that explains that to do it properly one must be repentant til death.  

 

One cannot justify the Scriptures to someone who does not accept them in their revelation - it has nothing to do with their internal coherence. I think part of the problem is that others tried and failed at an inherently impossible task. It is possible to prove things said in the Bible and to prove the rational character of Christian beliefs, but some Christian doctrine is inherently unprovable as it is revealed. If revealed, it remains rational, but it is beyond the ability of natural reason to prove.

Quote:

Quote:
The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit spoken of by Christ in the Gospels is the sin of final unrepentance (lack of final perseverance).

 

 

Feel free to point out the passage that corrects Mark 3:29 to fit your interpretation.

I post the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which happens to be very thorough in its treatment of the issue:

"

The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is mentioned in Matthew 12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 12:10 (cf. 11:14-23); and Christ everywhere declares that it shall not be pardoned. In what does it consist? If we examine all the passages alluded to, there can be little doubt as to the reply.

Let us take, for instance, the account given by St. Matthew which is more complete than that of the other Synoptics. There had been brought to Christ "one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw". While the crowd is wondering, and asking: "Is not this the Son of David?", the Pharisees, yielding to their wonted jealousy, and shutting their eyes to the light of evidence, say: "This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Jesus then proves to them this absurdity, and, consequently, the malice of their explanation; He shows them that it is by "the Spirit of God" that He casts out devils, and then He concludes: "therefore I say to you: Ever sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not he forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness", he adds at once: "Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit." With this sin of pure downright malice, Jesus contrasts the sin "against the Son of man", that is the sin committed against Himself as man, the wrong done to His humanity in judging Him by His humble and lowly appearance. This fault, unlike the former, might he excused as the result of man's ignorance and misunderstanding.

But the Fathers of the Church, commenting on the Gospel texts we are treating of, did not confine themselves to the meaning given above. Whether it be that they wished to group together all objectively analogous cases, or whether they hesitated and wavered when confronted with this point of doctrine, which St. Augustine declares (Serm. ii de verbis Domini, c. v) one of the most difficult in Scripture, they have proposed different interpretations or explanations.

St. Thomas, whom we may safely follow, gives a very good summary of opinions in II-II, Q. xiv. He says that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was and may be explained in three ways.

  • Sometimes, and in its most literal signification, it has been taken to mean the uttering of an insult against the Divine Spirit, applying the appellation either to the Holy Ghost or to all three Divine persons. This was the sin of the Pharisees, who spoke at first against "the Son of Man", criticizing the works and human ways of Jesus, accusing Him of loving good cheer and wine, of associating with the publicans, and who, later on, with undoubted bad faith, traduced His Divine works, the miracles which He wrought by virtue of His own Divinity.
  • On the other hand, St. Augustine frequently explains blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be final impenitence, perseverance till death in mortal sin. This impenitence is against the Holy Ghost, in the sense that it frustrates and is absolutely opposed to the remission of sins, and this remission is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, the mutual love of the Father and the Son. In this view, Jesus, in Matthew 12 and Mark 3 did not really accuse the Pharisees of blaspheming the Holy Ghost, He only warned them against the danger they were in of doing so.
  • Finally, several Fathers, and after them, many scholastic theologians, apply the expression to all sins directly opposed to that quality which is, by appropriation, the characteristic quality of the Third Divine Person. Charity and goodness are especially attributed to the Holy Ghost, as power is to the Father and wisdom to the Son. Just, then, as they termed sins against the Father those that resulted from frailty, and sins against the Son those that sprang from ignorance, so the sins against the Holy Ghost are those that are committed from downright malice, either by despising or rejecting the inspirations and impulses which, having been stirred in man's soul by the Holy Ghost, would turn him away or deliver him from evil.

It is easy to see how this wide explanation suits all the circumstances of the case where Christ addresses the words to the Pharisees. These sins are commonly reckoned six: despair, presumption, impenitence or a fixed determination not to repent, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, and envy of another's spiritual welfare.

