Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Sunday, April 3, 2011

This Sunday is Unforgivable!

So I came across this term yesterday, 'unforgivable sin' (I was looking up unicorns in the bible!) I was kind of curious since I'd never heard this before. Turns out there are sins that can never be forgiven ( of course now that I think of it isn't suicide one of these?) Here's what wiki has to say:

Eternal sins or unforgivable sins or unpardonable sins, are a concept in Christian theology of sins which cannot or will not be forgiven, whereby salvation becomes impossible. It has its origin in several biblical passages.
Although the Bible doesn’t employ the term “unpardonable sin”, there is one sin frequently considered “eternal” and that is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; however this phrase is rarely taken to have its literal meaning. Some sins that are frequently considered eternal include deliberate rejection of the mercy of God, and ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to the Devil.

I guess that tosses freedom of expression out the window! And some bible passages:
  • Mark 3:28-30:Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’.
  • Matthew 12:30-32:Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 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.
  • Luke 12:8-10:I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Ok, so it looks like I could never get off for my many, many offenses, both on the blog and in person. But wait a sec, "however this phrase is rarely taken to have its literal meaning." What the hell does that mean? I'm thinking it means we don't actually enforce it, ie; we'll still give you all the lip service and let you sit in our special places and we'll even be nice enough to take your 10% 'donations' as well. We just won't really tell you it won't help, you're still screwed.

Of course the Catholics get around this by saying:

However, the Church further believes there is no offence, however serious, that cannot be taken away by Baptism, or absolved from in the Confessional—that no one, however wicked and guilty, may not confidently hope for forgiveness. Note that while Our Lord did declare blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable, He did not except it from the sins that may be forgiven by Baptism and Penance (Mt 16,19; Mt 18,18; Joh 20,23). St. Thomas explains that its unforgivability means that it removes the entrance itself to these means of salvation—however, it cannot hinder Almighty and Merciful God to take away this obstacle by sort of a miracle.[6] This is affirmed by the Catechism which says that Christ desires “the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.[7] The Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, notably, take away any sin if received.
The Eastern Orthodox churches essentially hold the same principles in regards to this doctrine.

I guess, the bible IS open to interpretation after all... But if baptism takes away ANY sin, then John Paul the BAPTIST was taking it away before Jesus was nailed to those sticks... So what was the point of that then? Don't you just LOVE religion? Now that's some logic and reason!

I seem to be talking about sin a lot lately, sorry unfortunately it is the cornerstone of most religions and they love to go on and on about it.

Best!

Brett

20 comments:

Cryostar1177 said...

The bible is the largest book of poetry ever written. I always like the definition, and it was a catholic that told it to me.

And, the whole "jesus came to take away the sins of the world" bit was true from a metaphysical aspect. Yes, John the Baptist was the first baptizer (and cousin to Jesus), but Jesus actually opened the games of heaven for people to enter. Not that there is direct proof, but the idea was that everyone was waiting in Purgatory or Limbo or some other place, and jesus saved those folks. /shrug

Brett said...

Cryostar,

I've also heard other Catholics describe it that way, also as teaching fables akin to Aesopes.

This is what I'm having trouble with, if baptism only works AFTER Jesus dies, then why did Jesus allow John to baptize him? Was he just humoring him? I've also heard it told that John was actually the messiah and not Jesus. It seems like only things Jesus does have any actual mystical power, so why bother to do them if it only works for Jesus?

Actually the bible states everyone will be in purgatory until after the second coming. And then there is no heaven for everyone until after the 1000 year Jesus reign after the second coming. That's why some religions are so set on NOT donating body parts. Because they will need them after Jesus returns... Now that's a zombie apocalypse!

Best,

Brett

Fatboy73 said...

That's one of the main reasons different religions evolved throughout the years.Don't like your religion with that nasty bitter aftertaste of unforgivable sin?Then come try our new and improved religion,same great hypocritical flavor you love...but with out that nasty unavoidable eternal damnation aftertaste!
And your right,it was generally believed that it could have been Jesus Or John.Both women had angels announcing their births and so on and so forth.Just like Harry
Potter and Nevile Longbottom either one could have been the chosen one,Harry and Jesus just had better press agents. ;)

M.O.R said...

