Purveyor of Confusion

[cvanwey]

Did you hear the one about the guy who was drowning? He asked God to save him. A short time later, a boat came along asking him to board, but the man said, "No, I'm waiting for God to save me". Soon after that, a rescue helicopter drop a rope ladder for him, but again he refused, valiantly waiting on God. Not long after that a man in a row boat happened by and offered the man a flotation device. In frustration the man cast it away angrily saying he was faithfully waiting on God to save him. Finally, the man drowned and when he stood before his creator, he... wait, never mind. I think you know how this one goes.

Yes, I've heard it many times. Try to be a little more original. I'm not going to answer any more inquiries, until you start to at least address my repeated prior ones

Can you address the observations now (request #13 and counting):

1. Does Jesus deem you 'rich'? (He might. How would you know...? You can't, that's my point)
2. Does Jesus ask that the rich need to give away their possessions to be a follower? (Yes He does, in Luke. Moving on to question 3 then...).
3. Have you made an attempt to do this? (Not only have you likely not attempted to genuinely do so, you are instead attempting to 're-define' the given assertion to state something it does not mean to state.)
4. Does Jesus state it's virtually impossible for the rich to enter heaven? (Yes He does, Matthew 19:24. So maybe comply with Jesus's teaching, so He does not deem you a rich man, whom hoards any/all possessions for which He deems as direct adversaries to Him. And if you do not make a genuine effort, then how can you call yourself a follower?).

 

[John Helpher]

Yes, I've heard it many times. Try to be a little more original.

You're gonna dismiss the lesson because you think the medium through which the lesson is communicated isn't original enough? That doesn't sound sincere...

 

[cvanwey]

You're gonna dismiss the lesson because you think the medium through which the lesson is communicated isn't original enough? That doesn't sound sincere...

What's not sincere, is ducking, avoiding, or dodging a repeated request? I told you I'm not going to entertain any further new inquiries until you actually address my repeated requested observations.

 

[John Helpher]

I told you I'm not going to entertain any further new inquiries until you actually address my repeated requested observations.

But, what would be the point of typing out responses to your questions when you're not sincere about them? You started this OP saying you wanted to clear up some confusion with the teachings of Jesus. Now, suddenly, all your confusion seems to be about me.

Am I really wrong to suggest that your initial declarations about the teachings of Jesus were not sincere? Otherwise, why do you focus so intently on me? I didn't make the teachings of Jesus. I didn't cause them to be what they are. Why do you think my behavior matters at all regarding whether or not the teachings of Jesus are confusing or contradictory? If I ceased to exist, would your confusion suddenly cease?

No, of course not. You'd just move on the the next convenient excuse, which is why attempting to give you rational, well-thought out answers would be fairly useless. You are here for a fight, which is why you do not label yourself a skeptic as opposed to a seeker. It is inherent in what it means to be a seeker that he recognizes when he finds something which he seeks, or at least, when he finds something which moves him closer to that which he seeks.

But you; you've been given several answers which address your supposed confusion, and yet you never seem to move any closer to solving that confusion. There's always a denial ready and waiting even with really simple stuff like faith and works going hand-in-hand. They work together; faith will result in works, and works are a demonstration of faith. Legalistically trying to contractually trap one or the other into separate categories to nut out how one can be exploited over the other via percentages of obligation misses the whole point. That explanation seems to mean nothing to you, because if you were to accept the good sense in the concept behind that explanation, you'd have one less issue to fight about; one less crutch holding up your skepticism.

I believe one could rightly conclude, based on your comments here, that your questions aren't really questions, but rather devices disguised as questions intended to set up an inevitable denial from you in response.

 

[cvanwey]

But, what would be the point of typing out responses to your questions when you're not sincere about them? You started this OP saying you wanted to clear up some confusion with the teachings of Jesus. Now, suddenly, all your confusion seems to be about me.

Am I really wrong to suggest that your initial declarations about the teachings of Jesus were not sincere? Otherwise, why do you focus so intently on me? I didn't make the teachings of Jesus. I didn't cause them to be what they are. Why do you think my behavior matters at all regarding whether or not the teachings of Jesus are confusing or contradictory? If I ceased to exist, would your confusion suddenly cease?

