Purveyor of Confusion

[Tom 1]

I've been paraphrasing your prior responses

Well, no. Paraphrasing would be saying the same thing in different words, as opposed to just repeating what you already think, regardless of what anyone else says.

I gave you the clearest possible way to access the meaning of the text there. You can simply work through it and provide some reasoned answers to the questions. That would provide some guidance for thinking, which could help you to get out of the loop you appear to be stuck in.

 

[Tom 1]

This thread really isn't aimed to decipher what faith is and is not. It's not really this forensic or focused. If you claim it's faith, and faith alone, we can move from there. But, if you claim other, just give me the terms entire (i.e.)

IS the path to salvation grace, grace and faith, grace/faith/baptism, grace/faith/works, works, grace and works, other?

Please re-read the post you responded to.

 

[cvanwey]

This highlights the issue here Cvanwey. You think you know what the text says, without knowing what the text says. You know what the word blasphemy means in your head when you read it, but not what it means in the text. Do you see the problem there? It can be resolved by working through the text, asking useful questions, taking a rational approach, as you could with any other text. Your question 'why is the bible confusing?' is actually a smokescreen for 'why is Cvanwey confused?'. The answer to that is that you don't read the text as it is presented, rather you read it according to some notions you already have.

Yet again, the point is that God states what is not forgivable. But leaves the reader wondering what terms and conditions lead to complete unforgiveness. While, knowing God has full ability to clarify when He wishes.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, no. Paraphrasing would be saying the same thing in different words, as opposed to just repeating what you already think, regardless of what anyone else says.

I gave you the clearest possible way to access the meaning of the text there. You can simply work through it and provide some reasoned answers to the questions. That would provide some guidance for thinking, which could help you to get out of the loop you appear to be stuck in.

No, I gave you many answers. You refuse to 'work through' them.

 

[Tom 1]

No, I gave you many answers. You refuse to 'work through' them.

You didn’t answer anything, you just repeated some stuff you already thought before beginning this thread. Again.

 

[Tom 1]

Yet again, the point is that God states what is not forgivable. But leaves the reader wondering what terms and conditions lead to complete unforgiveness. While, knowing God has full ability to clarify when He wishes.

Once again, it’s in the text. Working through the questions I gave you will provide you with an opportunity to explain, step by step, how you interpret it, and what you find confusing.

 

[Tom 1]

I've been paraphrasing your prior responses, at least twice now. You choose to avoid them, or flip them into something they are not



Again, either/or:

'Blasphemy', in these contexts, are instead related to perpetual 'evil'; where evil represents eternal separation from God.

Or,

'Blasphemy', in this instance, is just another way of saying, "no, I'm not ever going to follow you, I don't need anything from you?"

Or,

'Blasphemy, in this instance, is to reject the claimed almighty, and aspire to adversely oppose this entity.

Or,

For all we know, the verses mean what they say. When the verses state to 'speak against', or 'whomever blasphemes' is simply unforgiven.

Or,

Maybe it's what 'dcalling' is arguing... That a 'true Christian' would never commit such an act?

Some of these overlap a bit...



I rather suspect you have failed to retrieve a basic point. I DON'T claim to know what the verses mean. But, what I have discerned, is that these verses are vague, in regards to what does and does not constitute an eternal sin against God.

I'm also curious if you happened to catch what I pointed out in my prior post? I simply issued the full definition of CF's rendition of 'blasphemy.'

I've spent many posts in useful discussion, regarding 'dcallings' interpretation. The same with 'Thomas'. I've also regurgitated your responses.

You instead wish to make me sound deceptive or ignorant. My only real point here, as stated many times now, is that the guidelines for the offense of blasphemy, remain ambiguous. I'm not the only one in this thread to admit this....

And further, that God has no problem issuing detail, when He chooses. So why not be a little more clear here, when the stakes are high?

The purpose of working through the text step by step is to arrive at a reasoned conclusion. Simply stating what you happen to think, without any reasoning, is not the same thing. This isn’t unique to the bible or to anything else, to arrive at an understanding a process of reading, understanding, reasoning etc is necessary. That is the purpose of asking questions of the text, as opposed to picking a word and simply saying what you think that word means, based on some random association.

 

[cvanwey]

Please re-read the post you responded to.

Please re-read mine. Note... Let's assume our conclusions about 'faith' are identical, in regards to the story of Abraham. Is faith the be-all-end-all, or does salvation require more?

Simple question?

 

[cvanwey]

Once again, it’s in the text. Working through the questions I gave you will provide you with an opportunity to explain, step by step, how you interpret it, and what you find confusing.

The fact that not one Christian here has given me the same answer, demonstrates this....

