Once an atheist, always doomed?

[Socrastein]

“Truly I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter: but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they say, ‘He has an unclean spirit’."

Mark 3:28-29

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Matthew 12:30-32

If denial of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, why do so many Christians try so hard, or at all, to convert atheists? We are the unforgivable, we cannot be saved. Jesus himself says so, very clearly, at least twice in the Bible.

I deny Jesus, I deny God, and I certainly deny the Holy Spirit. So why hasn't every Christian who knows this simply stopped trying with me, and every other atheist? And why are there so many Christians who used to be atheists that still think that they are going to heaven?

[Strafio]

Hmmm...
Peter denied Christ 3 times before the **** crowed...

Seriously though Soccy, if they were to show that you'd made a mistake in the theology and your sins could still be forgiven, would you take them up on the offer? :)
I'll have to get talking to Aikimac on this topic again sometime.
It's been a while since we had our last talk on "judgement" theory.

[Zamfoo]

I've heard a few theories on this. The one I find most acceptable is that the Holy Spirit is the more personal area of relation of God to people, and therefore, to deny that means you will never progress spiritually. Like you can diss people because people won't get rid of your sins, but if you ignore the only way you can elevate yourself spiritually, you're basically screwed.

But I'm not much of a christian, and i'm sure that I'm gnostic and evil.

[aikiMac]

If denial of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, why do so many Christians try so hard, or at all, to convert atheists?
Because you're not dead yet. Judgement comes at death.

Query, why do you use 400-year-old English for your Bible quotes? That seems rather strange.


And why are there so many Christians who used to be atheists that still think that they are going to heaven?
Probably Jesus or one of the Apostles said they're going to heaven. Once they believe in Jesus, they do right to believe his words and the Apostles words on this matter.

[Socrastein]

Maybe I just didn't understand you Aiki, but I don't think you really addressed my question. Jesus doesn't say that if you deny the holy spirit on the day that you're judged you can't be forgiven, he says that if you ever blaspheme the holy spirit, you have eternal sin that can never be forgiven.

Probably Jesus or one of the Apostles said they're going to heaven. Once they believe in Jesus, they do right to believe his words and the Apostles words on this matter.

This of course contradicts the notion that one can never be forgiven for denying the holy spirit, which is exactly why I created this thread, to explore this contradiction.

[Aikikai Novice]

Ah, this is a good question. The ol' "unforgivable sin."

Ok, firstly, to BLASPHEME the Holy Spirit is pretty much to believe in God and to call him evil. In a simplified sense. So it's difficult for an athiest to blaspheme.

Secondly, "salvation" and "forgiveness" in the Bible are very context sensitive words.

You can be saved from the eternal penalty of sin - that is, permamant separation from God.

You can be saved from the power of sin in your life - to have control of your sin nature.

You can be saved - via forgiveness - from the punnishment for sin in this life and the next.

Doesn't mean you can't be saved. Just means you can't weasle out of payin' for it.

[Socrastein]

So are you saying Aikikai it doesn't matter if you're never forgiven for that sin, you can still be saved? What's the big deal with forgiveness then? It sounds completely unnecessary. Why do Christians seem to make such a big deal out of asking that Jesus forgive your sins if it doesn't even factor into being saved?

You say to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to believe in God and call him evil. Where do you get that? Jesus says that if you "speak against the Holy Spirit" you're unforgivable. He doesn't say that he who knows God and speaks against Him commits an eternal sin.

[Dyno]

Jesus also said...

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household'". (Matthew 10:34-36 NAB)

Safe to say it's a tad hypocritical and, IN MY EYES, nonsense. No offence to anyone.

[Aikikai Novice]

The verses you reference are when Jesus is talking to his disciples regarding the pharisies. Jesus casts an evil spirit out of someone, and the religious leaders of the day said "it is by the prince of deamons that he casts out deamons!"

So Jesus was talking about different things that happen when you directly insult God, like when you declare His acts to come from an evil source.

I can't insult "Dave" in a personal way unless I believe that "Dave" exists.

"Salvation" is the mechanism that allows us to come to God despite our sin.
"Forgiveness" is the mechanism that rids our being of that sin so that it doesn't have to be burned away at judgement. Not all saved people are equal. Not even close.

[Aikikai Novice]

Well, dyno, it sure is easy to take a bit of something out of context and make it look however you want.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the (or "a") sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household'"

Biblically, the truth of God is, "a double edged sword." And sword analogies are used frequently in the Bible.

Jesus was just saying that it was their obligation to spread the Truth, and that they WOULD meet violent opposition.

