Sinning against the Holy Spirit

[cyberjacques]

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.

This has been my understanding as well, but it is possible for someone to so corrupt themselves that even with that knowledge they still reject God. Several of us in this thread have expressed our hope that people like Hitchens fall into that category of somehow blinded.

But, like you said, nobody should be absolutely sure of their own salvation, or the salvation of others. We must be ever vigilant, and not simply write off all those who hate God as tortured souls who will be automatically forgiven, even if there are some. Please excuse me if that’s not what you meant, but it kinda sounded that way.

 

[cyberjacques]

There’s a tendency for any literal reading of scripture to lead to the events you’re condemning here.

You’re right. The twisting of the truth is invariably a recipe for disaster. But that doesn’t make the truth any less true. My point is, again, that people like Hitchens MAKE NO DISTINCTION. Perhaps if I say it a few more times, you’ll address the subject? By refusing to make a distinction, Hitchens has invalidated his own argument. He’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. He is sifting out the gnat while swallowing the camel.

Not to mention the fact that Hitchens and people like him make assertions about what various religions believe that are simply not true, and easily verifiable as false. The fact that he either hasn’t done his homework, or knows such things are not true yet persists in saying them, also invalidates his argument.

 

[Miserissima]

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).

**LaMar, **Thank you for being so kind to me…I re-read my post and see how inflammatory it could have become. (I certainly didn’t want to get into the whole Balkan War issue proper).

Could you give me more information in Hitchens as you said, “[the article] doesn’t address the real issues that Hitchens raised.”

I forgot to tie in my point that to take another human life in cold blood (as opposed to being a soldier, which is a separate issue) is killing an innocent life and therefore in a way, is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, I humbly beg every’s forgiveness on this thread, because I really did go into so deeper issues that I meant to, and my post was a reaction to an example, and I tried to tie it in to the topic of the thread and I unintentionally went WAY overboard. .

Mis

 

[LaMar]

**LaMar, **Thank you for being so kind to me…I re-read my post and see how inflammatory it could have become. (I certainly didn’t want to get into the whole Balkan War issue proper).

Could you give me more information in Hitchens as you said, “[the article] doesn’t address the real issues that Hitchens raised.”

Mis

Where Hitchens addresses the Yugoslavia issue directly, he points out that religion is really the only thing that separates the different groups that were so eager to abuse one another.

In Yugoslavia, you had people who were of the same race, ethnic group (South Slav), spoke the same first language (Serbo-Croatian) and were otherwise identical in pretty much every conceivable respect, except for how they interpreted the will of their own particular God(s). I use the plural because from the perspective of the criminals, they seemed to be worshipping distinct entities.

Hitchens’ conclusion (that “religion poisons everything”) is not something I agree with, necessarily. A lot of the great architecture and cultural works that Yugoslavia is full of is a result of religion. At the same time, I think he does a great service in pointing out how easy it is to simply stop thinking for oneself, and rely on someone else (pope, prophet, mullah, whoever) to make your decisions and take the blame for them.

 

[LaMar]

You’re right. The twisting of the truth is invariably a recipe for disaster. But that doesn’t make the truth any less true. My point is, again, that people like Hitchens MAKE NO DISTINCTION. Perhaps if I say it a few more times, you’ll address the subject? By refusing to make a distinction, Hitchens has invalidated his own argument. He’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. He is sifting out the gnat while swallowing the camel.

Not to mention the fact that Hitchens and people like him make assertions about what various religions believe that are simply not true, and easily verifiable as false. The fact that he either hasn’t done his homework, or knows such things are not true yet persists in saying them, also invalidates his argument.

I didn’t agree with Hitchens’ conclusions either.

Maybe the answer is to set up rape camps and death camps, and put people like Christopher Hitchens into them. They’re writing books which encourage people to deny the holy spirit. We know the truth. They’re encouraging heresy. We’re doing them a favor, because some sins can not be atoned for without the shedding of blood (like Brigham Young said), and anyway, maybe they’ll confess before death and be saved in the afterlife. (Like the inquisition).

(just kidding!)

 

[Swan]

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.

Ain’t that the (sad) truth. And I think that’s what Hitchens is saying: how can religion be good when it has served as the basis for almost imreasrable hate, destruction and death. And you don’t even need to look back into history, just read the newspaper! Most people I know who aren’t Christians aren’t because of this very thing.

