The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

I read that "study" and found that is doesn't address homosexual marriage at all. Nor does it address relationships (ala Goldie Hawn & Kurt Russell) where the couple is not married at all. In reality, most of it covers single parent homes....FINANCIALLY DISADVANTAGED single parent families.Well...no duh...poorer families fare less well.Again...not on topic but I couldn't help myself.

We have one definition of blaspheming the Holy Spirit as attributing It's works to Satan or Satan's works to the Holy SpiritWhat about the Baptist stance on the Gift of Tongues? They say it is from Satan and the sects that use it are deceived. The sects that use Tongues say it is from the Holy Spirit directly.So...which group is going to hell because they can't be forgiven by the above definition?Maybe we need a better definition....

---

Remember; your enemy rarely thinks he is evil. Knowing this can help you find a means of compromising and finding peace...or, in failing that, you can kill him without wasting precious energy on hate.

LinearAq asks:

quote:

---

What about the Baptist stance on the Gift of Tongues? They say it is from Satan and the sects that use it are deceived. The sects that use Tongues say it is from the Holy Spirit directly.

---

I see this as the potential salvation of America as we know it! There are lots of these delicious little differences in various fundie sects. To a Baptist, the Pentecostals are going to hell because they speak in tounges. To the Pentecostals, the Baptists are going to hell because they don't. To the Catholics, the Baptists AND the Pentecostals AND the Lutherans AND the Anglicans, etc., etc., etc. are ALL going to hell because they're not Catholic.Maybe what we should do is try to highlight the differences between these groups and get them fighting against each other. Here's a plan: instead of filing a suit (or perhaps in addition to filing a suit) next time there's a prayer at a high school football game, have your wife dress up like a Pentecostal and drag her along while you go meet with the school principal and insist that, after the prayer, one minute be set aside for speaking in tounges.This message has been edited by berberry, 01-05-2005 02:09 AM

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Hi again: And since this started with you claiming that the best environment for children is in a heterosexual household, I assume you have strong data showing how poorly children do when they’re in a same sex household. Somehow I doubt that you have the statistics to back this up. However, why don’t you look for the numbers regarding child abuse in your best environmental setting?Let me ask you this. Would you be ok with a homosexual marriage if no children were involved? I mean, is that your only concern...the "health" of the children. Is that why you are opposed to gay marriage?

One of the biggest things I am doing here is trying to distinguish between the sin and the sinner. Jesus would not support homosexuality, but he would still love homosexuals. Likewise, even though I would sharply disagree with homosexuals, I would still try to remain respectful and friendly when talking to them. You, however, have not made this distinction. Every post you have used at least one of the following words to describe my arguments:
anti-Christ, bigot or bigotry, oppressive, discriminatory, anti-Christ, condemn (not in reference to condemning homosexuals, but condemning my stance), bull****.
Furthermore, you keep rehashing the discrimination rhetoric each time you respond to my post. Do you have any idea what it is like for me to have to put with all of that? I will simply refuse to debate you any longer unless you choose to act in a more colloquial and respectful manner. This would start with editing Message #74 substantially. I'm not asking you to change the content, but present it in a much more respectable manner, and continue to be respectful even after Message #74.

Hello commike,I would like a reply to Message 73No hurry, I just didn't want it getting lost. (changed title of post)This message has been edited by Asgara, 01-05-2005 15:18 AM

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Well, I was trying to develop children (edit: and a healthy family) as a supplementary argument, but I'm getting spread on this one, so I'm going to drop this one and leave it untouched. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong, it just means that there is not sufficient evidence to prove my point right, and I would like to get the focus off of that argument and on to my main concern (so there's your response, Asgara). Basically, my main concern is that given the heritage of Judeo-Christian marriage in federal marriage, we should respect a fundamental concept of Judeo-Christian marriage. Now I'm not arguing for a strict enforcement of Judeo-Christian marriage for two reasons.
1. Federal marriage is a mix of both secular and Judeo-Christian marriage, so although it shouldn't be totally secular, at the same time it shouldn't be totally Judeo-Christian.
2. Separation of church and state becomes partly an issue, too, moreso on how strict you argue it should be.And since this topic is suppposed to be about blasphemy (the ultimate sin), the question becomes whether or not I can be guilty of the ultimate sin for maintaining these views?This message has been edited by commike37, 01-05-2005 16:37 AM

The response is buried in the middle of message 82. Just want to make sure you don't miss it.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-05-2005 16:35 AM

Gilgamesh:You ask how Christians define "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" and cite Matthew 12:31.Preachers are fond of quoting Matthew 12 when citing this story because then the reason for eternal damnation is left open to the preacher’s interpretation of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Then they can rant and rave regarding all the ways you can be condemned to hellfire and damnation.Only in Mark 3 is the story amplified to explained why the blasphemer is guilty of eternal sin.(First Mark reports) 22: And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.(Then Jesus is quoted as saying) 28: I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29: But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.(Then Mark writes regarding the why) 30: He said this because they were saying, He has an evil spirit.So, it seems that anyone who makes false claims regarding Jesus can be forgiven because they may have mistaken Him for a man, but those who claim that the healing work done through Jesus by the Holy Spirit was done by Satan are guilty of eternal sin.Now this taken together with I came to fulfill the Law may indicate that somewhere in the Law is an admonition to recognize and regard the work of the Holy Spirit and not make false claims regarding it or attribute it to the evil spirits. Maybe it has to do with "consorting with familiar spirits" or some such thing as that. I would look in Leviticus or one of the other Mosaic books to find a connection between the levity of denying God, consorting with spirits, and bearing false witness and such.