[aikiMac]

Maybe I just didn't understand you Aiki, but I don't think you really addressed my question. Jesus doesn't say that if you deny the holy spirit on the day that you're judged you can't be forgiven, he says that if you ever blaspheme the holy spirit, you have eternal sin that can never be forgiven.
I'm not convinced that's what Jesus said.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Matthew 12:31-32
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Mark 3:29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Luke 12:10
But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven

[holyheadjch]

no doubt those quotes have been taken 'out of context'

[WatchfulAbyss]

I think the part in bold is pretty straight forward

[holyheadjch]

but still, it will be 'out of context'

[WatchfulAbyss]

but still, it will be 'out of context'

ok? Is there anything in the bible or in the situation that was takeing place at the time, that goes against or, that changes what he said?

[Capt Ann]

The problem is that you are trying to apply this scripture without addressing, first, the obvious question: What is "blaphemy of the Holy Spirit"?

The scripture clearly says that it is an unforgiveable sin. Soc has tried to apply it to himself, by saying that his unbelief in God is this sin. The scripture you have quoted does not back this claim up. As a previous poster pointed out, the ones accused of this sin were not atheists, but people who claimed to believe in God, and who appeared very religious.

There is great debate on exactly what constitutes this sin, even within Christian theological circles. Related concepts include the 'sin unto death' (1 John 5:16) and reprobation (Romans 1:21-32; Jude 4-13; Hebrews 10:26-31). Note, though, that in all these cases, the verses apply to those who claim to know God, have been in the community of believers, and then reject Christ.

See for instance:

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace." (Hebrews 6:4-6; see also verses 7-8)

These verses says that such people cannot repent. However, other scriptures also show that no one can truly repent, on their own, but only because God gives them the grace to see that they need repentance, and the faith to want it and accept it. So, for any believers in God who wonder if they've already passed the line so that they cannot repent and return to God: don't worry - the fact that you desire repentance shows that God hasn't given up on you, and that you therefore have not committed this sin. For the unbelievers: don't worry - you cannot commit this sin, until you have already known God's goodness by personal experience, and then choose to reject it.

[Aikikai Novice]

"Neither in this world, nor the world to come" OR
"Neither in this AGE, or the AGE to come."

The world to come - the The KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Not "heaven" or "hell."

For something to apply to you in the world to come (the age to come, the Kingdom of Heaven) you have to BE in the world to come.

Also, the term "eternal damnation" is obviously an old translation. It's sometimes difficult to translate Greek to English, so if there was something ambiguous it was often translated with the attitude of the day. "Fire and Brimstone" as it was back then.

A better translation is "he is guilty of a lasting sin."

Did you know the Bible says nothing about actually dying and "going to heaven?" Or to hell?

[WatchfulAbyss]

The problem is that you are trying to apply this scripture without addressing, first, the obvious question: What is "blaphemy of the Holy Spirit"?

The scripture clearly says that it is an unforgiveable sin. Soc has tried to apply it to himself, by saying that his unbelief in God is this sin. The scripture you have quoted does not back this claim up. As a previous poster pointed out, the ones accused of this sin were not atheists, but people who claimed to believe in God, and who appeared very religious.

There is great debate on exactly what constitutes this sin, even within Christian theological circles. Related concepts include the 'sin unto death' (1 John 5:16) and reprobation (Romans 1:21-32; Jude 4-13; Hebrews 10:26-31). Note, though, that in all these cases, the verses apply to those who claim to know God, have been in the community of believers, and then reject Christ.

See for instance:

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace." (Hebrews 6:4-6; see also verses 7-8)

These verses says that such people cannot repent. However, other scriptures also show that no one can truly repent, on their own, but only because God gives them the grace to see that they need repentance, and the faith to want it and accept it. So, for any believers in God who wonder if they've already passed the line so that they cannot repent and return to God: don't worry - the fact that you desire repentance shows that God hasn't given up on you, and that you therefore have not committed this sin. For the unbelievers: don't worry - you cannot commit this sin, until you have already known God's goodness by personal experience, and then choose to reject it.


I see. This isn't a factor for those that dont believe. What about those who truly did believe at one point, but now don't? Or is this strictly for people who believe but more or less despise the whole thing, basically more about contempt than belief.

[Capt Ann]

I tend to believe that last case - despising the whole thing and willfully rejecting it after fully knowing what you were doing.

