Eternal Damnation

[Borachio]

Mens sana in corpore sano.

Healthy.
------------
What "terms of service"?

 

[Crackerbox]

Mens sana in corpore sano.

Healthy.

Alius non est illuminatus, blasphemantes . Accusationibus est insania et incivili redigo .
Note the use of blasphemantes to mean an insult and hence why I chose insulting the Holy Spirit because blasphemy is a loaded word.

 

[Borachio]

"Devaluing"? What's a gerund doing amongst all that foreign latinizing?

But tell me instead how you feel about stigmatizing people with mental illnesses?

 

[Crackerbox]

What does that have to do with the topic of eternal damnation?

Why not read this?
Flaming
Flaming is essentially posting something that insults, or is intended to insult, another poster. Flaming is not limited to only direct insults. Indirect insults, such as posts which characterise an opinion, a person or a group of people negatively are also not tolerated.

Examples:
You are an idiot.
This is a direct insult, and is not allowed.

Anyone who thinks [related to opinion poster is debating issue] is an idiot.
This is an indirect insult, and is not allowed.

Only an idiot would say that.
Again, this is an indirect insult, and is not allowed.

Everyone defending this is an idiot.
Again, in context this is an indirect insult, and is not allowed.

Flaming is generally limited to forum members. "Flaming" of celebrities or public figures etc. is generally tolerated, provided that the aim of this is not specifically to annoy supporters of that celebrity on the forums.

Calling someone "crackers is the precise same things as calling someone an idiot.

Let's bring it back to the topic of eternal damnation.

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Matthew 5:22

 

[El_Machinae]

Wait, the one unforgivable sin is clarified in one dubious text, and will be committed by basically anyone (1) not raised Christian or (2) raised in sub-par Christian households?

And, Hellfire for us? This is the god you claim is worthy of loving? Don't get me wrong about fearing this god, you had me at fear. But love?

Your kid says to you "I don't believe in God" and you realize it's an eternity of Hellfire for him. What kind of parent would love someone who'd do that to their kid?!? How the Sam's Hill can you even dare to have children when they've got to be wary of some third-hand report from a not-very-believable source?

Aren't those the wonkiest ethics you've ever seen?

 

[Crackerbox]

Wrong. It's mentioned specifically twice (Mar 3 and Matthew 12)but alluded to numerous times. You cannot use scriptural scissors and clip out what you don't like or that which discomforts you. We condemn ourselves by our words. Isn't that why it is said:

36But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”Matthew 12: 36-37

Do not think you may freely say this or that by Free Will, and that GOD who is Ultimate Reality will let it slide. If we ask forgiveness in all but one thing, we can be forgiven (under very specific circumstances). But Jesus himself tells us not to do this one thing. There is no higher authority for Christianity that the Son of Man who is also the Son of God.

Looking back, if GOD is really Ultimate Reality, and you're an unbeliever or especially if an ardent atheist, then you might have over and over again committed the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and hence they should shudder at the eternal consequences. Maybe some of those spiteful forum posts that solve nothing but blaspheme in this way, are not only pointless and fruitless, but damage you instead of others.

"30“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.31And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Matthew 12: 30-32

We are condemned if we say that, "That wasn't God acting [through the Holy Spirit], that was just random chance. " Or if we say, "There is no God acting as the Holy Spirit." Instead of thinking we can bargain with God, and reduce the supremacy of God into something "we control" versus being the servants of God, then we delude ourselves.

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/unpardonablesin.html

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).].

"The Bible is filled with examples of people who receive forgiveness for all manner of wickedness, for ‘the Lord’s hand is not short that it cannot save’ (Isaiah 59:1). God’s boundless grace prompted Paul to exclaim, ‘When sin increased, grace abounded all the more’ (Romans 5:20). And Paul’s personal testimony showed God’s redemptive purpose and power were not limited by man’s sinfulness, thus encouraging those who feared they had sinned too grievously to be saved (1 Timothy 1:15-16).

