Not looking for an ARGUMENT here, Twilight..... but, a discussion if you'd like.

I differ with the statement I highlighted. Your interpretation of the scriptures. I could be wrong, and if so.... I'd like to see the scripture quoted. My father has always taught what the scriptures say, and I'm quite sure this is not the way I was led to understand it.

Peter accepted, then denied Christ 3 times. I don't think he went to Hell over it. I guess you'll say because he repented.

I agree totally with what you say about those who haven't HEARD the gospel not being held accountable for it. That is the way I was taught. However, most Buddhist monks HAVE "heard" the gospel, they just don't believe in it. The gospels say the only way to Heaven is through Jesus, and the monks have other ideas.

Now, to the crux of OUR disagreement. You say the unforgivable sin is to ACCEPT and then deny Christ. I'm pretty sure the way it is written is just.... "to DENY Christ" (after having HEARD the gospel.) I don't remember where it says anything about ACCEPTING him first and THEN denying him.

In other words, as I understand it, the unforgivable sin is simply to NOT accept Christ once one has heard the simple plan of salvation.

Can't recall the exact scripture right now, but I believe it is also said that once you've accepted Christ, you cannot lose your salvation. But, you can sure earn a LOW RENT part of Heaven by your deeds. Not sure about that one.

At any rate.... YOUR interpretation EXCUSES the monks, and anyone ELSE, who has HEARD the gospel, and just never ACCEPTED it. That's not the way I was taught by a man who spent his LIFE searching and understanding the scriptures. And, as I said..... that's pretty much the same interpretation that all Western Religions accept.

My Bible has alot of dust on it, but it also has alot of dogeared pages, bookmarks, underlines, etc. I HAVE read most of it, and if necessary... I will be the one to go look for the scriptures that support my view. I just thought it might be easier for you to find the one that is worded the way you believe.

Do you have the Bible on CD??? I've always wanted to get that!!

At any rate... Peace to you!

Hobo

 

( I like this discussion as it is remaining rational, intellectual, and respectful!!!)

Hobo…

Couple of points on your reply to me…it wasn’t Socrates that wrote the book I recommended but he was quoted by the author (Os Guinness) in the book.

My main “argument” with Fozzy was the point that for an atheist (and he’s not one by the way)….there is no moral good/evil compass that exists other than what each person decides to put in their own mind or what a society puts in as laws and you simply “don’t want to get caught”. For an atheist, there are absolutely no repercussions to doing anything you want (and I mean anything) unless society deems it illegal and you get caught. You can give yourself a moral compass; or not…it is totally up to you cause it doesn’t matter in the end. I used the phrase “the fact it rained last night and Hitler killed 5 million Jews means the same” to illustrate that point and Fozzy got wrapped around the axle on that one. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make was that for an atheist…there is no right or wrong cause there are absolutely no repercussions to you personally. In the end, no matter what you did in life, you simply die. So the fact Hitler killed millions of Jews (and others)…so what… they’re all dead (including him) and are simply dust in the wind and that means nothing more than the fact it rained last night.
That’s why ( in my opinion) true atheism is really hard to live by and is why spin offs like Existentialism cropped up…which basically says that we are all on the Titanic and it is doomed to sink so we might as well ignore the ultimate end, strike up the band, and have a good ‘ol time. From wikipedia: Existentialism is a philosophical concept which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created for them by deities or authorities or defined for them by philosophical or theological doctrines.

Hobo…While writing this (I put on separate word doc then cut paste) I read Twilight and your replies….and wanted to let you know of ANOTHER great book for you to read. Some really probing questions and replies to a lot of the issues you’ve raised. His father could be you albeit 30 yrs older :wink:

LETTERS FROM A SKEPTIC by Gregory Boyd..here is a summary from Amazon.com

Edward Boyd's agnosticism rested "not ... too much on any positive position ... but rather on a host of negative ones" about Christianity. In an attempt to address these negative issues, his son Greg, a professor of theology, asked his father, a strong-willed, highly intelligent, and stubborn 70-year-old, to enter into a correspondence in which "all of their cards would be laid on the table." Greg would give his father the opportunity to raise all his objections to the veracity of Christianity, and Greg would "answer these objections as well as give positive grounds for holding to the Christian faith."
Three years and more than 30 letters later, Letters from a Skeptic was published and Edward Boyd came to accept Christ. During his journey, he and his son hash through such topics as why the world is so full of suffering; why an all-powerful God needs prayer; how you can believe in someone who rose from the dead; and how another man's death can pardon others. Despite their brutal honesty, both men exhibit respect and love toward one another as they address these volatile subjects. In Edward's second response to Greg, he boldly says, "Well, your distinction between the 'Christian Church' and 'Christians' is interesting and novel, but frankly, I don't buy it." Greg responds, saying, "I've got to admit that you are raising some extremely good points in your letters. You are raising the most difficult questions a theist can face." --Jill Heatherly

