independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 12th Dec 2017 4:25am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Unpardonable Sin in the Synoptics = Limits to God's Mercy?*
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 11/27/17 10:30am

Dasein

Unpardonable Sin in the Synoptics = Limits to God's Mercy?*


Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV) reads:

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.


Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV) reads:

28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean
spirit.”

Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV) reads:

8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.


Just how does one "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit" and why is that such a grievous sin? Does
this eternal and unpardonable sin mean there are limits to God's mercy? Also, does this mean then
that within the framework of Jesus' death being the condition which justly re-establishes the possi-
bility of human salvation via atonement (soteriology) that there is that which even the event of the
Cross can not cover? In other words: even the death of God's only begotten son cannot pardon
blaspheming against the Holy Ghost/Spirit which means the event of the Cross does not appear to
be all-encompassing.


*this thread presumes the existence of the God as presented in the New Testament

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 11/29/17 11:35am

IanRG

Dasein said:


Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV) reads:

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.


Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV) reads:

28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean
spirit.”

Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV) reads:

8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.


Just how does one "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit" and why is that such a grievous sin? Does
this eternal and unpardonable sin mean there are limits to God's mercy? Also, does this mean then
that within the framework of Jesus' death being the condition which justly re-establishes the possi-
bility of human salvation via atonement (soteriology) that there is that which even the event of the
Cross can not cover? In other words: even the death of God's only begotten son cannot pardon
blaspheming against the Holy Ghost/Spirit which means the event of the Cross does not appear to
be all-encompassing.


*this thread presumes the existence of the God as presented in the New Testament

.

To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not an unpardonable sin - Jesus states every kind of sin can be forgiven - it is the act of the person to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place (paraphrased from St Thomas Aquinas). The forgiveness of sins is a two way street, you have to stop preventing yourself from being forgiven before you can be forgiven. If you actively work to prevent yourself from being forgiven, this is your choice.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 11/29/17 12:04pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV) reads:

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.


Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV) reads:

28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean
spirit.”

Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV) reads:

8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.


Just how does one "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit" and why is that such a grievous sin? Does
this eternal and unpardonable sin mean there are limits to God's mercy? Also, does this mean then
that within the framework of Jesus' death being the condition which justly re-establishes the possi-
bility of human salvation via atonement (soteriology) that there is that which even the event of the
Cross can not cover? In other words: even the death of God's only begotten son cannot pardon
blaspheming against the Holy Ghost/Spirit which means the event of the Cross does not appear to
be all-encompassing.


*this thread presumes the existence of the God as presented in the New Testament

.

To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not an unpardonable sin - Jesus states every kind of sin can be forgiven - it is the act of the person to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place (paraphrased from St Thomas Aquinas). The forgiveness of sins is a two way street, you have to stop preventing yourself from being forgiven before you can be forgiven. If you actively work to prevent yourself from being forgiven, this is your choice.


What version of the Synoptics are you reading? For, I posted three instances from the New
Testament which contradicts what you say about Jesus stating "every kind of sin can be for-
given."

Is there some new interpretation of Jesus' warnings against blaspheming the Holy Spirit that
I am unaware of?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 11/29/17 12:28pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Take certain scriptures with a grain of salt.

DJ is da man
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 11/29/17 2:10pm

IanRG

Dasein said:



IanRG said:




Dasein said:




Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV) reads:



31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.


Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV) reads:

28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean
spirit.”


Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV) reads:

8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.


Just how does one "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit" and why is that such a grievous sin? Does
this eternal and unpardonable sin mean there are limits to God's mercy? Also, does this mean then
that within the framework of Jesus' death being the condition which justly re-establishes the possi-
bility of human salvation via atonement (soteriology) that there is that which even the event of the
Cross can not cover? In other words: even the death of God's only begotten son cannot pardon
blaspheming against the Holy Ghost/Spirit which means the event of the Cross does not appear to
be all-encompassing.


*this thread presumes the existence of the God as presented in the New Testament



.


To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not an unpardonable sin - Jesus states every kind of sin can be forgiven - it is the act of the person to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place (paraphrased from St Thomas Aquinas). The forgiveness of sins is a two way street, you have to stop preventing yourself from being forgiven before you can be forgiven. If you actively work to prevent yourself from being forgiven, this is your choice.




What version of the Synoptics are you reading? For, I posted three instances from the New
Testament which contradicts what you say about Jesus stating "every kind of sin can be for-
given."

Is there some new interpretation of Jesus' warnings against blaspheming the Holy Spirit that
I am unaware of?


Did you read the first sentence of the first scripture you posted?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 11/29/17 2:31pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


What version of the Synoptics are you reading? For, I posted three instances from the New
Testament which contradicts what you say about Jesus stating "every kind of sin can be for-
given."

Is there some new interpretation of Jesus' warnings against blaspheming the Holy Spirit that
I am unaware of?

Did you read the first sentence of the first scripture you posted?


Yes, I did. I even read past the word "but . . . " which sets up a condition in which Jesus provides
a condition in which the sentiments expressed in the first clause are not true all the time. In other
words, every kind of "sin and slander" is forgivable except blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 11/29/17 4:57pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

Dasein said: Did you read the first sentence of the first scripture you posted?


Yes, I did. I even read past the word "but . . . " which sets up a condition in which Jesus provides
a condition in which the sentiments expressed in the first clause are not true all the time. In other
words, every kind of "sin and slander" is forgivable except blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

.

Or in other, other words: Every kind of sin or slander can be forgiven or pardoned (ie sins are not unpardonable but are all forgivable) but one will not be forgiven or pardoned.

.

This is a better reading because it does not rely on inserting an "except". It does not rely on creating and inserting a conditon. It recognises that all can be but not all will be. Simple logic - can does not mean the same thing as will.

.

So the point I was making was: why will it not occur even though it can occur: My answer is because the act of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act by that person to reject and exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place - the person chooses not to be forgiven by the process of attributing guidance by the Holy Spirit and acts driven by good conscience encouraged by the Holy Spirit as being a creation of Satan to be rejected as acts of evil.

[Edited 11/29/17 17:00pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 11/30/17 9:19am

Dasein

Ian, your rationale here makes no sense and strikes me as a purposeful use of sophistry to mask
what is being presented: Jesus says all sins are forgivable but for one: blaspheming the Holy Spi-
rit. You are probably doing this "masking" because you are looking for ways to mitigate Jesus's
words that are obviously problematic because it implies there is a limit to God's mercy and forgive-
ness, which goes against the classical presentation of the aforementioned being given eternally.
Also, there is no reason for you to discuss the difference between "can" and "will" and for you to
suggest that "except" in the place of the word "but" has a better reading is a bit disingenuous. I
know all of this is true because your word-play here also makes no sense when you compare
Matthew with Mark and Luke:

Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV):

28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an e-
ternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean.”

Obviously Jesus is being recorded as giving us the one condition in which a blasphemy will not be
forgiven because it is considered an eternal sin.

Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV):

8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

Here, Jesus says that even if you speak against him, you will be forgiven but blaspheming the Holy
Spirit will not. If blaspheming the Holy Spirit is as you say it is, which you defined as an act
which:

reject{s} and exclude{s}the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place -
the person chooses not to be forgiven by the process of attributing guidance by the Holy Spirit and
acts driven by good conscience encouraged by the Holy Spirit as being a creation of Satan . . .


. . . which I interpret as refusing to accept holy forgiveness given to us by the Holy Spirit because
we have deemed that forgiveness as being rendered by evil, it still does not mean that there isn't
an act or never will be an act that won't be forgiven by God. If I am to take this definition of what
it means to blapheme the Holy Spirit by you as accurate, it still does not proivde a pass to this
aporia*: there is a limit to God's forgiveness.


*This is only an aporia if you accept the classical theistic presentation of God.





[Edited 11/30/17 9:25am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 11/30/17 9:23am

Dasein

When I get home tonight, I will provide the insight from the Sacra Pagina series covering the
New Testament on this very topic . . .

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 11/30/17 10:10am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Rain falls on the just and unjust.