This is what is so confusing with religon, and why, I feel, that one should go by their hearts as to what is right and what is not.
The problem with any of the holy texts, is that they have been edited so much, that the 'true' meaning is long gone, and we will never know what it was. Every king, leader or powermonger decided that they should cut and paste what they like and hate in and out of the book.

But what I am confused about, with the whole Holy Spirit thing, is does that say that if we physically attack the holy spirit, we commit unforgivable sin, or is it that when we insult the holy spirit, we injure the holy spirit, and therefore commit unforgivable sin?

And Brett, you seem to be turning into the anti-Charlie Sheen. I mean, your page also condemns the trolls, and instead of shouting 'winning' at every opportunity, for the last few weeks you've been shouting 'sinning'. ;)

David said...

I will speak up for the Lutherans and say that we do not believe in eternal sins. It was something that I did hear about from Catholics though. It seems very contradictory in the nature of faith.

Cryostar1177 said...

Being a Catholic (albeit a Jesuit taught one), we don't have eternal sins, despite what some may say. There is nothing too grave that God won't forgive you. If God would forgive Lucifer (all he needs is to ask, he better forgive you).

Baptism worked before Jesus, as John was guided by the power of the Holy Spirit, as mentioned previously, Jesus' saving was a different type than Johns.

And you're quite correct. The current view is that we must atone before entering heaven, save for one group (and this is where a lot of other Christians will disagree), the saints. Anyone that has achieved Sainthood is said to definitely be in heaven. Mind you, I'm not defending anything or impressing anything upon you ( I firmly know how you feel ) just trying to clarify for intellectual conversation. :D

M.O.R said...

Gotta love intellectual conversation. So much more interesting than unintelligent conversation. I mean, I would rather hear other people's opinions about topics that interest us, rather than stupid stuff like reality TV or worse.

illustratorx said...

What is the unpardonable sin? What an excellent question!

Now it is true parts of the Bible are poetic, but it would be supreme ignorance to say the Bible is nothing but a book of poetry or metaphors. Anyone who makes such a statement is either completely ignorant of poetry, the Bible, or both.

This is a section written as both a historical account of an event of Jesus’ life, and it is also written as a teaching. In context this would have been understood as being a literal truth Christ was stating.

That being said, scholars have wrestled with “the unforgivable sin” and its meaning for centuries. There is pretty clear cohesive thought on what it is not (it isn’t murder, abortion, slander, lying, sexual sin, unbelief, persecution of the truth, etc.)

What it is from the passage is “blasphemy of the holy spirit,” and from the context of the passage, Jesus is applying it to those who have witnessed the work of the Holy Spirit first hand and seen God working through Jesus and have verbally declared God’s work to be that of Satan.

How this plays out today is where people struggle with the application. For instance does it apply to only those who were alive and physically saw Jesus and rejected him as Satan’s instrument or can you still commit it today?

If you look at the life of Paul, he dragged Christ’s followers out of the church so they could be killed because He believed them to be following a false Messiah; very close to what is commonly thought of as the unpardonable sin. He was ascribing God’s work to the work of the evil one. Yet his life is transformed and he becomes the greatest missionary and the most influential person in Christianity, second only to Jesus in terms of establishing the church.

So what do I believe? Again Christianity has certain beliefs which there can be no disagreement on (sin, death, salvation, Christ’s deity, etc.) There are also secondary issues which are open for discussion because they are not central doctrinal issues. This is one of those areas where it is okay to struggle and continue to work through. But again what do I personally believe? I believe because so much of Christianity is linked to confessing the person of Jesus as the Christ, as Lord, as Messiah, as Savior, as God and king; that the unpardonable sin is instead of ascribing deity to Christ, it rejects the prompting and verifying work of the Holy Spirit, thus saying Christ is an agent of the devil. In doing so one would reject God’s very work to bring salvation and thus prevent the Holy Spirit entrance into their life and would do the exact opposite of glorifying God. In short one would not worship Jesus, they would curse Jesus and therefore be separated from God for now and eternity.

Christ’s teachings frequently were misunderstood by those who heard them, and even his disciples didn’t “get it” until after he died and rose from the grave. After the resurrection Jesus’ messages had new light shined upon them, they made since in both their original circumstance and in application for the new way of relating to God. Like a seed that dies, and then rises with new life out of the ground; many of Jesus’ teachings full significance can only be understood when looking at both the specific context and the big picture application.