No, of course not. You'd just move on the the next convenient excuse, which is why attempting to give you rational, well-thought out answers would be fairly useless. You are here for a fight, which is why you do not label yourself a skeptic as opposed to a seeker. It is inherent in what it means to be a seeker that he recognizes when he finds something which he seeks, or at least, when he finds something which moves him closer to that which he seeks.

But you; you've been given several answers which address your supposed confusion, and yet you never seem to move any closer to solving that confusion. There's always a denial ready and waiting even with really simple stuff like faith and works going hand-in-hand. They work together; faith will result in works, and works are a demonstration of faith. Legalistically trying to contractually trap one or the other into separate categories to nut out how one can be exploited over the other via percentages of obligation misses the whole point. That explanation seems to mean nothing to you, because if you were to accept the good sense in the concept behind that explanation, you'd have one less issue to fight about; one less crutch holding up your skepticism.

I believe one could rightly conclude, based on your comments here, that your questions aren't really questions, but rather devices disguised as questions intended to set up an inevitable denial from you in response.

Post #159 covers most/all of this. I'll be waiting...

 

[thomas_t]

Instead of basing your argument on your theology, why not base it on the teachings of Jesus? Jesus never said that we don't need to perform good works,

I never said Christians don't need to perform good works. Read again.
Don't try to paint me as opposed to what Jesus said.

 

[thomas_t]

And even if there was such a verse, the verses stating it is unforgivable would still render pointless to mention.

It seems to me if you think there is a conflict, there is none, in my opinion. It's just that one needs to find reconciliations that could work.
Even if there is no such verse saying that God makes choices about whom to take in and whom he leaves out... this could be a logic conclusion departing from the standpoint that Bible is in fact inerrant, which I propose.
So now you say mentioning the unforgivable sin would be pointless? I think it isn't. He told the unforgivable sin to the Pharisees who were not saved yet. Then they had a problem and they had substancially less chances to be accepted as Christians later on (in case they would have repented later).
This again is only my theology, @John Helpher would say it is against Jesus's teachings... but it shows a way of making sense of the unforgivable sin even if Christians would never do such thing to begin with.
Note that the Pharisees did believe in Jesus. They knew who that was. Matthew 21:38 demonstrates this very well. But they did not believe Jesus and repent like Christians do (big difference).

That if believers slips, and calls Jesus a name, they are damned forever?

no, that's not blaspheming the Holy Spirit. That's blaspheming Jesus.
I give you an example. If someone calls me a name that's rude. But if the same guy would come up telling me I need
to consult a psychiatrist because I'm schizophrenic... this would be slander talk against my spirit, which is worse. If someone really means it in a sense that he can't take anything I say seriously just for me being purportedly mentally ill... then we can't even go on talking. Anything I say he would simply declare to be an expression of my "illness".
This has happened to me in another board (of Christian profession) where I posted something very very little popular and the establshment of that board told me I am "mentally ill" and everything I said would only "prove" my "illness". That was crazy.

OR, or you sticking with the prior assertion, that a true Christian will not ever do that, which begs the question again, why mention not to do it, if they wont ever do it anyways?

Actually, I'm not quite sure. I also think that I don't need to solve this. Why should I? Jesus is Lord and he will deal with that case if this ever happened.
It's not my task to bury my head into these judgement specialities that only Jesus can solve, I think.
It's like playing in a soccer team, you need to know where your position is... stop worrying about the rest... and keep your position. Judgement is not mine.

 

[cvanwey]

It seems to me if you think there is a conflict, there is none, in my opinion. It's just that one needs to find reconciliations that could work.
Even if there is no such verse saying that God makes choices about whom to take in and whom he leaves out... this could be a logic conclusion departing from the standpoint that Bible is in fact inerrant, which I propose.
So now you say mentioning the unforgivable sin would be pointless? I think it isn't. He told the unforgivable sin to the Pharisees who were not saved yet. Then they had a problem and they had substancially less chances to be accepted as Christians later on (in case they would have repented later).
This again is only my theology, @John Helpher would say it is against Jesus's teachings... but it shows a way of making sense of the unforgivable sin even if Christians would never do such thing to begin with.
Note that the Pharisees did believe in Jesus. They knew who that was. Matthew 21:38 demonstrates this very well. But they did not believe Jesus and repent like Christians do (big difference).