[Capt Ann]

Did you know the Bible says nothing about actually dying and "going to heaven?" Or to hell?Sorry, I have to disagree with this one, but out of respect to the OP, maybe we should discuss it off-line or in another thread, if you don't mind.

[aikiMac]

The scripture clearly says that it is an unforgiveable sin. Soc has tried to apply it to himself, by saying that his unbelief in God is this sin. The scripture you have quoted does not back this claim up. As a previous poster pointed out, the ones accused of this sin were not atheists, but people who claimed to believe in God, and who appeared very religious.

There is great debate on exactly what constitutes this sin, even within Christian theological circles.
Picking up on this -- details will vary depending on whom you ask, but the common ground will be something about "faith" in the fundamental Christian claim that Jesus both died and rose from the dead for the forgiveness of sins. Theologically, faith in the Christian God comes from the activity of the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit obviously strikes at the activity of the Holy Spirit. Thus, whatever the details may be, when the Holy Spirit is rejected or otherwise blocked, faith is at best compromised. It is likely non-existing. Without faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus there is no forgiveness; hence, Jesus' strong statement about not being forgiven.

For as long as one denies the activity of the Holy Spirit, there is no forgiveness. Hence, Jesus spoke of this lifetime. Opportunity for forgiveness stops at death. Thus, Jesus also spoke of the life to come.

[MartialJac]

Jesus didn't want me, or that's what the priest told my parents.

[Capt Ann]

Jesus didn't want me, or that's what the priest told my parents.When I hear things like this, I shudder. Some guy makes a comment like that to you and your folks however-many-years ago, and it still has an affect on you today. I cringe when I think that guy is going to have to give an account before Almighty God for what he said.

A friend and I were once talking about how some people don't want to have anything to do with God because of all the hypocrites they see in some religious circles. My friend's response was, "If a hypocrite is standing between you and God, then the hypocrite is closer to God than you are." I guess the point was that, with or without hypocrites, false witnesses, and people just saying some dumb stuff, we are still responsible for seeking God and responding to His call to us.

[Capt Ann]

For as long as one denies the activity of the Holy Spirit, there is no forgiveness. Hence, Jesus spoke of this lifetime. Opportunity for forgiveness stops at death. Thus, Jesus also spoke of the life to come.So, Aiki, is what you're saying that the sin is unpardonable only as long as someone continues in it (i.e., continues in unbelief)? In that case, someone wouldn't be doomed for having committed it once, but only for continuing in it, and they could be forgiven as soon as they reject their former unbelief. Am I following you?

[MartialJac]

I was christened C of E instead so it did work out to bad. The priest was a C of E covert and wouldn't Christen me because my Mum and Dad were Married in a registry office and said I had been born out of wedlock because the catholic church didn't recognise the marriage. He wouldn't bless the wedding because my Dad had been married before, that was also in a registry office and seemed to count this time. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[Capt Ann]

MJ, all I can say is, 'Wow!'.

There is a program that started in the UK ( although it's spread all over the world now). It's called the 'Alpha Program', and it is designed to help people find out what basic Christianity is all about, as opposed to one denomination or another. If you are interested in getting a better view of what Christianity is about (and not just the religious/traditional stuff), you might want to find any church near you that offers it and check it out.

[MartialJac]

There is a program that started in the UK ( although it's spread all over the world now). It's called the 'Alpha Program', and it is designed to help people find out what basic Christianity is all about, as opposed to one denomination or another. If you are interested in getting a better view of what Christianity is about (and not just the religious/traditional stuff), you might want to find any church near you that offers it and check it out.[/QUOTE]

Thanks but I study RE in school and believe that you don't need to go to any organised religion to be a good Christian. Thank you again.

[aikiMac]

So, Aiki, is what you're saying that the sin is unpardonable only as long as someone continues in it (i.e., continues in unbelief)? In that case, someone wouldn't be doomed for having committed it once, but only for continuing in it, and they could be forgiven as soon as they reject their former unbelief. Am I following you?
Yes, assuming that they don't die first. That's my interpretation. Like you said, different people see it differently, but like I said, I've never heard an interpretation that didn't somehow involve faith in the resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.


Thanks but I study RE in school and believe that you don't need to go to any organised religion to be a good Christian. Thank you again.
Respectfully, you might have missed the point, MJ. Capt Ann has said on MAP that she doesn't believe you need to go to any organized religion to be a good Christian. And that's the point of Alpha.

In the gospel of John, Jesus is presented with a woman who committed sexual sins. His response to her was to forgive her sins and send her home in peace with the admonition that she do things differently from now on. Whether her behavior should have been classified as sin is not the point of that Bible story. The point of that story is how Jesus responded to her (and to her critics, too).

[MartialJac]

In the gospel of John, Jesus is presented with a woman who committed sexual sins. His response to her was to forgive her sins and send her home in peace with the admonition that she do things differently from now on. Whether her behavior should have been classified as sin is not the point of that Bible story. The point of that story is how Jesus responded to her (and to her critics, too).[/QUOTE]

Didn't he marry her have children then send them off to Euro-disney (France anyway) or am I watching too much TV? and if I need to visit a church to learn about Alpha then isn't that organised?

[aikiMac]

and if I need to visit a church to learn about Alpha then isn't that organised?
No.

[Socrastein]

For the unbelievers: don't worry - you cannot commit this sin, until you have already known God's goodness by personal experience, and then choose to reject it.

Well that still applies to me. I was a very strong Christian for many years when I was in my younger teen years. I was touched by the holy spirit, I read and was touched by the word of God, I had a personal relationship with Jesus and prayed to him often. Then I rejected every single bit of it as I studied science, philosophy, and logic.

So it seems I'm still condemned, and thus the issue is still relevent - why would anyone bother to change my mind if I am never to be forgiven?

[aikiMac]

Perhaps they interpret your frequent involvement in religious discussions as an indication that you still care about God. As long as you still care, there is a flicker of hope for you (from their perspective) because maybe that Hebrews verse hasn't fully kicked in.

[Capt Ann]

Well, I 'll still be praying for you and respectfully discussing with you and saying just as much about Jesus Christ as you're willing to hear, because it's not up to me to decide if you've passed some 'line' or not. If you had passed the 'line' I would think you would be so hardened and indifferent to the whole discussion that you wouldn't even bother asking the question, even as a logical exercise. But that's just my opinion.

From what AikiMac wrote, he sees it more as a question of your present condition: do you believe in (trust wholly in, rely upon) Jesus Christ as Lord, savior, and God at this time? If so, then welcome to the family! If not, then you are doomed, only so long as you continue in that state of unbelief. So, he will probably keep praying for you and respectfully discussing with you, etc., and when you do turn to belief, he will be one of the first to welcome you home!



aside to AikiMac: Apologies in advance for the 'name-dropping', if I misrepresented your views.

[Socrastein]

You make a good point Ann. Even if this line does exist, who's to say whether or not someone has already past it? It'd make sense to error on the side of caution and hope that everyone still has a chance, and act accordingly.

[WatchfulAbyss]

I am kind of confused on this whole thing. If the unforgivible sin can be forgiven as long as you ask forgiveness, and you dont continue in it, doesn't that make it exactly like all other sins? I mean if this is the case arn't all sins unforgivable, why even call it unforgivable?

[aikiMac]

I am kind of confused on this whole thing. If the unforgivible sin can be forgiven as long as you ask forgiveness, and you dont continue in it, doesn't that make it exactly like all other sins? I mean if this is the case arn't all sins unforgivable, why even call it unforgivable?
Fair point, but, you seem to have forgotten that the words of Jesus were not spoken in a vaccuum. They were spoken in response to something. Read the stories in Mark 3 and Matthew 12. The people to whom Jesus said these words were doing something particular. I think it matters very much what they were doing.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Fair point, but, you seem to have forgotten that the words of Jesus were not spoken in a vaccuum. They were spoken in response to something. Read the stories in Mark 3 and Matthew 12. The people to whom Jesus said these words were doing something particular. I think it matters very much what they were doing.


Done and done.
I found this site would you give what I found here a read and get back to me on what you think? http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm

It just sounds to me, like it has to do more with someone who believes and or someone who knows and does it anyway, and that once done can't be undone, hence, unforgiviable. That is why he silenced those men and said what he said, it may not have been spoken in a vaccum but, I think it was being explained in a general way, laying out the rule, letting them and all others know ....

[aikiMac]

I found this site would you give what I found here a read and get back to me on what you think? http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm
Sure. Quote from that site:
So what I believe this is saying is that “speaking blasphemy against” the Holy Spirit is like when someone one knowingly and deliberately as a legal witness attributes the works, operations and/or gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Devil or attributes the works, operations of the Devil to the Holy Spirit.

The Pharisees did this when Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit. They proclaimed: “He cast out demon spirits by the power of Beelzebub!”
Jesus stopped their mouths right then and there and straightened them out.
I don't have any problem with that interpretation. As I said in an earlier post, the Holy Spirit is the agent through which God works faith in a person's heart. To attribute the workings of the HS to the devil would certainly qualify as "blasphemy," and it would halt further activity of the HS. No more activity of the HS ---> no faith ---> unforgiven.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Ok, works for me, thanks for the reply.......