The sins against the Holy Ghost are said to be unpardonable, but the meaning of this assertion will vary very much according to which of the three explanations given above is accepted. As to final impenitence it is absolute; and this is easily understood, for even God cannot pardon where there is no repentance, and the moment of death is the fatal instant after which no mortal sin is remitted. It was because St. Augustine considered Christ's words to imply absolute unpardonableness that he held the sin against the Holy Ghost to be solely final impenitence. In the other two explanations, according to St. Thomas, the sin against the Holy Ghost is remissable -- not absolutely and always, but inasmuch as (considered in itself) it has not the claims and extenuating circumstance, inclining towards a pardon, that might be alleged in the case of sins of weakness and ignorance. He who, from pure and deliberate malice, refuses to recognize the manifest work of God, or rejects the necessary means of salvation, acts exactly like a sick man who not only refuses all medicine and all food, but who does all in his power to increase his illness, and whose malady becomes incurable, due to his own action. It is true, that in either case, God could, by a miracle, overcome the evil; He could, by His omnipotent intervention, either nuillify the natural causes of bodily death, or radically change the will of the stubborn sinner; but such intervention is not in accordance with His ordinary providence; and if he allows the secondary causes to act, if He offers the free human will of ordinary but sufficient grace, who shall seek cause of complaint? In a word, the irremissableness of the sins against the Holy Ghost is exclusively on the part of the sinner, on account of the sinner's act." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm)

There are different interpretations, but none is as shallow as the one given here.

Quote:

Quote:
This has been the interpretation of most theologians throughout history.

 

 

Need I say more?  Your presenting the claims of professional liars as reason to believe something?  This only makes me more firm in reading the text as it's written, not with some extra context that is not mentioned anywhere in the buy bull.

 

The content of Revelation, at least for Catholics, is not exclusively the Scriptures, but the teaching of the Church and Tradition as well. If you want to argue against my beliefs, it would make sense to challenge them directly instead of moving onto a different area.

 

Finally, in response to

Quote:

"I hate religion" shoud mean:

"I hate when people dont think about what they claim.

 I see no contradiction between religion and thinking about claims made therein. To quote J.H. Newman, "A thousand difficulties does not amount to a single doubt."

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:   One

StMichael wrote:

 

One cannot justify the Scriptures to someone who does not accept them in their revelation - it has nothing to do with their internal coherence.

It's amazing to see you assert this without thinking it through. Why would a 'god' have such trouble communicating?  (Please don't make the error of placing the blame on free will, or human error, an omnipotent creator is necessarily perfectly responsible for 'his own creation.)

Why do you have to begin with a biased emotional desire to believe? Doesn't it strike you as possible that the biased emotion itself is responsible for the supposed 'justification' you find?  

 

There's no book around with more contradictions, both internal and external, than the mass of collected confusion you call the bible... the only thing proping it up is human desire to cling to delusions... a person only has need of a belief to hold it to be true...

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

Quote:
Quote:
but most Christians today and throughout history have not interpreted the Gospels in this superficial manner.

----------------------------------------------------- 

Yes we're well aware of Cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which parts to accept.  We're also well aware of the rationalizations one goes through to try and justify the buy-bull.  You could've posted these thoughts in one thread to contain the discussion, this will get cumbersome responding to the exact same thing in two threads.

 My post from the other thread:

And this is why theologians aren't credible.  You go ahead and point out the surrounding text of the three passages in the bible explaining that blasphemy of HS is an unforgivable sin that explains that to do it properly one must be repentant til death.  

----------------------------------------------

One cannot justify the Scriptures to someone who does not accept them in their revelation - it has nothing to do with their internal coherence.

So you're saying that in order to read the scripture we must first accept that they are truth?   So where is the truth between this verse in Mark 3:29 and 1 Timothy 1:13?  Tell me because I obviously don't accept this as a non-contradiction.

Quote:
I think part of the problem is that others tried and failed at an inherently impossible task. It is possible to prove things said in the Bible and to prove the rational character of Christian beliefs, but some Christian doctrine is inherently unprovable as it is revealed. If revealed, it remains rational, but it is beyond the ability of natural reason to prove.

