Fish For God?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Whilst that is good to know, it still doesn't excuse the fact that God ranks blaspheming against his ghost as a worse crime than any other.

Unless I've fucked up my reasoning, the Holy Spirit was sent to Christ's apostles to inspire them to teach. It is essentially god's grace given to humanity, and blaspheming against it is considered a rejection of god's grace and of god himself by extension (according to Orthodox doctrine). It establishes a thematic continuity with the Old Testament: the first, most important commandment in Exodus is also not having other gods before El.

[FSTargetDrone]

Whilst that is good to know, it still doesn't excuse the fact that God ranks blaspheming against his ghost as a worse crime than any other.

I was "raised" Roman Catholic (that is, baptized, 8 years of grade and 4 years high school run by Catholics) so I have some background here and a lot of what I'm seeing in the thread from krakonfour and his opinions on Christianity simply baffles me. I don't know where he is getting his information but some of it is simply wrong from what I know and research I've been doing for the purposes of this post. I also have to admit that I'm finding the entire thread exhausting and silly, discussing things that are rooted in fantasy. But to continue to this slight tangent...

I suspect that today's Roman Catholic Church would try very hard to see that someone who has been found to commit an "Eternal Sin" would eventually be absolved of it, or at least promise the possibility of eventual forgiveness by God. In Roman Catholicism, there is no such thing as spending anything other than an eternity in Hell. Once you are in, there is no getting out. However, the concept of Purgatory allows for a sort of penalty box but eventual admission into Heaven. But there is no escape from Hell.

The RCC will also not name people who are in hell. I doubt you would get someone from The RCC to say even someone like Hitler is in Hell. The RCC simply states that hell exists, that someone is there, but other than Satan and other fallen angels, the identities of anyone else is not spelled out. There are also quite a bit of differing opinions on whether "Hell" is even a place at all, or is instead only a state of eternal torment.

So the idea that someone who "blasphemes" the Holy Ghost would end up in hell...I am willing to bet that the RCC would try to find a way around that in anything but the rarest of cases. For all its misogyny and other problems, the Church really wants its followers to believe that the possibility of getting into Heaven is there for everyone. It will threaten hell for a blasphemer, but won't say if you actually went.

There are other issues on which the RCC has changed its teachings. Cremation used to be a big no-no and one couldn't even have cremated remains in a church for a funeral service. One could have a funeral mass with no issues, but the ashes had to be elsewhere. The Church always encourages burial over cremation but since the 1960s allows for it and more recently, in 1997, allows for a funeral mass for someone who has been cremated.

This was the case with my mom's mother when she died in 2000. She lived in a small town (near Scranton, Pennsylvania) with a lot of Polish and Czech families and the local priest was giving the family a hard time because of the cremation. My mother was so put off by this priest, she decided to not have a funeral mass at all and instead had a memorial service at another church after burial of the remains. If all of this had instead happened in or near Philadelphia, where she lives now, it would have probably never had been an issue. A particular priest might have had concerns, but some priest could have been found who would have said a funeral mass with the cremated remains. But mom was too fed up at that point.

[AfroBeaver]

So... still fairly new here and was debating whether or not to reply here and then I figured screw it.

I haven't read this whole thread (too long, didn't bother) but it's not hard to figure out the gist of it. Christian Belief vs. Non-Christian Belief. It all boils down to the same pot of bullshit.

People have debated the concept of God and/or gods for, well, pretty much as long as we've been around. It's human nature to wonder why we exist and if there really is a point to us existing.

Creationism tries to explain that via an omnipotent being. Evolutionism tries to explain it via things exploding and then recombining in new and interesting ways (no, I'm not kidding about that. Think about it, where does that first single cell organism come from? The 'space dust' from exploded stars. Before that, all the matter and energy of the Universe is said/believed/thought to have exploded into existence a la the Big Bang. A simplistic view of things, but can it honestly be called wrong?).

We've all heard the argument. If God is truly omnipotent why does he/she/it let evil exist etc. etc.

Think about it like a parent. You see your child is going to trip and fall because they didn't tie their shoelaces. You could easily stop them by reaching out and grabbing the back of their shirt and then retying their shoe for them, or, alternatively, you could let them trip over their shoelaces, scrape their knee and learn a lesson from it- IE make sure your shoelaces are tied/ watch where you put your feet/ and so on. Does letting them trip and fall make you evil?