The primary purpose of the Bible is not for mockers, scoffers, atheists, and unbelievers to read it, and poke fun at it. Sure, it might happen from time to time. But the intent of the Bible seems more-so to 'teach' what God wants from us. Hence, the intended audience is an 'instruction manual' for believers of sorts; of how to be a Christian, how Jesus wants you to live, and also what not to do. This way, when Christians are spreading to Word to others, they know what to preach. When church leaders are teaching their Christian followers, they know what to teach. When Christian parents are schooling up their would-be Christian children, the parents know what to teach.

Hence, the Bible teaches about the 2nd Commandment. -- 'Don't talk bad about the Lord.' And in subsequent verses... If you blaspheme, you are not forgiven, so don't do it!

It's that simple. So it would appear such verse(s) DIRECTLY conflict with your assertion, that 'faith is enough'. It apparently is not enough. If you blaspheme the Lord, 'game over'! Faith or no faith....

no, that's not blaspheming the Holy Spirit. That's blaspheming Jesus.
I give you an example. If someone calls me a name that's rude. But if the same guy would come up telling me I need
to consult a psychiatrist because I'm schizophrenic... this would be slander talk against my spirit, which is worse. If someone really means it in a sense that he can't take anything I say seriously just for me being purportedly mentally ill... then we can't even go on talking. Anything I say he would simply declare to be an expression of my "illness".
This has happened to me in another board (of Christian profession) where I posted something very very little popular and the establshment of that board told me I am "mentally ill" and everything I said would only "prove" my "illness". That was crazy.

2nd Commandment, for starters. People swear and use all differing sorts of words, in regards to the 'Lord', 'God', 'holy-this', 'holy-that', 'other'. Not relevant. If you commit blasphemy, faith is NOT enough, according to Scripture, via the sited verse(s). Hence, you will need to retract your prior assertion, that faith is enough.

Actually, I'm not quite sure. I also think that I don't need to solve this. Why should I? Jesus is Lord and he will deal with that case if this ever happened.
It's not my task to bury my head into these judgement specialities that only Jesus can solve, I think.
It's like playing in a soccer team, you need to know where your position is... stop worrying about the rest... and keep your position. Judgement is not mine.

I'm not asking you to do anything above and beyond answer the question Again...

Why tell recipients not to do so something, for which you are not going to allow them to do anyways? Makes-no-logical-sense...

 

[John Helpher]

This again is only my theology, @John Helpher would say it is against Jesus's teachings...

I'm saying that faith will lead to works and works will demonstrate faith. Trying to make a division between them, as though one can be found without the other, makes no sense. It would be like asking what is more important on a car, the wheels or the axles upon which the wheels are set.

 

[thomas_t]

Why tell recipients not to do so something, for which you are not going to allow them to do anyways? Makes-no-logical-sense...

no there is a third group. Non-believers, Christian, and thirdly, people who believe in Jesus without calling him Lord and calling him for help. As @dcalling said, God can protect the Christians to blaspheme against the holy spirit, but the third group still can do it.
Granted, "by faith alone" is an abbreviation and a little short. You need to accept Jesus as Lord, too. But still, proclaiming Jesus as Lord is not a work. It is a stance as @dcalling explained.
So you're right in a sense that technically you would need to say "by faith almost alone + confessing that Jesus is Lord". This would be the correct stance.

If you commit blasphemy, faith is NOT enough, according to Scripture,

granted you do make interesting points.
So let's assume Joe did believe in Jesus first, later did the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit sin, and afterwards (possible though) repents and proclaims Jesus as Lord. So after he committed the unforgivable sin he became a Christian.
maybe this isn't possible to begin with because once committed the unforgivable sin Jesus won't draw Joe near to him, anymore.

In case this is possible....
he will be saved, but this one sin won't be forgiven and he will receive some lesser punishment (not hell). This is my guess here.
Both can be true at the same time.
It's really a special case here.

 

[cvanwey]

no there is a third group. Non-believers, Christian, and thirdly, people who believe in Jesus without calling him Lord and calling him for help.

You could have twelve groups, and it would not matter. Because again, according to [you], Romans 10:9-10 is 'enough', and required. The ones being 'saved, again according to you, either achieve this task or not. So no, it doesn't change anything; where your acclaimed doctrine is concerned.

