Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is that unforgivable?

eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 9:17:13 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
In Math 12:31-32 Jesus tells the Pharisees, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone 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."

If only one sin is unforgivable then why isn"t the definition of that sin explained more clearly and the act itself spoken of (or warned against) more often?

Furthermore if the Holy Ghost ("hagios pneuma") is but one aspect of God then why is it unforgivable to blaspheme this aspect but not the Father or Son?

The interpretation of the term "hagios pneuma" (Holy Ghost or Spirit) is intricately linked to knowledge of the holy mind of God and the gifts of the spirit are related to the result of this heightened degree of confidence that is gained through this knowledge.

When I researched the subject for alternative definitions this is what I found:

In Ezekiel 33: The righteous of Israel are warned of consequences so severe for the commission of an iniquity that the subject matter must be the unforgivable sin. In this passage the "iniquity" is defined as trusting in their own righteousness.

Ez 33:
12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

This took me to the Book of Job who God had declared to be righteous. Considering Satan"s challenge to God regarding Job, is it not likely that to achieve his purpose of negating Gods judgement it would be necessary that Job not only sin but commit an iniquity that would be unforgivable? As a result of the calamities Job experiences he demands a personal audience with God where he insists he would challenge Gods justice and argue his own righteousness before him.

In the epiphany of the narrative after an extensive debate amongst the friends God finally does meet with Job face to face where he asks and demands the answer to one pivotal question:
Job 40:
1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.
6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

When looking at the circumstances of the encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees it appears that if we accept that Jesus was God then the point of the narrative would be that they had cursed God to his face though unwittingly. To paraphrase Jesus"s response had they known he was God and still cursed him as they did it would have been unforgivable.

So is it possible that other definitions of the unforgivable sin include to trust in human righteousness and/or to curse god to his face (with the knowledge that he is God)?

If so how can one argue that someone can be condemned to hell without first having known unequivocally who the true God is?

What scriptural evidence exists that disputes the probability that their will be opportunity for repentance and salvation after death? The ones I am aware of regarding salvation prior to death can be interpreted to mean that you will be saved from the fear of death if you believe in a resurrection of the dead and the gift of eternal life in the present.

I think the great judgement spoken of after the resurrection of the dead has more to do with meeting God for the first time and evaluating our stewardship of the Earth and treatment of one another. With the evidence of thousands of generations who have failed to create the utopia God had promised to provide had we not rejected him it seems likely that all humanity will judge that God was correct and we are deserving of death.

I believe the white throne judgement is about presenting evidence of our unrighteousness (including murdering God) in a manor that would provide overwhelming proof of our need to repent and adopt Gods ways and this is a judgement and a loving God who I can believe in.

So if all other sins can be forgiven then why am I wrong?

Eli
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 9:41:09 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 9:17:13 PM, eli-stills wrote:
In Math 12:31-32 Jesus tells the Pharisees, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone 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."
So is it possible that other definitions of the unforgivable sin include to trust in human righteousness and/or to curse god to his face (with the knowledge that he is God)?
I'd extend it to any independent thought or empirical inquiry, Eli. Ultimately, if your conscience and reason haven't been totally subjugated to dogma -- if you stick your head up even once to argue that dogma must be subject to independent testing, compassion and decency before being accepted -- you really don't deserve a place in heaven with the other sanctimonious, totalitarian, xenophobic zealots.

If so how can one argue that someone can be condemned to hell without first having known unequivocally who the true God is?
Beware asking that, because you're really holding dogma to account of your own independent notions of justice there, and that can lead you down the path of criticising the sacred.

So if all other sins can be forgiven then why am I wrong?
If you believe that, then making up your own mind accountably but wrongly is merely ignorance, and not malice or deliberate disrespect. That being so, you're free to reject any and all dogma on grounds of conscience and evidence -- which is essentially the secular humanism grown popular these last four centuries.

Beware! Beware, Eli! That way lies Universalism, Deism.. and rational, compassionate atheism beyond it.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:32:24 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
You know that that part (Math 12:31-32) is probably an interpolation, right?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:34:29 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Actually I am quite comfortable challenging Church dogma. My interest and questions relate to the available Biblical documentation and how the narrative represents the answers to these questions.

Personally I believe that the Bible is revelatory of a God but is often misunderstood and misrepresented for human purposes by humans. Additionally I find that tradition (dogma) is often used to obfuscate what the very document that is foundational to the Christian religion states. When it comes to the question of salvation I believe almost everyone (99.99%) will be saved and find those arguments to be quite comforting though obviously bad for those in the business of saving souls.

Interestingly as a proponent of universal salvation I feel no need to evangelize either in favor of theism or atheism, which should provide you with some degree of comfort though your concern, is noted for what it"s worth.

Eli
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:38:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:32:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You know that that part (Math 12:31-32) is probably an interpolation, right?

That's news to me.
Do you have evidence for this statement or is that just how it feels to you?
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 10:58:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:38:40 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:32:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You know that that part (Math 12:31-32) is probably an interpolation, right?

That's news to me.
Do you have evidence for this statement or is that just how it feels to you?