DJ is da man
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 11/30/17 11:49am

IanRG

Dasein said:

Ian, your rationale here makes no sense and strikes me as a purposeful use of sophistry to mask
what is being presented: Jesus says all sins are forgivable but for one: blaspheming the Holy Spi-
rit. You are probably doing this "masking" because you are looking for ways to mitigate Jesus's
words that are obviously problematic because it implies there is a limit to God's mercy and forgive-
ness, which goes against the classical presentation of the aforementioned being given eternally.
Also, there is no reason for you to discuss the difference between "can" and "will" and for you to
suggest that "except" in the place of the word "but" has a better reading is a bit disingenuous. I
know all of this is true because your word-play here also makes no sense when you compare
Matthew with Mark and Luke:

Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV):

28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an e-
ternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean.”

Obviously Jesus is being recorded as giving us the one condition in which a blasphemy will not be
forgiven because it is considered an eternal sin.

Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV):

8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

Here, Jesus says that even if you speak against him, you will be forgiven but blaspheming the Holy
Spirit will not. If blaspheming the Holy Spirit is as you say it is, which you defined as an act
which:

reject{s} and exclude{s}the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place -
the person chooses not to be forgiven by the process of attributing guidance by the Holy Spirit and
acts driven by good conscience encouraged by the Holy Spirit as being a creation of Satan . . .


. . . which I interpret as refusing to accept holy forgiveness given to us by the Holy Spirit because
we have deemed that forgiveness as being rendered by evil, it still does not mean that there isn't
an act or never will be an act that won't be forgiven by God. If I am to take this definition of what
it means to blapheme the Holy Spirit by you as accurate, it still does not proivde a pass to this
aporia*: there is a limit to God's forgiveness.


*This is only an aporia if you accept the classical theistic presentation of God.

.

You are arguing semantics and making assumptions about my motives because you want this to be probematic, you want to think that I am mitigating Jesus' words - As a result you are missing my point.

.

I am not masking anything: I discussed twice why, even though all sins can be forgiven, this blasphemy will not be forgiven. This applies so all sins and blasphemies against others - including against God the Father and God the Son - are forgivable but blasphemy against against God the Holy Spirit of the type in the story shows the person is not seeking forgiveness because they are actively denying and excluding this by their very spirit. It is the actions of the person at this fundamental level that chooses to place the limit.

.

You imagine that it is problematic for me - it is not. It is plain - We can be forgiven if we choose to be forgiven. If we block and deny the efforts of God, the Holy Spirit to guide our good conscience to do good things by attributing the Goodness of God and the Goodness in us to being nothing but evil and from Satan (figuratively or actually, makes no difference and is a different discussion), then we cannot accept this forgiveness and don't have to because it will not be offered. It is the actions of the person at this fundamental level that chooses to place the limit.

.

If you want to play semantics then - yes there is a limit to God's forgiveness: This limit is that the person must want somewhere deep within their very being to be forgiven (to move this from forgivable to forgiven, they must truly act on that, but that is another topic) - the person must not be actively completely denying and totally excluding all the very elements through which this forgiveness is given to us by the Holy Spirit. It is the actions of the person at their very base spiritual level that chooses to place the limit. I would think that this is a very rare situation for only people who are truly evil. In this it is the difference between did that person do something evil or is that person evil. If the person is just like (I assume) everyone else, then they merely did things that were evil, they have not blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, and they can/will be forgiven. If they are evil (the implication in the story is that Beelzebul is evil) then this unclean spirit is not forgiveable and will not be forgiven. The question I cannot answer is: Was the Pharisee who accused Jesus of working for or with the power of Beezlebul also evil (and not able to be forgiven by their choice) or doing an evil act (and able to be forgiven)? A person with a clean spirit doing an evil act can be forgiven, an evil person with an unclean spirit cannot - Once you show that evil and unclean spirit once, you have shown an indelible stain. I personally believe that all people do not have indelible stains and am thankful that if this wrong then I am not the judge of this - Jesus is. So if I have an aporia, it is in the goodness of all people despite the evil they do and I am happy with this contradiction.

.

The way I see it is a constant thematic aporia in your presentations of God, both before and after your deconversion, is that you see that the implications of God giving us free will, minds of our own and allowing us to live with the consequences of life in this Universe (with God's love, guidance and strength) as only limitations of God.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 11/30/17 12:18pm

Dasein

I'm not arguing semantics! You are, for you said:

To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not an unpardonable sin - Jesus states every kind of sin can be forgiven . . .


. . . after reading three New Testament passages where Jesus says the direct opposite and then you
went on to superfluously talk about the difference between "will" and "can"! Like I said: I would like
to read the Sacra Pagina commentary before proceeding. So, I will get back to you later. However,
I can comment on this now:



. . . you see that the implications of God giving us free will, minds of our own and allowing us
to live with the consequences of life in this Universe (with God's love, guidance and strength) as only
limitations of God.


I'm not quite sure that I follow you here but the implications of God's gifting to humankind the con-
cept of "free will" is the freedom to choose to not worship God with impunity. Think about it: if I tell
my beloved that she can freely choose to return my love or not but then punish her for not reciproca-
ting my love, then we can rightfully question my authenticity as to granting her the freedom to choose
in the first place. That is the aporia and that is why I reject God now. If God wants to enter into a
relationship with me, then allow me to tell God "I can't be arsed" with impunity. Would you have
punished your wife if she had said "no" when you asked her to be your partner?

That's not how love works and that is why Christianity errs horribly when it talks about love and for-
giveness - this is the impassable chasm between me and Christianity for it has twisted the concept of
love.

/rant

I have a party to go to tonight so I probably won't be able to get to the Sacra Pagina until tomorrow
morning . . . .

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 11/30/17 1:36pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

I'm not arguing semantics! You are, for you said:

To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not an unpardonable sin - Jesus states every kind of sin can be forgiven . . .


. . . after reading three New Testament passages where Jesus says the direct opposite and then you
went on to superfluously talk about the difference between "will" and "can"! Like I said: I would like
to read the Sacra Pagina commentary before proceeding. So, I will get back to you later. However,
I can comment on this now:



. . . you see that the implications of God giving us free will, minds of our own and allowing us
to live with the consequences of life in this Universe (with God's love, guidance and strength) as only
limitations of God.


I'm not quite sure that I follow you here but the implications of God's gifting to humankind the con-
cept of "free will" is the freedom to choose to not worship God with impunity. Think about it: if I tell
my beloved that she can freely choose to return my love or not but then punish her for not reciproca-
ting my love, then we can rightfully question my authenticity as to granting her the freedom to choose
in the first place. That is the aporia and that is why I reject God now. If God wants to enter into a
relationship with me, then allow me to tell God "I can't be arsed" with impunity. Would you have
punished your wife if she had said "no" when you asked her to be your partner?

That's not how love works and that is why Christianity errs horribly when it talks about love and for-
giveness - this is the impassable chasm between me and Christianity for it has twisted the concept of
love.

/rant

I have a party to go to tonight so I probably won't be able to get to the Sacra Pagina until tomorrow
morning . . . .

.

You can play a he said, she said. I have explained what I meant - Jesus said every sin can be forgiven - This does not mean the same thing as every sin will be forgiven. Where the teaching states clearly that people can and will be forgiven for every kind of sin and whatever blasphemies they utter this does not mean that there is not circumstances where the sin or utterance must be forgiven.
.
Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV) reads:
31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

- Every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven unless the sinner acts to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place
.
Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV) reads:
28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean
spirit.”
- Every kind of sin and uttered blasphemy will be forgiven unless the sinner acts to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place

.

Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV) reads:
8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

.

- Everyone who speaks against the God, the Son will be forgiven unless they act to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place.

.
No semantics from me because no matter what words I use, the outcome is the same - Unless you choose to act to block and exclude the very process of forgiveness, then if you genuinely seek forgiveness, you can and will be forgiven. If your spirit is set against being forgiven, then you will not be forgiven. Move on - you are just playing semantics, I have said a lot more than just the first sentence of my first reply.
.
Your aporia is clear - your analogy is not. If the "punishment" for your beloved is to accept her non-recipocity and move on loving her all the while and regretting that she chose of her own free-will to not be with you, then this is how love works. To love someone means that you must respect their freedom and choices. Sometimes love means the best you can do is be there for them when they fail or suffer, if there is no recipocity, then you may not even be able to do that. To be in heaven is to be one with the ones you love and know that they of their own free-will and choice love you back. To be in hell is to not love someone and yet be forced to be one with them because they love you.