[Aikikai Novice]

Aside from the idea that I was posting on earlier, that perhaps some sins stay "stuck" to a saved person for one reason or another and are paid for instead of forgiven, I think the conversation so far has actually toutched on a more fundamental point.

That being that God has invited all of us to come to Him, and the only thing that bars us from intimacy with God is our own rejection of him. Of course, most people will say, "that can't be right. You have to have a CHANCE to 'know' this God, before you can accept or reject Him. And it's obviously not fair that someone who never even had the chance to be saved gets doomed."

Well, I (and lots of other Christians) believe that everyone is born with enough innate knowledge (due to our being made in the likeness of God) to understand what we need to approach God. We can deny it. We can try to rationalize it, or pretend that science somehow explains it away, when it obviously never has in the history of the world and still does not to this day. The fundamental choice that everyone has then, is to make God the God of your life, or to set yourself up as a god or demi-god of your own life.

Can you reject God, refuse to submit to being part of that Greater Whole right from the get go of your life? Sure. We all do, really. Could you have a relationship with God and then throw it completely away? Probably.

God made us to fellowship with Him. Like equals. God didn't (couldn't, perhaps?) recreate Himself, so he made us instead, the only creatures in the universe that could choose to act in a way contrary to His will (including, I believe, the Devil). We can grow in God-likeness as we encounter trials, and thus become better able to fellowship with Him. But no matter our level of maturity, we're still invited to go to the Source. And we're allowed to separate ourselves from God completely.
Eternally, if we choose it.

That would be a good thread in itself - The purpose of humanity, and why God created evil.

[Strafio]

Well, I (and lots of other Christians) believe that everyone is born with enough innate knowledge (due to our being made in the likeness of God) to understand what we need to approach God.
If that was true then I'd understand that I can choose or reject God.
As it is, the idea of "choosing or rejecting" God doesn't make sense to me at all.
Does that prove to me that your theology is false?

[Aikikai Novice]

Perhaps you have an image of "the Christian God" that seems unrealistic to you; probably very humanized, and dishing out some kind of "justice" and "judgement" based on a universal standard that our morally relative world culture insists is outdated. I'm guessing that whatever type of trancendant divinity you envision can easliy define itself as "unchoosable" or "unrejectable."

But this is not a game of semantics.

I'm sure you believe in something greater than yourself. Something trancending you.
And I'm sure that that imbued into your being is a sense that you can pay some kind of attention to it or ignore it. Seek after it or just let the human animal you live in to bring itself to homeostasis.

To wax sentimental, almost anyone who looks up at the stars and the planets and really considers their place in the universe has an inate and overpowering sense that...
there's something BIG. OUT THERE. And I want to know what it is.

I didn't just state that that's what "a lot of Christians" believe because it's some kind of convenient theological teaching that helps wrap up the loose ends to keep God looking fair to us. That's just what we know.

I've known it my whole life.
My agnostic friends knew it their whole lives.
My wiccan friends knew it their whole lives.
My new age friends knew it their whole lives.
And when you strip away the distractions, circumvent the barriers and punch through the ego, most athiests balk at this issue - because deep down, they know it too.

It's impossible for me, as an external force, to alter your world view to be just like mine. The only thing that could cause that would have to come from inside of you.

But if you keep telling me that nothing in you knows that there's something out there, like you and not like you, that you somehow or another have the capacity to relate to in a personal way, then so be it.

But I truly, truly believe that you're fooling yourself. And I'm not the only one.

[Socrastein]

And I truly believe you're fooling yourself into believing that there's more than there really is. We can both tell ourselves that the other is "secretly deluding themselves" all we want. But that won't do much good, will it. How about instead we deal with something concrete and substantial. Can you prove, or even provide credible evidence or arguments, that there is "something bigger out there"? Or do you have little more than personal feelings and the nagging feeling that everyone believes the same thing you do, whether they say so or not.

[mojo shorin-ryu]

blasphemy:

Noun
Inflected forms: pl.blas·phe·mies 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

blasphemy isnt denial, its what i just showed you. its forgivable to deny the holy spirit but its unforgiveable to blasphemy the holy spirit if you have known the fullness of the holy spirit. end of thread

[Aikikai Novice]

Ah, there're those distractions, barriers, and ego. :p

My statement wasn't an attempt to change anything. In fact, I said I couldn't change strafio's world view in my post. I was just explaining myself in a direct response to his subtle challenge of how I should recieve his direct contradiction of something so personally important to me.

