The Unforgivable sin

Festy

Anyone else heard of this ?

The one sin that God won't forgive

Blasphemy against the holy spirit... scared the crap outta me..never knew such a sin exited ... :eek:

I was under the impression that God forgave all sins but apparently not...

bbam

Denial of the Holy Spirit aparrenty.

Festy

bbam wrote: »

Denial of the Holy Spirit aparrenty.

I wonder do Catholics know such a sin exists ?


Because according to their beliefs all sins are forgiven....


Yet Jesus himself said such a sin cannot be forgiven ?

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

I wonder do Catholics know such a sin exists ?


Because according to their beliefs all sins are forgiven....


Yet Jesus himself said such a sin cannot be forgiven ?

Contradictions in the bible? Who'da thunk it :eek:

bbam

I accept it as an idea, as a means to help the masses visualise the concept.

Suppose many would say I'm hell bound for that.

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

Contradictions in the bible? Who'da thunk it :eek:

No contradictions.


It's just that most Catholics don't know such a sin exits...Because of their doctrine...

Again confirming what a joke the whole Catholic church is...listening to man made beliefs over God...

Akrasia

What evidence is there for 'the holy spirit'?

The only unforgivable sin is to question the existence of the most questionable part of a highly questionable trinity of gods.

God creates people who have critical thinking skills

God decides not to provide any credible evidence for his own existence

God condemns people to an eternity of torture for not believing in something that has no credible evidence to support it.


(and god loves us and is 'perfectly just')

Festy

Akrasia wrote: »

What evidence is there for 'the holy spirit'?

The only unforgivable sin is to question the existence of the most questionable part of a highly questionable trinity of gods.

God creates people who have critical thinking skills

God decides not to provide any credible evidence for his own existence

God condemns people to an eternity of torture for not believing in something that has no credible evidence to support it.


(and god loves us and is 'perfectly just')

The goodness in people ,the world.....

bumper234

Akrasia wrote: »

What evidence is there for 'the holy spirit'?

The only unforgivable sin is to question the existence of the most questionable part of a highly questionable trinity of gods.

God creates people who have critical thinking skills

God decides not to provide any credible evidence for his own existence

God condemns people to an eternity of torture for not believing in something that has no credible evidence to support it.


(and god loves us and is 'perfectly just')

And then you have to ask which god? Why is the christian "God" right and the thousands of other "Gods" wrong?

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

The goodness in people ,the world.....

There is a lot of badness in the world too. Why does God not stop it?

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

There is a lot of badness in the world too. Why does God not stop it?

He will, in his time..


There is a lot of goodness just like the bad.

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

He will, in his time..


There is a lot of goodness just like the bad.

But in the meantime he lets war, famine, disease etc continue because???

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

But in the meantime he lets war, famine, disease etc continue because???

Read the book of revelations.....

bbam

bumper234 wrote: »

And then you have to ask which god? Why is the christian "God" right and the thousands of other "Gods" wrong?

Many Christians happily accept the idea of other Gods knowing they are all reflections of the same higher notional being.
In many ways I see the notion of God as he best possible version of ourselves, an idea to be worked towards.

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

Read the book of revelations.....

If i want to read fantasy i would prefer David Eddings.

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

And then you have to ask which god? Why is the christian "God" right and the thousands of other "Gods" wrong?

The other Gods as you so call them didn't heal the sick or cure the blind and rise from the dead...because they were not God...

bumper234

bbam wrote: »

Many Christians happily accept the idea of other Gods knowing they are all reflections of the same higher notional being.
In many ways I see the notion of God as he best possible version of ourselves, an idea to be worked towards.

So all of the Gods are really just the same one? How did they get mixed up with different cultures? It's not as if you could really say that "God", Allah, Buddha and Ganesh all look alike.

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

If i want to read fantasy i would prefer David Eddings.

Go troll somewhere else lad...

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

The other Gods as you so call them didn't heal the sick or cure the blind and rise from the dead...because they were not God...

Can you tell me which god did do these amazing feats?

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

Go troll somewhere else lad...

Not trolling son i am asking questions, if the questions are too hard for you then please feel free to ignore me but don't accuse me of trolling just because you don't have answers.

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

Can you tell me which god did do these amazing feats?

JESUS

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

Not trolling son i am asking questions, if the questions are too hard for you then please feel free to ignore me but don't accuse me of trolling just because you don't have answers.

No man,you're trolling it's as clear as day...

bbam

bumper234 wrote: »

So all of the Gods are really just the same one? How did they get mixed up with different cultures? It's not as if you could really say that "God", Allah, Buddha and Ganesh all look alike.

Ahh, now we're making judgments based on appearance.
Appearance is a very shallow means of judging something.

And do you not think that a Devine power who has the ability to raise people from the dead cannot appear in a different form to different peoples.

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

JESUS

But Jesus was not God!

bumper234

bbam wrote: »

Ahh, now we're making judgments based on appearance.
Appearance is a very shallow means of judging something.

And do you not think that a Devine power who has the ability to raise people from the dead cannot appear in a different form to different peoples.

But why would God do this? Are we not all equal in his eyes? Why would he not want us all to see him the same? If nothing else it would stop a lot of senseless killing right?

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

But Jesus was not God!

Christ in the flesh

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

Christ in the flesh

Was the son of God.

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

Was the son of God.

The trinity

bumper234

Festy wrote: »

The trinity

Ok so god the father/son/holy ghost got that. So jesus is really god and vice versa?

Festy

bumper234 wrote: »

Ok so god the father/son/holy ghost got that. So jesus is really god and vice versa?

Yeah because God cannot die so he manifest into flesh.The Son..

And he rose again because he is God...

bbam

bumper234 wrote: »

But why would God do this? Are we not all equal in his eyes? Why would he not want us all to see him the same? If nothing else it would stop a lot of senseless killing right?

No, the senseless killing has traditionally been done by men who judge others based on appearance.

For me it's not about Catholic vs Protestant vs any other version of religion.
For me faith and faith in a god that promotes tolerance an good will is what is important.
I'm much less concerned with the nitty gritty of each religion as often those with narrow minds use these insignificant issues to make their own position seem superior to others. In my eyes this is a betrayal of any good faith and demonstrates intolerance.

I appreciate that position probably makes me a poor Catholic, but I see myself more Christian than catholic, and I'm not sure if the term Christian fits completly either. But to me labels and belonging are less important that a good faith.

Akrasia

The problem of good and evil is a man made problem.

We don't call a cuckoo an evil bird because it manipulates other birds into raising it's own young (and cuckoo hatchlings often kill the natural offspring of their adoptive parents)

We don't call that evil because it is an adaptation, a strategy that these birds developed to enable them to survive and reproduce in the wild.

We don't call an Orca evil for killing juvenile seals, we don't call spiders evil for paralysing flies and wrapping them up in spiderweb so they can die slowly....

However, if a wild animal ate a human baby, there would be no shortage of people to consider this an evil act

We consider things 'evil' that harm people, and we consider things 'good' that help people.

It's not divine, it's not 'the holy spirit', it's not evidence for a god that some things help people, any more than it is evidence for the devil that some things harm people.

bbam

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem of good and evil is a man made problem.

We don't call a cuckoo an evil bird because it manipulates other birds into raising it's own young (and cuckoo hatchlings often kill the natural offspring of their adoptive parents)

We don't call that evil because it is an adaptation, a strategy that these birds developed to enable them to survive and reproduce in the wild.

We don't call an Orca evil for killing juvenile seals, we don't call spiders evil for paralysing flies and wrapping them up in spiderweb so they can die slowly....

However, if a wild animal ate a human baby, there would be no shortage of people to consider this an evil act

We consider things 'evil' that harm people, and we consider things 'good' that help people.

It's not divine, it's not 'the holy spirit', it's not evidence for a god that some things help people, any more than it is evidence for the devil that some things harm people.

Animals do things through instinct, often not knowing why they are doing it nor why it will work.
Humans have this instinct too. But being human is being able to control ones instinct and the ability to see how, if in controlled our actions would needlessly hurt others.

Take the humanity out of people and they are mere animals, acting out on whatever thought comes across their mind. Evidence has shown us this isn't a pretty sight.

Akrasia

Natural evil has no moral agent, but people still consider it evil.

A birth defect that maims an innocent child is considered to be an evil because it harms a person, but nobody decided to cause a birth defect (except perhaps god)

My point is that the existence of good or evil is not evidence for god. We can describe anything that harms people as evil, and anything that is helpful to people as good.

The extremes of good and evil, are just the extremes of the possibilities of human experience.

Those possibilities are so wide ranging that we can experience glory as well as utter desolation depending on our circumstances.

bbam

What sort of person considers a birth defect as evil. ??

But are you not contradicting your own point by using the term "natural evil". What animals do isn't evil, an evil act is when the perpetrator knows that the act try are about to commit is wrong in that it inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering.
Nature doesn't fall into this description. Many of the acts you speak of are so ingrained into animals instinct for survival that they do it without thinking.

Modern society often transfer their feelings and emotions onto animals and their lives, humanising them, personally I dislike this.

Akrasia

All theologens recognise the problem of natural evil (though they usually try to avoid the subject)

A birth defect is the archetypical example of a natural evil because it is something which can cause enormous suffering but it is not a result of the action of any moral agent.

My point is, again, that we consider things that help people to be good, and things that harm people to be bad.

The reasons why evil acts are evil, is because they are harmful, the more harmful they are, the more evil they are, the more helpful they are, the more good they are.

When we are judging moral actions, we also consider the intentions of the moral agent. The most evil moral acts are those that intentionally do the most harm to others solely for the benefit of the agent himself.

But the fact that people are capable of pursing their own self interest (which is what all animals do instinctively) is not evidence for good or evil. Good and evil are descriptions that humans have placed on different types of actions depending on how harmful or helpful they are.

It is very harmful to a human settlement to have individuals pursuing their own self interest while harming the interests of the rest of the tribe, therefore this kind of action is described as bad, and bad things are evil.

The fact that some people do things that are harmful is not evidence for or against the existence of god.
We see these kinds of behaviours in the animal world too. There are all kinds of strategies employed by social animals in terms of cooperation or deception, or sharing or stealing etc Humans differ only in degrees of consciousness. We are a higher level of intelligence, but we are not all that different from other animals.

bbam

Interesting perspective.
I don't accept the notion of natural evil. And reject totally the idea of a birth defect being evil, including my own which causes me great pain daily. It just is there, nothing more nor less.

For me the term evil relates to a conscious act perpetrated in the knowledge that pain and suffering will follow.

Akrasia

I'm sorry to hear that you are suffering pain and I'm glad that you have been able to deal with it and have the strength to get on with your life.

Theologically, the problem of natural evil is real, it is something that needs to be addressed if your position is that God is the creator of everything. The problem of Moral evil is answered through the free will argument, but why would a loving kind god cause so much suffering and pain in the world through natural evils like disease and natural disasters.

The christian theology is that god wants us to be happy, but we choose to sin and sin causes all of our suffering, but we don't choose to get meningitis or we don't choose polio or cystic fibrosis or to have our whole family killed in an earthquake or storm...

If you don't believe in natural evil, why did god create a world with parasites and viruses and bacteria that can strike down anyone at any time and cause enormous pain and suffering?

bbam

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that you are suffering pain and I'm glad that you have been able to deal with it and have the strength to get on with your life.

Theologically, the problem of natural evil is real, it is something that needs to be addressed if your position is that God is the creator of everything. The problem of Moral evil is answered through the free will argument, but why would a loving kind god cause so much suffering and pain in the world through natural evils like disease and natural disasters.

The christian theology is that god wants us to be happy, but we choose to sin and sin causes all of our suffering, but we don't choose to get meningitis or we don't choose polio or cystic fibrosis or to have our whole family killed in an earthquake or storm...

If you don't believe in natural evil, why did god create a world with parasites and viruses and bacteria that can strike down anyone at any time and cause enormous pain and suffering?

I don't sit well with the whole "God created everything" scenario...

My view, and I really don't think much about these matters, is that if anything God was the catalist for life to develop.. life takes many forms and has many flaws... do I think God is responsible for the flaws, no. Do I think God is responsible for my many flaws, no. Science tells us that Humans or the whole plethora of ecosystems couldn't survive without the many, many bacteria you speak of... Like a package deal - want one then you get them all.

Like I mentioned before, perhaps I'm not a perfect fit for Christianity, but it works for me..

lmaopml

bbam wrote: »

I don't sit well with the whole "God created everything" scenario...

My view, and I really don't think much about these matters, is that if anything God was the catalist for life to develop.. life takes many forms and has many flaws... do I think God is responsible for the flaws, no. Do I think God is responsible for my many flaws, no. Science tells us that Humans or the whole plethora of ecosystems couldn't survive without the many, many bacteria you speak of... Like a package deal - want one then you get them all.

Like I mentioned before, perhaps I'm not a perfect fit for Christianity, but it works for me..