[Edited 12/1/17 12:27pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 12/05/17 3:20pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:

I'm not arguing semantics! You are, for you said:



I'm not quite sure that I follow you here but the implications of God's gifting to humankind the con-
cept of "free will" is the freedom to choose to not worship God with impunity. Think about it: if I tell
my beloved that she can freely choose to return my love or not but then punish her for not reciproca-
ting my love, then we can rightfully question my authenticity as to granting her the freedom to choose
in the first place. That is the aporia and that is why I reject God now. If God wants to enter into a
relationship with me, then allow me to tell God "I can't be arsed" with impunity. Would you have
punished your wife if she had said "no" when you asked her to be your partner?

That's not how love works and that is why Christianity errs horribly when it talks about love and for-
giveness - this is the impassable chasm between me and Christianity for it has twisted the concept of
love.

/rant

I have a party to go to tonight so I probably won't be able to get to the Sacra Pagina until tomorrow
morning . . . .

.

You can play a he said, she said. I have explained what I meant - Jesus said every sin can be forgiven - This does not mean the same thing as every sin will be forgiven. Where the teaching states clearly that people can and will be forgiven for every kind of sin and whatever blasphemies they utter this does not mean that there is not circumstances where the sin or utterance must be forgiven.
.
Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV) reads:
31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

- Every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven unless the sinner acts to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place
.
Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV) reads:
28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean
spirit.”
- Every kind of sin and uttered blasphemy will be forgiven unless the sinner acts to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place

.

Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV) reads:
8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

.

- Everyone who speaks against the God, the Son will be forgiven unless they act to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place.

.
No semantics from me because no matter what words I use, the outcome is the same - Unless you choose to act to block and exclude the very process of forgiveness, then if you genuinely seek forgiveness, you can and will be forgiven. If your spirit is set against being forgiven, then you will not be forgiven. Move on - you are just playing semantics, I have said a lot more than just the first sentence of my first reply.
.


I have no idea why you're making a distinction between "will be forgiven" and "can be forgiven" for
the purpose of this thread focuses on Jesus telling us what will not be forgiven, which is blaspheming
against the Holy Spirit. In the Sacra Pagina volume on Matthew, Father Harrington writes on pages
184-185:

"The Greek term "blasphemy" means to injure the reputation of someone . . . Here it is said that the
only unforgivable blasphemy is that against the Holy Spirit. In the present context this refers to as-
scribing the source of Jesus' power to demons rather than the Holy Spirit . . . The thrust of the second
part (Matt 12:31-37) is that mistaking the source of Jesus' power constitutes blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit, the only unforgivable sin (12:31-32)."

In the same series' volume on Luke, as it pertains to this matter (Luke 12:8-10), Luke Timothy John-
son - who is an excellent academic - writes on page 197:

"The word spoke against the Son of Man, we notice, can be forgiven, but not that against the Holy
Spirit. This discrimination accords exactly with the two stages of Luke's narrative. The denial of Je-
sus as the prophet in the Gospels can be reversed by conversion to the proclamation by his successors
in Acts. But the rejection of their proclamation in the Holy Spirit leads to a final rejection from the
people. In the narrative of Acts 4-5, Luke will show these words of Jesus finding their fulfillment."

Finally, Father Harrington and Father Donahue write on pages 134-135 in their Gospel of Mark vol-
ume (same series):

"The seriousness of the conflict is manifested by Jesus' countercharge that his accusers are com-
mitting the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Such a statement by Jesus is heavily ironic since
he has been charged by the scribes with blasphemy and will later be condemned on this charge. By
attributing the liberating and healing activity of Jesus to the world of Satan the scribes are committing
the ultimate sin to God. The "unforgivable sin" has been interpreted in various ways throughout
church history. Augustine exercised a major influence by describing it as final impenitence and
resistance to God's grace. In medieval theology it is a genus containing six species of sin: despair,
presumption, impenitence, obstinancy, resisting divine truth known as such, and envy of another's
spiritual welfare. In the English Calvinist tradition, which has strongly influenced religious ideas in the
United States, fear of this sin was an overriding concern. It consisted in resisting divine truth with
malice and was a sign of final reprobation. Also in line with the Augustinian tradition, it became a
weapon in the theological controversy in which opponents were regarded as guilty of the
unpardonable sin. Contemporary Catholic doctrine continues teh Augustinian tradition by describing it
as deliberate refusal to accept God's mercy by repenting. These views represent developments
beyond the NT text and must be constantly tested against the sense intended by the biblical author."

*********************************************************************************

I see nothing in these writings which makes any effort to rationalize the existence of this particular
doctrine by making a distinction betweeen sins that "will be forgiven" and those that "can be for-
given." In the end, the authors agree: there is a sin that is unpardonable and to commit it is grievous
because not even Jesus' death atones for it; this is the only logical understanding of a sin that is con-
sidered to be unforgivable in the singular light of the Cross event.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 12/05/17 3:33pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

.
Your aporia is clear - your analogy is not. If the "punishment" for your beloved is to accept her non-recipocity and move on loving her all the while and regretting that she chose of her own free-will to not be with you, then this is how love works. To love someone means that you must respect their freedom and choices. Sometimes love means the best you can do is be there for them when they fail or suffer, if there is no recipocity, then you may not even be able to do that. To be in heaven is to be one with the ones you love and know that they of their own free-will and choice love you back. To be in hell is to not love someone and yet be forced to be one with them because they love you.

[Edited 12/1/17 12:27pm]


My analogy is very clear: in the context of classical theism where God gives free will to humankind
but sends those individuals who reject God's love in exercising that free will to hell, that is an adul-
teration of love. For in the real world, we do not punish our beloved for not reciprocating our love
and then attribute any punishment for that and justify it by saying it is an expression of love. So,
for God to love humanity, give it free will, and then punish those who reject God's love can be right-
fully considered a distortion and debasing of love on God's part.

If God wants authentic love with humans, then God must be willing to encounter the possibility of
being told "No, I don't want to love you in the same way that you love me or want me to love you".
And, if God is interested in being fair and just, there is no punishment for rejecting God's love.

Finally, to swing this back to the topic at hand: I reject these teachings for there is no earthly way for
us humans to accurately decipher and/or determine which actions are godly or evil.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 12/05/17 10:03pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

You can play a he said, she said. I have explained what I meant - Jesus said every sin can be forgiven - This does not mean the same thing as every sin will be forgiven. Where the teaching states clearly that people can and will be forgiven for every kind of sin and whatever blasphemies they utter this does not mean that there is not circumstances where the sin or utterance must be forgiven.
.
Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV) reads:
31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

- Every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven unless the sinner acts to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place
.
Mark 3:28-30 (NRSV) reads:
28 “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean
spirit.”
- Every kind of sin and uttered blasphemy will be forgiven unless the sinner acts to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place

.

Luke 12:8-10 (NRSV) reads:
8 “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also
before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of
God. 10 And everyone who [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he
who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

.

- Everyone who speaks against the God, the Son will be forgiven unless they act to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place.

.
No semantics from me because no matter what words I use, the outcome is the same - Unless you choose to act to block and exclude the very process of forgiveness, then if you genuinely seek forgiveness, you can and will be forgiven. If your spirit is set against being forgiven, then you will not be forgiven. Move on - you are just playing semantics, I have said a lot more than just the first sentence of my first reply.
.


I have no idea why you're making a distinction between "will be forgiven" and "can be forgiven" for
the purpose of this thread focuses on Jesus telling us what will not be forgiven, which is blaspheming
against the Holy Spirit. In the Sacra Pagina volume on Matthew, Father Harrington writes on pages
184-185:

"The Greek term "blasphemy" means to injure the reputation of someone . . . Here it is said that the
only unforgivable blasphemy is that against the Holy Spirit. In the present context this refers to as-
scribing the source of Jesus' power to demons rather than the Holy Spirit . . . The thrust of the second
part (Matt 12:31-37) is that mistaking the source of Jesus' power constitutes blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit, the only unforgivable sin (12:31-32)."