I am trying to find the source for it right now. I heard it a few months ago. Give me a sec, if I can't find it I will retract my statement.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 11:09:26 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:38:40 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:32:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You know that that part (Math 12:31-32) is probably an interpolation, right?

That's news to me.
Do you have evidence for this statement or is that just how it feels to you?

I am trying to find the source for it right now. I heard it a few months ago. Give me a sec, if I can't find it I will retract my statement.

If you can't find it please do your best to explain why you believe this rather than just detracting it.
You needn't feel pressured to meet some timeline as I am looking for a variety of opinions but do wish to limit the evidence for and against to that which is contained in the Bible.

Eli

Eli
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 11:13:00 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 11:09:26 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:38:40 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:32:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You know that that part (Math 12:31-32) is probably an interpolation, right?

That's news to me.
Do you have evidence for this statement or is that just how it feels to you?

I am trying to find the source for it right now. I heard it a few months ago. Give me a sec, if I can't find it I will retract my statement.


If you can't find it please do your best to explain why you believe this rather than just detracting it.
You needn't feel pressured to meet some timeline as I am looking for a variety of opinions but do wish to limit the evidence for and against to that which is contained in the Bible.

Eli

Eli

If I remember it correctly, what blasphemy meant at the time Matthew was written was, like with the ancient Jews, just saying "God" outside of a religious context (which is why you will see some modern Jews spell it "G-d"). How Matthew was written makes it seem as if the type of blasphemy which is being referred to is more reminiscent of a later form of blasphemy (denial, for example).

I am still trying to find the exact quote though.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 11:51:30 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 10:34:29 PM, eli-stills wrote:
As a proponent of universal salvation I feel no need to evangelize either in favor of theism or atheism, which should provide you with some degree of comfort though your concern, is noted for what it"s worth.

I assume you're addressing me, Eli. If you're a proponent of universal salvation, then may I ask you;

Is there any way you live your life in the belief of universal salvation, which you could not equally achieve by living compassionately and bravely without crediting obscure revelations and life after death?
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:56:49 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 11:51:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:34:29 PM, eli-stills wrote:
As a proponent of universal salvation I feel no need to evangelize either in favor of theism or atheism, which should provide you with some degree of comfort though your concern, is noted for what it"s worth.

I assume you're addressing me, Eli. If you're a proponent of universal salvation, then may I ask you;

Is there any way you live your life in the belief of universal salvation, which you could not equally achieve by living compassionately and bravely without crediting obscure revelations and life after death?

Of course I could or why else would I be anti-evangelical. I also enjoy history and appreciate the explanation for the mysteries of life and hope for the future as provided in the Biblical narrative.

Why is this topic so disturbing to you?
If I were discussing what I believe to be errors in how the teachings contained in the Enuma Elish were being interpreted would you have the same concerns?

If you believe it is nothing but an ancient document that records the fantasies of the Hebrew peoples it still presents a point of view and a historical record worth discussing among those with such interests and it appeared to me that this was a forum open to such topics.

Eli
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 1:17:00 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:56:49 AM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 11:51:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:34:29 PM, eli-stills wrote:
As a proponent of universal salvation I feel no need to evangelize either in favor of theism or atheism, which should provide you with some degree of comfort though your concern, is noted for what it"s worth.
Is there any way you live your life in the belief of universal salvation, which you could not equally achieve by living compassionately and bravely without crediting obscure revelations and life after death?
Of course I could or why else would I be anti-evangelical.
The syntax of your answer seems not to match the semantics of my question.

Why is this topic so disturbing to you?
Is it disturbing to me?

If I were discussing what I believe to be errors in how the teachings contained in the Enuma Elish were being interpreted would you have the same concerns?
Do you mean histiological errors or theological errors? If you were discussing histiorological errors, I might not object at all.

If you were discussing theological errors, then I'd be equally interested in how you'd justify any notion of a priori theological validity from Enuma Elish.

If you believe it is nothing but an ancient document that records the fantasies of the Hebrew peoples it still presents a point of view and a historical record worth discussing among those with such interests and it appeared to me that this was a forum open to such topics.
This forum does, and this topic is, but is there any reason to suppose that a compilation of fictional and philosophical works spanning over a millennium of thought holds any single position on a mythological character as legitimate?

Is it legitimate to seek to reconcile all the multi-authored cycles of Robin Hood myths into a single, coherent character?
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 1:19:57 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 11:13:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 11:09:26 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:38:40 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:32:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You know that that part (Math 12:31-32) is probably an interpolation, right?

That's news to me.
Do you have evidence for this statement or is that just how it feels to you?

I am trying to find the source for it right now. I heard it a few months ago. Give me a sec, if I can't find it I will retract my statement.


If you can't find it please do your best to explain why you believe this rather than just detracting it.
You needn't feel pressured to meet some timeline as I am looking for a variety of opinions but do wish to limit the evidence for and against to that which is contained in the Bible.

Eli

Eli

If I remember it correctly, what blasphemy meant at the time Matthew was written was, like with the ancient Jews, just saying "God" outside of a religious context (which is why you will see some modern Jews spell it "G-d"). How Matthew was written makes it seem as if the type of blasphemy which is being referred to is more reminiscent of a later form of blasphemy (denial, for example).

I am still trying to find the exact quote though.

Hello SNP1
I understand that you"re just relating your memory as I requested and intend to respond more thoroughly when able. In the meantime if I may respond to your brief the narrative reports that they claimed that Jesus was able to cast out demons through the power of the devil. This a far cry from any possible controversy over the ancient meaning of blaspheming.

In this encounter they made no reference to God whatsoever. The point appears to me to be that Jesus knew they did not recognize that he was God and therefor when they accused him of being in league with Satan they didn"t know they were blaspheming. Jesus then choose to use this occasion to give a pronouncement about the unforgivable sin.
Eli
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:14:03 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 1:17:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:56:49 AM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 11:51:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:34:29 PM, eli-stills wrote:
As a proponent of universal salvation I feel no need to evangelize either in favor of theism or atheism, which should provide you with some degree of comfort though your concern, is noted for what it's worth.
Is there any way you live your life in the belief of universal salvation, which you could not equally achieve by living compassionately and bravely without crediting obscure revelations and life after death?
Of course I could or why else would I be anti-evangelical.
The syntax of your answer seems not to match the semantics of my question.

Do you mean that my response does not respond to your question or that you don"t understand my response?

I believe everyone gets into heaven regardless of their behavior in this world. The semantics of your question indicates that you understood that and yet you ask if I can"t achieve the same purpose regardless of my behavior. I simply moved the conversation forward by stating the obvious (of course) and tried to reassure you that I wouldn't be requiring you or anyone else to agree with me.

Why is this topic so disturbing to you?
Is it disturbing to me?

It appears to be from your response hence my question.

If I were discussing what I believe to be errors in how the teachings contained in the Enuma Elish were being interpreted would you have the same concerns?
Do you mean histiological errors or theological errors? If you were discussing histiorological errors, I might not object at all.

If you were discussing theological errors, then I'd be equally interested in how you'd justify any notion of a priori theological validity from Enuma Elish.

I would assume that the author had the intent of communicating something albeit historical or theological and that the intent can be determined based on proper literate, historical and cultural review. I would also suspect that differing interpretations could be debated without the priori conclusion that the effort could not have any intrinsic value.

If you believe it is nothing but an ancient document that records the fantasies of the Hebrew peoples it still presents a point of view and a historical record worth discussing among those with such interests and it appeared to me that this was a forum open to such topics.
This forum does, and this topic is, but is there any reason to suppose that a compilation of fictional and philosophical works spanning over a millennium of thought holds any single position on a mythological character as legitimate?

If there is a consistency of theology, philosophy and historical accord within the compilation of records spanning multiple generations both with and without a centralized governance IMO this alone would make this a most remarkable achievement and perhaps even argue on behalf of their having been one singular author or editor if you prefer.

Is it legitimate to seek to reconcile all the multi-authored cycles of Robin Hood myths into a single, coherent character?

I don"t know why the attempt in and of itself would be illegitimate.

Eli
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:19:25 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 1:19:57 AM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 11:13:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 11:09:26 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:38:40 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:32:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You know that that part (Math 12:31-32) is probably an interpolation, right?

That's news to me.
Do you have evidence for this statement or is that just how it feels to you?

I am trying to find the source for it right now. I heard it a few months ago. Give me a sec, if I can't find it I will retract my statement.


If you can't find it please do your best to explain why you believe this rather than just detracting it.
You needn't feel pressured to meet some timeline as I am looking for a variety of opinions but do wish to limit the evidence for and against to that which is contained in the Bible.

Eli

Eli

If I remember it correctly, what blasphemy meant at the time Matthew was written was, like with the ancient Jews, just saying "God" outside of a religious context (which is why you will see some modern Jews spell it "G-d"). How Matthew was written makes it seem as if the type of blasphemy which is being referred to is more reminiscent of a later form of blasphemy (denial, for example).

I am still trying to find the exact quote though.

Hello SNP1
I understand that you"re just relating your memory as I requested and intend to respond more thoroughly when able. In the meantime if I may respond to your brief the narrative reports that they claimed that Jesus was able to cast out demons through the power of the devil. This a far cry from any possible controversy over the ancient meaning of blaspheming.