-Steve

Brett said...

Cryostar and David, so the Catholics and Lutherans don't believe if eternal sins... but I thought the Catholics believed that suicides go directly to hell? Isn't that an eternal sin? Or is it a catch 22, where they could get absolution... id they confessed which they can't cause their dead?

M.O.R. I rather prefer this kind of conversation than hearing how much something sucks myself, which is why I bother doing the posts.

Steve,

I don't think you actually ment it but you sort of insulted several people at once! YOU disagree with the bible being poetry, lots of others consider it so, especially scholars. You consider it history while most historians don't. There is some, but it's not a text book. There are clearly things in it that did not happen. Like the Jews being slaves to the Egyptians. Those kind of things are the poetry or fable parts. I've also heard that the bible was originally supposed to be sung, which I find really interesting.

So you're telling me that some things from the bible apply only to the time of Jesus and not now? Who decides what those are? And then why should any of it matter? Is this how you guys pick and choose what rules to follow? I have a feeling this changed because you can't kill the blasphemers anymore, so instead you try and turn them, and you can't turn someone if they're already going to hell, there is no point.

Best!

Brett

illustratorx said...

Brett, again if you actually want to understand the Bible you may actually want to dig a bit deeper into what the actual scholars say so you could actually discuss it with a little bit of credibility. You seem to have a pretty poor understanding of hermeneutics and how to apply them to ancient manuscripts. The word Bible means "library" it is a set of books, some of them are poetry, some history, some letters to churches, some are songs. There is not one reputable Biblical scholar secular or Christian who believes it is one big book of poetic fables. I'm not trying to insult you, but it would be mutually beneficial if you actually had a basic understanding of the things you argue against.

illustratorx said...

To clarify-even scholars who dismiss the Bible as being not factual, accept the writing styles as being in the category of historical writing, not poetical verse.

It has to do with the type of writing, not the content of what is contained. You do this by taking other ancient manuscripts of the same antiquity and comparing and contrasting writing styles.

illustratorx said...

You also kind of have a problem when you historically deny the birth of the nation of Israel. It kind of exists. It is sort of a fact that it is still there today. I actually know Jews. There isn't another historically credible explanation for the Jewish nation to be where it is and for the artifacts and ancient texts to exist which mention it. I guess you can kinda ignore the nation of Israel, but those pesky maps and globes keep mentioning it.

Brett said...

What's wrong Steve, my questions to hard to answer? Hermeneutics is only interpritations. Those change with the version of the bible and religion. There is no one version that everyone agree upon.

So, you, who has no real understanding of how science actually works yet make all sort of outlandish claims about it are telling me that I know nothing of your version of Christianity (most of what I know is Catholic based, since that's how I was raised)and shouldn't talk about it?!?! Damn you just love your hypocricy Steve!

What the HELL are you going on about? Israel exists. I see it on the news all the time. Just because Spideman isn't real doesn't mean New York isn't what kind of thinking is that? I never claimed that Israel never existed, Egypt did but I seriously doubt the Pharroh was part god. Troy existed, but I really doubt Achillies was a demi-god who was invulnerable except for his heal... Stop trying to reason Steve, you are very bad at it!

And you still didn't answer any of my questions.

Best!

Brett

Cryostar1177 said...

Brett, one can argue that sanity is impaired for victims of suicide, but even if you don't, those that commit suicide are not necessarily damned to hell for all eternity. As mentioned below, if god is willing to forgive lucifer, he damned well better be willing to forgive anyone else. And if he's not, then he has the potential to forgive, and god cannot have potential, if he has potential, he is not perfect. (St. Thomas Aquinas) I know he's a saint, but you may want to look at his books, they're very reason oriented and attempt to write "proofs" for many things in religion. I think you would enjoy them.

Steve, I have a large problem anyone treating the bible as historical. I'll take the story from the woman at the well. It's in the bible. It's the longest single discussion that any one has with jesus in the bible, but the problem is, if the apostles were all in town getting food....who was writing it down for John? Why does Joseph (Jesus's dad) not have a single quoted word in the bible? Was he mute?