In the same series' volume on Luke, as it pertains to this matter (Luke 12:8-10), Luke Timothy John-
son - who is an excellent academic - writes on page 197:

"The word spoke against the Son of Man, we notice, can be forgiven, but not that against the Holy
Spirit. This discrimination accords exactly with the two stages of Luke's narrative. The denial of Je-
sus as the prophet in the Gospels can be reversed by conversion to the proclamation by his successors
in Acts. But the rejection of their proclamation in the Holy Spirit leads to a final rejection from the
people. In the narrative of Acts 4-5, Luke will show these words of Jesus finding their fulfillment."

Finally, Father Harrington and Father Donahue write on pages 134-135 in their Gospel of Mark vol-
ume (same series):

"The seriousness of the conflict is manifested by Jesus' countercharge that his accusers are com-
mitting the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Such a statement by Jesus is heavily ironic since
he has been charged by the scribes with blasphemy and will later be condemned on this charge. By
attributing the liberating and healing activity of Jesus to the world of Satan the scribes are committing
the ultimate sin to God. The "unforgivable sin" has been interpreted in various ways throughout
church history. Augustine exercised a major influence by describing it as final impenitence and
resistance to God's grace. In medieval theology it is a genus containing six species of sin: despair,
presumption, impenitence, obstinancy, resisting divine truth known as such, and envy of another's
spiritual welfare. In the English Calvinist tradition, which has strongly influenced religious ideas in the
United States, fear of this sin was an overriding concern. It consisted in resisting divine truth with
malice and was a sign of final reprobation. Also in line with the Augustinian tradition, it became a
weapon in the theological controversy in which opponents were regarded as guilty of the
unpardonable sin. Contemporary Catholic doctrine continues teh Augustinian tradition by describing it
as deliberate refusal to accept God's mercy by repenting. These views represent developments
beyond the NT text and must be constantly tested against the sense intended by the biblical author."

*********************************************************************************

I see nothing in these writings which makes any effort to rationalize the existence of this particular
doctrine by making a distinction betweeen sins that "will be forgiven" and those that "can be for-
given." In the end, the authors agree: there is a sin that is unpardonable and to commit it is grievous
because not even Jesus' death atones for it; this is the only logical understanding of a sin that is con-
sidered to be unforgivable in the singular light of the Cross event.

.

You are missing the point of what you are quoting. Impenitance means the person is not seeking forgiveness, resistance to recognising being forgiven means the person is not seeking forgiveness, obstinancy, resisting the truth with malice and the person being forever a reprobate means the person is not seeking forgiveness - Again everything you quote is agreeing that it is the person choosing to not be forgiven at the heart of their very soul that makes them not able to be forgiven - You don't need to create another explanation.

.

The distinction is blasphemy against the spirit rather than merely against God showed Beelzebul has an indelible stain and it is this stain that means Beelzebul's soul does not seek any forgiveness, so none is offered. It is this that places the limit on what can be forgiven. Jesus taught this and all you quotes concur. I do not know why you imagine Christianity as believing that all sins will be forgiven including where the person forever denies forgiveness in their very soul. We are responsible for our own actions, especially if this is to deny all goodness and forgiveness as being from evil. It is not God's limitation but our own responsibility.

[Edited 12/5/17 22:58pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 12/05/17 11:10pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.
Your aporia is clear - your analogy is not. If the "punishment" for your beloved is to accept her non-recipocity and move on loving her all the while and regretting that she chose of her own free-will to not be with you, then this is how love works. To love someone means that you must respect their freedom and choices. Sometimes love means the best you can do is be there for them when they fail or suffer, if there is no recipocity, then you may not even be able to do that. To be in heaven is to be one with the ones you love and know that they of their own free-will and choice love you back. To be in hell is to not love someone and yet be forced to be one with them because they love you.

[Edited 12/1/17 12:27pm]


My analogy is very clear: in the context of classical theism where God gives free will to humankind
but sends those individuals who reject God's love in exercising that free will to hell, that is an adul-
teration of love. For in the real world, we do not punish our beloved for not reciprocating our love
and then attribute any punishment for that and justify it by saying it is an expression of love. So,
for God to love humanity, give it free will, and then punish those who reject God's love can be right-
fully considered a distortion and debasing of love on God's part.

If God wants authentic love with humans, then God must be willing to encounter the possibility of
being told "No, I don't want to love you in the same way that you love me or want me to love you".
And, if God is interested in being fair and just, there is no punishment for rejecting God's love.

Finally, to swing this back to the topic at hand: I reject these teachings for there is no earthly way for
us humans to accurately decipher and/or determine which actions are godly or evil.

.

This is your aporia clearly restated - It does not address what I said.

.

You are missing that giving free will includes the free will to not love God and, thereby, choosing to not be one with God. Your analogy is poor because it seeks to fabricate a construct that fails to countenance that love includes respecting the choice of the beloved to not be one with with you. It is not authentic love if we are forced against our free will to love someone - that is evil.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 12/06/17 6:44am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


I have no idea why you're making a distinction between "will be forgiven" and "can be forgiven" for
the purpose of this thread focuses on Jesus telling us what will not be forgiven, which is blaspheming
against the Holy Spirit. In the Sacra Pagina volume on Matthew, Father Harrington writes on pages
184-185:

"The Greek term "blasphemy" means to injure the reputation of someone . . . Here it is said that the
only unforgivable blasphemy is that against the Holy Spirit. In the present context this refers to as-
scribing the source of Jesus' power to demons rather than the Holy Spirit . . . The thrust of the second
part (Matt 12:31-37) is that mistaking the source of Jesus' power constitutes blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit, the only unforgivable sin (12:31-32)."

In the same series' volume on Luke, as it pertains to this matter (Luke 12:8-10), Luke Timothy John-
son - who is an excellent academic - writes on page 197:

"The word spoke against the Son of Man, we notice, can be forgiven, but not that against the Holy
Spirit. This discrimination accords exactly with the two stages of Luke's narrative. The denial of Je-
sus as the prophet in the Gospels can be reversed by conversion to the proclamation by his successors
in Acts. But the rejection of their proclamation in the Holy Spirit leads to a final rejection from the
people. In the narrative of Acts 4-5, Luke will show these words of Jesus finding their fulfillment."

Finally, Father Harrington and Father Donahue write on pages 134-135 in their Gospel of Mark vol-
ume (same series):

"The seriousness of the conflict is manifested by Jesus' countercharge that his accusers are com-
mitting the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Such a statement by Jesus is heavily ironic since
he has been charged by the scribes with blasphemy and will later be condemned on this charge. By
attributing the liberating and healing activity of Jesus to the world of Satan the scribes are committing
the ultimate sin to God. The "unforgivable sin" has been interpreted in various ways throughout
church history. Augustine exercised a major influence by describing it as final impenitence and
resistance to God's grace. In medieval theology it is a genus containing six species of sin: despair,
presumption, impenitence, obstinancy, resisting divine truth known as such, and envy of another's
spiritual welfare. In the English Calvinist tradition, which has strongly influenced religious ideas in the
United States, fear of this sin was an overriding concern. It consisted in resisting divine truth with
malice and was a sign of final reprobation. Also in line with the Augustinian tradition, it became a
weapon in the theological controversy in which opponents were regarded as guilty of the
unpardonable sin. Contemporary Catholic doctrine continues teh Augustinian tradition by describing it
as deliberate refusal to accept God's mercy by repenting. These views represent developments
beyond the NT text and must be constantly tested against the sense intended by the biblical author."

*********************************************************************************

I see nothing in these writings which makes any effort to rationalize the existence of this particular
doctrine by making a distinction betweeen sins that "will be forgiven" and those that "can be for-
given." In the end, the authors agree: there is a sin that is unpardonable and to commit it is grievous
because not even Jesus' death atones for it; this is the only logical understanding of a sin that is con-
sidered to be unforgivable in the singular light of the Cross event.

.

You are missing the point of what you are quoting. Impenitance means the person is not seeking forgiveness, resistance to recognising being forgiven means the person is not seeking forgiveness, obstinancy, resisting the truth with malice and the person being forever a reprobate means the person is not seeking forgiveness - Again everything you quote is agreeing that it is the person choosing to not be forgiven at the heart of their very soul that makes them not able to be forgiven - You don't need to create another explanation.

.

The distinction is blasphemy against the spirit rather than merely against God showed Beelzebul has an indelible stain and it is this stain that means Beelzebul's soul does not seek any forgiveness, so none is offered. It is this that places the limit on what can be forgiven. Jesus taught this and all you quotes concur. I do not know why you imagine Christianity as believing that all sins will be forgiven including where the person forever denies forgiveness in their very soul. We are responsible for our own actions, especially if this is to deny all goodness and forgiveness as being from evil. It is not God's limitation but our own responsibility.

[Edited 12/5/17 22:58pm]


Heheheheheh! How could I be missing the point of what I'm quoting when I created the thread?!

Here are the questions raised in the OP that I was able to answer without much aid from our odd
exchange but instead by appealing to my trusty (and ever so Catholic) Sacra Pagina New Testa-
ment commentaries:


1. Just how does one "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit"?

As the authors all agree upon, blaspheming the Holy Spirit, in this context, is to attribute the
power of God to Satan, but, scholars and theologians should remember that ""unforgivable sin"
has been interpreted in various ways throughout
church history."



2. . . . and why is that such a grievous sin?

The authors write: "Contemporary Catholic doctrine continues the Augustinian tradition by
describing it
as deliberate refusal to accept God's mercy by repenting." Well, why is that such an
egregious sin? The texts are silent here but I surmise it has more to do with the effrontery of re-
jecting God's sovereignty than anything else (which reveals the disastrous misapplication of an-
thropomorphic qualities to God. Yet, I seriously doubt that the creator of all that is would be so
grievously offended if I declined its offer for salvation).

3. Does this eternal and unpardonable sin mean there are limits to God's mercy?

If we are going to be logically consistent here, the answer is "yes."


4. Also, does this mean then
that within the framework of Jesus' death being the condition which
justly re-establishes the possibility of human salvation via atonement (soteriology) that there is
that which even the event of the
Cross can not cover?

Again, for the same reasons mentioned above, the answer is "yes."

*************************************************************************

The reason why we had an odd exchange is because you said:

To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not an unpardonable sin - Jesus states every kind of sin can be forgiven . . .


Then you said:

Or in other, other words: Every kind of sin or slander can be forgiven or pardoned (ie sins are not unpardonable but are all forgivable) but one will not be forgiven or pardoned.

.

This is a better reading because it does not rely on inserting an "except". It does not rely on creating and inserting a conditon. It recognises that all can be but not all will be. Simple logic - can does not mean the same thing as will.



You're wrong, Ian: blasphemy is an unpardonable sin. Jesus states all sins can be forgiven except/
but/save one. Your weird song-and-dance over "can be" and "will be" has no real application here.

Finally, you asked this about me:

I do not know why you imagine Christianity as believing that all sins will be forgiven including where the person forever denies forgiveness in their very soul.


And I do not know why you think this is something that I hold personally for I never claimed nor
did I ever give the reader of this thread any reason to suspect that I imagine Christianity as believ-
ing that all sins will be forgiven. But, if all sins cannot be forgiven, then it must mean that the
Cross event was not sufficient for all sins, which is very interesting.


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 12/06/17 6:47am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


My analogy is very clear: in the context of classical theism where God gives free will to humankind
but sends those individuals who reject God's love in exercising that free will to hell, that is an adul-
teration of love. For in the real world, we do not punish our beloved for not reciprocating our love
and then attribute any punishment for that and justify it by saying it is an expression of love. So,
for God to love humanity, give it free will, and then punish those who reject God's love can be right-
fully considered a distortion and debasing of love on God's part.

If God wants authentic love with humans, then God must be willing to encounter the possibility of
being told "No, I don't want to love you in the same way that you love me or want me to love you".
And, if God is interested in being fair and just, there is no punishment for rejecting God's love.

Finally, to swing this back to the topic at hand: I reject these teachings for there is no earthly way for
us humans to accurately decipher and/or determine which actions are godly or evil.

.

This is your aporia clearly restated - It does not address what I said.

.

You are missing that giving free will includes the free will to not love God and, thereby, choosing to not be one with God. Your analogy is poor because it seeks to fabricate a construct that fails to countenance that love includes respecting the choice of the beloved to not be one with with you. It is not authentic love if we are forced against our free will to love someone - that is evil.


I re-stated my aporia because what you said does not address my analogy correctly as you are
still missing my point because you're telling me:

" . . . that giving free will includes the free will to not love God and, thereby, choosing to not be
one with God."

But, this is NOT the classical theistic presentation of God who gives humankind free will but then
banishes those who reject God to hell for eternity. You are ignoring the context in which I am ma-
king this claim.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 12/06/17 8:59am

IanRG

Dasein said:

Heheheheheh! How could I be missing the point of what I'm quoting when I created the thread?!

.

I know, I am amazed that you can keep on doing it as well! Please read what I said - you are missing the point of what you quoted from the Sacra Pagina - Starting a thread NEVER means your are omnipotent and not able to miss the point of others or references you make.

.

Restating the whole thread with zero reference to the blasphemy of the spirit being about the person refusing forgiveness at the heart of their very spirit is pointless. None of this addresses that the faith you put in your interpretation of others misses that they said in every case things like it being about impenitance, resistance to being forgiven, obstinacy, resisting the truth with malice and being forever a reprobate. All of what you quoted is how a PERSON'S spirit can mean that, even though all can be forgiven, not all will be forgiven.

.

1. Just how does one "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit"?

.

All you have quoted agree for the last nearly 2000 years that this is by an act that shows that the person's spirit is permanently set against goodness and forgiveness as nothing more than sourced from evil. This is what I said when I paraphrased St Thomas Aquinas and what all those referenced by you said.

.

2. . . . and why is that such a grievous sin?
.
The authors write: "Contemporary Catholic doctrine continues the Augustinian tradition by describing it as deliberate refusal to accept God's mercy by repenting." The texts ARE NOT silent at all about why this is such an egregious sin: You keep missing what they say - It is that the PERSON, represented by Beezlebul in Jesus' teaching is showing that their spirit is indelibly stained and set against the Holy Spirit to the point it is permanently and deliberately inpenitant, permanently resistant to God's goodness, permanently obstinant in how it attributes goodness to being evil, and permanently choosing to resist the truth with malice. It is that the PERSON at their very soul refuses goodness and forgiveness. As I said in my first reply: It is the act of the person to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place (paraphrased from St Thomas Aquinas). The forgiveness of sins is a two way street, you have to stop preventing yourself from being forgiven before you can be forgiven. If you actively work to prevent yourself from being forgiven, this is your choice.

.

3. Does this eternal and unpardonable sin mean there are limits to God's mercy?

.

If you are actually being logically consistent here, then you need to look at what Jesus said. In ALL the references to Jesus' teaching you made Jesus said all can be forgiven but not all will be forgiven. What won't be forgiven is the act of a person that shows they permanently refuse to be forgiven. If your heart is so set on blaming God instead of the person being permanently inpenitant resistant, obstinant etc. then in your eyes there is a limit to God's mercy - this "limit" is that God accepts that in God giving us free-will this means that some will use this to permanently refuse God's mercy. The impact of being given free-will is that we are capable of choosing to refuse God's mercy, even permanently capable of this. This is represented by God teaching, mere blasphemy against me, I can forgive, but setting your whole soul/spirit against all goodness, forgiveness and mercy as if it is all sourced from an evil, so the person rejects this mercy means you are rejecting all goodness, forgiveness and mercy forever and, therefore no mercy will work or even be offered - it is the person's choice.

.

4. Also, does this mean then that within the framework of Jesus' death being the condition which justly re-establishes the possibility of human salvation via atonement (soteriology) that there is that which even the event of the Cross can not cover?

.

Note your wording: You limit human salvation to only being a possibility via atonement under the doctrine of salvation. By your own words, the Cross has never meant all will be forgiven - it only means all can be forgiven. The condition you constantly leave out is that the person must not have permanently excluded the elements through which the forgiveness can take place. They must not be permanently to the depths of their very spirit impenitant, obstinant or resistant to the truth etc.