In this encounter they made no reference to God whatsoever. The point appears to me to be that Jesus knew they did not recognize that he was God and therefor when they accused him of being in league with Satan they didn"t know they were blaspheming. Jesus then choose to use this occasion to give a pronouncement about the unforgivable sin.
Eli

Okay, so I was wrong.
It was not an interpolation in Matthew, but it was not something that Jesus would have said (if Jesus did exist).
Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD in Ancient History is the one that explains it (while he was a guest on Atheist Experience)
https://youtu.be...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:57:26 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:14:03 AM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:17:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:56:49 AM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 11:51:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:34:29 PM, eli-stills wrote:
As a proponent of universal salvation I feel no need to evangelize either in favor of theism or atheism, which should provide you with some degree of comfort though your concern, is noted for what it's worth.
Is there any way you live your life in the belief of universal salvation, which you could not equally achieve by living compassionately and bravely without crediting obscure revelations and life after death?
Of course I could or why else would I be anti-evangelical.
The syntax of your answer seems not to match the semantics of my question.
I believe everyone gets into heaven regardless of their behavior in this world.
The semantics of your question indicates that you understood that and yet you ask if I can't achieve the same purpose regardless of my behavior.
Actually, my question was: if you are seeking to live a good life (as I imagine you are) when you believe the moral order of the world doesn't require you to, is it nevertheless too scary to abandon the assumption of a universal heaven whose existence isn't material to your moral choices, which in any case you can't prove, and which many people don't actually desire anyway?

That's not a rhetorical question, Eli. If it's not too scary to abandon it, why do you hold onto it?

Why is this topic so disturbing to you?
Is it disturbing to me?
It appears to be
Because I disagree with some unacknowledged assumptions?

If I were discussing what I believe to be errors in how the teachings contained in the Enuma Elish were being interpreted would you have the same concerns?
Do you mean historiological errors or theological errors? If you were discussing historiological errors, I might not object at all.
If you were discussing theological errors, then I'd be equally interested in how you'd justify any notion of a priori theological validity from Enuma Elish.
I would assume that the author had the intent of communicating something albeit historical or theological and that the intent can be determined based on proper literate, historical and cultural review.
Absolutely. However, the Bible has had multiple authors (many unauthenticated), and was written, redacted and curated over a time longer than than the lives of many civilisations: a time so great that the cultural, intellectual and political contexts of early authors were vastly different from that of later authors -- meaning, the purpose, ideas and traditions associated with Biblical myths may have changed so greatly that there's no reason to suppose they should reconcile into a single coherent theology or purpose.

That being so, which version of God do you want to talk about? There are thought to be four major sources to the Pentateuch at least, each with its own take on how theology works; and the story of God changes yet again in the New Testament.

This forum does, and this topic is, but is there any reason to suppose that a compilation of fictional and philosophical works spanning over a millennium of thought holds any single position on a mythological character as legitimate?
If there is a consistency of theology, philosophy and historical accord within the compilation of records spanning multiple generations both with and without a centralized governance IMO this alone would make this a most remarkable achievement and perhaps even argue on behalf of their having been one singular author or editor if you prefer.
Yes it would, However, for over a century it has been understood that the evidence -- both within and without the source texts -- points the other way. Inside the text, modern historiological methods have distinguished multiple sources, each influencing one another, yet each thinking disparate things and advocating incompatible ideas. Outside the text, archaeology has debunked major claims to authority within the text -- like the historical existence of the Biblical patriarchs, for example.

Consequently, serious theologians (i.e. ones who support accountable, falsifiable historiological methods) have sacrificed their understandable desire for theological coherence in favour of theological inspiration and historical accuracy.

Your question seems to reverse that trend -- or else be unaware of it. Hence my questions.

Is it legitimate to seek to reconcile all the multi-authored cycles of Robin Hood myths into a single, coherent character?
I don't know why the attempt in and of itself would be illegitimate.
One reason it might be called illegitimate is its careless abandonment of rigour: at what point do you acknowledge that you've so strained assumptions in producing a teleporting, shape-shifting, immortal, bigamist, Celtic-Saxon-French revolutionary archer that you're no longer upholding best-practice historiological methods or any kind of intellectual accountability at all? :D
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:37:04 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 9:17:13 PM, eli-stills wrote:
In Math 12:31-32 Jesus tells the Pharisees, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone 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."

If only one sin is unforgivable then why isn"t the definition of that sin explained more clearly and the act itself spoken of (or warned against) more often?

Deliberate stupidity is unforgivable.
On what planet is it ever bad, evil or wrong to heal another person ?

Read the context of chapter 12 and notice that in verse 22 the Jesus character healed a dumb blind man. After that, a dispute began due to some being amazed at the miracle and some being dubious about it being a miracle at all. Those who doubted the miracle accused the character of working under the influence of some evil power. They were basically accusing his good work of being something bad.
Jesus explained to them there would be no point in anything under an evil influence casting out evil things since it would be ultimately self destructive.
Since Jesus is the son of man, he was telling those who judged him and his work as evil that he would forgive them for judging him to be evil but would not forgive them for calling a good work evil.

It is much like you believing your own motives and intentions for doing something are perfectly good and holy.... In other words you honestly believe you are being motivated by a "holy spirit" or good intentions within you. You do something perfectly loving and kind like healing a dumb blind man, regardless of how you do it, then you get a bunch of stupid superstitious fools accusing you of doing wrong and having bad intentions, wrong motives or "bad spirit" behind what you have done.

If you understand how ignorant they really are, you could say to them that calling good evil or judging someones perfectly good motives and intentions ( Holy Spirit ) as evil is unforgivable but you will still forgive them for judging you ( son of man ) as evil because you understand they are merely judging according to their own superstitions and perceptions and have no clue of the motives of your heart. They know not what they do. Therefore all their sins are forgiven. IF they did know what they were doing, it would be inconceivable to do it in the first place and unforgivable if they still did it fully knowing what they were doing.

Why would anyone in their right mind accuse anyone of doing something evil when all they have done is heal a dumb blind person? It makes no difference if they did it through natural means or supernatural means, the end result is that the dumb blind person can see and speak.
To call that evil is unforgivable unless those who make such accusations are not in thinking straight.
People who have their heads screwed on the right way do not call good evil or accuse a person of doing something wrong when their intentions were pure and good.

It has nothing to do with speaking against some invisible ghost or supernatural character. It has everything to do with judging other peoples good intentions as evil.

That's the way I see it anyway.
The moral of the story is look deeper than outward appearances and make sure you understand the intentions of a person and why they do what they do. Judge the motives before you judge the outward actions as evil.
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:32:28 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:37:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/13/2015 9:17:13 PM, eli-stills wrote:
In Math 12:31-32 Jesus tells the Pharisees, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone 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."

If only one sin is unforgivable then why isn"t the definition of that sin explained more clearly and the act itself spoken of (or warned against) more often?

Deliberate stupidity is unforgivable.
On what planet is it ever bad, evil or wrong to heal another person ?

Read the context of chapter 12 and notice that in verse 22 the Jesus character healed a dumb blind man. After that, a dispute began due to some being amazed at the miracle and some being dubious about it being a miracle at all. Those who doubted the miracle accused the character of working under the influence of some evil power. They were basically accusing his good work of being something bad.
Jesus explained to them there would be no point in anything under an evil influence casting out evil things since it would be ultimately self destructive.
Since Jesus is the son of man, he was telling those who judged him and his work as evil that he would forgive them for judging him to be evil but would not forgive them for calling a good work evil.

It is much like you believing your own motives and intentions for doing something are perfectly good and holy.... In other words you honestly believe you are being motivated by a "holy spirit" or good intentions within you. You do something perfectly loving and kind like healing a dumb blind man, regardless of how you do it, then you get a bunch of stupid superstitious fools accusing you of doing wrong and having bad intentions, wrong motives or "bad spirit" behind what you have done.

If you understand how ignorant they really are, you could say to them that calling good evil or judging someones perfectly good motives and intentions ( Holy Spirit ) as evil is unforgivable but you will still forgive them for judging you ( son of man ) as evil because you understand they are merely judging according to their own superstitions and perceptions and have no clue of the motives of your heart. They know not what they do. Therefore all their sins are forgiven. IF they did know what they were doing, it would be inconceivable to do it in the first place and unforgivable if they still did it fully knowing what they were doing.

Why would anyone in their right mind accuse anyone of doing something evil when all they have done is heal a dumb blind person? It makes no difference if they did it through natural means or supernatural means, the end result is that the dumb blind person can see and speak.
To call that evil is unforgivable unless those who make such accusations are not in thinking straight.
People who have their heads screwed on the right way do not call good evil or accuse a person of doing something wrong when their intentions were pure and good.

It has nothing to do with speaking against some invisible ghost or supernatural character. It has everything to do with judging other peoples good intentions as evil.

That's the way I see it anyway.
The moral of the story is look deeper than outward appearances and make sure you understand the intentions of a person and why they do what they do. Judge the motives before you judge the outward actions as evil.

Respectfully Skyangel you seem to be singularly focused on what Jesus did while the Pharisees were speaking about how Jesus did it.

Eli
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:49:28 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Jesus said "you have not because you ask not."

The unforgivable is to not ask to be forgiven. To try and "save yourself". To look to your own holiness to declare yourself perfect. To deny the power of the cross focusing on self and denying need for forgiveness. If you do not ask for forgiveness, how shall you recieve forgiveness?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:56:23 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 3:49:28 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Jesus said "you have not because you ask not."

The unforgivable is to not ask to be forgiven. To try and "save yourself". To look to your own holiness to declare yourself perfect. To deny the power of the cross focusing on self and denying need for forgiveness. If you do not ask for forgiveness, how shall you recieve forgiveness?

It is to call God a liar to continually deny the beckoning of the holy spirit to repentance andthe forgiveness of sin. It is to deny the sacrifice of God/of Christ. The unforgivable can only be to not recieve this grace/forgiveness in the first place.

The Bible says,"If you ask for forgiveness, He is faithful and just to forgive." Based on this verse, when will he refuse to forgive? When you won't ask for or recieve forgiveness.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 3:57:47 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 3:56:23 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:49:28 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Jesus said "you have not because you ask not."

The unforgivable is to not ask to be forgiven. To try and "save yourself". To look to your own holiness to declare yourself perfect. To deny the power of the cross focusing on self and denying need for forgiveness. If you do not ask for forgiveness, how shall you recieve forgiveness?

It is to call God a liar to continually deny the beckoning of the holy spirit to repentance andthe forgiveness of sin. It is to deny the sacrifice of God/of Christ. The unforgivable can only be to not recieve this grace/forgiveness in the first place.