While God’s ability to save is boundless, the Bible clearly shows that there are certain conditions under which He will not save. For instance, God will not save those who neglect or despise Christ’s sacrifice in an effort to find an alternate salvation plan.


‘For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins’ (Hebrews 10:26).

This warning pertains to those who ‘trample under foot the Son of God’ and regard His blood as unclean (Hebrews 10:29). God the Father has appointed His Son’s sacrifice as the sole way of salvation and will not grant salvation to those who seek it by any other means."

Some sins can be forgiven. Jesus says one sin cannot be forgiven. Other sins are mentioned as interfering with salvation. You are making the intellectual leap about these sins as if they will condemn someone to the Lake of Fire in the second death. Are you sure about that, or does it mean that those sins are unable to be forgiven?

We risk the second death in the Lake of Fire by every empty word, but God doesn't necessarily cause us to be cast there. Who can know? You don't take GOD on your own terms, but as a servant to a Master.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, Matthew is a re-writing of Mark. But, okay, in two texts. One more unbelievable than the next. Some anonymous 3rd hand report.

Sure, I'm making the intellectual leap that the 'unforgivable sin' causes you to be cast into Hell. Er, it doesn't? It's a forgivable sin?

You cannot quote Ray Comfort as a credible source on Biblical interpretation. He's entirely incapable of reading the Bible properly. He thinks Genesis is literal! His entire system of interpreting the Bible is broken (we can assume he has no guidance from the Holy Spirit, even).

 

[Crackerbox]

Irregardless if you like or dislike the source, the unpardonable sin is not in question. You're attempting to say this or that isn't Scripture, but merely the words of men. As such, that's no different than the Jesus Seminar.

You're taking it on your own authority that this text is genuine and this text is not. How could one have any faith at all if you go down that path?

Maybe we need to get our of comfort zone and simply believe it, understand it's a mystery, and then try to sin no more especially about something that is so DANGEROUS.

If I assume that GOD is real and that GOD's word is real, then if call upon the only begotten Son of GOD, who was resurrected, and say it aloud, then I can be saved.

If I disbelieve it, then I risk everything. If I am wrong, and do works of altruism, it harms no one, and help the suffering, and what's more it makes me a better human being. If I disbelieve or worse disbelieve that the Holy Spirit is working in a Christian's life (but only is delusion and good feelings) then I might be condemning myself in extremely dangerous ways.

Why risk it? Is it for Pride?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

That does not seem to be how the Didache identifies the unforgivable sin.

11:1 Welcome the teacher when he comes to instruct you in all that has been said.

11:2 But if he turns and trains you in another tradition to the destruction of this teaching, do not listen. If he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.

11:3 Act according to the precepts of the gospel concerning all apostles and prophets:

11:4 Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord.

11:5 But he must not remain more than one day, or two, if there's a need. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet.

11:6 And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread to last him until his next night of lodging. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.

11:7 In addition, if any prophet speaks in the Spirit, you shall not try or judge him; for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin cannot be forgiven.

11:8 But not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; only he is a prophet who has the ways of the Lord about him. By their ways will the false prophet and the prophet be known.

11:9 Any prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it; if he does, he is indeed a false prophet.

11:10 And any prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet.

11:11 When a prophet, proved true, works for the mystery of the church in the world but does not teach others to do what he himself does, he will not be judged among you, for his judgment is already before God. The ancient prophets acted in this way, also.

11:12 But whoever says in the Spirit, "Give me money,"or something else like this, you must not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for the sake of others who are in need, let no one judge him.

 

[Crackerbox]

As it was eliminated from the canon of the Bible, then what difference does it make? I can quote from numerous texts like that like the Gospel of Mary.

There's lots of the early Church Fathers like 1 Clement that are valuable in one way or another, but they're not Holy Scripture.

That speaking in the Spirit is probably discussing speaking as the Spirit gives utterance i.e. tongues and not judging them for it. It could even mean given over to prophesy while speaking. It's specific instead of general. Even if it were cannonical, which it's not, then this wouldn't contradict Mark3 and Mathew 12.