[Edited 12/6/17 9:30am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 12/06/17 9:24am

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

This is your aporia clearly restated - It does not address what I said.

.

You are missing that giving free will includes the free will to not love God and, thereby, choosing to not be one with God. Your analogy is poor because it seeks to fabricate a construct that fails to countenance that love includes respecting the choice of the beloved to not be one with with you. It is not authentic love if we are forced against our free will to love someone - that is evil.


I re-stated my aporia because what you said does not address my analogy correctly as you are
still missing my point because you're telling me:

" . . . that giving free will includes the free will to not love God and, thereby, choosing to not be
one with God."

But, this is NOT the classical theistic presentation of God who gives humankind free will but then
banishes those who reject God to hell for eternity. You are ignoring the context in which I am ma-
king this claim.

.

Then reject this particular verson of classical theism. It is by no means the only classical theism nor does it represent all Christian theistic representations of God. It is rightly extremely hard to find a fire and brimstone sermon in most Christian Churches today. This is because your classical theistic presentation of God is not an authentic representation of how all of Christianity understands God's love for us as taught by Jesus.

.

Think about it: When you say "That's not how love works and that is why Christianity errs horribly when it talks about love and forgiveness - this is the impassable chasm between me and Christianity for it has twisted the concept of love." you are writing off all Christianity because of one particular classical theistic presentation of God knowing it does not represent all the classical or current theistic presentations of God. Your aporia is clear. Your analogy is not so much because it is a limited view of Christianity's understanding of God's Love and the consequences of when an individual with free-will chooses to not love God. By limiting your analogy to just your aporia means your analogy does not properly analogise all Christian theistic presentations of God. It is good that you now seek to limit your objection to just a particular classical theistic presentation, rather than using it dismiss the whole of Christianity. My point is made.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 12/06/17 9:55am

Dasein

^


In all of this above, nowhere do I see you acknowledge that your first post in this thread was
wrong: blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. Obviously if there is one kind of
sin that is unpardonable, then clearly there is a limit to God's mercy and/or divine forgiveness.
I wonder if you're reacting strongly against this idea because it would then mean that your
God's mercy is indeed limited and has some restriction, which flies in the face of the eternally
loving and merciful God. To argue against this logical consistency (i.e. the existence of an un-
pardonable sin means there is a limit to forgiveness) is to argue to for maintaining idolatry and/
or preferred doctrine.

Restating the whole thread with zero reference to the blasphemy of the spirit being about the person refusing forgiveness at the heart of therir very spirit is pointless. None of this addresses that the faith you put in your interpretation of others misses that they said in every case things like it being about impenitance, resistance to being forgiven, obstinacy, resisting the truth with malice and being forever a reprobate. All of what you quoted is how a PERSON'S spirit can mean that, even though all can be forgiven, not all will be forgiven.


I. have. no. idea. what. you're. talking. about.

All you have quoted agree for the last nearly 2000 years that this is by an act that shows the that person's spirit is permanently set against goodness and forgiveness as nothing more than evil. This is what I said when I paraphrased St Thomas Aquinas and what all those referenced by you said.


Who cares? The fact of the matter for this thread is to ask what does it mean to blaspheme the Holy
Spirit and does that mean there are limits to God's mercy ultimately? You're pastoralizing, as usual,
and not paying attention to what I'm trying to discuss.

The authors write: "Contemporary Catholic doctrine continues the Augustinian tradition by describing it as deliberate refusal to accept God's mercy by repenting." The texts ARE NOT silent at all about why this is such an egregious sin: You keep missing what they say - It is that the PERSON, represented by Beezlebul in Jesus' teaching is showing that their spirit is indelibly stained and set against the Holy Spirit to the point it is permanently inpenitant, permanently resistant to God's goodness, permanently obstinant in how it attributes goodness to being evil, and permanently choosing to resist the truth with malice. It is that the PERSON at their very soul refuses goodness and forgiveness. As I said in my first reply: It is the act of the person to exclude the elements through which the forgiveness of sin can take place (paraphrased from St Thomas Aquinas). The forgiveness of sins is a two way street, you have to stop preventing yourself from being forgiven before you can be forgiven. If you actively work to prevent yourself from being forgiven, this is your choice.

.



More pastoralizing from you - this thread does not need your explication of the spiritual condition of
the individual who blasphemes the Holy Spirit! And you are not thinking clearly:

Question: why is God so dismayed and angered with persons who "exclude the elements through
which forgiveness of sin can take place?"

Answer: Well, because if you reject God's forgiveness, then you are rejecting God.

Question: And, why is that humanly rejection of God so offensive to God?

Answer: Well, because humans say God is offended.

Question: Why?

Answer: Well, I'm gonna be honest with you: because humans are attributing how they would feel if
they were God who was rejected and then giving those human qualities to God.

News Flash:

God just told me that God is not dismayed nor angered when people reject God's gift of grace and
forgiveness because God's glory; God's goodness; and God's existence does not depend upon any act
of human volition. In other words: a god is still god even if I don't worship that god or bow to that
god. To imagine a God who is dismayed, angered, irate, hurt, choleric over my rejection of God is
anthropomorphic and a human construct.

Note your wording: You limit human salvation to only being a possibility via atonement under the doctrine of salvation. By your own words, the Cross has never meant all will be forgiven - it only means all can be forgiven. The condition you constantly leave out is that the person must not have permanently exclude the elements through which the forgiveness can take place. They must not be permanently to the depths of their very spirit impenitant, obstinant or resistant to the truth etc.


In my version of Christianity, the Cross event is enough to cover even those who are "permanently to
the depths of their very spirit impenitant, obstinant or resistant to the truth etc." And, last time I
checked, the Cross event was necessary before humans being able to justifiably stand before God.
But, this only speaks to my upbringing in Protestantism and your Catholicism and I don't give a whoot
about "atonement", "salvation", and neither does God I bet . . .

Brother, you may have the last word for I have the answers to my questions, and I repeat:

To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute God's power to Satan and it could also be to boastfully
reject God's offer of grace, mercy, and forgiveness via the purposeful hardening of one's heart. Yet,
because we do not have any correct and accurate way to determine which divine actions are actually
derived from God and/or Satan, and because the attribution of God's dismay and anger towards be-
ing rejected by human effrontery is anthropomorphic, I reject this doctrine of "unpardonable sin"
and view its doctrinal existence as the efforts of the first church to establish the conditions in which
it maintained theological primacy over any other body who challenged its authority. Finally, because
I am able to reject this doctrine of unpardonable sin, any theist who desires to maintain her theism
and worship of an eternally forgiving God with unlimited grace can continue to do so.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 12/06/17 11:21am

IanRG

Dasein said:

^


In all of this above, nowhere do I see you acknowledge that your first post in this thread was
wrong: blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. Obviously if there is one kind of
sin that is unpardonable, then clearly there is a limit to God's mercy and/or divine forgiveness.
I wonder if you're reacting strongly against this idea because it would then mean that your
God's mercy is indeed limited and has some restriction, which flies in the face of the eternally
loving and merciful God. To argue against this logical consistency (i.e. the existence of an un-
pardonable sin means there is a limit to forgiveness) is to argue to for maintaining idolatry and/
or preferred doctrine.

Restating the whole thread with zero reference to the blasphemy of the spirit being about the person refusing forgiveness at the heart of therir very spirit is pointless. None of this addresses that the faith you put in your interpretation of others misses that they said in every case things like it being about impenitance, resistance to being forgiven, obstinacy, resisting the truth with malice and being forever a reprobate. All of what you quoted is how a PERSON'S spirit can mean that, even though all can be forgiven, not all will be forgiven.


I. have. no. idea. what. you're. talking. about.



More pastoralizing from you - this thread does not need your explication of the spiritual condition of
the individual who blasphemes the Holy Spirit! And you are not thinking clearly:

Question: why is God so dismayed and angered with persons who "exclude the elements through
which forgiveness of sin can take place?"

Answer: Well, because if you reject God's forgiveness, then you are rejecting God.

Question: And, why is that humanly rejection of God so offensive to God?

Answer: Well, because humans say God is offended.

Question: Why?

Answer: Well, I'm gonna be honest with you: because humans are attributing how they would feel if
they were God who was rejected and then giving those human qualities to God.

News Flash:

God just told me that God is not dismayed nor angered when people reject God's gift of grace and
forgiveness because God's glory; God's goodness; and God's existence does not depend upon any act
of human volition. In other words: a god is still god even if I don't worship that god or bow to that
god. To imagine a God who is dismayed, angered, irate, hurt, choleric over my rejection of God is
anthropomorphic and a human construct.

Note your wording: You limit human salvation to only being a possibility via atonement under the doctrine of salvation. By your own words, the Cross has never meant all will be forgiven - it only means all can be forgiven. The condition you constantly leave out is that the person must not have permanently exclude the elements through which the forgiveness can take place. They must not be permanently to the depths of their very spirit impenitant, obstinant or resistant to the truth etc.


In my version of Christianity, the Cross event is enough to cover even those who are "permanently to
the depths of their very spirit impenitant, obstinant or resistant to the truth etc." And, last time I
checked, the Cross event was necessary before humans being able to justifiably stand before God.
But, this only speaks to my upbringing in Protestantism and your Catholicism and I don't give a whoot
about "atonement", "salvation", and neither does God I bet . . .

Brother, you may have the last word for I have the answers to my questions, and I repeat:

To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to attribute God's power to Satan and it could also be to boastfully
reject God's offer of grace, mercy, and forgiveness via the purposeful hardening of one's heart. Yet,
because we do not have any correct and accurate way to determine which divine actions are actually
derived from God and/or Satan, and because the attribution of God's dismay and anger towards be-
ing rejected by human effrontery is anthropomorphic, I reject this doctrine of "unpardonable sin"
and view its doctrinal existence as the efforts of the first church to establish the conditions in which
it maintained theological primacy over any other body who challenged its authority. Finally, because
I am able to reject this doctrine of unpardonable sin, any theist who desires to maintain her theism
and worship of an eternally forgiving God with unlimited grace can continue to do so.

.

In all my posts I have said what Jesus said - All can be forgiven, not all will be forgiven and one reason it wont be forgiven is where the person refuses the forgiveness by attributing goodness and mercy to being the work of evil. That I believe this is why I have not acknowledged something different to this belief. You have failed to show that my interpretation is wrong and I should change from this position - Indeed what you quoted and referenced SUPPORTED my view that a permanent inpenitance, obstinance and resistance to the truth by the individual with free-will so they reject mercy as nothing but evil is blasphemy of the spirit that by the person's choice excludes the very elements through which this forgivness can take place. No one believes that because all can be forgiven that all will be forgiven: you have failed to present anything that requires me to acknowledge this as wrong.

.

Your wondering of me understanding what Jesus taught in a way consistent with all you and I have quoted as possibly being a cover for me not being able to admit that God's mercy is limited is misplaced. I have said all can be forgiven, but this does not mean all will be forgiven and this is because of the actions of the person - I said that if you want to place this refusal to accept God's mercy on the God instead of the person refusing this mercy then so be it, this is your spin. To me giving a person free-will and making them responsible for what they do with that - especially if they choose to permanently reject God's mercy does not fly in the face of an eternally loving and merciful God - Indeed I have argued that authentic love and mercy is reliant on respecting non-recipocity, so allowing the person who does not love you the freedom to make their own choices to not be one with you because you love them is consistent with a loving and merciful God.

.

To write off my answers as "who cares" and pastoralising is silly. I have answered you with respect and addressed your answers to me. If you don't care and don't want an answer that does not accord with your view, don't ask. That you did ask is because you care.

.

Please limit your responses to what I said to only what I said - strawman arguments do not do this:

Dasein: why is God so dismayed and angered with persons who "exclude the elements through
which forgiveness of sin can take place?" - You never asked this question or I would have answered this.

Imagined IanRG Answer: Well, because if you reject God's forgiveness, then you are rejecting God. - I never said this and my answer to this question had it been asked would have been: God may well be dismayed because God is always seeking to encourage goodness and love in all and to lose a person because they are actively permanently excluding all the elements of goodness and love through which any forgiveness and mercy can be received is to lose a loved one.

Dasein: And, why is that humanly rejection of God so offensive to God? - You never asked this question or I would have answered this.

Imagined IanRG Answer: Well, because humans say God is offended. - This bears no relationship to anything I have ever said at any time to you ever. My answer to this question had you ever asked this would have been: I do not know the mind of God but I believe as a direct and logical understanding of Jesus' teaching that it is not because it is offensive. Instead Jesus made it clear that he would forgive all sins, even words against God, so long as the person allows this because their spirit is not permanently locked against receiving God's mercy

Question: Why? - Does not apply because you made up a question and an answer that simply never occured between us.

Answer: Well, I'm gonna be honest with you: because humans are attributing how they would feel if they were God who was rejected and then giving those human qualities to God. - Does not apply because you made up a question and an answer that simply never occured between us.

.

Your news flash misses the whole point of what was said throughout this thread - People have free-will and the consequences of their choices. This is not anthromorphising God, it is anthromorphising people - we are people with free-will and we are responsible for our actions.

.

You don't have a version of Christianity - you reject it. You stated in this very thread "That's not how love works and that is why Christianity errs horribly when it talks about love and forgiveness - this is the impassable chasm between me and Christianity for it has twisted the concept of love." To then spin some song and dance about how your Christianity is superior to mine because you imagine Jesus taught that the Cross means people who permanently reject the Goodness, Mercy, Salvation and Forgiveness of God will still be one with God is not consistent with the above rejection. To position this "belief" as consistent with your Protestant and Catholic teaching shows you really should have paid more attention.

.

Your assumption of motives of the early Church's motives for teaching what Jesus said presupposed that Jesus did not teach this at all or that Jesus was not the Son of God. This goes directly against the parameters you set in the opening post - *this thread presumes the existence of the God as presented in the New Testament.

.

Finally, because I am able to reject this doctrine of unpardonable sin, any theist who desires to maintain her theism and worship of an eternally forgiving God with unlimited grace can continue to do so.

.

Wow, I did not know you, as an agnostic, had such powers over the teachings by Jesus! Given the parameters you placed on the thread: It leads to the question - As someone with the power to correct the teachings of God through the Son of God and the Son of Man, the person that the New Testament attributes so much that it leads directly to us ultimately to understanding the Trinity: As both a god and an agnostic - Do you question belief in yourself?

[Edited 12/6/17 11:36am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 12/06/17 11:50am

Dasein

Ian, thanks for participating in this thread. But, a good example of you not understanding context
and fully appreciating the nuances of my argument is illustrated by you saying this:


Your news flash misses the whole point of what was said throughout this thread - People have free-will and the consequences of their choices. This is not anthromorphising God, it is anthromorphising people - we are people with free-will and we are responsible for our actions.


Nobody ever denied people having free will. And nodoby argued against the consequences of those
choices made under the exercising of free will. I argued against the CLASSICAL THEISTIC presenta-
tion of a God who gifts humans free will then punishes them for using it if they reject that same gift
giving God. And, you totally misunderstand what I say is an anthropomorphic God and why I'm cri-
ticizing it: to attribute human qualities to God so that God is offended by humanity's rejection of God's
grace and mercy and forgiveness is anthropomorphic, so for you to say "This is not anthropomorphi-
sing God, it is . . . " in response to anything about "free will" is to read my argument in this thread
inaccurately. I never said anything for, against, or about humans being responsible or not for their
actions. My news flash simply states that the integrity of God and the glory of God and the sove-
reignty of God and the existence of God does not require on or need the action of humans in order for
it (God's integrity, glory, sovereignty, and existence) to remain intact. A god who is impugned and
offended when rejected by humans is a foolish, silly, anthropomorphic God who is then utterly and
totally useless. This:

God just told me that God is not dismayed nor angered when people reject God's gift of grace and
forgiveness because God's glory; God's goodness; and God's existence does not depend upon any act
of human volition. In other words: a god is still god even if I don't worship that god or bow to that
god. To imagine a God who is dismayed, angered, irate, hurt, choleric over my rejection of God is
anthropomorphic and a human construct.


. . . has NOTHING to do with free will.

