Sinning against the Holy Spirit

[cyberjacques]

My father and I were having an interesting conversation last weekend, and he brought up a good point. We were discussing people who not only dislike Christianity, but seem to hate the very idea of God. These are people like author Christopher Hitchens, who has become so venomous and desperately incoherent in his attacks against religion that even his own supporters are becoming concerned for his emotional health. There are many people like this, who seem offended and indeed terrified at the prospect of a God that they might be held accountable to. They seem different than people who just don’t believe or think it’s ridiculous. The point my father brought up is this:

Could many of these people be members of the elect that have chosen to turn their backs on the understanding that God has given them? Is this the reason they are so vicious in their attacks, that they are desperately trying to convince themselves that what they know isn’t true? The Bible says that the elect cannot be deceived, but it doesn’t say that they will always accept the gift of faith, or that they won’t sometimes make a futile attempt to deceive themselves.

The Bible says that the only completely unforgivable sin is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. It has been my understanding, and my father’s as well, that this means rejecting the gift of faith when it is handed to you by God. When such a gift is bestowed on a person, the knowledge and understanding it brings is undeniable, and is literally painful to resist. I speak from personal experience. I only started to believe about 3 years ago. I fought it for quite a while, but I finally had to give in. I felt like if I didn’t I would explode. I have read many posts on this forum describing a similar experience. Nothing is as gentle, yet as firm as the grace of God.

If I had chosen to deny such a gift, I can easily imagine behaving like Christopher Hitchens, insane with the unquenchable desire to disprove God, while being filled with the crystal clear and undeniable understanding that only the Holy Spirit can give. And it gets exponentially harder to resist. After less than a year of fighting it I finally couldn’t take it any more. But Hitchens has been at it for years. If he has been denying the Holy Spirit this long, it sure would explain a lot. I have a great deal of pity for him if this is the case. Perhaps he will eventually give in.

Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[mathematician]

My father and I were having an interesting conversation last weekend, and he brought up a good point. We were discussing people who not only dislike Christianity, but seem to hate the very idea of God. These are people like author Christopher Hitchens, who has become so venomous and desperately incoherent in his attacks against religion that even his own supporters are becoming concerned for his emotional health. There are many people like this, who seem offended and indeed terrified at the prospect of a God that they might be held accountable to. They seem different than people who just don’t believe or think it’s ridiculous. The point my father brought up is this:

Could many of these people be members of the elect that have chosen to turn their backs on the understanding that God has given them? Is this the reason they are so vicious in their attacks, that they are desperately trying to convince themselves that what they know isn’t true? The Bible says that the elect cannot be deceived, but it doesn’t say that they will always accept the gift of faith, or that they won’t sometimes make a futile attempt to deceive themselves.

The Bible says that the only completely unforgivable sin is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. It has been my understanding, and my father’s as well, that this means rejecting the gift of faith when it is handed to you by God. When such a gift is bestowed on a person, the knowledge and understanding it brings is undeniable, and is literally painful to resist. I speak from personal experience. I only started to believe about 3 years ago. I fought it for quite a while, but I finally had to give in. I felt like if I didn’t I would explode. I have read many posts on this forum describing a similar experience. Nothing is as gentle, yet as firm as the grace of God.

If I had chosen to deny such a gift, I can easily imagine behaving like Christopher Hitchens, insane with the unquenchable desire to disprove God, while being filled with the crystal clear and undeniable understanding that only the Holy Spirit can give. And it gets exponentially harder to resist. After less than a year of fighting it I finally couldn’t take it any more. But Hitchens has been at it for years. If he has been denying the Holy Spirit this long, it sure would explain a lot. I have a great deal of pity for him if this is the case. Perhaps he will eventually give in.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Aaatheist fundamentalists remind me of their mirror images in religious fundamentalism. Both seem to have a need for absolute certainty, and both feel threatened by anybody who questions their certainties.

 

[cyberjacques]

Aaatheist fundamentalists remind me of their mirror images in religious fundamentalism. Both seem to have a need for absolute certainty, and both feel threatened by anybody who questions their certainties.

On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for people who question religion on agnostic grounds, things they don’t understand. I used to be one, so I know what it’s like, and how hard it can be to overcome certain things. I also find it distressing when religious people decide to ignore scientific fact in favor of some religious misconception. It’s the people who HATE religion with a blind rage that concern me.

You’re right that plenty of people feel their status quo threatened by what they perceive as an opposing school of thought. But those that think science and religion are in opposition to each other don’t understand either one.

 

[BlaineTog]

Well, the Holy Spirit is your conscience, as well as the way grace is delivered (in addition to, you know, being the third person of the Trinity and all that), so blaspheming against it would be knowingly committing an evil (ie sinning) and refusing the grace of forgiveness. In other words, unrepented sins are necessarily unforgivable, because it’s impossible to give someone something if they refuse to take it. Of course, the moment you become repentant, the sin ceases to be unforgivable.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Hitchens goes way beyond personal atheism.
His raging, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of God and Christ
call to mind a person who is possessed by the Devil.
This kind of raging hatred against God is not normal
to human beings even though we are all sinners.
Hitchens needs our prayers, and probably an exorcism.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Miserissima]

Could many of these people be members of the elect that have chosen to turn their backs on the understanding that God has given them?

Wow. I had never thought that the elect COULD resist God’s call. I think that’s a question for Jimmy Akin or Fr. Vincent!

Is this the reason they are so vicious in their attacks, that they are desperately trying to convince themselves that what they know isn’t true?

Yes, and I can think of 3 more reasons add to this:

1. They’re disappointed in man’s representation of what should be a Christ-filled life, and become spiritual bullies.

Many times, it’s a good thing for a Christian to be called a hypocrite by someone on the “outside” with a knowledge of one’s faith. It sure can be a wake-up call to the lukewarm believer! God certainly can talk through these folks, and I believe that He has. I’m not saying it should be their life’s work to be spiritual bullies, but…

I like the questions that athiests/agnostics ask, simply because it forces me to look deeper into my own faith and reconcile what I know of the OT and what I know of the NT and what the Magesterium teaches. Their questions make me dig, they challenge my knowledge, they challenge me,and they challenge my faith. I can’t think of a better way to be in this world but not of it.

And even if I don’t get a chance to respond to someone like that directly, I am facing hard questions about my faith and the role I play in it. They challenge me to spiritually grow, and I think that’s why God allows them to tempt our faith and to examine our relationship with God with scrutiny. With a solid grounding and a good spiritual advisor, we can work at answering their questions for ourselves, if not for the unbelievers.

We can also point out where they take things out of context and bring them to a fuller knowledge of the faith. We may even be planting a “mustard seed” in their hearts and minds.

---

1. They’re not getting the “hearts and flowers” and/or are disappointed in God. Perhaps a prayer wasn’t answered, perhaps they feel ignored by God, perhaps they’re fed up with the pain and suffering of this life.

They cut themselves off from the notion of redemptive suffering and think of God as a holy gumball machine: I put in a quarter, I get candy. If I put out a prayer, I get an answer. No candy? No answer? Then the machine – or faith itself must be broken. They don’t like the idea that God doesn’t bargain or work on human terms. That’s where I see these folks struggling the most. And the “signs for unbelievers” are thoroughly discounted, as well.

But remember, the “converts” from athiesm are sometimes the ones who have “testimony” at New Life touchy-feely concert new age yet fundamental service. They have begin to read, to understand, or have seen the light of Christ through others. Unfortunately, these are the folks that eventually leave Chick Tracts instead of a tip after an emotional mega-church service brunch.

(continued below)

 

[Miserissima]

(continued from abouve)

1. For others, when they find out that following Christ takes a real commitment, or a change of lifestyle, something pulls them away. Some folks confuse “knowledge that they can’t prove there is a God” with “a search for proof.” Some are actively seeking to be convinced. Some don’t want to be convinced, but those are usually the ones who are too attached to the lifestyle they’re living.

It’s like the rich man who is too attached to the comforts he knows rather than would give up all he owns to follow Christ. It’s funny how they attach most of their reasoning to the writers of the “Enlightenment Period” which does hardly anything to reconcile faith and reason…but in the end, they work hand-in-hand.

Athiests are cool, they’re rebels, they’re attention seekers, and they step away from the “norm” of faith. They’re the iconoclasts and the Jimmy Deans who are too cool and too smart for us believers.

The Bible says that the elect cannot be deceived, but it doesn’t say that they will always accept the gift of faith, or that they won’t sometimes make a futile attempt to deceive themselves.

I’m not saying that all hardcore non-believers will have an epiphany, but it is up to us to be salt and light and witnesses. That doesn’t mean we should have to be cheerful or problem-free because we trust in Jesus, but we are able to get THROUGH the hard times because of grace and faith. That is and should be our example to them, if we choose not to engage with words.

I still think that question shoule be addressed to Jim Blackburn or Jim Staples or Karl Keating or anyone at AAA.

The Bible says that the only completely unforgivable sin is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. It has been my understanding, and my father’s as well, that this means rejecting the gift of faith when it is handed to you by God. When such a gift is bestowed on a person, the knowledge and understanding it brings is undeniable, and is literally painful to resist.

There is hope for people who have turned their back on God’s grace intentionally until their very last breath. That’s the last chance one gets. But I don’t think that Hitchens or his ilk may all be knowingly denying God. Listening to their arguments, they actually believe that faith either resides in the neurons of the brain, is self-fulfilling prophecy, or any number of things than what it is. Until they get a concept of faith from a believer’s point of view, and stop trying to view it objectively, they will not understand.

If I had chosen to deny such a gift, I can easily imagine behaving…with the unquenchable desire to disprove God, while being filled with the crystal clear and undeniable understanding that only the Holy Spirit can give.

I see the juxtaposition you have made here, but until an unbeliever reads a passage that speaks to them or has a personal experience, or meets up with someone who can give them (through one-on-one or through prayer) the desire to rekindle that “spark” between the unbeliever and the Lord, there’s nothing we can do but continue to pray for them.

The irony is that the Catholic faith is BASED on reason, not emotional happy-clappy experiences. I only wish I could find the magic words to convey this using the same resources both believers and non-believers use.

 

[cyberjacques]

Thanks for the great responses, everyone, but please let me clarify again:

I like the questions that athiests/agnostics ask, simply because it forces me to look deeper into my own faith and reconcile what I know of the OT and what I know of the NT and what the Magesterium teaches. Their questions make me dig, they challenge my knowledge, they challenge me,and they challenge my faith. I can’t think of a better way to be in this world but not of it.

I see the juxtaposition you have made here, but until an unbeliever reads a passage that speaks to them or has a personal experience, or meets up with someone who can give them (through one-on-one or through prayer) the desire to rekindle that “spark” between the unbeliever and the Lord, there’s nothing we can do but continue to pray for them.

I couldn’t agree more, and I thank you for your posts, but once again I’m not referring to mere atheists or agnostics. I’m referring to people who HATE, let me repeat it, HATE the idea of God. Not just people who don’t believe, not just people who question or think it’s silly, people who hate, loathe, despise, detest and revile God. Read some of Christopher Hitchens’ most recent material, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. He is feverish in his desperation to deny God. The question is: is it possible that some people like him are actively denying the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that it’s driving them mad?

 

[Miserissima]

Thanks for the great responses, everyone, but please let me clarify again:
[edit] I’m referring to people who HATE, let me repeat it, HATE the idea of God. Not just people who don’t believe, not just people who question or think it’s silly, people who hate, loathe, despise, detest and revile God. Read some of Christopher Hitchens’ most recent material, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. He is feverish in his desperation to deny God.

I’ll look ino Hitchen’s recent works…I thought I had enough grounding in his philosophies but I humbly admit I am sorely lacking.

The question is: is it possible that some people like him are actively denying the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that it’s driving them mad?

Absolutely…but remember, madness can be:

a) a physical/chemical ailment which can put him in the class of those who don’t understand God’s grace, (much like those limited in overall understanding of daily life), and therefore he is actively rejecting God only the basis of mental illness.

The using scriptures and other writings they use to support their positions no less mitigate their ignorance, which, in the case of the mentally ill, is not their fault.

They’re “smart enough” to do some serious study, but have rejected the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, [and] self-control. But is that rejecting the Holy Spirit (blaspheming) outright? Perhaps. But again, he’s got until his last breath to repent.

(On a side note: My sorrow for those who are mentally ill and very charismatic with such passion for HATE is that they are not taking part in Redemptive Suffering.)

Remeber, Hate and Love are on the exact same side of the proverbial coin: there is still a STRONG feeling of either acceptance or denial that puts them into the same category as strong emotions for or against something. The other side of the coin is apathy - those who don’t know and those who don’t care. So, as long as there is hate, there is hope.

b) You’re right that he is fighting that super-nagging of the measure of faith he (and all of us) was born with. In this sense, he sees himself as the one with the “Truth” about the absence of God, denying (IF he knows/believes) the indwelling of the Spirit.

He may well have brainwashed spirituality right out of his mind, but his soul exists and as long as that is so, he’s still in God’s hands. Although Hitchens’ rejection of God Himself may be a deliberate and fully consenting act on his part, we can only pray (and actively refute him and his followers) that Hitchens will not deny God in his last hour – not out of fear, but out of true contrition for his sins. Methinks he has put millstones around many necks, and that’s God’s business to deal with.

Thw whole hat/love vs. apathy thing kinda reminds me of Jonah, the whiny brat of a prophet who HATED the idea of going to Ninevah. He actually resented God’s direct command and tried to run away! He lied about the God he worshipped to get passage on a ship in the opposite direction. He complained about the storm that would not cease. He complained about the “whale” he was swallowed up in, he complained when the people of Ninevah repented, and he complained when the shade tree God gave him had dried up. He told God he’d rather be dead for his faith in Him! There was no moment in scripture when he said, “Oh, I understand now, Lord!” and Jonah took a good rebuking.

Sometimes, I wish that God was still involved in humanity through these “private revelaations” that are so much recorded in the OT.

Anyway, I think you’re right in that Hitchens is running away from his true calling to be a Christ-follower. I want him (and other like him) to be swallowed by a proverbial whale and during that time, discern what they’re supposed to be doing under the Lord’s guidance.

Okay, this was a long post and I’m sorry to keep it going – you’re question became personal when it made me look at myself and my friendships and wonder how to distance myself from their “there ain’t no God, period” kind of views.

But someone actively hating God? It’s my understanding that they’re not blaspheming the Holy Spirit until their last moments, becuse up until then they have time to repent. I’ll have to look in the AAA forums, but I think Fr. Serpa answered that a while ago.

Peace,

Mis

 

[cyberjacques]

Thw whole hat/love vs. apathy thing kinda reminds me of Jonah, the whiny brat of a prophet who HATED the idea of going to Ninevah. He actually resented God’s direct command and tried to run away! He lied about the God he worshipped to get passage on a ship in the opposite direction. He complained about the storm that would not cease. He complained about the “whale” he was swallowed up in, he complained when the people of Ninevah repented, and he complained when the shade tree God gave him had dried up. He told God he’d rather be dead for his faith in Him! There was no moment in scripture when he said, “Oh, I understand now, Lord!” and Jonah took a good rebuking.

Wow, great post! I like the Jonah reference, very appropriate, I think. And I hope you’re right, that people like Hitchens will repent before death. I also hope you’re right that there’s something else wrong with him, some mitigating circumstance that will reduce his culpability for his actions. This is all assuming, of course, that he is rejecting the gift of faith.

I would have to disagree though with your point on the connection between love and hate. Hate isn’t really a thing, just like darkness and evil aren’t really things. They are all absence of a thing. Darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good, and hate is the absence of love. Not so much the “opposite of” as the “devoid of”. It would therefore make sense that someone fleeing from the Holy Spirit would be fleeing towards hatred. I understand your analogy of the coin and the equally intense emotions, but I feel it’s flawed, since hatred is the lack of love, and therefore not really a valid emotion at all. You either have the coin, or you don’t.

Your post also brings to mind another interesting question. When does the rejection of such a gift from the Holy Spirit actually cross over into full-blown blasphemy? Is it still forgivable before death (please, all-merciful Lord, let it be forgivable), or has he already passed the point of no return? Adding to it also the fact that he really has hung some millstones around the necks of others (another good reference), which is one of those big “woe be unto him who” type sins.

 

[Miserissima]

I would have to disagree though with your point on the connection between love and hate. Hate isn’t really a thing, just like darkness and evil aren’t really things. They are all absence of a thing. Darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good, and hate is the absence of love. Not so much the “opposite of” as the “devoid of”. It would therefore make sense that someone fleeing from the Holy Spirit would be fleeing towards hatred. I understand your analogy of the coin and the equally intense emotions, but I feel it’s flawed, since hatred is the lack of love, and therefore not really a valid emotion at all. You either have the coin, or you don’t.

Okay, the coin analogy wasn’t so good. Love and Hate are powerful emotions that attach you to something. When you hate someone, you tend to think of them as much as someone you love. At the other end of the spectrum, there’s apathy.

Here’s a “care meter” with strong connective emotions at one end and total separartion at the other end:

10…9…8…7…6…5…4…3…2…1… 0

LOVE (Passion for) --------------------------------- APATHY
HATE (Passion against) ---------------------------APATHY

So ironically, hating God and looking for reasons to disprove Him and using methods of study and “preaching” and writing are nothing but Hitchins pride in putting knowledge and reason above his Faith. His exercising, no, exploiting, his free will, which is already a gift from God. (C’mon, the irony here has to make you giggle a little.)

Your post also brings to mind another interesting question. When does the rejection of such a gift from the Holy Spirit actually cross over into full-blown blasphemy? Is it still forgivable before death (please, all-merciful Lord, let it be forgivable), or has he already passed the point of no return? Adding to it also the fact that he really has hung some millstones around the necks of others (another good reference), which is one of those big “woe be unto him who” type sins.

In the online This Rock this question came up:

**

Q: What is blasphemy or sin against the Spirit? Can it ever be forgiven?

A: It is the refusal to ask for forgiveness, a refusal to repent. “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is that sin committed by the person who claims to have a ‘right’ to persist in evil—in any sin at all—and who thus rejects redemption” (Dominum et Vivificantem 46).

It is the Holy Spirit who convinces us of our sins for the purpose of repentance. So if he makes us aware of sin and we refuse to repent, then it becomes an unforgivable sin. Of course, if we do repent, then we can be forgiven.

“There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss” (CCC1864).

(continued below)
**

 

[Miserissima]

(continued from above)

So Mr. Hitchens must:

According to the 1st paragraph: [Be one] who thus rejects redemption.

According to the 2nd paragraph: [He becomes fully] aware of [his] sin and [if he] refuse to repent, then it becomes an unforgivable sin. (I unanimously add my hopes and prayers to yours that “there’s something else wrong with him, some mitigating circumstance that will reduce his culpability for his actions.”)

According to the 3rd paragraph: “Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss”

It’s the “can lead to” that means there’s hope for Hitchens until his last breath. He only need to be open to receiving God’s grace and responding with Faith. In his vitriolic apologetics/polemics he is closer to understanding God’s grace than he knows. Christopher Hitchens doesn’t seem to be looking for the true Holy Spirit, and is stifling Him within his soul. What a dangerous way to put one’s soul in jeopardy.

My conclusion: you’re correct in that Hitchens is living a life of Rejecting the Spirit. BUT he has time (God willing) to repent. Think of Saul of Tarsus, diddy bopping along on his donkey or horse to kill Christians when He was confronted by the actual Voice of Christ. No other disciple had such a dramatic turnaround and change of heart! So we have hope for Hitchens yet, whether it’s something as dramatic as a sign for an unbeliever, or through his own research – and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of course – he finds a passage that softens his heart.

My only hope (like Freud recanting the virtues of cocaine) is that Hitchens will be able to leave a written legacy of his conversion before he dies. If not, the state of his soul can and will only rest with God’s merciful judgment.

Until then, let’s put Hitchens isn’t beyond the power of our rayer. All those who suffer because of his writings are united to the Cross with redemptive Suffering.

Let’s put Hitchens under the patronage of Saul of Tarsus / Saint Paul, because he was a scholar, too, in the Law of God until his experience with/by the fulfillment of that law.

Oh, and don’t forget to remember Hitchens to St. Peregrine who actually stoned a missionary priest who came to his village. It wasn’t until this act of violence that the Holy Spirit SLAMMED Peregrine’s conscience to apologize to the priest, repent, and turn His life over to Christ and His Church.

 

[LaMar]

My father and I were having an interesting conversation last weekend, and he brought up a good point. We were discussing people who not only dislike Christianity, but seem to hate the very idea of God. These are people like author Christopher Hitchens, who has become so venomous and desperately incoherent in his attacks against religion that even his own supporters are becoming concerned for his emotional health. There are many people like this, who seem offended and indeed terrified at the prospect of a God that they might be held accountable to. They seem different than people who just don’t believe or think it’s ridiculous. The point my father brought up is this:

Could many of these people be members of the elect that have chosen to turn their backs on the understanding that God has given them? Is this the reason they are so vicious in their attacks, that they are desperately trying to convince themselves that what they know isn’t true? The Bible says that the elect cannot be deceived, but it doesn’t say that they will always accept the gift of faith, or that they won’t sometimes make a futile attempt to deceive themselves.

The Bible says that the only completely unforgivable sin is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. It has been my understanding, and my father’s as well, that this means rejecting the gift of faith when it is handed to you by God. When such a gift is bestowed on a person, the knowledge and understanding it brings is undeniable, and is literally painful to resist. I speak from personal experience. I only started to believe about 3 years ago. I fought it for quite a while, but I finally had to give in. I felt like if I didn’t I would explode. I have read many posts on this forum describing a similar experience. Nothing is as gentle, yet as firm as the grace of God.

If I had chosen to deny such a gift, I can easily imagine behaving like Christopher Hitchens, insane with the unquenchable desire to disprove God, while being filled with the crystal clear and undeniable understanding that only the Holy Spirit can give. And it gets exponentially harder to resist. After less than a year of fighting it I finally couldn’t take it any more. But Hitchens has been at it for years. If he has been denying the Holy Spirit this long, it sure would explain a lot. I have a great deal of pity for him if this is the case. Perhaps he will eventually give in.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Despite the fact that I don’t agree with all his conclusions, I’m a big fan of Christopher Hitchens. If anything, I don’t think he goes far enough, but I understand the desire to get a general point across to a general audience.

In the mid 1990s, there were Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim militias running loose in Yugoslavia, where they murdered, raped and looted with abandon. The Ustashe (a Croatian nationalist group started in the 1930s as an analog to the German Nazis) decked out their rifles with laminated icons of the Virgin Mary and Swastikas. Their behavior was even worse than the worst behavior of my own people who massacred people in Mountain Meadows, Utah. In one case these idiots gathered all the people of one village up, and after raping all the women and little girls, they cut their breasts off and pulled their teeth out. The survivors are all permanently mutilated. That’s insanity by anyone’s standards.

How is Hitchens committing “sin against the Holy Spirit”? It seems like you’re indicting him for telling the unvarnished truth, thinking for himself and coming to some logical conclusions about the danger of fanaticism. If a person’s faith precludes him from acknowledging the dangers of abandoning any critical analysis of his faith, then he’s truly damned, in a very real way.

 

[LaMar]

Despite the fact that I don’t agree with all his conclusions, I’m a big fan of Christopher Hitchens. If anything, I don’t think he goes far enough, but I understand the desire to get a general point across to a general audience.

In the mid 1990s, there were Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim militias running loose in Yugoslavia, where they murdered, raped and looted with abandon. The Ustashe (a Croatian nationalist group started in the 1930s as an analog to the German Nazis) decked out their rifles with laminated icons of the Virgin Mary and Swastikas. Their behavior was even worse than the worst behavior of my own people who massacred people in Mountain Meadows, Utah. In one case these idiots gathered all the people of one village up, and after raping all the women and little girls, they cut their breasts off and pulled their teeth out. The survivors are all permanently mutilated. That’s insanity by anyone’s standards.

How is Hitchens committing “sin against the Holy Spirit” for relating such distasteful stories? It seems like you’re indicting him for telling the unvarnished truth, thinking for himself and coming to some logical conclusions about the danger of fanaticism. If a person’s faith precludes him from acknowledging the dangers of abandoning any critical analysis of his faith, then he’s truly damned, in a very real way.

 

[cyberjacques]

In his vitriolic apologetics/polemics he is closer to understanding God’s grace than he knows.

I think you’re absolutely right, which is why it’s so sad. He’s that close, all he has to do is reach out and embrace what he’s been given, and yet he refuses. Your argument that he still has a chance is well presented, and it gives me hope, for him and all those like him. And like you said, a conversion of that sort is hardly without precedent. I suppose all we can do is pray.

Do you think he’d be angry if he knew we were praying for him?

On the subject of love and hate, I think I see what you mean, with the hatred actually causing him to pay more attention to God than if he didn’t care at all. But I would add to it that apathy in this context is only possible for someone who has not been given any special insight by God. For someone who has, love and hate are the only two options. You either accept God, or you flee from Him. I can’t imagine someone receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit and remaining ambivalent about it. I hope that makes sense, please let me know if I’m not being clear.

 

[cyberjacques]

It seems like you’re indicting him for telling the unvarnished truth, thinking for himself and coming to some logical conclusions about the danger of fanaticism.

If that was in fact what he was doing, then you would be correct. But it’s not. He makes no distinction between religion and the nutcases that choose to use it as an excuse to do horrible things. If his assertions were correct, then the entire world would be enveloped in a continual bloodbath, nonstop carnage on an apocalyptic scale. There are about 2 billion Christians in the world, and if Hitchens were correct, those 2 billion people would be subjugating the world right now, doing pretty much what the Muslims want to do, but actually succeeding. He seems to think that religion, and Christianity in particular, is the greatest force for evil in the world. And yet the only “proof” he has, which he keeps using over and over, are things that some group of morons did once upon a time. Then he tries to claim that the religion that the morons claimed to belong to is responsible, and even worse, that said religion teaches and encourages such behavior. Granted, a small handful of religions really do encourage such things, But he draws no distinction between one religion and the next. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him acknowledge all the wonderful things Christians have been doing constantly for the last 2000 years. If he has, please point it out, I’d love to read it.

I’ll give him one thing though, he’s consistent. He applies his hatred to all religions equally. He doesn’t engage in moral relativism. “Oh, there’s nothing wrong with group A, besides, group B is just as bad.” He really seems to think that Christianity and Islam have comparable moralities.

 

[LaMar]

If that was in fact what he was doing, then you would be correct. But it’s not. He makes no distinction between religion and the nutcases that choose to use it as an excuse to do horrible things.

Maybe he’s justified in doing that.

I can sorta see where he’s coming from after hanging on this board for only a few days. There are Mormons here, and Catholics, and Muslims. There’s no doubt in my mind that some (not all) of the people arguing here would murder one another if they thought they could get away with it. And all because they think their imaginary friend is the coolest. It’s bizarre.

 

[puzzleannie]

the only real sin against the Holy Spirit is refusing to accept God’s forgiveness and mercy. Everyone at the moment of death will be given that chance, no matter what they have said or done, or what their attitude has been during life. Everyone at that moment will also have all the knowledge of God – and of themselves – necessary to freely make that choice. To me that means those who have been blinded to God’s love and mercy in life, whether because of their own sin, or because they have been sinned against, will not have to fight against those barriers when the moment of choice and judgement come.

It seems so obvious in the rantings of authors cited above and others, including some of the hate-filled comics and commenators who attack not only the Church but God himself, that they are suffering immensely. The first thing about such suffering is that it clouds judgement, and like a drunk driver, such a person cannot be held fully responsible for words, actions and choices made under such influence.

The second thing about such suffering is that while much is self-inflicted, it is nearly possible to reach such an extremity of hatred unless one has been the victim of hatred, abuse, neglect or indifference, usually at the most vulnerable moments of life. Jesus says, of whom much is asked, much is forgiven. The third thing to remember about suffering, and the psalmist makes this very clear as do NT writers such as Paul, is that the deeper, more intense and more immediate the suffering, the closer one is to God, and the more receptive one is to God’s grace when it is recognized.

When that suffering person encounters God, therefore, their conversion and consequent joy will be all that much more great, deep and wide, and their place in heaven correspondingly greater, since they, like the woman with the tears and jar of perfume, they will love so much, having been so much forgiven.

I think such a suffering individual will at the moment of extremity, be therefore much more receptive of grace, and much surer of forgiveness, than the lackadaisical, self-satisfied, “I’m a good person”, “I’m Catholic I’m in” type of believer. The person who knows, professes accepts and promises to live the truth is held to a much higher standard than one who has always been blinded to the truth, yet comes to healing like the blind man.

The person who has the pearl of great price and casts it away is the real sinner against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Miserissima]

I hope that makes sense, please let me know if I’m not being clear.

