Author Topic: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier  (Read 4585 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Halleyscomet/Wakefield

  • But I'm feeling much better now...
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13103
  • And then, one day, at Bible Camp...
    • My Pointless Blog
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #180 on: January 08, 2017, 10:04:35 AM »
It will go back to a wall of text copypasta once Ca's ban is over.

It might. Not for very long, though.

Only because we have some badass moderators who don't tolerate crap.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11990
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #181 on: January 08, 2017, 10:40:00 AM »
Yeah, Allison's really good with this stuff. :P
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #182 on: January 08, 2017, 01:59:30 PM »
If you blaspheme against the holy spirit (whatever that may entail) but you believe in Christ, the above verse says that you will have everlasting life.

You ignore the essential unity of the Trinity.  Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one; to deny the Holy Spirit in ones heart is to disbelieve in Jesus.  It is this essential incompatibility which makes forgiveness impossible, because it is a rejection of Jesus' sacrifice, without which our sins cannot be forgiven.

When the Bible was written, the Trinity wasn't really a doctrine according to Bart Ehrman. It came in later, almost a compromise position.

Like most Christian doctrine.  It's always interesting to me how people on this forum assume a biblical literalist, scripture-only theology.

Except, the Bible literally says you can speak against "the Son of Man" and be forgiven, and elsewhere "the Son of Man" is pretty clearly meant to refer to Jesus himself.

It is my understanding that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not consist in speaking against the Holy Spirit in words, but in the intentional and persistent rejection of the the forgiveness of God, which is the province of the Holy Spirit. It is persistence in this rejection of salvation that cannot be forgiven, and it will result in the permanent withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from him—whereafter he will not be capable of seeking God's forgiveness.  If one confesses one's sins and receives forgiveness, he is not guilty of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, no matter what he might have said.  The sin is unpardonable not because the sacrifice of Christ was inadequate to pardon the sin if one believes in Jesus, but because one who is guilty of the sin will willfully not believe in Jesus and will not seek the forgiveness of God.

ETA: Please note that I don't believe any of this.  I just get annoyed when people straw-man religious beliefs.   There's quite enough that's ludicrous about religious teaching without distorting what is actually taught.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #183 on: January 08, 2017, 02:19:28 PM »
It will go back to a wall of text copypasta once Ca's ban is over.

It might. Not for very long, though.

Only because we have some badass moderators who don't tolerate crap.

Bravo to our moderators!

If you blaspheme against the holy spirit (whatever that may entail) but you believe in Christ, the above verse says that you will have everlasting life.

You ignore the essential unity of the Trinity.  Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one; to deny the Holy Spirit in ones heart is to disbelieve in Jesus.  It is this essential incompatibility which makes forgiveness impossible, because it is a rejection of Jesus' sacrifice, without which our sins cannot be forgiven.

When the Bible was written, the Trinity wasn't really a doctrine according to Bart Ehrman. It came in later, almost a compromise position.

Like most Christian doctrine.  It's always interesting to me how people on this forum assume a biblical literalist, scripture-only theology.

Except, the Bible literally says you can speak against "the Son of Man" and be forgiven, and elsewhere "the Son of Man" is pretty clearly meant to refer to Jesus himself.

It is my understanding that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not consist in speaking against the Holy Spirit in words, but in the intentional and persistent rejection of the the forgiveness of God, which is the province of the Holy Spirit. It is persistence in this rejection of salvation that cannot be forgiven, and it will result in the permanent withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from him—whereafter he will not be capable of seeking God's forgiveness.  If one confesses one's sins and receives forgiveness, he is not guilty of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, no matter what he might have said.  The sin is unpardonable not because the sacrifice of Christ was inadequate to pardon the sin if one believes in Jesus, but because one who is guilty of the sin will willfully not believe in Jesus and will not seek the forgiveness of God.

ETA: Please note that I don't believe any of this.  I just get annoyed when people straw-man religious beliefs.   There's quite enough that's ludicrous about religious teaching without distorting what is actually taught.

But does it constitute "intentional and persistent rejection of the the forgiveness of God" if you actually don't believe that such a thing as "God" exists? The religious philosophy of many fundamentalist Christians is that atheists actually know God exists but refuse to acknowledge him. I don't think the authors of the Bible recognized the possibility of believing that there are no gods. So the theology cannot deal with atheists, because it fails to recognize their existence.

Rejecting God (or his forgiveness) is a far different thing than honestly considering the evidence and concluding that there is no such thing as a god.

From my point of view, the Pauline Trinitarian Christian God is a logical contradiction and therefore cannot possibly exist. I do not reject God because I cannot reject that which I believe does not exist.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Enkidu Shamesh

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #184 on: January 08, 2017, 02:25:43 PM »
Yeah that's hard to say. There were certainly people of that era who were at least skeptical about the existence of gods, such as Socrates, and later Plutarch. But just because there were atheists/skeptics scattered about doesn't mean that the authors of Christian scriptures knew about them. For them it would be like thinking "okay, and what about the people who don't think there are stars in the sky." Atheism was quite possibly inconceivable to them.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #185 on: January 08, 2017, 02:35:23 PM »
But does it constitute "intentional and persistent rejection of the the forgiveness of God" if you actually don't believe that such a thing as "God" exists? The religious philosophy of many fundamentalist Christians is that atheists actually know God exists but refuse to acknowledge him.

[...]

Rejecting God (or his forgiveness) is a far different thing than honestly considering the evidence and concluding that there is no such thing as a god.

I believe that Catholics, at least, would say that you must be aware of the urgings of the Holy Spirit and willfully reject them.  I believe that they would say that mere disbelief can be forgiven, even after death, but that willful rejection despite the conviction that God is real and can forgive cannot.  Either way, if you later truly accept the grace of God, that is evidence that you never committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in the first place since nobody who truly blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can do so.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4572
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #186 on: January 08, 2017, 05:08:32 PM »
There was a comedy skit, I think it was peter Cook and Dudley Moore, in which two guys are discussing the concept that if you've never heard of Christ (or God, or whatever) then you can be saved, because God would not damn someone who'd never had the opportunity to accept Christ. The skit ends with one of them vowing never to tell anyone about God, and the other one agreeing.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 14232
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #187 on: January 08, 2017, 05:50:28 PM »
There was a comedy skit, I think it was peter Cook and Dudley Moore, in which two guys are discussing the concept that if you've never heard of Christ (or God, or whatever) then you can be saved, because God would not damn someone who'd never had the opportunity to accept Christ. The skit ends with one of them vowing never to tell anyone about God, and the other one agreeing.

The ironies of various religions
A couple of others
1. Religions have to create rules against suicide otherwise the promises of heaven cause people to want to kill themselves
2. A religion has to be careful with stating that anybody can be a prophesier because otherwise you get people speaking against the leaders.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll