(August 12, 2013 at 8:26 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You're claiming to know as much as a god then Chicklet. I'm sorry to have underestimated you!

I don't have time now, but let me say briefly...

Take the creation story. Many Christians hold the ignorant position that it is literal, in the sense that they take the English translated words at face value adding their modern scientific understanding to it.
They have produced zero exegetical proofs of this interpretation, so it stands naked. The actual literal explanation, on the other hand, has thorough exegetical support, in studies detailing comparative religious and cultural practices, language and understanding of the time, to come up with a very different meaning.

The former pretty much sums up the OPs method.

So the sentences don't mean what they say, they say something different?

The English words used might not help you to understand what is meant exactly Chas. The original words can be understood quite accurately, if they're freed from the baggage we add.

(August 12, 2013 at 7:59 am)ITChick Wrote:

(August 12, 2013 at 7:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It's always fun trying to read the opposite into something than it means.

Yep - you have to remember this as well MonkeyMan. When the bible said God destroyed everyone (and everything, including the cute puppies and kittens), it meant: "he gave them all a chocolate ice cream".

Just replace kill (and destroy) with chocolate ice cream and all the stories become much better.

(It would not surprise me if Christians think this )

Going to be honest here and say that I don't believe a word in what Christians say. I said I worried about the Unforgivable sin and that's what put me here. The fact that not one Christian can actually work out what it is. I figured there was 20 different opinions and at that point how the fuck can they all be right.

Jesus said it - Didn't tell us what it meant and then died! That's cruel - Because the people who are affected and afflicted by this are Christians no-one else. And the people most likely to Blaspheme would be Believers and the Pharisees were believers!

And don't Christian's give me this hard of heart bull shit Jesus said 'Speak' he did not say 'Feel'.

Intrestingly I do realise that Jesus said it wont be forgiven but never said it was a sin. And that it was worthy of ever lasting 'Contempt' e.g. 'Disrespect' So technically Jesus never said it would send you to hell nor did he say that it excluded you from heaven. Considering he had a fascination with hell through his ministry its funny how he told the world about One sin that spells disaster but talked right over it!

---

(August 12, 2013 at 8:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The English words used might not help you to understand what is meant exactly Chas. The original words can be understood quite accurately, if they're freed from the baggage we add.

Its funny having an Ex-Christian talk to a Christian as you are going to have the same scripture thrown at you. Which is interesting - Because oddly enough the bible can literally be used to make anyone believe whatever they want.

The other thing I did not get about Sodom and Gomorrah is the fact that God said there was not a single righteous person that's why he sent the Angels to Destroy it! So Lott and his family were actually no better from the people of Sodom and Gomorrah! The really strange thing is that the Angels Proceed to chat to Lott even when we hear in the preceding passage that the crowds were going to knock the door down! Where did the crowds Go?!

(August 12, 2013 at 8:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The English words used might not help you to understand what is meant exactly Chas. The original words can be understood quite accurately, if they're freed from the baggage we add.

I seriously doubt that.

Are you asserting that there are no accurate translations?
Are you asserting that it is untranslatable?

No scholarship I have ever read asserts those things.

(August 12, 2013 at 8:53 am)themonkeyman Wrote: The other thing I did not get about Sodom and Gomorrah is the fact that God said there was not a single righteous person that's why he sent the Angels to Destroy it! So Lott and his family were actually no better from the people of Sodom and Gomorrah! The really strange thing is that the Angels Proceed to chat to Lott even when we hear in the preceding passage that the crowds were going to knock the door down! Where did the crowds Go?!

Hehe, good question. The other thing about Sodom and Gomorrah that really annoys me (other than the fact that the bible says god had them destroyed) is - were there no babies or small children in these cities? What did they do to deserve to die?

Well, I guess if they were all homosexual there weren't any . But then the city would have died out eventually.

I'm sure that frodo will be along soon saying that the bible meant that god gave then chocolate ice creams

The unforgivable sin still feels wrong to me though. The ex-christian in me is shouting : "no, you will not go to hell for that."

The atheist in me knows that you won't go to hell (well, at least not the Christian hell)

[quote='Minimalist' pid='491801' dateline='1376283854']
Wrong again, Drippy.

"Blaspheme" seems to be the word and it has a clear meaning.

[quote]New International Version
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin."

New Living Translation
but anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. This is a sin with eternal consequences."

English Standard Version
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—

New American Standard Bible
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "--

King James Bible
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" --

International Standard Version
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven, but is guilty of eternal sin."

NET Bible
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“But there is never forgiveness to whoever will blaspheme against The Spirit of Holiness, but he is condemned to eternal judgment;”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
But whoever curses the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He is guilty of an everlasting sin."

King James 2000 Bible
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal judgment:

American King James Version
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost has never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

American Standard Version
but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:

Douay-Rheims Bible
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.