It's not the best example, it doesn't really cover the whole 'omnipotent' angle, but to a degree I feel that it does give a little perspective on why an alleged benevolent and omnipotent being would allow strife and evil to afflict it's 'children'. How else to people learn and grow? Necessity is said to be the mother of invention after all.

Honestly, as far as this endless debate goes, Albert Einstein had it right.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

That's it from the n00b. Bring on the flames, I have plenty of marshmallows to roast. (also, we need a mad laughter smiley)

PS if this somehow get's mod approved today with remarkable speed, don't expect a quick response- I'm headed out of town shortly.

[K. A. Pital]

Does letting them trip and fall make you evil?

No. But making them immortal and then subjecting them to an eternity (=endless, truly endless) of torture by burning them alive is what makes you evil.

[Borgholio]

Does letting them trip and fall make you evil?

No. But making them immortal and then subjecting them to an eternity (=endless, truly endless) of torture by burning them alive is what makes you evil.

This.

If I decided to let my child trip over their untied shoelaces as a form of tough love, well that's not evil really. The difference would be if after letting my child skin his knee, I hung him on a fucking meathook in the basement and whipped the skin off him for the rest of his life.

[cadbrowser]

So... still fairly new here and was debating whether or not to reply here and then I figured screw it.

Generally a mistake; but we'll see what quality you in your posts you bring.

I haven't read this whole thread (too long, didn't bother) but it's not hard to figure out the gist of it. Christian Belief vs. Non-Christian Belief. It all boils down to the same pot of bullshit.

Meh, also generally a mistake. Keeps one from putting their foot in their mouth by commenting on something that has been already covered; or regurgitating something completely stupid that has already been thuroughly explained. Again, we'll see.

People have debated the concept of God and/or gods for, well, pretty much as long as we've been around. It's human nature to wonder why we exist and if there really is a point to us existing.

While this is true, it is also important to understand that there are some of us who ask; Why do we (as humans) NEED to justify our own existance at all? We are here (Cogito ergo sum), we should make the best of it before we inevitably die.

Creationism tries to explain that via an omnipotent being.

Right...

Evolutionism tries to explain it via things exploding and then recombining in new and interesting ways (no, I'm not kidding about that. Think about it, where does that first single cell organism come from? The 'space dust' from exploded stars. Before that, all the matter and energy of the Universe is said/believed/thought to have exploded into existence a la the Big Bang. A simplistic view of things, but can it honestly be called wrong?).

Uh...how old are you? Here is where you lost me. You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding for what evolution is. Please, don't post here again until you have a decent grasp of evolution, cosmology, and abiogenesis.

We've all heard the argument. If God is truly omnipotent why does he/she/it let evil exist etc. etc.

Think about it like a parent. You see your child is going to trip and fall because they didn't tie their shoelaces. You could easily stop them by reaching out and grabbing the back of their shirt and then retying their shoe for them, or, alternatively, you could let them trip over their shoelaces, scrape their knee and learn a lesson from it- IE make sure your shoelaces are tied/ watch where you put your feet/ and so on. Does letting them trip and fall make you evil?

This is a horrible analogy. For one, letting your child trip and fall to hurt themselves in order to feel justified to teach them a lesson when you could've prevented it, is in fact despicable and abusive.
However, your analogy fails to represent the actual nature of God himself. A better analogy would be that a parent gives his child a large lolipop. The child goes to lick the lolipop, and the parent punches them in the mouth. The child cries, so the parent punches the child in the mouth again. The child cries harder, so the parent chops the child's head off. God, in case if you missed it when it was THOUROUGHLY discussed earlier (apparently missed by you) that God gives his most treasured creation human nature, and then curses and punishes (by death) humans for acting like they are SUPPOSED to.

It's not the best example, it doesn't really cover the whole 'omnipotent' angle, but to a degree I feel that it does give a little perspective on why an alleged benevolent and omnipotent being would allow strife and evil to afflict it's 'children'. How else to people learn and grow? Necessity is said to be the mother of invention after all.

It was an aweful attempt at an example. It doesn't even "touch" on the nature of God at all. People learn and grow by experience and listening to others that have learned "the hard way". This is also human nature. But, we don't need a fucking omnipotent bully pushing us in front of the bus to prove that it'd most likely kill us, just to teach us or others a lesson. Because THAT would be evil.

Honestly, as far as this endless debate goes, Albert Einstein had it right.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

That's it from the n00b. Bring on the flames, I have plenty of marshmallows to roast. (also, we need a mad laughter smiley)

Yes, your noobie-ness is as plain as Einstein's hair. What the heck does that quote have to do with this thread? Do you even understand the context towhich it was written? Quote mining and appeals to authority are not welcome here.

Educate yourself: Here
Is this not good enough for you?

[cadbrowser]

Murder is a sin, but not an unforgivable one. The only unforgivable I am aware of is suicide and "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit." Which makes things worse, since God ranks blaspheming against his spirit a more serious crime than murder, rape, genocide etc. Again, that points to him being a psychopath/sociopath/megalomaniac/whatever the correct pyschopathology is.

Just to interject, suicide is no longer necessarily considered an eternal (or unpardonable) sin, at least in the Catholic Church and hasn't been for some time now. There is more recognition of mental illness and even funeral masses and burials are provided for suicides with no difficulty. It's as much for the comfort of the family as anything else.

Source is Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God. (2212)

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. (1735)

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives. (1037)

Not to make too fine a point on this, but I would like to remind you that there are a lot of denominations here in the US that could care less what the Catholic Church has to say. Also, there are those denominations and non-denominations that still consider the act of suicide as an unforgiveable act and the soul is immediately condemened to Hell for eternity.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Regardless of whether suicide is actually unforgiveable, the fact that the only unforgiveable sin explicitly named in the Bible is blaspheming against the holy spirit. Above all other horrific and depraved acts, that is the one thing he cannot forgive.

That's pretty fucked up right there.

[cadbrowser]

I was "raised" Roman Catholic (that is, baptized, 8 years of grade and 4 years high school run by Catholics) so I have some background here and a lot of what I'm seeing in the thread from krakonfour and his opinions on Christianity simply baffles me. I don't know where he is getting his information but some of it is simply wrong from what I know and research I've been doing for the purposes of this post. I also have to admit that I'm finding the entire thread exhausting and silly, discussing things that are rooted in fantasy. But to continue to this slight tangent...

I and others have questioned krakenfour multiple times as to how he can come up with is "opinions on Christianity". He's self-admitted that he doesn't read the Bible, isn't a Christian, and yet he won't give us any indication on his actual belief system, even after multiple requests were made to reveal it.

Curiously tho, he makes statements as if he has some beliefs rooted in some form of Christianity; yet without any knowledge of scripture. Is there really a form of Christianity out there that doesn't rely on the Bible for it's belief system? If so, I'd be very curious to hear more about it. Several times he has interjected his specific belief system, which makes it wierder for me.

[cadbrowser]

Regardless of whether suicide is actually unforgiveable, the fact that the only unforgiveable sin explicitly named in the Bible is blaspheming against the holy spirit. Above all other horrific and depraved acts, that is the one thing he cannot forgive.

That's pretty fucked up right there.

Oh yes, I wasn't disagreeing with this part at all. I totally get where you are comming from and I agree that this is indeed fucked up.

[FSTargetDrone]

Not to make too fine a point on this, but I would like to remind you that there are a lot of denominations here in the US that could care less what the Catholic Church has to say. Also, there are those denominations and non-denominations that still consider the act of suicide as an unforgiveable act and the soul is immediately condemened to Hell for eternity.

Of course. Catholics may be the Devil's Own as far as some people are concerned. I'm just familiar with Catholicism, that's all. And I do prefer their view on what happens to the soul of a suicide (despite the face that I think it's all make believe). If it's a comfort to the family of someone who has taken his or her own life, all the better. I can't imagine the cruelty of someone telling the family of the person who has taken his or her own life that the soul is condemned to endless torment. While I have many, many issues with the RCC and would not shed a tear if it crumbled into dust, on this point, at least, it is rather enlightened.