No, it's much worse than that. Around 400 AD, Catholicsm became the religion of Rome, and the pope got power. A series of councils started, and the Bible was molded into a marketing tool to attract new folks. Want more proof, start reading any of the "forbidden" gospels. The Gospel of Tim or Daniel. The ones that show Jesus as Married, maybe with kids. Why aren't they in? They didn't show the version of Jesus that the church wanted. Thus, you cannot accept the bible as a historical document and more than you can accept an infomercial as one. Does this mean the bible is useless? No, it just means that you have to do more than read it to get information out of it.

Brett said...

Cryostar,

I could see the temporary insanity idea, but I've also heard from another Catholic that yes it is a catch 22, they need to ask for absolution and they can't.

Does the bible have dates in it? I can't remember seeing any. If not, it's not a historical document. I don't understand why people get so upset when you compare it to teaching fables. I lOVE Aesop!

Best,

Brett

Fatboy73 said...

I have a large problem anyone treating the bible as historical. I'll take the story from the woman at the well. It's in the bible. It's the longest single discussion that any one has with jesus in the bible, but the problem is, if the apostles were all in town getting food....who was writing it down for John?

Just playing devils advocate but realistically the woman Jesus was supposedly talking to could have relayed the account to anyone,a bunch of people in fact and people thought it was a great story so it kept on spreading eventually reaching mythic level and finally being recorded by someone.
But your right,one of the main problems with the bible being considered historically accurate is that nothing was witnessed first hand,everything was taken from well my great grandfather told my grandfather who told aunt Sari who told... and so on and so forth.Also again it is a well know fact that a lot of the bible is Mythology taken from from much older civilizations and re-spun to give it validity for the current culture and it's still being done today.

Cryostar1177 said...

I understand about the absolution part, and here's where it gets a bit grey. God knows what's in your heart, god will see you post sin, at that point, are you incapable of asking god for abosolution? I'm not sure why it would have to be a phsyical asking and granting by a priest (this may be contrary to Catholocism), but again limiting to ourselves seems contrary to the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas. God would have the potential to forgive you then, but wouldn't, therefore god has potential and is imperfect (not to mention, if he's all-loving, why wouldn't he offer then as well).

I'm not sure if there are dates in the bible, but there are enough historically cited events that years can be obtained. Remember, though, the first thoughts by Gregorian monks were 3-4 years off of when the took place, hence in year 0 on the gregorian calendar (supposedly the year jesus was born), jesus was 3-4 years old. :D

And there's nothing wrong with fables. Parables are the way jesus taught everyone, and a parable is nothing more than a fable, the bibles ripe with them.

I think Fatboy (forgive the use, but i don't know your name) is right. Almost everything is second hand, sometimes more. We've all played the grapevine game....how well does that work out for us? ;)

Lastly, if you've made it this far into my post, here's the positive for today:

Scientologists have genetically engineered cows (200 of them) to produce human breast milk. Go ahead, ask yourself why. :D

Fatboy73 said...

Scientologists have genetically engineered cows (200 of them) to produce human breast milk. Go ahead, ask yourself why. :D

Same reason they put spider genes in goats so their milk contains silk proteins which can separated and woven...because they can and they think their could be a market for it.
Oh and Fatboy or Chris is fine.If I was going to be offended by the username,I wouldn't have chosen it :D

Brett said...

Cryostar,

That's why a lot of religion breaks down when you try to reason it out.

From what I've read most of the events are around certain times but it's never an exact match. I know the King David dates to events are off by several hundred years as well. If it's not giving exact dates its not a history book.

I think you ment scientists not Scientologists;) And it was 300. They made them to replace baby formula. Still not as good as the regular stuff.

http://www.dwnomad.com/2011/04/tuesday-science-gm-cows-make-human-milk.html

Best!

Brett

Cryostar1177 said...

I throw any historical accuracy out when it comes to the old testament. I still think most of it happened, but relative to each other, or relative to events that they reference.

And you guys are correct, it was Scientists in China. Apparently my brain doesn't work well in the morning (as opposed to any other time). Still, just think of the possibilities. Human Breast Milk Butter, Ice Cream and Cheese, coming to a store near you! :D