 You need to stop being cryptic and start being honest.  The Bible already states what it meant to state - just because YOU don't like what it says doesn't mean you can just ignore it.

Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit spoken of by Christ in the Gospels is the sin of final unrepentance (lack of final perseverance).

Feel free to point out the passage that corrects Mark 3:29 to fit your interpretation.

I post the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which happens to be very thorough in its treatment of the issue:

Great, I'll have stuff to refute it then.

Quote:
The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is mentioned in Matthew 12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 12:10 (cf. 11:14-23); and Christ everywhere declares that it shall not be pardoned. In what does it consist? If we examine all the passages alluded to, there can be little doubt as to the reply.

 Unless you don't like what it says - so you create a few paragraphs in your personal encyclopedia to cover it up.

Quote:
Let us take, for instance, the account given by St. Matthew

Or rather, in the name of St. Matthew.

Quote:
which is more complete than that of the other Synoptics.

How can this claim be made?  What is the evidence supporting this that Matthew is "more complete?"  Based on what? 

Quote:
There had been brought to Christ "one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw". While the crowd is wondering, and asking: "Is not this the Son of David?", the Pharisees, yielding to their wonted jealousy, and shutting their eyes to the light of evidence, say: "This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Jesus then proves to them this absurdity, and, consequently, the malice of their explanation; He shows them that it is by "the Spirit of God" that He casts out devils, and then He concludes: "therefore I say to you: Ever sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not he forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

There is probably a reason why this Gospel was used over Luke and Mark.  I find it ironic too, the contradictions posed between these so called "synoptic" texts as well, especially over this issue.

Like Luke for example, where Jesus is standing around talking to the multitude, no man is brought before him to be healed and certainly none who are possessed. Merely, Jesus casually it seems addresses them, not a mention of the division of households throughout his whole ordeal until he states not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.  In fact, this event with him casting out the deaf, blind and dumb spirit takes place before all this in an earlier chapter.  A whole series of other events happen, and then lazing around Jesus finally anounces the unforgivable sin. 

Quote:
So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness", he adds at once: "Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit."

 Not according to several authorities on the matter.  Eerdman's DotB states on Blasphemy, "The act of cursing or slandering the name of God. It is not only an act committed against God (Exod. 22:28) but also an act of slandering, abusing, or reviling other people or groups (Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:13; 1 Pet. 4:4)."

Exodus 22:28, incidentally, proves this point when it states, "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people."

Looking at revile - the root "vile" which comes from the Latin vilis, meaning to "cheap, worthless, base, common, despise."  All of these are pretty self explanitory, however despise comes from the Latin despicere which means to "look down on, scorn."    

Blaspheme, the breakdown is from the Greek, blaptikos (blaptikoz) "hurtful" and pheme (Feme) which means "utterance."

So literally, to Blaspheme is to make a hurtful utterance.  I would say this clearly is in line with what is said in 1 Timothy 1:13, " Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief."

But Blasphemy has no limitations on those of ignorance, and Paul blasphemed against Christ NOT against the Holy Spirit.  So the whole idea of Paul's forgiveness is irrelevant to the Blasphemy Challenge, as we are not denying God and Jesus in unity, but rather the Holy Spirit, which according to Luke, "He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN."  Nowhere does this connect to the purging of the demons, or the Pharisee's, nor does it talk of dividing nations, as this verse follows after Jesus rebukes a lawyer!

Your explanation fails here, as nowhere do we see "He has an unclean spirit" within the entire mix of verses in this chapter.

 

Quote:
 I see no contradiction between religion and thinking about claims made therein. To quote J.H. Newman, "A thousand difficulties does not amount to a single doubt."

Ironically, more then a thousand difficulties do you have. And obviously this person is flawed in his statement, as more then one doubt has this caused.

Quote:
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

This is ironic - that you think Christ has eternal wisdom when he can't even make correct prophecies, and when he constantly misquotes the OT, and goes against his own laws.

Yours in Elmer Fudd,

Rook Hawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: Quote: but
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
but most Christians today and throughout history have not interpreted the Gospels in this superficial manner.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------- 

Yes we're well aware of Cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which parts to accept.  We're also well aware of the rationalizations one goes through to try and justify the buy-bull.  You could've posted these thoughts in one thread to contain the discussion, this will get cumbersome responding to the exact same thing in two threads.

 

 My post from the other thread:

And this is why theologians aren't credible.  You go ahead and point out the surrounding text of the three passages in the bible explaining that blasphemy of HS is an unforgivable sin that explains that to do it properly one must be repentant til death.  

----------------------------------------------

One cannot justify the Scriptures to someone who does not accept them in their revelation - it has nothing to do with their internal coherence.

 

So you're saying that in order to read the scripture we must first accept that they are truth?   So where is the truth between this verse in Mark 3:29 and 1 Timothy 1:13?  Tell me because I obviously don't accept this as a non-contradiction.

I meant that it is impossible to argue for the coherence of a text whose interpretation and authority is accepted upon faith.

 

Quote:


Quote:
So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness", he adds at once: "Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit."

 

 Not according to several authorities on the matter.  Eerdman's DotB states on Blasphemy, "The act of cursing or slandering the name of God. It is not only an act committed against God (Exod. 22:28) but also an act of slandering, abusing, or reviling other people or groups (Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:13; 1 Pet. 4:4)."

Exodus 22:28, incidentally, proves this point when it states, "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people."

Cursing in general is a sin, and becomes blasphemy when its object is God.

Quote:

Looking at revile - the root "vile" which comes from the Latin vilis, meaning to "cheap, worthless, base, common, despise."  All of these are pretty self explanitory, however despise comes from the Latin despicere which means to "look down on, scorn."    

Blaspheme, the breakdown is from the Greek, blaptikos (blaptikoz) "hurtful" and pheme (Feme) which means "utterance."

So literally, to Blaspheme is to make a hurtful utterance.  I would say this clearly is in line with what is said in 1 Timothy 1:13, " Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief."

But Blasphemy has no limitations on those of ignorance, and Paul blasphemed against Christ NOT against the Holy Spirit.  So the whole idea of Paul's forgiveness is irrelevant to the Blasphemy Challenge, as we are not denying God and Jesus in unity, but rather the Holy Spirit, which according to Luke, "He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN."  Nowhere does this connect to the purging of the demons, or the Pharisee's, nor does it talk of dividing nations, as this verse follows after Jesus rebukes a lawyer!

Your explanation fails here, as nowhere do we see "He has an unclean spirit" within the entire mix of verses in this chapter.

That itself was the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; that Christ worked miracles by the devil, or that He had an unclean spirit, ect.

Quote:

Quote:
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

 

 

This is ironic - that you think Christ has eternal wisdom when he can't even make correct prophecies, and when he constantly misquotes the OT, and goes against his own laws.

Christ is Eternal Wisdom, not possessing it as foreign. Your accusations are said without justification. If you actually gave reasons, then I can answer them.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Isn't "faith" simply the

Isn't "faith" simply the abandonment of reason?

 

Yours in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,

 Matt

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Cursing

StMichael wrote:

Cursing in general is a sin, and becomes blasphemy when its object is God.

 

And, therefore, when the object of the cursing is the Holy Spirit, it becomes "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", AKA the "Unforgivable Sin". QED.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
On the first point by Matt,

On the first point by Matt, faith is not an abandonment of reason. Read my post at the top of "Catholic Seminarian..." to hear my own position on it, as well as the position of the Catholic Church. Faith is a different type of knowledge from that gained through natural inquiry, having God directly as its source as one revealing.

As to the QED remark, that does not follow. This is because while the unforgivable sin is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," there are different senses in which "blasphemy" can be taken. That is basically my point. And I think it is obvious from context in Christian tradition, Christian teaching, and the general context of Scripture that it means something more than simple blasphemy (the particular interpretation you give it is of very recent origin).

 

Yours in Christ, Eternal Wisdom

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Couldn't you just as easily

Couldn't you just as easily say "Guessing is a different type of knowledge" or "astrology is a different type of knowledge" or "being insane is a different type of knowledge?"

