Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit an 'unrepentable' sin ?

[9th]

So how do you explain these other parts of the bible?

 

 

Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. - 2 Peter 1:19

And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end…I will give him the morning star. - Revelation 2:26a, 28b

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star - Revelation 22:16

 

The story of fallen angels comes from the book of enoch. The leader of the fallen angels in Enoch is named Semyaza. Its goes into great detail about it, but the specific term of Lucifer is a latin name for the planet Venus and relates to something else entirely. But of course you are free to believe whatever you wish.

[dawei]

But of course you are free to believe whatever you wish.

 

so I'll take your sardonic cue and leave the thread... enjoy discussing with others.

[9th]

so I'll take your sardonic cue and leave the thread... enjoy discussing with others.

 

So you dont want to attempt to explain the inconsistencies regarding the "morning star" which I pointed out above? Honestly I did not expect you to. Beliefs can be very fragile, delicately precious things for some people. But of course you are free to justify your avoidance however you wish. And please enjoy not discussing it further.

[3bob]

Could or does "God" create something with an equal power to go against or destroy "God"...

 

I'd say no, for only mind forms or things can be created and or destroyed and are of such realms. Thus if one thinks they are only a mind form or thing (so to speak) then an end is coming to them (as that collection of thought) sooner or later regardless if they sin or not.

[9th]

Could or does "God" create something with an equal power to go against or destroy "God"...

 

I'd say no, for only mind forms or things can be created and or destroyed and are of such realms. Thus if one thinks they are only a mind form or thing (so to speak) then an end is coming to them (as that collection of thought) sooner or later regardless if they sin or not.

 

Does a dog have buddha nature?

[3bob]

a dog is not separate.

 

did the historic Buddha ever recall being in the form of a goat?

[9th]

mu

[3bob]

Om

[damien]

I am still unsure Nungali. You only get 2 blessings on the karmic-scale-of-good-posts. :wub:

 

 

What if I were to insult the holy spirit then say "oops, sorry about that holy spirit, I hope I wasn't out of line with those insults. I repent, I repent, I didnt mean it, please forgive me, I dont want eternal damnation"

 

According to scripture, it doesnt matter what I say, pray or do, I would now be eternally damned, end of story. That, right there, is some really serious stuff.

 

If the holy spirit widthdraws, it can't/won't re-establish the connection for some reason ?

 

Any God who could allow any being to suffer *forever*, not even forgiving them after a billion years, after they had repented, learned their lesson etc, well that kind of God is not worthy of our worship. It's on that basis that I don't worry about a few lines written in the New Testament that refer to this. There are about a thousand different religions on Earth anyway, who is to say which is correct? Why are you so worried about blaspheming the HS, and not worried about not having made offerings to Zeus, for example? Or Thor? And damn, I worked on the Sabbath recently...should I be stoned? And by the way, did you know that if you don't pray three times a day to Allah, you're stuffed as well? Seriously, please cease your worry about this. You've got a precious human life to live. Go out into the sun, and listen to the birds.

 

Edited November 18, 2013 by Zed

[chegg]

Any God who could allow any being to suffer *forever*, not even forgiving them after a billion years, after they had repented, learned their lesson etc, well that kind of God is not worthy of our worship. It's on that basis that I don't worry about a few lines written in the New Testament that refer to this. There are about a thousand different religions on Earth anyway, who is to say which is correct? Why are you so worried about blaspheming the HS, and not worried about not having made offerings to Zeus, for example? Or Thor? And damn, I worked on the Sabbath recently...should I be stoned? And by the way, did you know that if you don't pray three times a day to Allah, you're stuffed as well? Seriously, please cease your worry about this. You've got a precious human life to live. Go out into the sun, and listen to the birds.

 

 

Hi there Mr Zed,

 

Nice to have your post. I was out in the sun today and I am listening to the birds too at this very moment . I also have a habit of questioning everything that is written, regardless of which religion/teaching it is.

 

The eternal damnation thing is a nice little riddle and one of extreme importance (because it has rather long lasting, dire consequences) that needs to be understood and if it can't be understood, well so be it. But I ask on here to see if anyone had a little insight into why someone would even write such a thing ???

 

It seems rather odd to me too that god would send someone to be eternally damned for a slip of the tongue/mind (so-to-speak).

 

 

Blessings from the karmic-scale-of-good-posts :wub: :wub:

Edited November 19, 2013 by chegg

[三江源]

.

Edited July 19, 2014 by cat

[Taomeow]

Some pope made it up. Maybe the same one who prohibited by decree the original Christian belief in reincarnation.

 

Why mind control professionals choose to control your mind this way rather than that way is a function of what they are trying to accomplish. In this particular case, they accomplish confusion, which is one of their favorite techniques. A confused mind is much easier to control than a clear one. A lot of stuff in a lot of scriptures, contemplated and mused on and argued about for centuries, is there for exactly this purpose.

 

Tao equips you naturally to get it right, you know how to use your equipment just because you come complete with it. When hungry, eat. When sleepy, sleep. When hurt, cry out. When pensive, meditate. When blasphemous... ???... -- not part of the equipment, so there's no right or wrong way to use it, just as there is no right or wrong way to fill up a garbage pail in your kitchen. The important thing is to remember to throw the garbage out on a regular basis and not let it fester, is all.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Taomeow

[thelerner]

Any God who could allow any being to suffer *forever*, not even forgiving them after a billion years, after they had repented, learned their lesson etc, well that kind of God is not worthy of our worship. It's on that basis that I don't worry about a few lines written in the New Testament that refer to this. There are about a thousand different religions on Earth anyway, who is to say which is correct? Why are you so worried about blaspheming the HS, and not worried about not having made offerings to Zeus, for example? Or Thor? And damn, I worked on the Sabbath recently...should I be stoned? And by the way, did you know that if you don't pray three times a day to Allah, you're stuffed as well? Seriously, please cease your worry about this. You've got a precious human life to live. Go out into the sun, and listen to the birds.

 

Great post. Such things say more about man trying to control man than rational divine theology.

[goatguy-too]

It seems rather odd to me too that god would send someone to be eternally damned for a slip of the tongue/mind

Yes. I agree. However,

 

God is not constrained by our sophistry. When God said that he doesn't change, even Christians play the game of sophistry. When God created a void within himself, was that a change? When he became incarnate, was that a change? How bout when Jesus (God) grew up, moved around, learned things, were those changes? Of course they were. Are they what God was talking about when he said he didn't change? Of course not. No amount of sophistry changes what God intended.

 

Such sophistry has some Christians believing that the eternal Son had the body of Jesus before creation, or that baby Jesus could fly. It makes a God who is as constrained by predestination as they say we are. It makes a dead God.

 

But God discerns the heart. Each duality in the verse below pits the flesh against the spirit.

 

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

A 'slip of the tongue/mind' I am sure falls into the category of the passing thought, and not the intention of the heart. I am sure that if/when people find themselves in the condition of being unforgivable, that they themselves intend to be there.

 

Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

 

His nature is one of mercy. He has commanded us to forgive 7 x 70, how much more is he willing to forgive? (That is a Jewish val chomer argument useful when interpreting Jewish wisdom literature).

 

Therefor, the understanding of the unforgivable sin is not based on a verse taken out of context, and the offense trivialized, but upon an understanding of God's mercy. The unforgivable sin of blashemy is one in which the work of the Holy Spirit is rejected and continually rejected. It is only the work of the Holy Spirit which can draw you toward God. If you reject that which draws you, you cannot be drawn.

 

 

[3bob]

Not exactly on topic but there is no way that a great deal of what is in written the Bible can be reconciled with itself. (in other words its chalk full of self-contradiction in teachings and actions although that doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit can not use what it can out parts of the Bible)

Edited November 20, 2013 by 3bob

[goatguy-too]

I appreciate your position. Most Christians cannot reconcile the problems in the Bible which are largely due to a hermeneutic foisted on the church by Augustine. You might check out the Gospel of Thomas thread where I am reconciling Thomas with the Bible. If you google 'sensus plenior' you will find that nearly all who write on it admit that they cannot reproduce the exegesis of the NT authors, which means they can't read the OT the same way Jesus and the apostles did. It is no wonder that they have issues which they cannot reconcile.

 

Once you make the break from Augustine and learn the hermeneutic direct from Jesus and the apostles in the NT, many of the insurmountable issues fall away. I'd be happy to address anything which is of particular concern of yours in an other thread.

Edited November 20, 2013 by goatguy

[dawei]

Once you make the break from Augustine and learn the hermeneutic direct from Jesus and the apostles in the NT, many of the insurmountable issues fall away.

 

Excellent point... I cannot think of anyone outside of the apostolic age who influenced doctrine and thought more... Much of what we hear about Christianity seems but a footnote to Augustine.

[3bob]

Goat guy, Even if one stays mainly within the NT there are still many self-contradictions there although there are also some good teachings; but alas and imo there never will be a reconciliation... Jesus is a great golden soul but the Christian doctrines and texts are seriously compromised or manipulated up to point of causing madness. (Thomas or no Thomas)

[chegg]

Goat guy, Even if one stays mainly within the NT there are still many self-contradictions there although there are also some good teachings; but alas and imo there never will be a reconciliation... Jesus is a great golden soul but the Christian doctrines and texts are seriously compromised or manipulated up to point of causing madness. (Thomas or no Thomas)

 

A lot of teachings seem to appear mixed, manipulated, obscure and contradictory. I think it is set up that way for some reason. Perhaps when someone reaches a certain stage of spiritual maturity, the teachings become a little clearer and sort themselves out to some degree. And so it goes on, the more experiences you come by, the more developed you become, the more your power of discernment strengthens and the clearer the teachings appear.

 

There's the old saying, to hand over advanced teachings to a beginner, would be like handing a stick of dynamite to a baby.

 

Luckily, a lot of what occurs, happens under the supervision of the holy spirit, whether you're aware of it or not.

 

 

 

Lots blessings to you :wub: :wub:

Edited November 21, 2013 by chegg

[3bob]

There's a lot of truth in what you say above Chegg, but it does not cover black and white doctrine like eternal heaven and hell as the endgame for various souls.

[三江源]

.

Edited July 19, 2014 by cat

[chegg]

It must cover it, if it covers anything at all.

 

If one is to find the truth of something opening to one through grace... why would that grace fail because a teaching is couched in uncompromising terms?

 

Well said Cat and 3bob. You are both correct in different ways.

 

Might I add that one must be sure to know what "truth" is and define it properly.

 

For example, there are 'relative truths' such as the ones stated in the bible. Further investigation of these will eventually lead one to 'absolute truth' through direct experience. This 'absolute truth' would be difficult to put into words.

 

Another example of this would be our own existence in the physical world. We have a physical body. But this is just the relative truth. Further investigation will lead us closer to absolute truth, ie. the make-up and cause of our existence.

 

The bible is just a crude reflection of the absolute. I hope this makes sense.

 

"Know the absolute truth and the absolute truth will set you free"

 

 

blessings to all you posters :wub: :wub:

Edited November 22, 2013 by chegg

[3bob]

ok cat, it does cover it but it does not reconcile it to a God of love. (more along the lines of what I meant)

Edited November 22, 2013 by 3bob

[三江源]

.

Edited July 8, 2014 by cat

[3bob]

Cat, (or anyone else)

 

I'm not assuming anything about certain text in parts of Christian doctrine, (for such is spelled out without any room for argument or speculation) I also get what you mean but such applies to so called gray areas that are not or can not really be nailed down. Further, ime all the religions of mankind and various other types beings do not end up at the same place or state as some people think, for instance a more or less orthodox Bible based Christianity (including most modern day versions) end in the dualism of a heaven or hell reality... so if one wants to be a non-dualistic, thus non-Bible believing "Christian" and use doctrine opposite of and or outside said Bible then such should be stated as so by them. As for the absolute I agree with you in the sense that one has to leave an opening for that which is beyond what the human mind can understand which would also mean that a great deal of the key and foundational parts of a dualistic Bible would have to be edited out, and then it would no longer be the Bible but something else. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to take away anybody's eternal heaven or hell Bible beliefs but I do reject equating Bible doctrine as having an endpoint of non-dualistic unity, (which for instance is something that is more or less openly alluded to in the texts of the Upanishads)

Edited November 23, 2013 by 3bob