Telling non-believers not to blaspheme the not-believed-upon agent, is more likely going to get the non-believer to do it out of spite, just to provoke the person whom tells them not to. It would be like me telling you, "hey, if you call the Easter bunny a name, he/she is going to murder you in your sleep tonight'. You are more likely to call this agent a name, just for spite, and to prove you really do not care or believe in such assertions anyways. And on the flip side, if you never mention it, unbelievers are likely not going to do it anyways, just as many are not going around saying... "screw Thor".

And even still, in today's world, where saying 'God darn it' is almost a norm, most-all say it anyways (unbelievers and believers), out of habit. Most/all are going to do it, by accident, or because they slip, or because it is a saying.... And the ones that are deliberately doing it, to spite their believed upon God, are apparently already saved, so God is not allowing them to do it anyways

So we then can invoke a simple test..... This will confirm if both you and @dcalling are saved or not? If God let's you take His name in vain, I guess that means you two are not yet saved And if you achieve such a blaspheme, He's never going to forgive you. Yes, it's quite the risk, but it's apparently also a sure-fire way to know if you are one of God's chosen ones...?

As @dcalling said, God can protect the Christians to blaspheme against the holy spirit, but the third group still can do it.

So you're right in a sense that technically you would need to say "by faith almost alone + confessing that Jesus is Lord". This would be the correct stance.

Both you and @dcalling then really need to re-evaluate this assertion logically. This would mean that once someone invokes Romans 10:9-10, or maybe even other 'necessary' verse for achievement in faith/salvation, God then imposes upon their free will; by not allowing them to blaspheme. While He's at it, why stop there? God hates all sin. Why not just impose further upon the 'saved', and not allow them to further sin, at all, while on earth?

But mind you, as much as this, in and of itself, already makes little/no sense, God could only do this forced upon task to the ones whom never blasphemed His name prior to being saved. Otherwise, even God would have to ignore Mark 3:28-29, Matthew 12:31-32, and Luke 12:10. Because again, once you blaspheme, (before committing to Romans 10:9-10), all bets are off, no matter what. Even if you slipped.... And, God only 'shields' the already saved apparently. Weird....?

So you're right in a sense that technically you would need to say "by faith almost alone + confessing that Jesus is Lord". This would be the correct stance.

Anyone whom blasphemes the Holy Spirit/Lord/other, prior to being 'saved' is hosed. And once you are considered saved, you are apparently then protected, against your will, according to you and @dcalling ).

granted you do make interesting points.

Thank you

So let's assume Joe did believe in Jesus first, later did the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit sin, and afterwards (possible though) repents and proclaims Jesus as Lord. So after he committed the unforgivable sin he became a Christian.
maybe this isn't possible to begin with because once committed the unforgivable sin Jesus won't draw Joe near to him, anymore.

Correct, according to the Bible.

In case this is possible....
he will be saved, but this one sin won't be forgiven and he will receive some lesser punishment (not hell). This is my guess here.

Then you sir, are again rationalizing, or making up your own conclusion, to make such a thought more comfortable for yourself I'm afraid. This is not what the verses state explicitly.

He states they will 'never be forgiven'. According the Bible, there looks to exist two realms, in Heaven or in hell. Unless you're a Catholic, and believe in Purgatory or something :0 But this still does not follow, because God states He will never forgive them. --> Mark 3:29, Matthew 12:32, and Luke 12:10. I doubt 'never forgiven' individuals are eventually allowed access to heaven, are they? If so, maybe Satan too is someday welcome?

Both can be true at the same time.
It's really a special case here.

Afraid not sir... Unless you want to invent your own answer for comfort....? And if so, while you're at it, maybe we can dream up many other alternative scenarios, to spite the assertions from the Bible. Why not?

 

[cvanwey]

While I await you responding to post #159 entirely, I will take the liberty in re-answering your repeated questions; for which I already addressed/answered prior...

But, what would be the point of typing out responses to your questions when you're not sincere about them? You started this OP saying you wanted to clear up some confusion with the teachings of Jesus.

(Post #132)

Negative. I'm demonstrating conflict. Please continue. The point is, no matter what position you decide to adhere to, a conflict awaits. @Loversofjesus_2018 had it right, to begin with...

He states He does not know. In part, I reckon because maybe he sees conflict too? And maybe also in part, maybe we cannot understand 'God's ways'?

But you seem to claim you know? So I will continue to point out conflicts, as they arise.

Now, suddenly, all your confusion seems to be about me.