You are being too clear, and I am thankful for this conversation.

Please, if you touch upon this conversation with your father again – or get any more general insights – I would love to discuss this more with you.

In the mid 1990s, there were Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim militias running loose in Yugoslavia, where they murdered, raped and looted with abandon. The Ustashe (a Croatian nationalist group started in the 1930s as an analog to the German Nazis) decked out their rifles with laminated icons of the Virgin Mary and Swastikas. [edit] In one case these idiots gathered all the people of one village up, and after raping all the women and little girls, they cut their breasts off and pulled their teeth out. The survivors are all permanently mutilated. That’s insanity by anyone’s standards.

How is Hitchens committing “sin against the Holy Spirit”? It seems like you’re indicting him for telling the unvarnished truth, thinking for himself and coming to some logical conclusions about the danger of fanaticism. If a person’s faith precludes him from acknowledging the dangers of abandoning any critical analysis of his faith, then he’s truly damned, in a very real way.

I want to address your example specifically, deviating very little from the topic of Hitchens himself and reflecting on blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

I was in IFOR. I was in KFOR. I was in SFOR. I was all over the former Yugoslavia: Bosnia, Croatia, the Republic of Serbska, Albania, and Kosovo, Macedonia. Even a little time off in Hungary. I saw those people. I saw things happen. I know those people.

What many of these people did to one another (we could discuss motivation for much too long) was murder, period, and I accept the fact that fanatics will use religion as propaganda to murder/mutilate others.

It took me a long time to get over the excavations of the ICTY sites where bodies were exhumed. I still have issues with that.

Whole armies were swayed, and entire non-military personnel were swayed by propaganda, and fear. But religion was a TOOL that was used against these folks. It wasn’t about religion, it was about land and power. USING religion was the sin of the leaders, and the PATRIOTISM of the people who wanted to “reclaim” their land used that as a perfect excuse. Let me reiterate in a different way: people suspended their belief and ability to co-existing peacefully because they fell for the propaganda of religion as an excuse – because it was a war over land.

All people involved in that war – the jihadis who came from the middle east to help defend the Muslims, the Orthodox Rite, the Latin Rite, and every entity who intervened: including the UN, the US, the UK, etc., and the soldiers they sent as “peacekeepers” are each responsible for their choices, and will ultimately face God either through the workings of the Holy Spirit in their consciences during their lifetime or later in the Particular Judgement. That is not our call. WE are not the readers of the hearts of men.

Manipulation of religion was the motivating factor in these war crimes, NOT any particular religion itself.

If a person is genuinely manipulated into not knowing what they’re doing is a sin, and sacrefices/suspends their GOD-GIVEN critical thinking skills because they are in a state of fear and their lives are presumably threatened, this mitigates their responsibility in defending themselves. These folks may have been fighting under the flag of a particular religion, but it was really over PATRIOTISM and border expansion, under the name of God.

And the people who, using the name of God, who led others into sin through fear and propaganda and mutilation, are those who put the millstones around the necks of the innocent and I believe that when they reach their particular judgement, may Almighty God have mercy on their souls, because at this point,** I** still cannot forgive.

PS This is the most I have revealed publicly about my experiences in the Balkans, so please try to understand what it took to go through this (and go through every day) to reconcile these events with my faith.

 

[LaMar]

PS This is the most I have revealed publicly about my experiences in the Balkans, so please try to understand what it took to go through this (and go through every day) to reconcile these events with my faith.

I appreciate this contribution a great deal, and while I don’t disagree with the substance, it doesn’t address the real issues that Hitchens raised. (You’re not to blame for this alone…the original article missed the point of Hitchens’ book entirely).

There’s a tendency for any literal reading of scripture to lead to the events you’re condemning here. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of three faiths (one of which was very different from the other two) which excused atrocities against “the other”. Rape, murder, mutilation. It’s all perfectly O.K. because we’re the “chosen people” and you guys are apostates who deserve to be killed.

And, again, after reading this forum for only a few days and others like it (FAIR, etc.) I can see that this sort of hateful piety is alive and well even in the “civilized” world. The sort of dehumanization I witness between different religious groups on this forum makes me glad I live in a secular country, which has a police force for holding the nuts of all these groups (including mine) accountable for what they’d do if they were turned loose.