What's the earliest manuscript of the Didache any way? While the Greek used dates to the time period of the disciples, do we have any papyrus of the Didache that actually dates to that period.

No, it was eliminated as authoritative for a reason. It has no more weight that the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The Didache still has more weight than the opinions of the modern mortals who write for such websites as those you keep linking.

I never said it contradicted the text of Mark or Matthew in the slightest, only that it does not align so well with your interpretation of those texts.

There were plenty of orthodox Church Fathers who thought that the Didache should be considered part of the canon, which is not something we can say of the Gospel of Thomas or any Gnostic text.

 

[El_Machinae]

Irregardless if you like or dislike the source, the unpardonable sin is not in question. You're attempting to say this or that isn't Scripture, but merely the words of men. As such, that's no different than the Jesus Seminar.

You're taking it on your own authority that this text is genuine and this text is not. How could one have any faith at all if you go down that path?

Maybe we need to get our of comfort zone and simply believe it, understand it's a mystery, and then try to sin no more especially about something that is so DANGEROUS.

If I assume that GOD is real and that GOD's word is real, then if call upon the only begotten Son of GOD, who was resurrected, and say it aloud, then I can be saved.

If I disbelieve it, then I risk everything. If I am wrong, and do works of altruism, it harms no one, and help the suffering, and what's more it makes me a better human being. If I disbelieve or worse disbelieve that the Holy Spirit is working in a Christian's life (but only is delusion and good feelings) then I might be condemning myself in extremely dangerous ways.

Why risk it? Is it for Pride?

You're not answering the original question. Just assume for a second that the Mark warning is not very believable. I mean, it's clear, but it's just not all that believable.

But that's the warning. Okay, so let's assume it's a true warning (though it still remains not very believable, it is now assumed to be true).

You now claim to love the entity that would burn me in Hellfire for being skeptical? You're that unsympathetic that I'm claiming the warning is not very clear? Hellfire? Really?!?

As for the risk to you, well it remains the same as I tell Unicorny. You risk worshiping a false god, believing slander about the real God, and then making the moral error of loving an entity that would do such a thing.

I've never slandered God as much as Ray Comfort has.

 

[Crackerbox]

I categorically love Yahweh and it makes no difference that some will be burnt up in Hellfire. I don't impose myself upon Yahweh and put conditions upon what Yahweh must do to earn my love and respect. Yahweh is the Master, not I.

How can a miserable sinner decide what Yahweh must do? Even if I burnt up in Hellfire, I would still love Yahweh completely for my sins are innumerable. Only by grace am I saved by the Blood of the Lamb, not on my own merits.

But God doesn't punish us for our manifold sins, but removes them as far as the East is from the West.

That passage aligns perfects with Mark 3 and Mathew 12. It says that one shouldn't criticize someone who has the gift of the Holy Spirit and then make a claim that it's not. By the same token, if one says, "You're not filled with the Holy Spirit, but only believing in a false god..." is making the identical error. Or worse things like claiming a Christian who talks of inviting the Holy Spirit to live within yourself for our bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit, then someone says, "You're filled with the Devil, not the Holy Spirit."

The fact that you don't get that the Didache and commentary and what I'm saying are all similar, make me wonder.

It matters not about the Didache as it was eliminated from a canonical position regardless.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm just astounded you can actually love something that evil. The important part of my point is that you have very(!) little evidence that God is the evil thing you believe Him to be. There's so much slander towards God in the Bible, I boggle at the idea of you claiming you love the 'real' God. You'd think you'd defend Him against lies! But no! Instead you quote Ray Comfort as some type of authority!

You can see why I'm confused!

It says that one shouldn't criticize someone who has the gift of the Holy Spirit and then make a claim that it's not. By the same token, if one says, "You're not filled with the Holy Spirit, but only believing in a false god..." is making the identical error.