So, just like your very first post in this thread is disastrously wrong, so have you erred in apprehend-
ing what my claims were!


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 12/06/17 12:44pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

Ian, thanks for participating in this thread. But, a good example of you not understanding context
and fully appreciating the nuances of my argument is illustrated by you saying this:


Your news flash misses the whole point of what was said throughout this thread - People have free-will and the consequences of their choices. This is not anthromorphising God, it is anthromorphising people - we are people with free-will and we are responsible for our actions.


Nobody ever denied people having free will. And nodoby argued against the consequences of those
choices made under the exercising of free will. I argued against the CLASSICAL THEISTIC presenta-
tion of a God who gifts humans free will then punishes them for using it if they reject that same gift
giving God. And, you totally misunderstand what I say is an anthropomorphic God and why I'm cri-
ticizing it: to attribute human qualities to God so that God is offended by humanity's rejection of God's
grace and mercy and forgiveness is anthropomorphic, so for you to say "This is not anthropomorphi-
sing God, it is . . . " in response to anything about "free will" is to read my argument in this thread
inaccurately. I never said anything for, against, or about humans being responsible or not for their
actions. My news flash simply states that the integrity of God and the glory of God and the sove-
reignty of God and the existence of God does not require on or need the action of humans in order for
it (God's integrity, glory, sovereignty, and existence) to remain intact. A god who is impugned and
offended when rejected by humans is a foolish, silly, anthropomorphic God who is then utterly and
totally useless. This:

God just told me that God is not dismayed nor angered when people reject God's gift of grace and
forgiveness because God's glory; God's goodness; and God's existence does not depend upon any act
of human volition. In other words: a god is still god even if I don't worship that god or bow to that
god. To imagine a God who is dismayed, angered, irate, hurt, choleric over my rejection of God is
anthropomorphic and a human construct.


. . . has NOTHING to do with free will.

So, just like your very first post in this thread is disastrously wrong, so have you erred in apprehend-
ing what my claims were!


.

This post is simply not true. Your opening post DOES NOT limit this thread at all to just being about a particular classical theistic position. This is a retreat to a corner.

.

Ironically you talk about context but you fail to place your news flash in the context of your imagined argument. WITHIN YOUR CONTEXT you misrepresented my arguments about people being responsible for their own actions including where these are to permanently reject God's goodness, mercy, forgiveness and salvation as an anthropmorphisation of God and concluded by news flashing me about how your strawman of my arguments is wrong. See the highlighted - this continues your strawman of my posts. More importantly, it does show that you were missing the whole point of what was said throughout this thread - People have free-will and the consequences of their choices. This is not anthromorphising God, it is anthromorphising people - we are people with free-will and we are responsible for our actions. No one was saying God's existence is dependent on any act of human volition, that is silly and it is not possible to reach this conclusion from anything I said. The blasphemy of the spirit was never presented in this thread as being as a result of God being dismayed, angry, irate, hurt, choleric at all. This is your song and dance. The blasphemy of the spirit was exclusively presented by me as the person permanently rejecting God's love, mercy, forgiveness and salvation. The only anthropomorphisation I made is the assumption that God's love for us means God laments those who don't love him and they actively reject God's love, mercy, forgiveness and salvation because God wants us to be all one with God. This is as per Jesus' teaching, not some classical theistic presentation.

.

Go back and read the Bible and your sources: Jesus said all sins can be forgiven unless the person chooses to permanently reject this forgiveness as shown by a blasphemy of the spirit. That all sins can be forgiven does not mean all will be - this is not part of any Christian understanding and is certainly not enabled just because you, as a non-Christian agnostic, choose to correct Jesus' teaching so your opinion is how God works. You are free to consider this as a limitation of God' mercy rather than this being the person misusing their free-will to actively exclude the very elements of love and mercy that enables that person to accept God's mercy.

.

Bluster accusing someone of being disasterously wrong is no substitute for intellectual argument. When you need to imagine your failure to make your point is a failing of the audience to understand your nuances, you may need to consider the elephant in the room instead.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 12/06/17 1:14pm

Dasein

The OP does not explicity mention classical theism but questioning that presentation of God is
implicit in asking about limits to God's mercy. I say as much in the ninth post of this thread.

If permanently rejecting God's love, mercy, forgiveness, and salvation was not an affront to God,
then why frame it as "blasphemy" or the injuring of God's reputation? That's an anthropomorph-
ic presentation and understanding of God - duh! So, I am quite justified in considering blasphem-
ing the Holy Spirit as making God dismayed, irate, angry, etc. Hence, the application of my news
flash where I claim God does not give a fuck if humanly creatures, exercising the free will given
to them by God (supposedly), reject any of those godly gifts just mentioned.

"Jesus {saying} all sins can be forgiven unless the person chooses to permanently reject forgive-
ness by a blasphemy of the spirit" is what I do want to talk about! So, if God has given me free
will and I freely choose to permanently reject God's forgiveness by a blasphemy of the spirit, then
is there a limit to God's mercy if God does not forgive me for exercising free will in the first place?
In classical theism, God punishes those who reject God's gifts of mercy, forgiveness, salvation, etc.
Isn't this incoherent with the concept of love and free will? Doesn't this then mean that the clas-
sical theistic presentation of God has a limit to God's mercy? Upon critical reflection, classical
theism falls apart. Either there is a limit to God's mercy or human free will is not given freely.

If you do not understand something I've said, simply ask me to clarify for I've noticed that other
Orgers have had issues with your reading style: I'm thinking of the exchange you had recently
with Deebee . . .

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 12/06/17 1:48pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

The OP does not explicity mention classical theism but questioning that presentation of God is
implicit in asking about limits to God's mercy. I say as much in the ninth post of this thread.

If permanently rejecting God's love, mercy, forgiveness, and salvation was not an affront to God,
then why frame it as "blasphemy" or the injuring of God's reputation? That's an anthropomorph-
ic presentation and understanding of God - duh! So, I am quite justified in considering blasphem-
ing the Holy Spirit as making God dismayed, irate, angry, etc. Hence, the application of my news
flash where I claim God does not give a fuck if humanly creatures, exercising the free will given
to them by God (supposedly), reject any of those godly gifts just mentioned.

"Jesus {saying} all sins can be forgiven unless the person chooses to permanently reject forgive-
ness by a blasphemy of the spirit" is what I do want to talk about! So, if God has given me free
will and I freely choose to permanently reject God's forgiveness by a blasphemy of the spirit, then
is there a limit to God's mercy if God does not forgive me for exercising free will in the first place?
In classical theism, God punishes those who reject God's gifts of mercy, forgiveness, salvation, etc.
Isn't this incoherent with the concept of love and free will? Doesn't this then mean that the clas-
sical theistic presentation of God has a limit to God's mercy? Upon critical reflection, classical
theism falls apart. Either there is a limit to God's mercy or human free will is not given freely.

If you do not understand something I've said, simply ask me to clarify for I've noticed that other
Orgers have had issues with your reading style: I'm thinking of the exchange you had recently
with Deebee . . .

.

Blasphemy also means evil speaking - It is the repeating of Beezelbul's evil-speaking that discloses the unclean spirit of Beezelbul - See Mark 3:30.

.

Your assumptions of what you think God cares about are just that, your assumptions and your anthropomorphisms.

.

There are good reasons why people have moved on from the fire and brimstone punishment mentality in certain classical theologies. I tried to discuss this in this thread but, just as you also have regularly demonstrated to many here, we also have issues with your reading and reply styles, so you missed where I raised this. PS virtually everyone here has others who have issues with their style - this is no argument and is more a reflection of what we speak about and the passion with which we do it.

.

Having said that, I disagree that a person permanently blocking mercy and walking away from goodness and mercy because they believe this to be evil is a limit to God's mercy for all the reasons you have dismissed. The evil speaking showed the unclean spirit. As I said before (but you missed), I believe that almost all sin is an evil act not an indication of an evil spirit, so Jesus' words hold for virtually all circumstances: short of being like Beezelbul, all sins, even sins against the Word of God can be forgiven. It is the nature of the sinner that determines this, not how upset God is imagined to be.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Unpardonable Sin in the Synoptics = Limits to God's Mercy?*