 

Geomon said:

Me, too! If I have EVER been disrespectful to anyone's beliefs or discussion of such, I sincerely apologize! That is NOT what I am about. At least.... I am not about being disrespectful to the POSTER who expresses them! As for the actual "belief," it must defend itself! I try to keep an open mind, but by definition, I cannot question a "belief" without in some way showing somewhat less "respect" than IT believes it deserves. :wink:

Yes, I understood that. I meant.... "Was that Socrates who SAID that?" A rare admittal of my ignorance concerning Classical Literature! I WISH I had had a more "LIBERAL" education! :lol:

Yes, I understood your argument, and No.... Fozzy is not an Atheist. In fact, I would put him more in that #2 category, (now that I've edited it) with a healthy dose of #3! :lol: I don't presume to speak for him.... but, I believe that he, like me questions the whole organized religion thing, but, whereas... I focus my contempt on the teachings themselves, HE blames the sheep for being sheep!

I totally understood your point! But, for one with Fozzy's contempt for the actions of the religious and non-religious alike, it was an incindiary statement! I don't believe Hitler was an atheist... either! His vision of the supremacy of the Aryan race could ONLY be born of some "belief" in a White God who had declared who was, indeed, the "chosen race." Fozzy merely saw this as ONE religious belief causing unimaginable death to another's followers!

I have no idea of Fozzy's nationality/heritage.... but, we must sometimes be aware that there are people of different faiths and religions on this board. I dont care if he IS or ISN'T.... but consider for a moment how your words WOULD have "stung" one of the Jewish faith, who have suffered immensely throughout the years at the hands of both Aryans AND Muslims! ..... and for that matter..... Christians!

In other words.... they believe in TRUE "free will!" :lol: :lol:

And someday.... I WILL be..... "god willing!" :lol: :lol:

I WILL get the book! But, I want to point out that "I" am not so negative about Christianity. I just question it's entire basis.... but NOT it's good advice. I have no need to posit any proof of the negative. I feel it is encumbent on Religion to prove its veracity. And how far, in a court of law or reason, will the defense that "someone who can't show up and testify TELLS me so in silent communication" go?? How well did that work out for "the Son of Sam?" :lol:

Why is it considered BOLD to say, "I don't buy it!??" ONLY because of the "reverence" that the son assigned to HIS position, argument and "authority." IF I recall history correctly.... this is EXACTLY the audacious argument that LOST the "Scopes Monkey Trial!" :shock:

I could spend HOURS on here explaining how Psychological and Physiological science can EXPLAIN a human's need and desire to "believe" in something he can only accept on FAITH! And the Theists response would be "because he TOLD me so in the Bible!" "Look! It's in RED letters!" :shock: :roll:

I could PROVE that your argument won't and hasn't held up in a court of American Law... and you (collective form) would claim that our courts are INFERIOR to the Supreme Court of the Universe! And for THAT to be true.... you must PROVE the existence of such a court.... which you cannot do..... and would fall back on your FAITH and BELIEFS to justify your position.

However.... you MAY be right! But, if so..... then one must accept the position that nearly 80% of the population of the World is or WERE "wrong," and that only WHITE Europeans and a few select others were RIGHT! That, although science has proven that Jesus was most likely of Middle Eastern descent...and he has a distant Uncle of Arab nationality.....he is the true faith and defender of a White man's religion!

Sounds JUST a bit "Aryan" to me!

You must ALSO believe that TWO sons from Abraham's OWN seed, have different dispositions in the good graces of the Creator. And that the Islamo-Judist wars throughout the centuries are based on Biblical prophecy and not Racism or Territory! That ALL our problems today stem from Abraham's exercise of HIS "free will," and you must wonder just WHERE the heck the Mongoloid race (Chinese, Japanese and other Far Eastern Asians) even figure INTO this grand plan! :shock: :roll:

Now, you might have noticed that I don't even question certain miracles like the writing on the tablets, the ram caught in the bush, the feeding of the masses with a "local driver's" LUNCH.... or many others! That could be because I believe that certain people HAVE such "miraculous" talents. More likely, it is because I have much LARGER questions that, if answered, would render THESE questions moot... one way or the other.

In summation, before I get out of hand, I am being asked to exercise my Free Will to believe in the unproved at the peril of my very flesh! I RESENT that "offer," and would like to see a better one! And.... I just don't understand why I don't have the true FREE WILL to do so! Oh..... that's right..... because I truly AM no more than a PUPPET! :lol:

Whew! That was close! I went to edit out the word REJECT and immediately lost my login, and was told I could only edit my OWN posts! :lol:

Who knows what would have happened if I'd died of a heart attack before I could log back in?? :lol:
Hobo

 

Ultimately, any faith HAS to stand up to our toughest questions. And we should subject them and ourselves to these questions.

God is either a fact or a fantasy…one or the other. There is no in-between here but unfortunately, the “proof” won’t be known until we die. Those are the cards we all have to play with. You, me, all of us need to examine the evidence and look for the most likely reason for what we see around us. I would love to see a giant sign in the sky and “know” but I doubt that will happen and I will have to go based on how my own questions have been answered by my beliefs.

There was a TV show called Cosmos where Carl Sagan began the show with a statement…he said ” the cosmos is are all there is, ever was, or ever will be”. That is just as much of a religious faith based statement as your dad saying God lives…neither one has a shred of physical evidence to support it…Sagan was simply a preacher of a belief called Materialism.
Science is no nearer answering such questions as:
1) how did life begin
2) how did the universe begin? What was there before the big bang?
3) why are all the physical constants the exact ones needed to produce life and the slightest smallest change in any one of them meant the universe would have never formed

The point is that when we go beyond what can be proved with physical tests and proofs, we will have to rely on more than just a “proved” case…we don’t have it and won’t have it. Why? I don’t have an answer for that.

Gotta run…adios

 

deleted

 

Author Dr. Henry Morris insightfully clarifies the true nature of Pharisees' sin:


"The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. 'My spirit shall not always strive with man,' God said long ago (Genesis 6:3).

…In the context of this particular passage (Matthew 12:22-32), Jesus had performed a great miracle of creation, involving both healing and casting out a demon, but the Pharisees rejected this clear witness of the Holy Spirit. Instead they attributed His powers to Satan, thus demonstrating an attitude permanently resistant to the Spirit, and to the deity and saving Gospel of Christ" [Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 1995), emphasis added.].

What is the difference between the two types of blasphemy described in Matthew 12? Why is the sacrifice of Christ ineffective as an atonement for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Respected Christian theologian Dr. F.F. Bruce writes,

"…Speaking against the Son of man might be due to a failure to recognize Him for what He is. So Paul recalls how in his pre-Christian days he thought it his duty to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. But if, having seen the light on the Damascus road, he had deliberately closed his eyes to it and kicked out against the goad which was directing him into the true path, that would have been the sin against the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit persuades and enables men to accept Christ and enjoy the saving benefits of the gospel [John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Acts 7:51], but if anyone refuses to submit to the Spirit's gracious constraint, preferring to call good evil and evil good, how can the gospel avail for him? The deliberate refusal of the grace of God is the one sin which by its very nature is irremediable" [F.F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 46-47.].

"Anyone who rejects the Holy Spirit's convicting influence and does not repent will not be forgiven, 'neither in this world, neither in the world to come' (Matthew 12:32)" [Ray Comfort, "The Unpardonable Sin," The Evidence Bible (Gainesville, Florida: Bridge-Logo Publishers, 2001).].

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...onablesin.html


I believe this is pretty much what I was saying. :wink:

Hobo

 

deleted

 

Not in THAT link, you won't. It says pretty much the same thing that was said in MY link. I don't believe you will find any CREDIBLE source to interpret it much differently than the esteemed theologians quoted in my link.

My father has an extensive library of books from the foremost theologians in the ministry... not all of them Baptists.... and has spent HOURS on his knees asking for divine interpretation of the scriptures. He has always taught the meaning of Matthew and other relevant scriptures as just what I posted.

It only stands to reason, that the only unforgivable sin would be to reject the offer of eternal life, without repenting before one dies. To reject it, one has to have HEARD it. Those who never accept it are rejecting it. Likewise, those who may have accepted it, and then REPUDIATE it, are also rejecting it.

It MAY be true that we are free to make our own interpretations, people do it every day. But, it is also true that the vast majority of esteemed theologians interpret it as rejecting the offer of salvation. (which is the same as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.)

 

nevermind

 

Yes, I read it.... and it is logical. IF one "believes" then they do not "reject." And ONLY someone who "believes" would be worried. (That is what they are saying.) However, I disagree somewhat with this little piece of advice. I don't believe they made it clear that the person who was worrying had NOT, in fact, rejected it. It is quite possible that a "lost" sould could be worried that, since they obviously have heard the gospel, they might have committed the sin if they continue to reject.

But, I believe I remember that the person asking the question was just asking if they might have somehow "blasphemed" in the wrong manner. :wink:

I NEVER claimed to have completely cut myself off.... OR that I rejected it. (well.... I DID say that up above a few posts... and went back and edited it! :lol: )

But, as a point of argument... one COULD have totally cut oneself off and could be blaspheming all OVER these pages, and it would sound alot like my arguments! I don't feel that I have done that.