[Channel72]

Regardless of whether suicide is actually unforgiveable, the fact that the only unforgiveable sin explicitly named in the Bible is blaspheming against the holy spirit. Above all other horrific and depraved acts, that is the one thing he cannot forgive.

That's pretty fucked up right there.

The usual apologetic is that blaspheming the holy spirit is not just saying "fuck you, Holy Spirit!" out loud, or something. Christians interpret the internal psychological forces (e.g. guilt, empathy) which direct their behavior as the Holy Spirit interacting with them and reaching out to them. So in that context, denying the holy spirit is sort of like one of the worst things you could do - it's basically just totally killing off your conscience and losing all hope of salvation.

At least, that's the standard reasoning. Although, the Bible isn't exactly clear about it.

[cadbrowser]

Not to make too fine a point on this, but I would like to remind you that there are a lot of denominations here in the US that could care less what the Catholic Church has to say. Also, there are those denominations and non-denominations that still consider the act of suicide as an unforgiveable act and the soul is immediately condemened to Hell for eternity.

Of course. Catholics may be the Devil's Own as far as some people are concerned. I'm just familiar with Catholicism, that's all. And I do prefer their view on what happens to the soul of a suicide (despite the face that I think it's all make believe). If it's a comfort to the family of someone who has taken his or her own life, all the better. I can't imagine the cruelty of someone telling the family of the person who has taken his or her own life that the soul is condemned to endless torment. While I have many, many issues with the RCC and would not shed a tear if it crumbled into dust, on this point, at least, it is rather enlightened.

IIRC though, they didn't always hold that more humanistic view. But yeah, all things considering, they seem to have relaxed a lot on their "hell-fire and damnation" type messages. Now if we could get them to find a better scriptural view with regards to planned parenthood type stuff.

It does seem to me (authough I don't have any concrete evidence...simply personel observation here) that many churches of all denominations are following the increased awareness of the various populations at large to cater to more towards a liberal point of view with regards to some of the dogma.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

The usual apologetic is that blaspheming the holy spirit is not just saying "fuck you, Holy Spirit!" out loud, or something. Christians interpret the internal psychological forces (e.g. guilt, empathy) which direct their behavior as the Holy Spirit interacting with them and reaching out to them. So in that context, denying the holy spirit is sort of like one of the worst things you could do - it's basically just totally killing off your conscience and losing all hope of salvation.

At least, that's the standard reasoning. Although, the Bible isn't exactly clear about it.

That is what I recall being taught as well with a few minor exceptions. The only difference, that I recall, is that the specific church I went to also believed in the Trinity, so in their mind, it was a catchall that included it to be an unforgiveable act to blaspheme God or Jesus as well. That also included the "fuck you, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit" too.

[Channel72]

Yeah, it's sort of like willfully closing your mind/conscience to the Gospel message. See, Christians think the Gospel message should resonate with everyone's moral sensibilities. If it doesn't, then in their thinking, there's something seriously wrong with you. The Holy Spirit acts as an agent of moral persuasion, and so anyone who doesn't respond to the Gospel message via the Holy Spirit's outreach is probably willfully being a total sociopath, and therefore excluded from salvation. That's really how Christians (especially evangelicals) see things. In their thinking, even a rapist or murderer can be saved if he/she repents. But someone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit is basically abandoning their internal moral compass, and so is beyond help. It helps to understand that when dealing with Christians.

[aieeegrunt]

Two points raised earlier that kind of got lost

(1) No one being able to see God.

Moses asked to see God while begging for God's forgiveness for the ungrateful sinning tribes of Israel. God agreed, with the condition that Moses could only see his back, since seeing him face to face is apparently fatal to human beings (Indiana Jones style?)

(2) God obviously walked on earth, specifically Mt Sinai, at least once for point (1) to occur.

[Borgholio]

Two points raised earlier that kind of got lost

(1) No one being able to see God.

Moses asked to see God while begging for God's forgiveness for the ungrateful sinning tribes of Israel. God agreed, with the condition that Moses could only see his back, since seeing him face to face is apparently fatal to human beings (Indiana Jones style?)

(2) God obviously walked on earth, specifically Mt Sinai, at least once for point (1) to occur.

Well no the points didn't get lost...the topic just moved onto discussing God's megalomania and cruelty. That, in the beginning, he physically walked this world and interacted with humans directly is a given.