Um, you can't just believe everyone who claims they've got the Holy Spirit. Eventually you're going to think that someone had deceived themselves, and believed a false source (e.g., Lacy Petersen). And what do you do when someone claims to be speaking with the Spirit but then makes provable errors? Just keep your mouth zipped instead? But doesn't the blaspheming happen in your heart? Or am I misunderstanding? What do you do when you find out that Lacy heard God talking to her?

 

[Crackerbox]

I'm just astounded you can actually love something that evil. The important part of my point is that you have very(!) little evidence that God is the evil thing you believe Him to be. There's so much slander towards God in the Bible, I boggle at the idea of you claiming you love the 'real' God. You'd think you'd defend Him against lies! But no! Instead you quote Ray Comfort as some type of authority!

You can see why I'm confused!



Um, you can't just believe everyone who claims they've got the Holy Spirit. Eventually you're going to think that someone had deceived themselves, and believed a false source (e.g., Lacy Petersen). And what do you do when someone claims to be speaking with the Spirit but then makes provable errors? Just keep your mouth zipped instead? But doesn't the blaspheming happen in your heart? Or am I misunderstanding? What do you do when you find out that Lacy heard God talking to her?

Nope! You claim that Yahweh is evil, which actually is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It's not up to you to chose whether someone actually has the Holy Spirit within them. To make a pronouncement that this person or that didn't have the Holy Spirit within them, is precisely what Jesus spoke about in Mark3, Mathew 12, and even the Didache!

Apparently at the time the Didache was written people were saying, "Hmmm I don't know if that person actually has the Holy Spirit inside him/her, and that's why that line is in there telling the early Christian community members specifically NOT to do that!

This statement from the Didache:
11:7 In addition, if any prophet speaks in the Spirit, you shall not try or judge him; for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin cannot be forgiven.

It is just like Mark 3 and Mathew 12. They were saying that the power of Jesus came not from God, but from Satan. They were denying that the Holy Spirit was working the miracle. The difference despite the agreement is it's not cannonical.

Cherry-picking and saying, "This text is slander against Yahweh. I refuse to believe it." That's heresy. In Christianity we live within a faith tradition over time. We don't get to say, "Well, I Crackerbox don't believe in Matthew. It's nonsense. I'll just excise Matthew from the Bible." If you do that, you're not in keeping with the church you probably belong to, or the lasting tradition over time from that denomination.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, we both believe in Objective Truth. If a tradition is incorrect, I can excise it from my beliefs. Or, at least, I try to behave honestly on this front.

There's no a priori reason to assume Matthew is correct. You can take it on faith. But if it's Objectively Incorrect in some important way, then no amount of faith changes that. Then we're to Pascal's Wager, and betting on a god that prefers sincere efforts over self-correction.

You might be misunderstanding my point about slander. Ray Comfort is a Creationist, and so promulgates slander against God as part of his ministry (and proves he cannot be trusted to interpret the Bible.

 

[Crackerbox]

Nope. I don't bet on Yahweh and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I believe it. I don't choose to believe because I hope for an outcome. The outcome matters not. Regardless of what happens, I would believe.

Like any human relationship, I don't enter into a marriage because I hope for an outcome, but trust on faith that it will work out. I don't require proof from a romance or a friendship for we can't find proof, but we can sure find doubt every single day within ourselves and in them.

The weakest kind of gamble is Pascal's Wager for unbelievers who can't believe that God would love them and save them, but they gamble on it. That's not love or faith but trying to save your own skin.

 

[El_Machinae]

ehn, sure. That's just semantics. The meat of my post doesn't hinge on the difference between 'bet' and 'believe'.

 

[Crackerbox]

Hardly semantics. It's why I prefaced saying that prayer of believing in Christ unless it was sincere. Pascal's Wager is no way to believe in Christ. Ultimate Reality knows our hearts, and hence you can't fake out God into accepting you through lip service.

"I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve." Jeremiah 17:10

 

[Perfection]

The whole eternal damnation thing seems rather arbitrary. Let's say I die and go to hell, why should God be so picky as to disallow me to redeem myself by repenting? Does He no longer love me? Has Jesus abandoned me?

Why should death be the determiner if I am capable of being saved or not?