Welcome to the forum bbam! It's good to hear you

antiskeptic

Festy wrote: »

I wonder do Catholics know such a sin exists ?


Because according to their beliefs all sins are forgiven....


Yet Jesus himself said such a sin cannot be forgiven ?

Interesting choice of word - cannot.

If it is the holy spirit's task to do the work of conversion, that is, convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgement, then a refusal to be saved would be that grieving of the holy spirit spoken of.

God does command everyone, everywhere to repent. Not doing so is a sin. Permissible to commit (in the sense that God doesn't force us to be saved) and thus logically unforgivable. To forgive it would be to force a salvation upon someone.

Geomy

I wouldn't get bogged down in all that.
You'll only waste your time worrying about being forgiven, and then find out that you're perception of an unforgiving vengeful God really annoyed the loving God.

And then you have something to answer to....

The universal, cosmic,spiritual higherpower has been proven to be more beneficial to the people who turn away from the church.....

WeHaveToGoBack

I thought it was suicide

Geomy

WeHaveToGoBack wrote: »

I thought it was suicide

Elaborate....

WeHaveToGoBack

Geomy wrote: »

Elaborate....

Well it is a sin to kill someone but you can go to confession and be adsolved of it. However, if you kill yourself its a little difficult to seek forgiveness.

Geomy

WeHaveToGoBack wrote: »

Well it is a sin to kill someone but you can go to confession and be adsolved of it. However, if you kill yourself its a little difficult to seek forgiveness.

That's true, that's the problem with the Christian moral rule, many a good man and woman caused harm to themselves due to the fear of the church.

Have an affair your doomed,explore your sexuality you're scorched again and again for eternity, which is bul sht....

I know plenty of gays,lesbians, sexualy active men and women who are spiritual, pagan, wiccan, buddhist, christian etc

And they have a serenity and peace that not many of the diehards have. ...

antiskeptic

Geomy wrote: »

I wouldn't get bogged down in all that.
You'll only waste your time worrying about being forgiven, and then find out that you're perception of an unforgiving vengeful God really annoyed the loving God.

Not worrying is something you should have reason to worry about. What if your hand's off approach is contra a God who requires our input in our salvation or no?

The universal, cosmic,spiritual higherpower has been proven to be more beneficial to the people who turn away from the church....

Beneficial in regards to afterlife destination/state? I can't see how that claim would be determined. And I can't see what other benefits are worth a whole heap if that one isn't bang on the button.

Geomy

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not worrying is something you should have reason to worry about. What if your hand's off approach is contra a God who requires our input in our salvation or no?




Beneficial in regards to afterlife destination/state? I can't see how that claim would be determined. And I can't see what other benefits are worth a whole heap if that one isn't bang on the button.

Maybe your version of God might not be bang on the button.

But a loving God is more attractive than the vengeful God

antiskeptic

Geomy wrote: »

Maybe your version of God might not be bang on the button.

I was pointing out that you should worry about your lack of worry. There's a lot riding on it afterall

But a loving God is more attractive than the vengeful God

And a loving, righteously vengeful God more attractive still. There isn't a conflict between the two characteristics unless you suppose it loving to insist a person be conformed and confined to something they don't want to be conformed and confined to.

That is what is at play afterall: continue sliding down the road of sin to be released finally into the image of all that is contra-God. Or be rescued and conformed to his image totally and without blemish.

The choice is yours. With love providing it. Vengence is merely the reward attaching to a choice we ourselves make. We can't call it unloving to incur wrath if we are the ones choosing to stand in the way of the freight train that properly squashes evil.


-

Indeed, it's the denial of the righteousness of evils due wage (in the case of one's own evildoing - if not everyone elses) that remains the unforegiveable sin

bmaxi

Seems to me this Holy Spirit is not to be messed with. I can remember when at school many years ago, being told the story of David and how the Spirit came into him and allowed him to go out and slaughter tens of thousands of Philistines. This David guy was also a rapist, a bigamist and a murderer but that seemed to be OK with God and the Holy Spirit.
Today we're told to ignore all this stuff, that it is "just a story" but at that time it was "Gospel". Now people here are telling us this same Holy Spirit is the epitome of love and forgiveness, well forgive me if I consider this too to be "just a story".

BrianCalgary

bumper234 wrote: »

But Jesus was not God!

Prove it. That is a pretty definitive statement, obviously made from reasoned thought and empirical evidence, can you share this evidence that brought you to this particular conclusion?