 

Yours in the invisible pink unicorn, eternal rationality

MattShizzle

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Except that they aren't

Except that they aren't knowledge and have no justification. The justification for faith is different, but not exclusive to natural inquiry ('reason' as a technical term).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Except

StMichael wrote:

Except that they aren't knowledge and have no justification. The justification for faith is different, but not exclusive to natural inquiry ('reason' as a technical term).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

So says you.

What about my faith in Allah? Or Vishnu? Why is that faith any different than yours?

Until that question can be sufficiently answered, faith is simply the lack of rationality and reason.  It's believing what you want to believe and justifying it on absurd grounds.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Faith is knowledge as urine

Faith is knowledge as urine is orange juice.

 

Yours in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, real knowledge

 

MattShizzle

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Faith itself is justified

Faith itself is justified as a species of knowledge, apart from any consideration of varying religions. My point is merely that faith is a species of knowledge.

My objection to these other faiths is different according to the different faiths. A total account would be exhaustive. Some are faulty in their rational foundations and their philosophy is not coherent internally (apart from their faith claims). For example, I would easily reject reincarnation as an irrational claim, as I believe it is philosophically proven to be impossible. By philosophy, I can know the existence of God and His oneness, in which case I would reject most polytheistic claims. I would also use philosophy to rule out a great deal of other religious claims, where it conflicted with what natural reason tells us. I know by natural reason at least these main things:[1] my soul is immortal, [2] a God, one, all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing exists, [3] my soul is destined to attain happiness in the vision of God, [4] my soul reaches this happiness by pursuit of virtue, [5] the moral law is able to be discerned by me, [6] it would be probable that God wishes to reveal Himself to man, [7] God is owed a debt of religious worship, [8] God would likely establish an orderly path to salvation, and [9] attainment of perfect happiness can only be reached by God's own giving. With at least these truths, I believe I can eliminate at least a majority of religions. At the end, I believe through a pursuit of natural reason we can arrive to a point at which we would accept Revelation from God if it was shown to be from God both by a logical internal coherence (as it is equally bound to logic as any natural truth) and an external sign of authority (miracles, prophecy, ect.) which substantiates the faith's claim to be from God. In this last place, it becomes something of a matter of probables whether my faith is true or not. I believe that the faith I hold is both internally coherent, fitting with what I know about the natural world and fitting with what I naturally can know about God. I believe Catholicism is likewise substantiated in its claims to be from God in that Christ performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies which indicate His divinity, and His Church has likewise continued to perform miracles throughout its history. In this way, and moved by grace, I believe that what the Catholic Church has taught is true because I believe that God Himself revealed the truth taught by it.  

My acceptance of any truth of faith is based on God's internal aid by way of grace - moving me to accept the truth itself and giving the truth in the first place - as well as by the external means (preaching, teaching, ect.).

Then I can recite with the Church:

O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
What a shitload of baseless assertions.

eom


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Let the laughter begin:

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Let the

Sapient wrote:

Let the laughter begin: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=atschnick

Allow me to be the first one: hahahaha. In the Mickey Mouse video he talks about "the 3rd law of physics" (if I heard correctly). There is no such thing. But he describes Newton's first law. If he's going to argue from physics, is it too much to ask that he gets such easy things right? I assume he is talking about the big bang, but fails to realize that classical physics such as Newton's laws breaks down as we go backwards in time towards the big bang.


Mybanjohurts
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-01-11
User is offlineOffline
i replaced my nieces tooth

i replaced my nieces tooth (which was under her pillow) with a 5 spot. She now 100% without any doubts believes in the toothfairy's existance... there is nothing you can say that will make her believe otherwise because she now has 5 bucks as to her evidence.

i'm gonna stop being athiest and start being a toothfairylogian. the proof is there people. 5 bucks.

 

 

edit: after reading this it is a bit random, but as an explanation to that, it just popped in my head after reading st. michaels     post.


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Well, I've now received a

Well, I've now received a death threat via YouTube message in response to my video. Apparently this turd has been sending them to a few people, as evidenced by all the comments on his profile. I'll be reporting him to YouTube once they respond to my inquiry as to how.