The Bible says,"If you ask for forgiveness, He is faithful and just to forgive." Based on this verse, when will he refuse to forgive? When you won't ask for or recieve forgiveness.

"My grace is sufficient for you.'

Grace is unearned.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:00:52 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
If I forgive someone, but they refuse it or will not accept it or even acknowledge a wrong, can they actually recieve my forgiveness? Do they get anything from my forgiveness? No. I can forgive because that's who I am, but I can't make them take it for themselves.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:06:15 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 9:17:13 PM, eli-stills wrote:
In Math 12:31-32 Jesus tells the Pharisees, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone 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."

If only one sin is unforgivable then why isn"t the definition of that sin explained more clearly and the act itself spoken of (or warned against) more often?

Furthermore if the Holy Ghost ("hagios pneuma") is but one aspect of God then why is it unforgivable to blaspheme this aspect but not the Father or Son?

The interpretation of the term "hagios pneuma" (Holy Ghost or Spirit) is intricately linked to knowledge of the holy mind of God and the gifts of the spirit are related to the result of this heightened degree of confidence that is gained through this knowledge.

When I researched the subject for alternative definitions this is what I found:

In Ezekiel 33: The righteous of Israel are warned of consequences so severe for the commission of an iniquity that the subject matter must be the unforgivable sin. In this passage the "iniquity" is defined as trusting in their own righteousness.

Ez 33:
12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

This took me to the Book of Job who God had declared to be righteous. Considering Satan"s challenge to God regarding Job, is it not likely that to achieve his purpose of negating Gods judgement it would be necessary that Job not only sin but commit an iniquity that would be unforgivable? As a result of the calamities Job experiences he demands a personal audience with God where he insists he would challenge Gods justice and argue his own righteousness before him.

In the epiphany of the narrative after an extensive debate amongst the friends God finally does meet with Job face to face where he asks and demands the answer to one pivotal question:
Job 40:
1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.
6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

When looking at the circumstances of the encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees it appears that if we accept that Jesus was God then the point of the narrative would be that they had cursed God to his face though unwittingly. To paraphrase Jesus"s response had they known he was God and still cursed him as they did it would have been unforgivable.

So is it possible that other definitions of the unforgivable sin include to trust in human righteousness and/or to curse god to his face (with the knowledge that he is God)?

If so how can one argue that someone can be condemned to hell without first having known unequivocally who the true God is?

What scriptural evidence exists that disputes the probability that their will be opportunity for repentance and salvation after death? The ones I am aware of regarding salvation prior to death can be interpreted to mean that you will be saved from the fear of death if you believe in a resurrection of the dead and the gift of eternal life in the present.

I think the great judgement spoken of after the resurrection of the dead has more to do with meeting God for the first time and evaluating our stewardship of the Earth and treatment of one another. With the evidence of thousands of generations who have failed to create the utopia God had promised to provide had we not rejected him it seems likely that all humanity will judge that God was correct and we are deserving of death.

I believe the white throne judgement is about presenting evidence of our unrighteousness (including murdering God) in a manor that would provide overwhelming proof of our need to repent and adopt Gods ways and this is a judgement and a loving God who I can believe in.

So if all other sins can be forgiven then why am I wrong?

Eli

Acknowledgment of who Jesus is, is key to one"s salvation demonstrated in the thief on the cross who acknowledged the Lord and was promised paradise that day on acknowledgment alone. To deny God in His Presence, (His Presence being the Holy Spirit) would be unforgivable because there is no way one can be saved by Grace through Faith if one doesn"t acknowledge who one should place their faith in. And to receive the Life of Christ which is the salvation, one must be born of the Holy Spirit.

So it would stand to reason that the Lord God will not acknowledge someone or their existence, and that would be according to their own judgement of Him.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:12:34 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Your holy caspar is a figment of your imagination, does that condemn to your mythical hell?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:18:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:12:34 PM, bulproof wrote:
Your holy caspar is a figment of your imagination, does that condemn to your mythical hell?

What is hell?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:25:27 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:18:32 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 4:12:34 PM, bulproof wrote:
Your holy caspar is a figment of your imagination, does that condemn to your mythical hell?

What is hell?

A very cold place in Nordic mythology.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:30:43 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Matthew 10:28 ESV / 44 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

That hell?
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:25:27 PM, desmac wrote:
At 12/14/2015 4:18:32 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 4:12:34 PM, bulproof wrote:
Your holy caspar is a figment of your imagination, does that condemn to your mythical hell?

What is hell?

A very cold place in Nordic mythology.