Darby Bible Translation
but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin;

English Revised Version
but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:

Webster's Bible Translation
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never hath forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Weymouth New Testament
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, he remains for ever unabsolved: he is guilty of a sin of the Ages."

World English Bible
but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

Young's Literal Translation
but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness -- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;'[/quote]
There is no disput that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. so none of what you posted here changes anything I've said.

[quote]I realize you make this shit up as you go along but words do have meanings.[/quote]Indeed they do, now couple this idea with the understanding that the bible was not written in modern english. Once you do that, you must also add in the context and example in which this word was used in the passage of Mark 3 that it was taken.

lets start with the word it self. In the Greek it's: βλασφημέω/blasphēmeō Contextually in Mark 3 it means, rail at, revile, calumniate, Calumniate is the defination we need to focous on here. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calumniate

In short Calumniate means to maliciously make false statements about someone.
Malice is the key word here for it describes the condition of one's heart.

These guys unlike most of you had the 'proof' you all say you need, and rather than accepting the absolute proof provided by Christ and the Holy Spirit, thier hearts had them attribute the Works of the Holy Spirit to satan.

How does this differ from our general exposure to the Holy Spirit? Few if any non believers have been exposed to what the Pharasees of mark 3 were exposed to. Which is why our invitation has been extended to our whole life time. Christ was in a unique position to not only provide the 'proof' that demanded belief He was also in a position to judge what those men would do for the rest of their lives having denied the Work of the the Holy Spirit that they had witnessed. The rest of us have the balance of our lives to decide what the pharasees of Mark 3 dicided in a matter of moments.

[quote]Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity, irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable[/quote]
Which would be the defination we would use IF the passages that outline the Blaspheme in question were orginally written in english.
As it wasn't we have to default to how the word was used in the greek in conjunction with the context in which the word was used.

(August 12, 2013 at 9:15 am)ITChick Wrote: Hehe, good question. The other thing about Sodom and Gomorrah that really annoys me (other than the fact that the bible says god had them destroyed) is - were there no babies or small children in these cities? What did they do to deserve to die?

Well, I guess if they were all homosexual there weren't any . But then the city would have died out eventually.

I'm sure that frodo will be along soon saying that the bible meant that god gave then chocolate ice creams

The unforgivable sin still feels wrong to me though. The ex-christian in me is shouting : "no, you will not go to hell for that."

The atheist in me knows that you won't go to hell (well, at least not the Christian hell)

:-) Thanks for your encouragement. I am slowly working my way through Genesis. My close friend found out that I was Atheist and he has been a guide through my Christian walk so he was shocked.

Needless to say we spent ours on end debating Christianity - His father is a Minister/Pastor so he knows apologetic. When I pulled him on stuff he said 'Prove It'. That's difficult when I don't have half the understanding of the bible of him.

Hey who said there were children in Sodom and Gomorah - God would never harm innocent Children even though in earlier Genesis he said that all Children are born evil!.

What I never Got is why was God so pissed half the time! So far all I see is a God who is unfair and who is Best Pals with Abraham who married his Sister? like seriously and people say what Sodom and Gomorah were doing was bad.

Iasaic's two daughters slept with him!

Monkey-

Christianity is all about being right.(It has to be so, otherwise...poof!) Your friend's insistence on you 'proving it' is a ploy to get you to doubt yourself. If counter-apologetics interests you, then cool. Otherwise, there is no need to duke it out. Christians aren't required to tell you why they believe any more than you are required to tell them why you don't. People who push their world view on others are the worst kind of bullies. Everyone's shit stinks, but only an asshole insists you smell theirs and claim roses.

Tell that fool to back off.

To the op,

I think that if you skim through the types of advice offered, it should be pretty clear to you that some people do not have a firm grasp on reality. As you know, it's not their fault.

Have you ever heard the expression: "You can't see the forest from the trees."? The christians on here are smack-dab in the middle of the woods. You, are heading towards a clearing. What you thought to be never ending trees, is actually just a small wooded glen. You have glimpsed reality. You are seeing signs that what you once thought was absolutely true, has a lot of flaws. After a lot of thought, you will be able to get out of the woods. You will see it as it is. A small area that has trees, and a lot of people within that area that are convinced that those trees are all that is.

Continue on your journey of knowledge, challenge everything, and accept nothing without a good reason.

That's pretty much all that's required to be an Atheist. We're pretty easy going people. Congratulations on seeing the exit sign. What follows is sure to be a memorable experience.

(August 12, 2013 at 8:13 am)fr0d0 Wrote: "They" portray God as equaling good. You read the opposite. That's all there is to say really.

Fiction novels always have multiple interpretations.

---

(August 12, 2013 at 10:02 am)themonkeyman Wrote: When I pulled him on stuff he said 'Prove It'.

You should be the one saying that to him.