This is my point. God was not clear enough. Read dcallings interpretation. Read 'Thomas's' interpretation. Read Silly Uncle Wayne's interpretation. Then read the others whom do not wish to elaborate...

God chooses vague and undefined terms, for an apparent gravely serious offense.

 

[Tom 1]

Please re-read mine. Note... Let's assume our conclusions about 'faith' are identical, in regards to the story of Abraham. Is faith the be-all-end-all, or does salvation require more?

Simple question?

Yes and no. I gave a simple answer - faith, repentance and baptism are all mentioned in the bible in relation to salvation. They are 3 different things. To understand what they are, you can look at what the bible has to say about them. Before moving on to understand how they might relate to each other, you first have to understand what each one is, individually.

The question is whether or not you actually want an answer to your question, or whether you simply want to prolong a discussion with yourself about what you think the possible answers are, and you are just using other posters as proxies. I would suggest that you'd get more from this discussion if you are willing to come out of your own head, let people answer in their own terms, and try and understand the answers given.

 

[Tom 1]

The fact that not one Christian here has given me the same answer, demonstrates this....

This is my point. God was not clear enough. Read dcallings interpretation. Read 'Thomas's' interpretation. Read Silly Uncle Wayne's interpretation. Then read the others whom do not wish to elaborate...

God chooses vague and undefined terms, for an apparent gravely serious offense.

Once again, Cvanwey, the confusion is yours alone. You can work through a simple process of responding to questions about the text, or you can hold on to your confusion. Pretty simple.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes and no. I gave a simple answer - faith, repentance and baptism are all mentioned in the bible in relation to salvation. They are 3 different things. To understand what they are, you can look at what the bible has to say about them. Before moving on to understand how they might relate to each other, you first have to understand what each one is, individually.

The question is whether or not you actually want an answer to your question, or whether you simply want to prolong a discussion with yourself about what you think the possible answers are, and you are just using other posters as proxies. I would suggest that you'd get more from this discussion if you are willing to come out of your own head, let people answer in their own terms, and try and understand the answers given.

I appreciate the amateur psychological analysis

No, it demonstrates my point entirely. They are confused. And so am I. God's chosen message leaves readers not clearly knowing this story. And yet, it looks as though there exists a grave threat attached within this passage; which readers cannot clearly decipher. --- As evidence by the response from 2philo, silly wayne, thomas, and dcalling...

And yes, I issued many plausible answers as to what the verses state, directly to you, and prior to other posters. Please re-read them if necessary...

Furthermore, please let me reiterate why I asked you what I asked you prior....

Say we establish/agree/resolve the complete criteria for each category (i.e) faith, baptism, repentance, works, grace, and/or other.... Great, I bet we just saved 500 post exchanges.

Moving forward...

I'm going to do you a favor and lump some stuff into one category. Let's just assume that faith involves belief, confessing, and repentance. And I gather faith is at least one requirement?

What IS required for true salvation?
Is it faith alone? Is it more?
Are there exceptions?
And if so, what and why?
And how do you know?
And furthermore, what say-you of the 'true-blue Christians' whom cite other passages, which speak about opposing propositions to salvation?

 

[Tom 1]

Still trying to get away from the point. What do you find confusing about this:


“He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭3:30‬ ‭NIV‬‬
Mark 3:30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” | New International Version (NIV) | Download The Bible App Now

 

[cvanwey]

Still trying to get away from the point. What do you find confusing about this:


“He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭3:30‬ ‭NIV‬‬
Mark 3:30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” | New International Version (NIV) | Download The Bible App Now

Verse 29 states that anyone whom 'blasphemes' the Holy Spirit is unforgiven. Verse 30 gives one example. No elaboration, as to this being the only specific form of 'blasphemy for which God does not forgive. The reader is left scratching their head, because you can certainly commit the sin of blasphemy in other ways.

It would be like writing a book, and stating::

29 "But whoever says bad words against "X" will never be forgiven."
30 "He said this because they were saying, “He is an a..h.le.”

You then ask yourself, what IS a "bad word"? We now know of one of them, because the author clarifies; but what are the others? Blasphemy, as defined by CF, includes many additional things.....

God offers a verse, which states 'blasphemy' is not forgiven. But the parameters/boundaries for what is and is no blasphemy are not well defined, in the slightest. But He has no problem issuing a threat, right along side this loose assertion.

Seems as though God might have done well to more clearly define what He means, and what the parameters might be; so many do not worry about themselves, or their loved ones unforgiven eternal soles

Can you please engage now?

 

[cvanwey]

No, not at all. You are the one that asserted it but I can see no reference to it in the text so you must have gotten that information from outside of the passage... which means that you do use other verses win the Bible to make your point. It seems the reason why you are a purveyor of confusion is that you are confused yourself. You are not sure whether to restrict the reading of the parable to its own words (in which case you have no call to say it is spoken by Jesus or even about him) or open it out (in which case you would accept that other verses do make more sense of the passage).

Yet again, these verses state He judges by how much humans help others. For all we know, this is directed to ALL Bible readers. SO EVEN IF I were to just 'lay down', and even grant that faith was ALSO a requirement, even though it speaks nothing of the sorts in this entire passage, the following question then gets begged anyways....

How much faith, how many works?

Remember, If God is speaking about how you are going to be judged, seems odd that He would not list all criteria, no matter how many times He brings it up? And furthermore, that the criteria seems to differ, from one passage to the next, when speaking about the way to salvation. Leaves the reader confused...

 

[Tom 1]

Verse 29 states that anyone whom 'blasphemes' the Holy Spirit is unforgiven. Verse 30 gives one example. No elaboration, as to this being the only specific form of 'blasphemy for which God does not forgive. The reader is left scratching their head, because you can certainly commit the sin of blasphemy in other ways.

It would be like writing a book, and stating::

29 "But whoever says bad words against "X" will never be forgiven."
30 "He said this because they were saying, “He is an a..h.le.”

You then ask yourself, what IS a "bad word"? We now know of one of them, because the author clarifies; but what are the others? Blasphemy, as defined by CF, includes many additional things.....

God offers a verse, which states 'blasphemy' is not forgiven. But the parameters/boundaries for what is and is no blasphemy are not well defined, in the slightest. But He has no problem issuing a threat, right along side this loose assertion.

Seems as though God might have done well to more clearly define what He means, and what the parameters might be; so many do not worry about themselves, or their loved ones unforgiven eternal soles

Can you please engage now?

Engage with what?

What do you find confusing about: “He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.””?

If you let me know what it is that you find confusing, we can go over the remainder of the passage, a bit at a time. All of the information you need is there.

Your responses however are in bad faith, if you aren't sure what I mean by that then I can explain. You continually dodge the actual issue - what can be found out from the text - to continually reassert the same points you had before you even began the thread. These points are based on nothing but some random notions you have about some of the words used. There are two options here, the first is to let some random notion appear in your head and go with that, the second is to work through the text systematically in order to reveal the meaning, which is quite plain. Insisting that the first option is the same as the second, as you continue to do, is an instance of arguing in bad faith.

 

[Tom 1]

But the parameters/boundaries for what is and is no blasphemy are not well defined, in the slightest

This is your most bizarre statement so far Cvanwey. You need to try and work with me here, I can't believe you are not capable of reading and understanding the text. Go back to my previous post with the text from Mark 3 and explain, point by point, why it is that you think the rest of the text is simply irrelevant.

 

[cvanwey]

Engage with what?

Post #652:

Say we establish/agree/resolve the complete criteria for each category (i.e) faith, baptism, repentance, works, grace, and/or other.... Great, I bet we just saved 500 post exchanges.

Moving forward...

I'm going to do you a favor and lump some stuff into one category. Let's just assume that faith involves belief, confessing, and repentance. And I gather faith is at least one requirement?

What IS required for true salvation?
Is it faith alone? Is it more?
Are there exceptions?
And if so, what and why?
And how do you know?
And furthermore, what say-you of the 'true-blue Christians' whom cite other passages, which speak about opposing propositions to salvation?

What do you find confusing about: “He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.””?

Did you happen to actually read my response? What did you find confusing about it? For clarity, I placed some words in bold.

Verse 29 states that anyone whom 'blasphemes' the Holy Spirit is unforgiven. Verse 30 gives one example. No elaboration, as to this being the only specific form of 'blasphemy for which God does not forgive. The reader is left scratching their head, because you can certainly commit the sin of blasphemy in other ways.

It would be like writing a book, and stating::

29 "But whoever says bad words against "X" will never be forgiven."
30 "He said this because they were saying, “He is an a..h.le.”

You then ask yourself, what IS a "bad word"? We now know of one of them, because the author clarifies; but what are the others? Blasphemy, as defined by CF, includes many additional things.....

God offers a verse, which states 'blasphemy' is not forgiven. But the parameters/boundaries for what is and is not blasphemy are not well defined, in the slightest. But He has no problem issuing a threat, right along side this loose assertion.

Seems as though God might have done well to more clearly define what He means, and what the parameters might be; so many do not worry about themselves, or their loved ones unforgiven eternal soles.

If you let me know what it is that you find confusing, we can go over the remainder of the passage, a bit at a time. All of the information you need is there.

Again, in regards to the term 'blaspheme' and 'speak against', the three cited passages: Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10, and Matthew 12:32, Jesus is not clear. See below...

Your responses however are in bad faith, if you aren't sure what I mean by that then I can explain. You continually dodge the actual issue - what can be found out from the text - to continually reassert the same points you had before you even began the thread. These points are based on nothing but some random notions you have about some of the words used. There are two options here, the first is to let some random notion appear in your head and go with that, the second is to work through the text systematically in order to reveal the meaning, which is quite plain. Insisting that the first option is the same as the second, as you continue to do, is an instance of arguing in bad faith.

Here's a third option. Read what I stated in post #654. Jesus gives an example, of what not to do. He then uses the term 'blaspheme'. If Mark 3 were the only example, then one might instead almost just chalk it up to some erroneous message example...

Thus, the question begged becomes, is Jesus's rendition of 'blasphemy' merely reduced solely to one finite action? He does not say. You then reference the other passages/Chapters, and you are still left with uncertainty. (i.e.):

"8 “I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

Or

30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 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."

Maybe we need a remedial lesson here.

1. Tell us all what unacceptable forms of 'blasphemy' and 'speak against' are?
2. Tell us all what acceptable forms of 'blasphemy' and 'speak against' are?

 

[Tom 1]

Post #652:

Say we establish/agree/resolve the complete criteria for each category (i.e) faith, baptism, repentance, works, grace, and/or other.... Great, I bet we just saved 500 post exchanges.

Moving forward...

I'm going to do you a favor and lump some stuff into one category. Let's just assume that faith involves belief, confessing, and repentance. And I gather faith is at least one requirement?

What IS required for true salvation?
Is it faith alone? Is it more?
Are there exceptions?
And if so, what and why?
And how do you know?
And furthermore, what say-you of the 'true-blue Christians' whom cite other passages, which speak about opposing propositions to salvation?



Did you happen to actually read my response? What did you find confusing about it? For clarity, I placed some words in bold.

Verse 29 states that anyone whom 'blasphemes' the Holy Spirit is unforgiven. Verse 30 gives one example. No elaboration, as to this being the only specific form of 'blasphemy for which God does not forgive. The reader is left scratching their head, because you can certainly commit the sin of blasphemy in other ways.

It would be like writing a book, and stating::

29 "But whoever says bad words against "X" will never be forgiven."
30 "He said this because they were saying, “He is an a..h.le.”

You then ask yourself, what IS a "bad word"? We now know of one of them, because the author clarifies; but what are the others? Blasphemy, as defined by CF, includes many additional things.....

God offers a verse, which states 'blasphemy' is not forgiven. But the parameters/boundaries for what is and is not blasphemy are not well defined, in the slightest. But He has no problem issuing a threat, right along side this loose assertion.

Seems as though God might have done well to more clearly define what He means, and what the parameters might be; so many do not worry about themselves, or their loved ones unforgiven eternal soles.



Again, in regards to the term 'blaspheme' and 'speak against', the three cited passages: Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10, and Matthew 12:32, Jesus is not clear. See below...



Here's a third option. Read what I stated in post #654. Jesus gives an example, of what not to do. He then uses the term 'blaspheme'. If Mark 3 were the only example, then one might instead almost just chalk it up to some erroneous message example...

Thus, the question begged becomes, is Jesus's rendition of 'blasphemy' merely reduced solely to one finite action? He does not say. You then reference the other passages/Chapters, and you are still left with uncertainty. (i.e.):

"8 “I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

Or

30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 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."

Maybe we need a remedial lesson here.

1. Tell us all what unacceptable forms of 'blasphemy' and 'speak against' are?
2. Tell us all what acceptable forms of 'blasphemy' and 'speak against' are?

You could save a great deal of time and energy by reading what is in the text. Back to the same, go through the questions, answer them in order, see how it links up. Thinking in verses is not helpful. Remember, as mentioned, the verse numbers are not part of the bible. The text is continuous, when it shifts focus, it shifts focus. Look at the text and you can see how the ideas link together - stubborn hearts, comparisons of good (life promoting) and evil (swapping life for legalism) and so on are made, right there in the text. I don’t need to spell it all out to you, it’s right there, you can read it. Reading the text will tell you what the text says. If you prefer to chase your tail and create your own universe of confusion, that’s up to you.

 

[Tom 1]

Maybe we need a remedial lesson here.

1. Tell us all what unacceptable forms of 'blasphemy' and 'speak against' are?
2. Tell us all what acceptable forms of 'blasphemy' and 'speak against' are?

It tells you, in the text, what it means. In the text, it tells you. It’s in the text, it says what it means. There are words, in the text, they tell you what it means. See where I’m going with this?