It was a long way of saying, "It doesn't change a thing for me."

*sigh* Again with the 'concrete evidence' demand. Do you want me to argue Intelligent Design versus Neo-Darwinism with you? (I can feel the groan those words provoke from where I'm sitting :rolleyes:. Maybe in a different thread ). I've read the arguments, the counter arguments, the counter to those and to those and to those, and any halfway intelligent, well informed person could argue at least to a stalemate on this issue.

Do you want me to argue from the viewpoint of psychology and world history?
To cite some of the more impressive prophesies that have been fulfilled?
From physics or metaphysics? Do you want a philosophical argument?

Do you want to see a miracle, or something? A fossil of an angel? :Angel: :Alien:

You may imagine, Socrastein, that your worldview is logical and mine is not, and you might feel intellectually superior about it. But for all the 'concrete evidence' you think you have -

It takes at least as much faith to believe what you believe as opposed to what I believe. :D

[Socrastein]

Do you want me to argue Intelligent Design versus Neo-Darwinism with you?
Do you want me to argue from the viewpoint of psychology and world history?
To cite some of the more impressive prophesies that have been fulfilled?
From physics or metaphysics? Do you want a philosophical argument?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and.... yes. In another thread, of course. Pick your favorite one, we'll start from there.

You oversimplify me perceptions regarding our two worldviews. It's more along the lines of, I have not seen a single shred of credible scientific evidence for anything supernatural, and I've never heard a single sound argument either. As such, I haven't any reason, much less sufficient reason, to believe that there is anything supernatural - Gods, ghosts, fairies, intelligent models...

As for it taking faith to not accept something that isn't reasonably supported - well what kind of faith is that? By faith, do you mean "believing or not believing something"? If so, well then everyone has faith, and the word loses all meaning. Most people would define faith along the lines of believing in a proposition for which there is no, or insufficient, evidence and reason to believe. I don't need evidence not to believe in the supernatural. I simply need an immense, staggering, continuous lack of evidence, and lo and behold - that's exactly what I have. Unless of course, you give me this evidence. Then I'll happy change my mind, for certainly it would take faith to deny something that is plainly evidenced and rationally supported.

Simply put, if you know something I don't know, do tell. I find the subject matter to be incredibly interesting as well as important, so don't leave me hanging.

[CKava]

o you want me to argue Intelligent Design versus Neo-Darwinism with you? (I can feel the groan those words provoke from where I'm sitting . Maybe in a different thread ). I've read the arguments, the counter arguments, the counter to those and to those and to those, and any halfway intelligent, well informed person could argue at least to a stalemate on this issue.
I think you heard my groan and I seriously doubt that you could do what you say. We have had long discussions about evolution and ID on here and they all end up with the same incredulous points being rehashed... roundly defeated, repeated, roundly defeated and so it goes on. The recent in depth ruling on the ID vs. evolution case in America has made the issue clear- ID is not science, its creationism in a fancy dress and evolution is science.

[Strafio]

Perhaps you have an image of "the Christian God" that seems unrealistic to you; probably very humanized, and dishing out some kind of "justice" and "judgement" based on a universal standard that our morally relative world culture insists is outdated.
No. If our culture influence anything then it tells us not to accept things blindly. Christianity used to be the religion. You either understood and accepted it or didn't understand it but accepted it as that what you were supposed to do in culture. Nowdays what we accept depends on what we find believable.

The Christianity presented to me by evangelicals just doesn't make sense to me at all. Even if there's a God

I'm sure you believe in something greater than yourself. Something trancending you.
And I'm sure that that imbued into your being is a sense that you can pay some kind of attention to it or ignore it. Seek after it or just let the human animal you live in to bring itself to homeostasis.
The possibilities cross my mind sometimes, I toy with the idea of a God but I also find myself sometimes thinking that there's no reason to believe he exists. (it's perfectly plausable that the universe ticks on by itself)

Because of God's nature, knowing anything about 'him' can only be down to a lucky guess (especially when there's so many conflicted theories on who God is) so any theology that demands you guess correctly just makes me feel that if there is a God then it hasn't got a realistic measure of him at all.

[Topher]

It's more along the lines of, I have not seen a single shred of credible scientific evidence for anything supernatural, and I've never heard a single sound argument either. As such, I haven't any reason, much less sufficient reason, to believe that there is anything supernatural - Gods, ghosts, fairies, intelligent models...
My view exactly!