[cadbrowser]

Two points raised earlier that kind of got lost

(1) No one being able to see God.

Moses asked to see God while begging for God's forgiveness for the ungrateful sinning tribes of Israel. God agreed, with the condition that Moses could only see his back, since seeing him face to face is apparently fatal to human beings (Indiana Jones style?)

(2) God obviously walked on earth, specifically Mt Sinai, at least once for point (1) to occur.

Well no the points didn't get lost...the topic just moved onto discussing God's megalomania and cruelty. That, in the beginning, he physically walked this world and interacted with humans directly is a given.

I'm not so sure that is accurate Borgholio. krakonfour denied God ever physically walking on the Earth and interacting directly with humans; when I pointed him to Eden, he handwaived it by saying Eden wasn't on Earth. This point was never conceeded, he only said, "Wait while I go read the Bible.". And hasn't come back to this thread for a while. Doesn't take long to read the first three chapters of the book of Genesis and then cross-reference mainstream biblical scholars as to where they believe Eden was.

[Channel72]

Eden is obviously supposed to be on Earth. The Bible locates it around Mesopotamia, claiming it is the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

[cadbrowser]

Yes, this was covered earlier. As I said before krakonfour has yet to concede (sorry I keep mispelling that) the point.

[Borgholio]

I'm not so sure that is accurate Borgholio. krakonfour denied God ever physically walking on the Earth and interacting directly with humans; when I pointed him to Eden, he handwaived it by saying Eden wasn't on Earth. This point was never conceeded, he only said, "Wait while I go read the Bible.". And hasn't come back to this thread for a while. Doesn't take long to read the first three chapters of the book of Genesis and then cross-reference mainstream biblical scholars as to where they believe Eden was.

You might be right. I kinda skimmed over the drivel. Yeah Eden has actually been "found" recently. It's in the Persian Gulf at the ancient intersection of four rivers, including the Tigris and Euphrates. It's just that sea level rose in the last 10,000 years so there's little archaeology that can be done.

[cadbrowser]

LOL, as there was indeed a lot of drivel!

That is facinating. Do you by chance have a source where you got that info? I'd be very interrested in reading that.

[Borgholio]

It hasn't been "officially" found because everyone has their own opinion on the matter and the proof is far from concrete, but it makes perfect sense that a delta such as that would be an extremely fertile place.

Btw, the Mormans believe it's in Jackson, Missouri...what the fuck?

Anyways, here is a link showing some images of the area, including a satellite photo of a couple ancient riverbeds. They all converge in the Gulf.

http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/bibl ... -eden.html

[cadbrowser]

Btw, the Mormans believe it's in Jackson, Missouri...what the fuck?

Well, that is not official church doctrine of the LDS by way of Joseph Smith's Revelations, they do consider it New Jerusalem or City of Zion...I live in Jackson, MO. TOO many LDS/RLDS buildings here in the downtown area of Independence, MO (Home of Harry S. Truman). However, I must admit; their $1,000,000+ pipe organ in the boob shapped building (Auditorium) across from the Temple Lot is pretty impressive. Just think of how many starving families that would've fed.

Thanks for the links btw.

[aieeegrunt]

Jesus had a lot of things to say about that, and none of it was complimentary. Be amusing watching the LDS elders strained through the eye of a needle, along with most of the rest of the western world's "spiritual leaders"

[cadbrowser]

Was there another time in the Bible other than when Jesus chased the merchants out of the Temple during Passover? They were selling animal sacrifices as well as changing Greek/Roman money for Jewish/Tyrian coins. IIRC, this was pretty typical during this custom...or at least it had developed into one. I think he was pissed cause they were ripping off people, well AND using sacred ground for commercial activity. I don't recall him rebuking the Church for it however...I'd have to dig a little more into it.

I'm not sure how this relates to what Jesus would say because that church obtained its funds from the people in the form of tithe and offerings (tithe is more of an OT Jewish ritual and not specifically commanded by Jesus in the NT). Then again...I can see where one might think that Jesus wouldn't have approved...again, would require a bit more refresher on the life of Christ.

So I'll reserve contention for now.

Edit: fixed a word