Man says he's going to Hell Either way

[ndeparis88]

I’m trying to respond to a post someone I know made about Luke 10 about how he’s just going to hell no matter what others say, and I tried to talk about how God mercy is abundant and I referenced the Catechism paragraph 1864. Then someone wrote

“Nathan despite the fact that you may choose to interpret this bible verse in your own way this is what every Christian sect has used to show that any sin can be forgiven except blaspheming the holy spirit. This has been the interpretation for 2000 years and not one church authority or pastor has viewed it differently. I appreciate that you yourself are open minded but you are assigning your personal beliefs as to what “god” is or wants to reinterpret a passage that has had a universally supported meaning since the dawn of Christianity. And in all 1500 variations of it.”

Any tips on how to counter? also the original poster the on who says he’s going to hell either way. I think is some form of an Atheist.

 

[midori]

The original guy believes in hell but not in God?

Luke 10… what part of Luke 10 were you originally discussing? This part?

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

…and it goes on into the Good Samaritan parable.

So is his argument, “I don’t believe in God, therefore I can’t love him wholeheartedly, therefore I’m going to hell?”

If it was me, I’d focus on the second half. If he can’t intellectually bring himself to find God, he needs to double his efforts on his charity towards his fellow-man. It’s perfectly possible to serve God without knowing who you’re serving-- a la the sheep and the goats, if you recall. Maybe serving humanity will help him find God. Maybe it will only make him all the more jaded and cynical. Who knows? But it would be a step in the right direction, even if you lack the map.

 

[ndeparis88]

The original guy believes in hell but not in God?

Luke 10… what part of Luke 10 were you originally discussing? This part?

…and it goes on into the Good Samaritan parable.

So is his argument, “I don’t believe in God, therefore I can’t love him wholeheartedly, therefore I’m going to hell?”

If it was me, I’d focus on the second half. If he can’t intellectually bring himself to find God, he needs to double his efforts on his charity towards his fellow-man. It’s perfectly possible to serve God without knowing who you’re serving-- a la the sheep and the goats, if you recall. Maybe serving humanity will help him find God. Maybe it will only make him all the more jaded and cynical. Who knows? But it would be a step in the right direction, even if you lack the map.

Well the original guy posted about just the 10th verse of chapter 12.

Now the guy who also commented on the post Is the one who I am debate. He also goe son to say this

"The thing about being shown the holy spirit and then denying it is flawed because we can’t be shown the holy spirit. It’s belief is solely that of faith. No proof. One can say you can see the product of the holy spirit or see the holy spirit through actions. I would say that this comes from within not the holy spirit. That is blasphemy of the holy spirit. There is no way around that. I’m not putting forth my opinions on the matter I’m merely citing church doctrine and Christian doctrine on the matter. Everything I’ve stated is well researched and not opinion. When I still called myself Christian and catholic I knew of this doctrine and disregarded it as more of the man made additions to “holy scripture” I fully understood the intent of this doctrine and saw it’s flaw. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the fallacies in the bible. Just don’t try and manipulate them for a modern time. If you see the fallacies except them as that. Man made and with an agenda to spread the teachings of Christ. And more importantly the truth that is lost to most people to assert Pauline theology over gnostic teachings. The gospel of John was considered heresy until the Valentinian Gnostics were gaining as much political clout as the early orthodox church. In the third century the early orthodox church adopted the gospel of John to “include’ Valentinians in the flock of orthodox Christianity.”

 

[Trishie]

Matthew 25 verses 31-46

 

[ndeparis88]

Matthew 25 verses 31-46

Thanks Trishie

 

[Crumpy]

Well the original guy posted about just the 10th verse of chapter 12.

Now the guy who also commented on the post Is the one who I am debate. He also goe son to say this

"The thing about being shown the holy spirit and then denying it is flawed because we can’t be shown the holy spirit. It’s belief is solely that of faith. No proof. One can say you can see the product of the holy spirit or see the holy spirit through actions. I would say that this comes from within not the holy spirit. That is blasphemy of the holy spirit. There is no way around that. I’m not putting forth my opinions on the matter I’m merely citing church doctrine and Christian doctrine on the matter. Everything I’ve stated is well researched and not opinion. When I still called myself Christian and catholic I knew of this doctrine and disregarded it as more of the man made additions to “holy scripture” I fully understood the intent of this doctrine and saw it’s flaw. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the fallacies in the bible. Just don’t try and manipulate them for a modern time. If you see the fallacies except them as that. Man made and with an agenda to spread the teachings of Christ. And more importantly the truth that is lost to most people to assert Pauline theology over gnostic teachings. The gospel of John was considered heresy until the Valentinian Gnostics were gaining as much political clout as the early orthodox church. In the third century the early orthodox church adopted the gospel of John to “include’ Valentinians in the flock of orthodox Christianity.”

Sorry, this fellow is ranting. We can sympathize with him and you, but I don’t think anybody can keep up with this type of ranting.

Your best strategy should be to pray and listen charitably, as much as you can.

You have to accept that everything is not up to us, we depend on God, especially to sort out things like this, now, later, or in the afterlife.

 

[midori]

Yeah, that’s pretty bizarre.

I’ve never heard that John was heretical-- rather, I had heard that the Gospel of John was specifically commissioned to fill in details that weren’t covered by the synoptic gospels.

Now, there’s a totally different text called the Apocryphon of John that the Valentinians were quite fond of that had been originally composed by the Sethians, but the Apocryphon of John =/= the Gospel of John.

Unless you’re up on your early Christian writings, I’d probably avoid trying to have a genuine debate with him, since you need to be able to identify the difference between a legitimate point and some bizarre premise. I’m with Crumpy… pray and be charitable, but he definitely has an axe to grind, and it’s difficult at best to have an honest conversation with someone with that mentality.

 

[ndeparis88]

Right I understand. I can’t help but be moved with pity. Also to it’s just on a rather inadequacy media, arguing on Facebook. You definitively need a better setting that that especially since the net doesn’t really convey tone

 

[PJM]

=ndeparis88;9136413]I’m trying to respond to a post someone I know made about Luke 10 about how he’s just going to hell no matter what others say, and I tried to talk about how God mercy is abundant and I referenced the Catechism paragraph 1864. Then someone wrote

“Nathan despite the fact that you may choose to interpret this bible verse in your own way this is what every Christian sect has used to show that any sin can be forgiven except blaspheming the holy spirit. This has been the interpretation for 2000 years and not one church authority or pastor has viewed it differently. I appreciate that you yourself are open minded but you are assigning your personal beliefs as to what “god” is or wants to reinterpret a passage that has had a universally supported meaning since the dawn of Christianity. And in all 1500 variations of it.”

Any tips on how to counter? also the original poster the on who says he’s going to hell either way. I think is some form of an Atheist.

The ONE unforgiveable sin is DENIAL OF GOD!

WHY?

For two reasons:

1. God has committed HIMSELF to OFFER sufficient grace to every human person to accomplish this. God Is able to be known by right use and application of our SPIRITUAL gifts of a mind, intellect, freeewill all permnantly atached to our souls.
2. The UNIVERSE in its magesty, organization and enormous size OUGHT to lead everyone to the eality of God. IT HAS THAT POTENTIAL!

Isa.43 Verses 7and 21: “every one who is called by my name,** whom I created for my glory**, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself ***that they might ***declare my praise.”

God Bless,
Pat