Furthermore, we can only have knowledge of the natural. So if we had evidence/knowledge of something ‘supernatural’, it follows that that something would be natural, for we have knowledge of it.

In short, there is no reason/evidence to even believe anything other than the natural exists. At all. So 'supernatural' merely begs the question.

The word ‘supernatural’ was created merely to contradistinct the word ‘natural’ just as ‘dark’ is to contradistinct ‘light.’ Dark isn’t actually anything itself, it’s just the absent of light.


As for it taking faith to not accept something that isn't reasonably supported - well what kind of faith is that? By faith, do you mean "believing or not believing something"? If so, well then everyone has faith, and the word loses all meaning. Most people would define faith along the lines of believing in a proposition for which there is no, or insufficient, evidence and reason to believe. I don't need evidence not to believe in the supernatural. I simply need an immense, staggering, continuous lack of evidence, and lo and behold - that's exactly what I have. Unless of course, you give me this evidence. Then I'll happy change my mind, for certainly it would take faith to deny something that is plainly evidenced and rationally supported.
Exactly. If faith is believing based on reason/evidence, why bother with the word to begin with!

[PopeCoyote]

My view exactly!

Furthermore, we can only have knowledge of the natural. So if we had evidence/knowledge of something ‘supernatural’, it follows that that something would be natural, for we have knowledge of it.

In short, there is no reason/evidence to even believe anything other than the natural exists. At all. So 'supernatural' merely begs the question.

This actually depends on your personal religion- Speaking in generalities here, most Christians I know of would consider (real) magic "supernatural" Where most Neo-Pagans would consider perfectally natural, almost indistinguishable from our "chi" energy manipulation as MAs.


The word ‘supernatural’ was created merely to contradistinct the word ‘natural’ just as ‘dark’ is to contradistinct ‘light.’ Dark isn’t actually anything itself, it’s just the absent of light.



Exactly. If faith is believing based on reason/evidence, why bother with the word to begin with!

I disagree. Light isn't anything by itself, it's just the absence of dark. Dark is the natural state of the world. It takes outside interference (the Sun, lightbulbs to create light)

[WatchfulAbyss]

I disagree. Light isn't anything by itself, it's just the absence of dark. Dark is the natural state of the world. It takes outside interference (the Sun, lightbulbs to create light)

Isn't that exactly what would make dark the absence of something, I mean you did just say that light was a "outside interference" hence something.......

[PopeCoyote]

Isn't that exactly what would make dark the absence of something, I mean you did just say that light was a "outside interference" hence something.......

My point is to challenge the commonly held beliefs. Most people in this world think in terms of "light good, dark bad" and therefore in a attempt to live good and purge the bad from their lives, praise the light and curse the dark. But.... What if they have it backwards? What if, in truth, the dark was good and the light bad? What if they've been decieved all their lives and never thought about what they were told? By posting something like "light being the abscence of dark," which reverses the commonly held beliefs, I challenge people to re-examine themselves and their beliefs. This particular one is relatively easy IMHO. Yin and Yang - Light and Dark are equal. Neither is the absence of the other. They are both their own forces, neither can exist, neither can have meaning without the other.

Challenge thyself! A faith unchallenged is a faith not worth having!
And Yes, I am aware that I sometimes contradict myself. In my view, being able to hold contradictory views as both true is an exercise in growth. Maybe someday I'll explain how I can believe Darwinism and Creationism at the same time.

[WatchfulAbyss]

I don't think attempting to change the association between the two is going to do that. People associate darkness, with bad, for alot of reasons. I mean just look at the deffinition of the word.

dark

1 a : devoid or partially devoid of light : not receiving, reflecting, transmitting, or radiating light <a dark room> b : transmitting only a portion of light <dark glasses>
2 a : wholly or partially black <dark clothing> b of a color : of low or very low lightness c : being less light in color than other substances of the same kind <dark rum>
3 a : arising from or showing evil traits or desires : EVIL <the dark powers that lead to war> b : DISMAL, GLOOMY <had a dark view of the future> c : lacking knowledge or culture : UNENLIGHTENED <a dark period in history> d : relating to grim or depressing circumstances <dark humor>
4 a : not clear to the understanding b : not known or explored because of remoteness <the darkest reaches of the continent>
5 : not fair in complexion : SWARTHY
6 : SECRET <kept his plans dark>
7 : possessing depth and richness <a dark voice>
8 : closed to the public <the theater is dark in the summer>

I do understand what your saying. I just dont see why the words light and dark would have to change, the subjects that fall under them, would make more sense, to me at least......
Wow we are way off topic......................

