Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 134 (174230)
01-05-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
01-05-2005 8:34 PM


Enough is Enough
I said that if you continued to treat me this way, I will simply not debate you anymore. After multiple posts, you have refused to change your behavior and treat me in a way which is more reflective of the love of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I will no longer respond to anything you say in this topic, unless you wish to talk of changing your attitude, or unless one of the administrators or moderators chooses to reconcile this conflict.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 01-05-2005 8:34 PM jar has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 92 of 134 (174232)
01-05-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
01-05-2005 8:34 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
jar writes:
...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?
No...actually those are examples of discrimination or cruelty.
This is poorly disguised try by the Christian Right to utilize the U.S. Constitution to put pressure on those who don't subscribe to their rules of behavior. I understand why you are upset by this. However, it is turning into a session of "Is so!" and "Is not".
Commiemike is so focused on your comments that he is ignoring Asgara's request to support his "Family Health" assertion, unless he thinks that the research paper (cough-cough) he referred to is any kind of support for those statements. Just a quick glance at it has assured me it is no support at all...same old retoric.

Having fun in the South....Ross Ice Shelf at McMurdo, Antarctica

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 01-05-2005 8:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 01-05-2005 9:34 PM LinearAq has replied
 Message 95 by commike37, posted 01-05-2005 9:52 PM LinearAq has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 93 of 134 (174237)
01-05-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by commike37
01-04-2005 4:16 PM


Re: 2. Go back to name-calling again
Well, bigot tends to have a very negative connotation (moreso than ignorant), especially since the definition uses the words 'intolerantly' and 'prejudices'.
i would call discrimination on the basis of sexuality both intolerant and prejudiced.
As for the question posed by strictly enforcing the Bible, Judeo-Christian heritage exists in the federal concept of marriage, but not at a level of 100%.
what about polygamy? the patriarchs all did it, and tended to impregnate their wive's handmaidens while they were at it. lots of culture practiced monogamy, and the ancient jews don't appear to be one of them.
also, for future reference, there is no FEDERAL concept of marriage. marriage licenses and these laws are all at the state level.
(as that would totally undermine separation of church and state)
and promoting intolerant laws because your religion doesn't like a certain kind of person doesn't?
(of course, that assumes that the Bible is against homosexual marriage, but we won't get in depth on that one since that would get a bit off-topic).
find me a verse from the bible condemning lesbians.
edit: Also, the verse from Leviticus shouldn't be used.
then i move that we strike this one as well:
quote:
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
We don't live under the Law of the Old Testament (or God's Old Covenant with his people), we know live under the grace of Jesus Christ (or the New Covenant), which empowers us to do that which is right. You don't see any church strictly enforcing all of the codes in Leviticus today, do you?
*yawn*
quote:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets
Also, read the story about the adulteress who Jesus saved from a stoning and forgave. That's a very simple explanation (almost over-simplified).
so, should the government punish the adulteress? should they outlaw adultery? can you truly regulate morality, and if you can does it have any meaning if do?
the bible and the constitution are different documents, and should remain so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by commike37, posted 01-04-2005 4:16 PM commike37 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 134 (174238)
01-05-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by LinearAq
01-05-2005 9:11 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
You are right, but I stopped talking to him many post ago. There is no likelyhood of changing his behavior. There is a possibility though of reaching one or more other Christians. It is a very small possibility but until now, the loudest voices of Christianity, people like Oral Roberts, Gene Scott, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell have been expounding their hate filled rhetoric without the rest of the Christian Community standing up and pointing out the inconsistencies.
If Christianity is to have any relevance, we need to speak as loudly as the voices from the Christian Right. And in addition, we need to point to the consequences in very real human terms of those actions.
The thread title is " The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost"
IMHO, the actions of some supposed leaders of the Christian movement reflect that. When you use the word and authority of GOD to do evil, to do harm to fellow human beings, it is a Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
That is the issue. The symptom are those who in the name of faith, are led to behave in Un-Christian ways.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by LinearAq, posted 01-05-2005 9:11 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by LinearAq, posted 01-05-2005 10:18 PM jar has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 134 (174242)
01-05-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by LinearAq
01-05-2005 9:11 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
OK, I was going to try to leave that argument alone and focus on what I thought were some better arguments (see Message #82), but if you insist, I'll get back to this.
Marriage has a duel nature of sorts in relation to its heritage. It is part Judeo-Christian and part secular. As that report from the Heritage Foundation says, children in marriages will be much better off, and a report from Reuters Health (Click here for the actual article) talks about how marriage benefits your health. It is for reasons like this that the government will politically promote marriage with additional privileges. This is a reflection of the secular nature of marriage. But marriage also has a Judeo-Christian nature, so it becomes important to protect a fundamental aspect of Judeo-Christian marriage by keeping it heterosexual. The secular nature keeps marriage from being enforced very strictly according Christian guidelines, but the Judeo-Christian nature keeps marriage from becoming no more than a political tool and having no sanctity at all. You could see from this viewpoint how the sanctity of marriage could become very contingent upon one's view of separation of church and state. I'm not arguing for absolutely no separation, but at the same time I don't believe that complete separation should exist either. Certainly one could not be convicted of blasphemy and the ultimate sin for his views of separation of church and state!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by LinearAq, posted 01-05-2005 9:11 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by LinearAq, posted 01-05-2005 10:41 PM commike37 has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 96 of 134 (174251)
01-05-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
01-05-2005 9:34 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
jar writes:
The thread title is " The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost"
IMHO, the actions of some supposed leaders of the Christian movement reflect that. When you use the word and authority of GOD to do evil, to do harm to fellow human beings, it is a Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
What you are presenting is an example (as you see it) of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (BATHS for shorthand). I don't agree that it is BATHS.
If it is BATHS then BATHS can't be unforgivable. Paul claimed God's authority to kill early Christians. Paul was forgiven and even asked by Christ to be a follower.
Since Christ stated that BATHS was the unforgivable sin then your example does not apply.
Personnally, I believe that BATHS is actually ignoring the urging of the Holy Spirit and refusing to acknowledge Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Explanation from a you-must-be-saved-to-get-to-heaven Christian perpective:
1. If you sin, even after you are saved, you should ask for fogiveness for that sin from Christ and from the person that you hurt.
2. The possibility exists that many of us die having failed to ask forgiveness for a sin we have commited. This could be from holding a grudge or sinning just before dying..etc.
3. Since the only thing required to get to heaven is to be saved, those sins for which you have failed to ask forgiveness will still be forgiven or overlooked.
4. It is only the sin of failing to accept Christ that blasphemes the Holy Spirit and is unforgivable.
Unless I am wrong....

Having fun in the South....Ross Ice Shelf at McMurdo, Antarctica

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 01-05-2005 9:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 01-05-2005 10:30 PM LinearAq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 134 (174254)
01-05-2005 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by LinearAq
01-05-2005 10:18 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
I am not saying that the actions of those leaders are the sin, but that using the Authority of the Church to justify their actions is the sin.
Paul claimed the Authority of the Church for his early actions against Christians. That may seem a quibble but I believe it is significant.
The actions of those people I have listed as well as others is what I believe is BATH to use your acronym.
I am quite sure other will disagree and we will not likely find out for sure. But I find it absolutely unbelievable that "ignoring the urging of the Holy Spirit and refusing to acknowledge Christ as your Lord and Savior" could even be a sin, much less an unforgivable one. Would you condemn an amoeba that refused to acknowledge your existence? Can you even imagine a real GOD that would even get upset by someone refusing to acknowledge his existence?
GOD is not some bling-bling pimp daddy getting in your face because you disrespected him.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by LinearAq, posted 01-05-2005 10:18 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by LinearAq, posted 01-05-2005 10:52 PM jar has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 98 of 134 (174257)
01-05-2005 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by commike37
01-05-2005 9:52 PM


Is there really no questioning this?
commike37 writes:
As that report from the Heritage Foundation says, children in marriages will be much better off
But the report doesn't EVER address unmarried couples with children or homosexual couples raising children. It only looks at single parenting. In fact it seems to allude that being poor and single with a child is not good for the child. Again...no duh!! I don't see how requiring marriage to only be between a man and a woman is going to help these unfortunate statistics quoted in this report.
also he writes:
...and a report from Reuters Health (Click here for the actual article) talks about how marriage benefits your health.
quote from the article: "They are less likely than singles, divorcees or widowed adults to be in fair or poor health, and are less likely to suffer from headaches or serious psychological distress."
Seems to me that this indicates that sharing the burdens in life make life easier. Can't this be done with someone of the same sex?
quote from the article "People living together but not married are more likely to have health problems than married adults, the survey found, and the findings hold firmest for the youngest adults."
I would think we would want that for homosexuals to help them be healthier. I would think we want that for children raised by them to have a better chance in life. But you want to deny that for them.
Is this because you don't like what they do?
Neither of these reports addressed homosexual marriage. How can we draw conclusions about homosexual marriage from these reports? I think you need something else to support your assertions.

Having fun in the South....Ross Ice Shelf at McMurdo, Antarctica

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by commike37, posted 01-05-2005 9:52 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by commike37, posted 01-06-2005 12:08 AM LinearAq has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 99 of 134 (174260)
01-05-2005 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by jar
01-05-2005 10:30 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
jar writes:
Can you even imagine a real GOD that would even get upset by someone refusing to acknowledge his existence?
No, I can't. I was presenting a possibility from a prevailing Christian context. A large percentage of Christians profess to believing that the "Roman Road" method of salvation is the one that gets you to heaven. Since you don't seem to subscribe to the confess-you-are-a-sinner-and-make-Christ-your-Lord method of getting to heaven, I did not expect you to accept this as truth.
Ameobas are not involved in the salvation ritual since they have no soul...only humans have souls. Predominant Christian perspective.

Having fun in the South....Ross Ice Shelf at McMurdo, Antarctica

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 01-05-2005 10:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by jar, posted 01-05-2005 11:23 PM LinearAq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 100 of 134 (174268)
01-05-2005 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by LinearAq
01-05-2005 10:52 PM


Re: Well let's take a look at what you said.
Question.
Where is Backwoods Hole, MD. I used to live on Blackhole Creek but never heard of Backwoods Hole.
Ameobas are not involved in the salvation ritual since they have no soul...only humans have souls. Predominant Christian perspective.
Well I can't imagine a heaven without the diversity we see in life around us.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by LinearAq, posted 01-05-2005 10:52 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by LinearAq, posted 01-06-2005 11:37 PM jar has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 134 (174275)
01-06-2005 12:03 AM


What have we got then?
As is often the case, we have a myriad of opinions on the issue of "The Ultimate Sin" (Matt12:22-37, Mark 3:22-30, Luke 11:14-26)
We have almost 50/50 opinions from my reading of the above: The ulitmate sin is:
1) Strictly how JC described it: considering the acts of Holy Spirit/Ghost and/or Jesus to be that of Satan. This option logically excludes application to atheists and non-believers.
and/or
2) Denying Holy Spirit/Ghost or in other words failing to convert or falling by the way etc. This obviously potentially applies to anyone. This definition does make more theological sense. This interpretation seems somewhat of a stretch based on the JC quotes though.
Thanks for the responses.
(Jar I did not receive your email about my nephew referred to in your post 12 above)

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 01-06-2005 12:14 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 134 (174276)
01-06-2005 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by LinearAq
01-05-2005 10:41 PM


Re: Is there really no questioning this?
How can we draw conclusions about homosexual marriage from these reports? I think you need something else to support your assertions.
These reports draw conclusions about the benefits of marriage. It does not clearly define what marriage is. That's where the dual nature of marriage comes in. The secular nature is concerned with the benefits of marriage and in my last post, I used this evidence to specifically refer to the secular nature. The secular nature promotes marriage with political privileges. The Judeo-Christian nature defines what marriage is. Of course how Judeo-Christian this nature is will be defined by church and state.
To clarify:
The Judeo-Christian nature defines marriage.
The secular nature promotes the benefits of marriage (under its current definition) by granting political privileges to married people. It does not define marriage.
Speaking of which, these reports probably refer to heterosexual marriage (gay marriage is starting to make gains, but for the longest time straight marriages was a de facto standard and still is by far the most prevalent form of marriage). I don't know of a single study that makes a direct comparision between gay and straight marriage, so you would probably have to find one to definitively prove your point (but gay marriage is very rare and few if any studies have been conducted at all, so it's not your fault if you can't find an example of a direct comparison).
But getting back to my main point, it ultimately is an issue of church and state when you deal with how Judeo-Christian the definition of marriage should be, and you would thus have to argue that my position on church and state is blaphemy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by LinearAq, posted 01-05-2005 10:41 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by FliesOnly, posted 01-06-2005 9:10 AM commike37 has replied
 Message 114 by LinearAq, posted 01-06-2005 11:56 PM commike37 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 134 (174277)
01-06-2005 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Gilgamesh
01-06-2005 12:03 AM


Re: What have we got then?
There is a new vaccine going into trials related to Diabetes. Link to info
as soon as I saw it i thought of your nephew. he's been in my prayers constantly since I heard his story.
I hope you'll get your doctor to followup and see if he might be eligible to be in the trials.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Gilgamesh, posted 01-06-2005 12:03 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Gilgamesh, posted 01-06-2005 12:41 AM jar has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 134 (174282)
01-06-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
01-06-2005 12:14 AM


Thanks Jar
Hello Jar,
I really appreciate the effort and the gesture.
My nephew has been insulin dependent now for over ten years (since the age of 10) and may be beyond the benefits proposed by this new vaccine. I have forwarded the link to his father (although because I many years ago sent him links showing how the production of life saving insulin from e.coli is based on the application of evolutionary principles, he may not accept the link in the spirit intended)
You may have read I mentioned in another thread that his brother (my other nephew, that is) spent a terrible Christmas day in hospital having his appendix removed.
I am always horrified as to how my fundamentalist brother rationalises these tragedies to his familiy and whether such rationalisations make their grief and despair greater rather than worse.
I know that if I contracted a life threatening illness I'd prefer to rationalise it merely as "shit happens" as opposed to anguishing over how I might have failed to do right by my God.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 01-06-2005 00:44 AM

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
- Philip K. Dick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 01-06-2005 12:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 01-06-2005 12:47 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 105 of 134 (174284)
01-06-2005 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Gilgamesh
01-06-2005 12:41 AM


Re: Thanks Jar
Well, as you know I don't see such things as any divine retribution crap. But I did want to at least make sure you guys are aware of it. I'll continue to pray for him and for everybody suffering from diabetes. Hopefully fifty years from now diabetes will be a memory (actually for many no longer even a memory) like polio.
I'm sorry it didn't get to you as quickly as I hoped. I first sent is almost a month ago. I apologize for not following up sooner.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Gilgamesh, posted 01-06-2005 12:41 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024