(post #159)

I asked God, many times years ago, to give me the wisdom to rectify these discrepancies, and appear to have not received any type of answer what-so-ever? Hence, years later, I'm now here, as a skeptic. But let's get back to you, since I'm at least getting some type of response(s) (at least), in speaking with [you] now. And since you seem to claim you know, let's keep this dialogue going for now...

Am I really wrong to suggest that your initial declarations about the teachings of Jesus were not sincere?

Apparently, yes. I'm a skeptic. I've made no bones about that. I do see genuine conflict, (post #1). And whether you like it or not, so do many current Christians, ex-Christians, other... Heck, I had someone PM me, a few days ago about how they see genuine conflict as well. She is a Christian. They are trying to get added to the apologetics forum; as we speak. She will make a wonderful addition to this thread, if she chooses to join.

Otherwise, why do you focus so intently on me? I didn't make the teachings of Jesus. I didn't cause them to be what they are. Why do you think my behavior matters at all regarding whether or not the teachings of Jesus are confusing or contradictory? If I ceased to exist, would your confusion suddenly cease?

Goes back to post #159, for starters.... God is not offering me any dialogue. But [you] are. I'm willing to bet you believe you are saved. I then have to ask you... How are you able to discern this conclusion, in spite of Luke 14:25-33, just for starters? Why have you considered yourself exempt, and still saved? You have yet to address this request, in the slightest.... See the bottom of (post #159), or the many prior

No, of course not. You'd just move on the the next convenient excuse, which is why attempting to give you rational, well-thought out answers would be fairly useless.

I deem this impossible. And your every response has demonstrated as such. You cannot square some of these conflicting verses (like Romans 10:9-10 against Matthew 25:31-46), just for starters. Logically impossible it seems. See below...

You are here for a fight, which is why you do not label yourself a skeptic as opposed to a seeker. It is inherent in what it means to be a seeker that he recognizes when he finds something which he seeks, or at least, when he finds something which moves him closer to that which he seeks.

As I've told you many times now, this is the apologetics forum. I'm doing exactly what is designed for this forum. I'm challenging your faith. And again, if you don't like this format, then leave it No one is holding a gun to your head.

But you; you've been given several answers which address your supposed confusion, and yet you never seem to move any closer to solving that confusion. There's always a denial ready and waiting even with really simple stuff like faith and works going hand-in-hand. They work together; faith will result in works, and works are a demonstration of faith. Legalistically trying to contractually trap one or the other into separate categories to nut out how one can be exploited over the other via percentages of obligation misses the whole point. That explanation seems to mean nothing to you, because if you were to accept the good sense in the concept behind that explanation, you'd have one less issue to fight about; one less crutch holding up your skepticism.

(Post #129)

No, just, no

Faith and works do not necessary only go hand and hand. I could believe in a particular deity, have trust in this claimed asserted grace/salvation of this deity, worship this deity, and repent to this particular deity. But this is essentially where 'faith' begins and ends....

'Works', or helping others in this case, as exclaimed in Matthew 25:31-46, can be mutually exclusive from 'faith', as mentioned. And furthermore, the passage does not elude to the necessity for 'faith'. You are shoe-horning this in there, to make it work for you.

Alternately, I could be on the fence, or have great doubt Jesus rose from the dead, or maybe only a mustard's seed's worth of faith, but work for the Peace Corp, volunteer my time at homeless shelters, give much of my money to the less fortunate, help family when needed, pull over on the side of the road to help people in distress, etc etc etc...

Faith and works can certainly be independent to one another. I need you to show me where Jesus spoke of faith in the given passage, when it looks clear that He did not. Again, with something as important as telling humans what it takes for salvation, seems odd that Jesus remains soooo ambiguous with the 'faith' portion here?

I believe one could rightly conclude, based on your comments here, that your questions aren't really questions, but rather devices disguised as questions intended to set up an inevitable denial from you in response.

Nope. I see conflict. That's all. The Bible is conflict. That's all. And then there's apologists, like yourself, whom either hand-wave them away, or attempt to 'explain' them away, or maybe just call me names to distract. Feel free to answer, or likely not?.?.?

 

[dcalling]

Repentance, regardless of whatever 'definition' you wish to place upon it, will not ever keep you from sinning further. As long as you are alive, you will always be a sinner, according to God. Hence, no matter how sincere you are, no matter how hard you try, the sin will not cease, until you die. Your every impure thought, your every action, all which does not please God, is all considered 'sin'. And as we know, thought crime is just as 'bad' as a real crime apparently, according to Jesus. And since you cannot control your thoughts, we are all sinners regardless. But nice try

Don't know what "nice try" you are referring to, I totally agree with you on those.

I stand firm, all you are required to do, for 'repentance', as a Christian, is to admit that you are a miserable human being, in need of grace for salvation. Future attempts to not sin is neither necessary nor possible. Yes, you can ask God for forgiveness, but once you admit you are a worthless piece of human debris, in need of redemption/grace, and always will be, you have then apparently fulfilled this specific request of God. (i.e) committing to 'faith'. But then, we still need to reconcile other verses, such as...

Humans are all God's creations, they are definitely not worthless. According to Bible we are just a little bit below angles

"15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

This goes right back to Luke 14:25-33. How do you know God does not deem you rich, and how do you know God does not need for you to attempt to follow this assertion?

Don't know what your point is.

I do agree with one of your statements above, however... You are either saved, or not, (if) Christianity is true. So, let's forge ahead and figure out what the authors of the Bible deem as being worthy of salvation, shall we? It's going to be a long and bumpy ride, I'm afraid....

Oh, let me point you in the right direction then, as you again appear mistaken or confused. Apparently, the authors of the Bible state it's the place where you will go and burn for eternity:

Revelation 20:13-14, Revelation 21:8, Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:49-50, Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:43



I'm going to use your own prior 'argument' here against you... "this is a parable, not a Commandment".

I was just telling you that the Bible do say rewards in heaven is different, and I don't know if Hell has levels.

 

[dcalling]

I'm afraid simply saying nuh-uh is not going to be a sufficient rebuttal here. Nor, did you even attempt to address my counter point(s). Hence, I will regurgitate them all below.... Please reply appropriately, otherwise, no one will likely take your responses seriously.

1. The 2nd Commandment again, (as I assume that since you are a Christian, these are of relevance for you?): "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".

2. We then have 3 distinct verses, which state such an action, (again see Commandment #2), is unforgivable: (Mark 3:28-30, Matthew 12:31-32, Luke 12:10)

You are either confused or trying to mislead, not sure which one. I will still answer, and if you are not capable of understand or pretend not understood, I have no more to say.

1. Commandment 2 state not use the name of God in vain. (which we all do but is forgivable, according to the verses you listed).
2. Those verses states all blasphemy are forgivable other than Blasphemy against Holy Spirit.

Which of the above do you NOT understand? If you are on drugs and can't have straight logic, I can't help

***************

And now please answer the prior (post #149)

And please tell us further, how God will not allow Christians to take the Lord's name in vain? Further, how this makes any sense? Because If God does not allow Christians to blaspheme, then why issue the necessity to list it as the 2nd Commandment? A non-believer is already going to disregard all the Commandments as mere written works from humans, and not God anyways.

Furthermore, it's as if you are stating, that once you are a Christian, God removes your free will, by not allowing you to do something.

God also does not want man to look at women in lust. Man can't help. Not sure why your logic stays on blasphemy.

 

[dcalling]

I never said Christians don't need to perform good works. Read again.
Don't try to paint me as opposed to what Jesus said.

I think @cvanwey is either trying to tweak logic or just a confused person. If he can't think straight there is not much we could do.

 

[cvanwey]

You are either confused or trying to mislead, not sure which one. I will still answer, and if you are not capable of understand or pretend not understood, I have no more to say.

1. Commandment 2 state not use the name of God in vain. (which we all do but is forgivable, according to the verses you listed).
2. Those verses states all blasphemy are forgivable other than Blasphemy against Holy Spirit.

Which of the above do you NOT understand? If you are on drugs and can't have straight logic, I can't help

Or maybe you are trying to provoke a reaction, as to get me kicked off, or to get this thread stopped But it's not going to work.

"The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Lord and Giver of Life in the Nicene creed."

"“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

Now please re-read the verses I offered... They have now been properly clarified for you....

Not sure why your logic stays on blasphemy.

Because I'm demonstrating, one of many direct conflicts.... And you are side-stepping it, rather than acknowledging the obvious. Blasphemy negates 'faith'.

And furthermore, as I told @thomas_t , if God prevents believers from blasphemy, as you stated prior, then conduct a quick test... Since you are not allowed to blaspheme the Lord, because you are a Christian and protected by Him, then I guess you are unable to blaspheme the Lord, I mean Holy Spirit?

 

[cvanwey]

I think @cvanwey is either trying to tweak logic or just a confused person. If he can't think straight there is not much we could do.

No. It is you, whom are confused. As evidence by @thomas_t responding to @John Helpher , via post #166. And for some reason, you find your way to bring me into the conversation? It seems pretty clear; you are attempting to smear my character....

 

[thomas_t]

You could have twelve groups, and it would not matter. Because again, according to [you], Romans 10:9-10 is 'enough', and required.

no, it says you need to profess Jesus as Lord, also.

When someone who is in heaven is permanently not forgiven a sin, this could mean permanent punishment in heaven, say a ban to enter Jerusalem or so, I'm making this up right now to demonstrate there is always a way to reconcile two Bible verses.

I think @cvanwey is either trying to tweak logic or just a confused person. If he can't think straight there is not much we could do.

ah no, this is getting personal.
In my opinion, it's better to stay on the subject level.
If you're really bothered by this conversation... there are certainly other ways to opt out of it?
But you did make great points all the time, so far.

 

[dcalling]

Or maybe you are trying to provoke a reaction, as to get me kicked off, or to get this thread stopped But it's not going to work.

"The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Lord and Giver of Life in the Nicene creed."

"“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

Now please re-read the verses I offered... They have now been properly clarified for you....



Because I'm demonstrating, one of many direct conflicts.... And you are side-stepping it, rather than acknowledging the obvious. Blasphemy negates 'faith'.

And furthermore, as I told @thomas_t , if God prevents believers from blasphemy, as you stated prior, then conduct a quick test... Since you are not allowed to blaspheme the Lord, because you are a Christian and protected by Him, then I guess you are unable to blaspheme the Lord, I mean Holy Spirit?

Ok now I see you are referring to @thomas_t 's reactions. I also told you I was only here for 2 points, one of them is about your comment on Muslims and can't remember what the other is.

To answer your question, you need to put it in context, as you can clearly see when Jesus say that blasphemy to him or the Father is forgivable, but to Holy spirit is not. So there is a clear difference between Holy Spirit and God the father.

It is like saying that if you insult my hand or my foot, it can be forgiven, but if you insult my head, it is not forgivable.

 

[cvanwey]

no, it says you need to profess Jesus as Lord, also.

Please understand @thomas_t , I would guess all three of us agree about one key point - (you, @dcalling , and myself)... "You are either saved or unsaved". Whatever this criteria may be... In your presented case, you state Romans 10:9-10 is enough. Okay, an individual has either committed to Christ/Jesus/God/Lord/Holy Spirit/etc, in accordance with this verse; or not. Hence, if they fall short, they are still not saved. Hence, what I meant by having twelve groups, in that many varying groups could commit to varying degrees of Romans 10:9-10, but maybe not all of it... But if a human commits to the verse entire, saved. Right? Assuming the answer is yes, we can move forward.

My point is that 'blasphemy' overturns Romans 10:9-10. You stated, many posts back, that Romans 10:9-10 is enough. Well, if you adhere to Scripture, to blaspheme God/Lord/Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost/what-ever-flavor or Pronoun you wish to invoke, all bets are off! Meaning, your statement of "Romans 10:9-10 being enough", is instead NOT enough. Blasphemy revokes, not only this verse, but all other claims to salvation.

I see this as a conflict (or) contradiction. See Below

Seems there does exist an unforgivable sin, prior to natural death -- (even as a professed Christian prior to natural death) ---> blasphemy.

Please reconcile/acknowledge that your prior statement, that "Romans 10:9-10 being enough", is not the case. Please acknowledge/reconcile, that if a true-blue Christian were to commit such an act; either by accident or a slip of the tongue, getting caught up in the heat of a moment, or other, that God's forgiveness has it's hard limits. And His hard limits are as follows....

If you take the "Lord's" name in vain, (whatever variant you wish to call 'Lord'), you are then forever hosed, or not granted access to Heaven, no-matter-what.

When someone who is in heaven is permanently not forgiven a sin, this could mean permanent punishment in heaven, say a ban to enter Jerusalem or so, I'm making this up right now to demonstrate there is always a way to reconcile two Bible verses.

@thomas_t , this makes absolutely no sense. If the human is deemed not forgiven, stands to reason they are not welcome into Heaven.