Your body and soul can be destroyed just fine right here without going anywhere.
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:48:50 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 3:57:26 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 2:14:03 AM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/14/2015 1:17:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 12:56:49 AM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/13/2015 11:51:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/13/2015 10:34:29 PM, eli-stills wrote:
As a proponent of universal salvation I feel no need to evangelize either in favor of theism or atheism, which should provide you with some degree of comfort though your concern, is noted for what it's worth.
Is there any way you live your life in the belief of universal salvation, which you could not equally achieve by living compassionately and bravely without crediting obscure revelations and life after death?
Of course I could or why else would I be anti-evangelical.
The syntax of your answer seems not to match the semantics of my question.
I believe everyone gets into heaven regardless of their behavior in this world.
The semantics of your question indicates that you understood that and yet you ask if I can't achieve the same purpose regardless of my behavior.
Actually, my question was: if you are seeking to live a good life (as I imagine you are) when you believe the moral order of the world doesn't require you to, is it nevertheless too scary to abandon the assumption of a universal heaven whose existence isn't material to your moral choices, which in any case you can't prove, and which many people don't actually desire anyway?

That's not a rhetorical question, Eli. If it's not too scary to abandon it, why do you hold onto it?

So what you really want to know is why I would be curious about what will happen after we die and why I choose the Bible as my source material?

Why is this topic so disturbing to you?
Is it disturbing to me?
It appears to be
Because I disagree with some unacknowledged assumptions?

If I were discussing what I believe to be errors in how the teachings contained in the Enuma Elish were being interpreted would you have the same concerns?
Do you mean historiological errors or theological errors? If you were discussing historiological errors, I might not object at all.
If you were discussing theological errors, then I'd be equally interested in how you'd justify any notion of a priori theological validity from Enuma Elish.
I would assume that the author had the intent of communicating something albeit historical or theological and that the intent can be determined based on proper literate, historical and cultural review.
Absolutely. However, the Bible has had multiple authors (many unauthenticated), and was written, redacted and curated over a time longer than than the lives of many civilisations: a time so great that the cultural, intellectual and political contexts of early authors were vastly different from that of later authors -- meaning, the purpose, ideas and traditions associated with Biblical myths may have changed so greatly that there's no reason to suppose they should reconcile into a single coherent theology or purpose.

I do not draw the same conclusion when comparing the whole of the document I find a singular accord of purpose.

That being so, which version of God do you want to talk about? There are thought to be four major sources to the Pentateuch at least, each with its own take on how theology works; and the story of God changes yet again in the New Testament.

I accept that the sources (written documentation of oral traditions) were inspired and combined under the care and inspiration of God. The whole of the Bible is the compilation of multiple sources to which I would readily argue that the degree to which the materials align and interpret each other is a remarkable account of consistency and favors the argument of a singular source for the whole of that narrative.
""story of God changes yet again in the New Testament."
No, what changes throughout the Biblical narrative is humanities relationship with God (individual, national and congregational). The God figure and the theology does not change.

This forum does, and this topic is, but is there any reason to suppose that a compilation of fictional and philosophical works spanning over a millennium of thought holds any single position on a mythological character as legitimate?
If there is a consistency of theology, philosophy and historical accord within the compilation of records spanning multiple generations both with and without a centralized governance IMO this alone would make this a most remarkable achievement and perhaps even argue on behalf of their having been one singular author or editor if you prefer.
Yes it would, However, for over a century it has been understood that the evidence -- both within and without the source texts -- points the other way. Inside the text, modern historiological methods have distinguished multiple sources, each influencing one another, yet each thinking disparate things and advocating incompatible ideas. Outside the text, archaeology has debunked major claims to authority within the text -- like the historical existence of the Biblical patriarchs, for example.

Consequently, serious theologians (i.e. ones who support accountable, falsifiable historiological methods) have sacrificed their understandable desire for theological coherence in favour of theological inspiration and historical accuracy.

Your question seems to reverse that trend -- or else be unaware of it. Hence my questions.

Perhaps I should point out that it was not the intent of my post to engage in a debate about the historical legitimacy of the Biblical narrative. My interest is in a discussion with like minded Christians about what is written within the document regarding the limited subject matter I suggested. I am of course aware that those who are unfamiliar with the writings contained there-in would wish to question the entire narrative"s authenticity rather than engage in a discussion of the application of specific verses and am willing to entertain your unsubstantiated arguments at my discretion.
Ultimately like many things in life that we choose to believe the validity of the Bible will come down to a matter of faith IMO.

Having added that caveat lets proceed a little further as if I am unaware and you are willing to cite some authorities.

Is it legitimate to seek to reconcile all the multi-authored cycles of Robin Hood myths into a single, coherent character?
I don't know why the attempt in and of itself would be illegitimate.
One reason it might be called illegitimate is its careless abandonment of rigour: at what point do you acknowledge that you've so strained assumptions in producing a teleporting, shape-shifting, immortal, bigamist, Celtic-Saxon-French revolutionary archer that you're no longer upholding best-practice historiological methods or any kind of intellectual accountability at all? :D

Is their a large percentage of people who believe that Robin Hood is a non-fictional character who need be intellectually accountable? My point being that that the example you site as an analogy to Biblical characters only holds water for atheists because you believe the Biblical characters are non-fictional. Obviously to me you are comparing apples and oranges.

Thanks for your impute RuvDraba

Eli
eli-stills
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:56:04 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 3:57:47 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:56:23 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:49:28 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Jesus said "you have not because you ask not."