I certainly hope so. I hope that it pains and embarasses you. I hope that it hurts you enough to make you stop and reexamine your actions. In addition to denying Jesus Peter, try sticking your fingers in your ears and humming "La-La-La-La".You are free to refuse to debate me. I am free to continue commenting on and condeming anti-Christian behavior and bigotry. Pray tell, how does one speak respectfully about bigotry? Are Christians expected to respect blasphemers?I have not said anything about you. I don't know you, have likely never met you, probably never will meet you. But I have commented on your behavior and on what you have said. If you wish to refute what I have said, go for it. Me too. After all, I love you the sinner, I just hate your sins.Remember, like Peter, you can change your behavior.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The only thing it's done is anger and frustrate me. OK. I'm now guilty of denying Jesus Peter, I've been mocked with the "La-La-La-La" comment, and I'm acting anti-Christian and bigotrous. Thank you! Oh, really? Now I certainly don't think DOMA is discriminatory and oppressive, but you basically say here that any person (including me) that supports DOMA is a bigot and the anti-Christ. How friendly! You pretty much insuate the other side (which I'm a part of) with a discriminatory, bigotrous, oppressive behavior whenever. Any time I try to do that, no matter what I say, I still get the discrimination rhetoric thrown at me each time. "There is no other possible description." Even in this post it's coming in. Quite frankly, this is almost getting to the level of harassment.edit: It could also help if you didn't call half of my arguments "bull****" in Message #74 (I don't think that's very Christ-like), and repeating the same (except for adding the word "else") discrimination rethoric at the end that you had used in just the previous post.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-05-2005 20:06 AM

No, I say that the behavior says that you are a bigot. It's behavior.And I don't say that you are the anti-christ (you flatter yourself) but that the behavior is anti-christ.It's about discrimination, oppression and bigotry. Behavior.How else can you describe denying people the right to access to health care?How else can you describe denying people the right to protection from domestic violence?How else can you describe denying people inheritance rights?How else can you describe denying people the same access to protection under divorce laws?You have never answered any of those questions. No, I do not insinuate. I state it as a fact. Yes, that is correct. It is discriminatory, oppressive and bigoted behavior.Again:How else can you describe denying people the right to access to health care?How else can you describe denying people the right to protection from domestic violence?How else can you describe denying people inheritance rights?How else can you describe denying people the same access to protection under divorce laws? AbE

​

It is unlikely that you are going to change your behavior. I have done my best to try to show you where you are making errors in both behavior and understanding the message of Christianity.

​

You will likely continue down the path you have chosen. Please remember, as so many Christians are fond of pointing out, that your actions will be judged.

​

Matthew 25:31-46

​

31: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34: Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37: Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38: When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39: Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40: And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44: Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45: Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. This message has been edited by jar, 01-05-2005 19:11 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have reiterated most of the conclusions that were given above. There is still some indecision about whether this is actually an unforgivable eternal sin.An interesting thought:It would be impossible then, for a atheist like me to commit this sin. I could say "that the healing work done through Jesus by the Holy Spirit was done by Satan" but given that I don't believe in supernatural healing, or the divinity of Jesus, or possibly even the existence of Jesus, and certainly don't believe in the existence of the Holy Spirit or Satan those words would be meaningless from my mouth. I couldn't say them with any conviction and can't imagine ever wanting to.So the only person who can commit this eternal sin is a somewhat confused theist, like the Jews in the story I suppose.Admins: I am happy for the off topic discussion between Commike37 and Jar to continue here.

Let's look at that sentence.
"I say that the behavior says that you are a bigot."
And by the way, the last four words are "you are a bigot."
You basically say, "You have to agree with me or else 'behavior says that you are a bigot.' " Now that is in no way productive to debate or to discussion. Stop repeating that again and again and again. Especially twice in the same post. I made a response the first time you posted it. However, if you choose to continue acting in the way you do, repost this argument, call my arguments bull****, constantly characterize my arguments as bigotrous and oppressive, I will refuse to debate any of your content (which is why these posts are specifically focused on how you are treating me, not on your content). Notice the phrase "if you choose." That means my decision to debate or not debate, address or not address these questions, is contingent upon the way you will treat me.This is harassment.

No, let me give you some examples of harassment.Denying people the right to access to health care?Denying people the right to protection from domestic violence?Denying people inheritance rights?Denying people the same access to protection under divorce laws?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion