Blaspheming The Holy Spirit!

[Windwalker]

Not necessarily, "The Spirit" and "One's Spirit" are two different ideas. Blasphemers and defiled souls do not have THE Spirit. Why do you think David says "Do not take your Spirit from me"?

A metaphoric expression of feeling disconnected from God. God cannot leave us. Where would he go? Into some room somewhere else, as if Spirit were a wisp of smoke that moves here and there as a limited form? Yes that have the Spirit, and as such to act in discord with that causes themselves disharmony and a lack of self awareness. They remove themselves from themselves. They remove themselves from God.

 

[garrydons]

But do you understand that verse?

sorry to say this, that your profile name pretty well matches your comment on the Holy Spirit. Why encourage us to blaspheme the Holy
Spirit?. do it yourself and I just pray that the greatest Judge of the Universe will add more His patience.

 

[garrydons]

Is this true? If a person were to talk sh-t about the holy ghost, God will never forgive them ever?

Let's blaspheme the holy spirit together!

sorry to say this, that your profile name pretty well matches your comment on the Holy Spirit. May Hashem still forgive you. Why encourage us to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? do it yourself and suffer the consequences.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is it an adolescent stage for a husband to be "jealous" of a wife's lover or if his son likes another man better as a father figure because he gives him nice gifts?

The word "jealous" does not only pertain to adolescent, immature social concepts of covetousness, but deep, reasonable emotions based on betrayal and infidelity.

So it is about ego after all? It doesn't make sense to me that an all encompassing, infinite entity would require emotional fulfillment, attachment, and attention. Religions try to drag god down to man's level.

 

[Father Heathen]

sorry to say this, that your profile name pretty well matches your comment on the Holy Spirit. May Hashem still forgive you. Why encourage us to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? do it yourself and suffer the consequences.

Is "the holy spirit" like that kid at the play ground who will push you down if you call him a "poopy head"? Wouldn't god be far above and beyond something so petty and trivial?

Seriously, why would some supreme cosmic force even be bothered by such silliness?

 

[Father Heathen]

They just act amazingly similar. :sarcastic

Whether or not there is a god, how we perceive and portray "him" says far more about us than it does about god.

 

[Father Heathen]

I agree. But we both agree that he's not Spock right?

Such a being - with infinite intelligence, understanding, and patience - would have far, far more in common with Spock than they would an emotionally dysfunctional 8 year old (as depicted in the bible).

 

[Cephus]

Whether or not there is a god, how we perceive and portray "him" says far more about us than it does about god.

You cannot perceive or portray something that doesn't exist. Just because someone can make up characteristics of a non-existent entity doesn't mean those characteristics are real. If there was a God, then that God has whatever characteristics that God actually has, not the ones that people want to invent for him. Believing in something for which there is no evidence, just because it's emotionally comforting to do so does say a lot more about us, but it's all bad.

 

[Father Heathen]

You cannot perceive or portray something that doesn't exist.

We perceive and portray concepts and fictional characters all of the time. And by how we define those concepts and characters, we can ascertain what makes sense within those parameters even if they don't exist tangibly. We can say that superman would never murder children and drink their blood even though he doesn't actually exist, etc. In other words, if we define god as an infinitely intelligent being, it wouldn't make sense for such a being to behave in an unintelligent manner.

 

[Cephus]

We perceive and portray concepts and fictional characters all of the time. And by how we define those concepts and characters, we can ascertain what makes sense within those parameters even if they don't exist tangibly. We can say that superman would never murder children and drink their blood even though he doesn't actually exist, etc. In other words, if we define god as an infinitely intelligent being, it wouldn't make sense for such a being to behave in an unintelligent manner.

I disagree. You cannot perceive a characteristic of an unreal entity at all because there's no way of examining the unreal entity to see if they have that characteristic. You can only assign a characteristic, or read about a characteristic someone else has assigned, to such a character. Since the character isn't real, except conceptually, there's no way to test the character to see what they would really do because they don't really exist. Siegel and Shuster made up Superman and assigned him characteristics that they wanted him to have, they didn't go look at Superman and determine what characteristics he actually had. There is a difference between a fictional character, like Superman or God, and a real one.

 

[Father Heathen]

I disagree. You cannot perceive a characteristic of an unreal entity at all because there's no way of examining the unreal entity to see if they have that characteristic. You can only assign a characteristic, or read about a characteristic someone else has assigned, to such a character. Since the character isn't real, except conceptually, there's no way to test the character to see what they would really do because they don't really exist. Siegel and Shuster made up Superman and assigned him characteristics that they wanted him to have, they didn't go look at Superman and determine what characteristics he actually had. There is a difference between a fictional character, like Superman or God, and a real one.

So when you watch movies or television shows, or reading a book are you not perceiving them regardless of whether or not the content is fictitious? The mind perceives concepts and ideas regardless of a tangible presence.

Also, let's say we had an 800 pound weight made of mithril. Even though it's a fictitious material, we can still logically conclude that, if it were real and dropped on your head, it would crush your skull. Right? Right.

 

[Cephus]

So when you watch movies or television shows, or reading a book are you not perceiving them regardless of whether or not the content is fictitious? The mind perceives concepts and ideas regardless of a tangible presence.

Also, let's say we had an 800 pound weight made of mithril. Even though it's a fictitious material, we can still logically conclude that, if it were real and dropped on your head, it would crush your skull. Right? Right.

Nope, I'm not perceiving them, I'm perceiving what someone wrote about them. I'm perceiving some actor's portrayal of them. They don't actually exist. If I want to know more about the character, I can't go to the character directly, I have to go to the creator of the character and ask them.

What this really comes down to is that we cannot determine, for example, that God is love because nobody can produce God to actually find out of that's true. It's an invention, attributed to a character which no one can actually demonstrate is real.

 

[Father Heathen]

Nope, I'm not perceiving them, I'm perceiving what someone wrote about them. I'm perceiving some actor's portrayal of them. They don't actually exist. If I want to know more about the character, I can't go to the character directly, I have to go to the creator of the character and ask them.

What this really comes down to is that we cannot determine, for example, that God is love because nobody can produce God to actually find out of that's true. It's an invention, attributed to a character which no one can actually demonstrate is real.

By your own criteria, that would also apply to quantum physics, string theory, multiverse theory, etc?

 

[Cephus]

By your own criteria, that would also apply to quantum physics, string theory, multiverse theory, etc?

Sure, although because so much of those sciences are mathematically based, you're perceiving models based on the real world, not the real entities themselves. It's still all based on things that actually exist, or can be reasonably thought to exist based on the math.

That brings us right back around to God because God cannot be reasonably thought to exist. There is nothing that suggests the factual existence of the supernatural.

 

[Sleeppy]

Sure, although because so much of those sciences are mathematically based, you're perceiving models based on the real world, not the real entities themselves. It's still all based on things that actually exist, or can be reasonably thought to exist based on the math.

That brings us right back around to God because God cannot be reasonably thought to exist. There is nothing that suggests the factual existence of the supernatural.

What is 'supernatural'? And which religions claim it?

 

[thau]

That brings us right back around to God because God cannot be reasonably thought to exist. There is nothing that suggests the factual existence of the supernatural.

So long as you maintain everyone in history is a liar.

I'd bet the Roman soldiers and Jewish folks people who witnessed the crucifixion felt otherwise.

 

[Shermana]

How about instead of derailing the thread with the 363,156th discussion on the existence of God, we actually discuss the specifics of the question in relation to its meaning and biblical application of what was intended by it? Or at least what the OP said?

I don't think every religious topic thread needs a tangent discussion on the existence of the supernatural. We have plenty of threads for pointing out the flawed reasoning and how Atheists simply never provide an example of evidence they would accept for a "reasonable" idea of God, as if we can just brush aside Leibniz and Newton and Spinoza and other Philosophers who had reasonably strong arguments for such.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sure, although because so much of those sciences are mathematically based, you're perceiving models based on the real world, not the real entities themselves. It's still all based on things that actually exist, or can be reasonably thought to exist based on the math.

That brings us right back around to God because God cannot be reasonably thought to exist. There is nothing that suggests the factual existence of the supernatural.

There is no "supernatural" or "paranormal". If it exists then there is a science behind it. That's like suggesting that electricity didn't exist, or was a supernatural/paranormal phenomenon, until we gained an understanding and knowledge of it. The universe is vast and infinite, much of it outside of our current, limited (yet expanding) understanding and knowledge. Nothing is outside the realm of science, only outside of our current scientific knowledge. Sure, based on current evidence and scientific knowledge, it's reasonable to reject god concepts (especially those commonly put forth by the usual religions), but we can still play with concepts, models, hypotheses, etc.

But back to mithril example that you never addressed:

Also, let's say we had an 800 pound weight made of mithril. Even though it's a fictitious material, we can still logically conclude that, if it were real and dropped on your head, it would crush your skull. Right? Right.

So we know that while mithril doesn't actually exist, the model still works since weight, physics, physiology, etc. obviously have real world examples. Likewise, if we present a model of an entity that possesses infinite intelligence and logic, we can still determine that it wouldn't behave in an unintelligent or illogical manner even if such an entity doesn't actually exist due to intelligence and logic being a real world thing.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I don't think every religious topic thread needs a tangent discussion on the existence of the supernatural. We have plenty of threads for pointing out the flawed reasoning and how Atheists simply never provide an example of evidence they would accept for a "reasonable" idea of God, as if we can just brush aside Leibniz and Newton and Spinoza and other Philosophers who had reasonably strong arguments for such.

Leibniz was simply too ignorant of science such as astronomy (understandably so, he and newton were contemporaries so it is no surprise that he had not yet recognised that planetary movements could be moved by gravity and instead had to posit angels who did so) and relied too heavily on Aristotle's four causes in particular that everything has purpose. Newton was unfortunately never able to develop a worldview that did not incorporate his existing theological positions which prevented an objective comprehension of theology.

Of the three only Spinoza's has even the slightest potential merit (and even there his assertion that substance has thought is unsupported at best). But assuming a Spinozist frame of existence it is difficult to suggest that even under such a (unreliable) premise that the idea of blasphemy even has meaning, let alone should be punished. Since all substance is god, how can the thought or action of substance be considered blasphemy against itself.

edit:

Spoiler: What Evidence? Depends.

I forgot to add with regard to the evidence, it would depend very heavily on the type of 'atheist' you are referring to - I take it not to Buddhists and the like but rather to those who do not believe in a supernatural dimension, in which case there exist a wealth of natural god concepts that could be considered legitimate depending on the individual's beliefs and could therefore be considered 'naturalistic' theists. I assume you mean individuals who do not believe in a supernatural dimension (theist and atheists alike) and are not naturalistic theists, so that you are referring to strictly naturalistic atheists.

For myself as a rather adamant naturalist - I do not believe there is any evidence you could present that would convince me of a supernatural dimension - any such evidence that would suggest as much would be more likely to be considered suspect or indicate my comprehension of the natural order was inaccurate or else that my reasoning had become flawed. But for the existence of natural 'god(s)' I recognize these as a possibility subject to their specific definitions and the evidence that could convince me of their existence would depend on the definition thereof. There may well be some discrete natural entity or phenomenon with achievements (such as having created planets or life etc) or abilities (such as the ability to provide to an individual an afterlife or resurrection etc) that are commonly made as supernatural claims but could instead have natural causes, in which case what we consider godlike really does depend on our understanding of science at the time with what constitutes the naturalistic frame of reference (the laws of nature, what is and is not possible etc). Indeed scientific discoveries have provided us with capabilities that our forebears would have considered godlike and that demonstrates the possibility that other beings might exist with capacities that dwarf our own and we could consider such beings akin to naturalistic gods depending on how we define the term.

 

[Cephus]

So long as you maintain everyone in history is a liar.

I'd bet the Roman soldiers and Jewish folks people who witnessed the crucifixion felt otherwise.

You'd have to demonstrate that any did because none of them left any record of it. There isn't a single demonstrable contemporary account of the crucifixion. So where are these people who claim to have witnessed it again?