The unforgivable is to not ask to be forgiven. To try and "save yourself". To look to your own holiness to declare yourself perfect. To deny the power of the cross focusing on self and denying need for forgiveness. If you do not ask for forgiveness, how shall you recieve forgiveness?

It is to call God a liar to continually deny the beckoning of the holy spirit to repentance andthe forgiveness of sin. It is to deny the sacrifice of God/of Christ. The unforgivable can only be to not recieve this grace/forgiveness in the first place.

The Bible says,"If you ask for forgiveness, He is faithful and just to forgive." Based on this verse, when will he refuse to forgive? When you won't ask for or recieve forgiveness.

"My grace is sufficient for you.'

Grace is unearned.

So when faced with the judgment of death one need only ask forgiveness?
No need to adopt a new spirit or align oneself with the ways and laws of the God?

Eli
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:44:10 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:48:50 PM, eli-stills wrote:
At 12/14/2015 3:57:26 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
My question was: if you are seeking to live a good life (as I imagine you are) when you believe the moral order of the world doesn't require you to, is it nevertheless too scary to abandon the assumption of a universal heaven whose existence isn't material to your moral choices, which in any case you can't prove, and which many people don't actually desire anyway?
That's not a rhetorical question, Eli. If it's not too scary to abandon it, why do you hold onto it?
So what you really want to know is why I would be curious about what will happen after we die and why I choose the Bible as my source material?
No, because when you adopt a faith-position it's not a conjecture or an hypothesis -- both of which are falsifiable, and which you can therefore hold without sacrificing curiosity. A faith-position closes the question as a matter of policy, despite any outstanding gaps or contrary evidence. So curiosity moves out, to visit other questions.

I'm asking why, in the absence of observable evidence, and without your putative answer being demonstrable, rigorous, universally desirable, historically consistent with tradition, or material to any ethical or moral decision you might ever make, you still feel the need to adhere to this story as a faith-position.

The Bible has had multiple authors (many unauthenticated), and was written, redacted and curated over a time longer than than the lives of many civilisations: a time so great that the cultural, intellectual and political contexts of early authors were vastly different from that of later authors -- meaning, the purpose, ideas and traditions associated with Biblical myths may have changed so greatly that there's no reason to suppose they should reconcile into a single coherent theology or purpose.
I do not draw the same conclusion when comparing the whole of the document I find a singular accord of purpose.
Have you researched why modern Christian and Judaic theologians and Ancient Near Eastern historians have moved away from that position?

If so, are you able to explain what you've learned about their methods, and why yours are more diligent and objective?

That being so, which version of God do you want to talk about? There are thought to be four major sources to the Pentateuch at least, each with its own take on how theology works; and the story of God changes yet again in the New Testament.
I accept that the sources (written documentation of oral traditions) were inspired and combined under the care and inspiration of God.
Is this a private belief you adopt to feel better about your own life and circumstances, or do you believe it's an accountable, evidenced intellectual position that can withstand independent scrutiny, and which due to its singular nature, humanity should know about?

If the latter, what evidence would falsify that position, and how have you sought to discover it?

""story of God changes yet again in the New Testament."
No, what changes throughout the Biblical narrative is humanities relationship with God (individual, national and congregational). The God figure and the theology does not change.
Since you too are human, with what accountability can you insist that other humans -- including those closest to the source material and its times -- are in theological error, while you -- at the furthest cultural, political and intellectual remove from the source material of any people in history -- are not?

If there is a consistency of theology, philosophy and historical accord within the compilation of records spanning multiple generations both with and without a centralized governance IMO this alone would make this a most remarkable achievement and perhaps even argue on behalf of their having been one singular author or editor if you prefer.
Yes it would, However, for over a century it has been understood that the evidence -- both within and without the source texts -- points the other way.
My interest is in a discussion with like minded Christians about what is written within the document regarding the limited subject matter I suggested.
So, having assumed universalism, a vague notion of divine inspiration, and a subjective, post-Enlightenment, ultrapluralist idea of God unshared by Judaeo-Christians either historically or contemporaneously, but which you've nevertheless declared incontestable to skeptical scrutiny, you'd like Christians who also believe the text divinely inspired, to debate these ideas with you, with no framework of accountability beyond the loose and anachronistic interpretation of cherry-picked text?

I trust you'll forgive me if that wasn't apparent from your Original Post.

Is it legitimate to seek to reconcile all the multi-authored cycles of Robin Hood myths into a single, coherent character?
I don't know why the attempt in and of itself would be illegitimate.
One reason it might be called illegitimate is its careless abandonment of rigour
Is there a large percentage of people who believe that Robin Hood is a non-fictional character who need be intellectually accountable?
I would suggest that it's whenever a large proportion of people believe incoherent and disparate things from evasive and opaque methodologies, and are shaping their lives by those beliefs, they most need a framework for rigour and intellectual accountability.

I realise you have no interest in anything that I might contribute, Eli, however in parting I'd invite you to reflect on just how much of your own theological position you're privileging in the framing of this discussion, and how opaquely and evasively you're doing so, while demanding Christians of other beliefs to be accountable for theirs.