[Topher]

This actually depends on your personal religion
No, it doesn’t. The definition doesn’t change per religion, only the way the religion chooses to interpret it.

Speaking in generalities here, most Christians I know of would consider (real) magic "supernatural"
I notice you state “(real) magic” Any reason for the inclusion of “(real)”? What is magic anyway?

I disagree. Light isn't anything by itself, it's just the absence of dark.
Incorrect.

I suggest you read this: Light ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light) and Darkness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness)

And to add, I was not talking in a philosophical manner (i.e. yin/yang, good/bad) but rather in the scientific sense, where dark is the absence of light particles.

[PopeCoyote]

No, it doesn’t. The definition doesn’t change per religion, only the way the religion chooses to interpret it.


I notice you state “(real) magic” Any reason for the inclusion of “(real)”? What is magic anyway?


Related questions. In Neo-Pagan traditions, _most_ religions believe in some sort of energy work, which is termed magic. Real magic (usually spelled magick in this case) which is considered perfectally natural, an outgrowth of nature's inherent power. This is opposed to stage magic, the art of illusion that they consider "fake" magic (although that term is seldom used)

_Most_ Christian traditions, on the other hand, consider any non-stage magic (if they even acknowledge the possibility of it) a supernatural force, made through associations with un-natural beings, usually the devil.



And to add, I was not talking in a philosophical manner (i.e. yin/yang, good/bad) but rather in the scientific sense, where dark is the absence of light particles.

In that case, we were talking in different terms. I was speaking philosophically, but as blind mentioned, that's way off-topic, so I'd rather not pursue it further in this thread. My apologies.

[Topher]

Real magic (usually spelled magick in this case) which is considered perfectally natural,
In which case, why bother with the term “magick” at all them?

I was speaking philosophically, but as blind mentioned, that's way off-topic, so I'd rather not pursue it further in this thread. My apologies.
No problem :) Aside from the above question ;)

[PopeCoyote]

In which case, why bother with the term “magick” at all them?

Actually, that's one of the disagreements I have with the Neo-Pagan movement. In general, they use the term "magick" to draw the distinction between energy work and stage magic. Personally, _I_ don't believe we need a separate term. But to bring this back to where we started, I was using this as only one example as to how we define natural, supernatural, and unnatural can shift depending on the personal beliefs of the person. In this case, a Pagan and a Christian defining the same thing in two different terms.

[Topher]

In general, they use the term "magick" to draw the distinction between energy work and stage magic.
No i mean if "magick" is simply natural, as you claimed, why bother with the term "magick" at all. Why not just use the word "natural" for that as you claim, is all it is.

I was using this as only one example as to how we define natural, supernatural, and unnatural can shift depending on the personal beliefs of the person.
Supernatural and unnatural are the same thing.

[lightninrod]

blasphemy:

Noun
Inflected forms: pl.blas·phe·mies 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

blasphemy isnt denial, its what i just showed you. its forgivable to deny the holy spirit but its unforgiveable to blasphemy the holy spirit if you have known the fullness of the holy spirit. end of thread
The problem with the definition you're posting here is that it is taking popular and common usage into consideration (as dictionaries must do), and not adhering strictly with its usage in the bible. In the bible, blasphemy refers strictly to part b of definition 1, or part a when done under the pretense of part b. Part 1a in and of itself, and part 2 (strictly biblically) are actually sacrelige.
The Pharisees and Sadducees called Jesus a blasphemer specifically because he was claiming to be the Messiah - i.e. the son of GOD - and claiming that his power was from GOD (which would have been of the Holy Spirit) - which, if not true, would have put him under part b of definition 1.
Being that the Holy Spirit is the part of GOD that goes forth into the world to carry out GOD's will, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would specifically be if one were to intentionally claim to have GOD's power and thereby mislead or decieve others.
Speaking against God or denying HIM just doesn't fall into this category.

[greenlantern]

Well that still applies to me. I was a very strong Christian for many years when I was in my younger teen years. I was touched by the holy spirit, I read and was touched by the word of God, I had a personal relationship with Jesus and prayed to him often. Then I rejected every single bit of it as I studied science, philosophy, and logic.

So it seems I'm still condemned, and thus the issue is still relevent - why would anyone bother to change my mind if I am never to be forgiven?


If you don't believe in god then you can't believe you're condemned. You can't not believe in god and believe the other. It sounds like you're struggleing with your beliefs. Personally I go with logic and science.