Jack the Bodiless

God has an "unbelief" in atheists that's similar to our own unbelief in God?

Well, that's a new one. God doesn't believe that I exist! Kinda knocks a hole in the "omniscience" ability though. I would imagine that it's rather difficult to do the "final judgement" thing also.

I am a ghost in God's machine...

Proxima Centauri

HERE'S WHAT CHRISTIANS SEEM TO BELIEVE!

• lGod/Jesus loves us and wants to save us.
• God/Jesus has decreed that a certain sin is unpardonable.
• God/Jesus has not made it at all clear what that unpardonable sin is.
• Theologians are still arguing about that after more than 2000 years.

If God/Jesus exists and loves us why hasn't it been made cristal clear which sin we really must avoid?

Amos

The fact is that the sin is abundantly clear and is written all over in the bible. Catholics have always fought against it and have always excommunicated those that tried to spread the consumation of this sin.

The reformation was fought to prevent its free reign among the faithful and nobody can say it better then Luther himself who complained that "Catholics had removed the nesting boxes from the Church." Luther meant that "rebirth" that was incipient from carnal desire was not welcome in the Catholic Church and he wanted to give it free reign amongst the believers. His problem was that he did not identify is as the sin against the HS (or he would not have promoted it), and, of course, he could never identify it because it was his promise of eternal life after he died.

So what I am telling you that "to be born again" from carnal desire instead of "born again from God" is the sin against the Holy Spirit (Jn.1:13).

Proxima Centauri

I've looked up John 1:13. Here's what I found.

Quote:

1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I still don't understand what this alleged sin against the Holy Ghost is.

Amos

OK, thanks, I understand you question. Notice that we are not talking physical birth here because "born of God" is not physical. So we are talking rebirth and here and two kinds of rebirth are possible. First, a rebirth that was incipient from God and two, one that was based on or incipient from carnal desire.

The difference between these two is that if we are born of God it is often against our will, as it was for Paul, Jonah, Joseph, Abraham and others. All of these were 'lost' in their own world and in that sense were they "running away from God" or "persecuting christians" and felt the need to give an account of themselves. For simplicity sake I should have left Joseph and Abraham out but careful reading will render them all the same.

Another way to see this is that rebirth comes "as a thief in the night" or when we are like a "lost sheep."

To be reborn from carnal desire is when you accept that Jesus died for your sins and you seek rebirth so you can be called Christian. For example, "the age of accountability" or "your parents" would like to see you devote your life to Christ, "to get this girl" you have to become Christian, "your bills" are piling up on you, "your world "is caving in on you, "your marriage" is falling apart, "you are an alcoholic" etc. These are carnal desires and never think that God wants to "bail you out" because that is just protestant idol worship.

Therefore, such a demand for rebirth will be answered by the angel of ligth (Lucifer) and will not be enduring (hence Lucifer), and must therefore be renewed each day with scripture reading. It leaves the beholder of this experience (which sometimes is intense) with the saved-sinner paradox because Epiphany never followed the event. To add weight to this proposition I suggest that this is the reason why the Eastern Rite does not celebrate Christmas until Epiphany because, without Epiphany it was not a virgin rebirth (but now we get into the virgin birth thing and that really is not part of the question).

Notice also that the very thing protestants call salvation is missing from Catholic activities (social or church) and that is why Catholics make such nice targets of protestant evangelists.

the_cave

There have been many attempts to discern the "unforgiveable sin" over the years. The Catholic church, for one, does not definitively declare any particular sin the unforgiveable sin--though it does note, in agreement with the website Magus listed, that to reject the possibility of forgiveness is, necessarily, to be unforgiven. However, it arrives at a far different conclusion than that noted on the website. It would certainly be capable for a Christian to at some point (falsely) reject the possibility of forgiveness. So, anyone can commit it--though few ever would. Who would want to condemn themselves? Even an atheist wouldn't want to stop believing in forgiveness. Now someone could think that they'd done something so wrong no one could ever forgive them (even god, if they believe in god), but that's different from disbelieving in forgiveness in general.

Since the holy spirit is identified with love, to speak against it would be to disbelieve in love. Surely very few people would be willing to do this. Hence the unforgiveable sin is possible, but extremely rare, if it ever in fact occurs...some are in doubt about this, and interpret the saying to mean that the holy spirit cannot in fact be blasphemed. This is a minority opinion. At any rate, it's probably up to god alone to judge.

Amos

Every Sunday we declare "Lord I am not worthy to receive" proclaims that we are not Christians "but only say the word and I shall be healed" means that we are waiting for God's initiative to heal us. Once we do receive "this word" we are worthy to receive and religion will have served its purpose and we must never repeat that again because that would mean that we declare a condemnation upon ourselves. So, at least, logic tells me.

The conncetion? It excludes the possibility to commit this sin within the church's theology.

Radorth

I haven't read the whole thread carefully, or the links, but most definitions are religious nonsense.

For those who actually want to know, Mark 3:30 defines it precisely. MARK TELLS US WHAT IT IS, and if you read the context above 3:30, you will see it immediately.

Once again the NT blows up our favorite religious theories. Sorry fellas.

Rad

Glass*Soul

I have a question for those of you who have defined the unpardonable sin as resisting the HS's promptings to accept Jesus as your savior.

Jesus said that it is forgivable to speak against him. How can one then speak against Jesus without commiting the unpardonable sin of blaspheming against the HS?

If I say I don't accept Jesus' teachings, or that I think he wasn't God's son, or that his death was murder plain and simple and had nothing to do with salvation, or that the Bible doesn't tell the complete truth about him, or that he wasn't the product of a virgin birth, or that he didn't rise from the dead, or that he cast out demons via the power of Satan himself, any of those things...

Doesn't holding any of those oppinions rule him out as my savior and condemn me to the unpardonable sin?

In what possible way was Jesus drawing a line between speaking out against him and blaspheming the HS?

By the way, Amos, I'm finally beginning to see what you're saying... not that I agree, but you had me confused for a while there.

Amos

It is the most unusual explanation because it holds that "to be counted among the saved" **IS** the sin against the holy spirit.

Here is the Catholic version of it . . . who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it but by God." The but creates opposites here.