 

[Miserissima]

Ain’t that the (sad) truth. And I think that’s what Hitchens is saying: how can religion be good when it has served as the basis for almost imreasrable hate, destruction and death.

Man was give n free will to choose - that’s not God’s fault when people choose to do bad things - or incite others to do bad things. The ability to exploit others in the name of “faith” or “patriotism” is sometimes a noble characteristic in many leaders (and tyrants).

I don’t think religion itself is the “basis for almost imreasonable hate,” I think it’s just the gloss people use to cover up more evil and ulterior motives underneath what’s really going on.

 

[cyberjacques]

(just kidding!)

Not funny.

(Like the inquisition).

Do yourself a favor and read a history book.

how can religion be good when it has served as the basis for almost imreasrable hate, destruction and death.

You know what has served as the basis for more immeasurable hate, and death, and evil than anything in the history of mankind? Communism. Communists in various forms have killed literally six times as many people in the name of “serving the people” than every war throughout the last century put together, and it’s still happening. And not on the battlefield either, those deaths are governments slaughtering their own people. This total doesn’t even include the Nazi murders. It’s amazing that not many people know this. Oh, and in case someone wants to brush these deaths off as harmless executions, think again. Deliberate famines, slave camps, every evil you could imagine being committed against another human being, and communists have done it. And what do all communist and socialist systems have in common? Complete and systematic rejection of anything religious. Here’s some light reading to keep everybody entertained:

Communist Body Count
Blackout
Museum of Communism
The Victims of Communism

Now, could we please move all the off-topic discussions to a different thread?

 

[LaMar]

Not funny.

Do yourself a favor and read a history book.

You know what has served as the basis for more immeasurable hate, and death, and evil than anything in the history of mankind? Communism. Communists in various forms have killed literally six times as many people in the name of “serving the people” than every war throughout the last century put together, and it’s still happening. And not on the battlefield either, those deaths are governments slaughtering their own people. This total doesn’t even include the Nazi murders. It’s amazing that not many people know this. Oh, and in case someone wants to brush these deaths off as harmless executions, think again. Deliberate famines, slave camps, every evil you could imagine being committed against another human being, and communists have done it. And what do all communist and socialist systems have in common? Complete and systematic rejection of anything religious. Here’s some light reading to keep everybody entertained:

Communist Body Count
Blackout
Museum of Communism
The Victims of Communism

Now, could we please move all the off-topic discussions to a different thread?

Off-topic? We’re discussing Hitchens’ book. You, apparently, haven’t even read it.

Amusing to note that Cyberjacques has started ranting and raving about Communism. Reminds me of someone in Yugoslav history (just keeping this on topic) named Aloysius Stepinac.

lazyboysreststop.com/saints-1.htm

Stepinac is responsible for the rape, murder, pillage and mass killing of thousands of Jews, Serbs and others, and he’s also a Catholic saint.

ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/id26.html

Just the kind of “anti-Communist” mass-murdering saint the Catholic Church digs. Sick, sick, sick.

 

[LaMar]

Ain’t that the (sad) truth. And I think that’s what Hitchens is saying: how can religion be good when it has served as the basis for almost imreasrable hate, destruction and death. And you don’t even need to look back into history, just read the newspaper! Most people I know who aren’t Christians aren’t because of this very thing.

This has truly been one of the most interesting experiences I have ever had.

I can’t help but think that this is a unique window on what Catholics actually believe, and I’m glad I can witness them sharing their deepest beliefs openly. As a result, I don’t think I will ever fully trust a Catholic again, or feel comfortable having a Catholic in close proximity to my wife or children. It has been quite an education. Sad but true.

 

[cyberjacques]

This is just sad. I start a thread with an interesting question, and someone just looking for a reason to hate Catholics tries to derail it. Though I guess it’s not the first time. I refute the argument in an attempt to get the thread back on track, and suddenly I’m raving? You can’t even refute what I said, you’re stuck with writing all Catholics off as deranged potential mass murderers, pretending to fear for the safety of your family, because you’re out of ammunition. Again, not without precedent.

So congratulations on successfully hijacking my thread, I’m sure you’re very proud of yourself. I got the answers I was looking for from Miserissima, but if you’d like I could stick around for a bit while you attempt to reload.

 

[BlaineTog]

It’s all perfectly O.K. because we’re the “chosen people” and you guys are apostates who deserve to be killed.

Yes they do. But so do the “chosen people,” in fact, probably them more than most, since they have the least excuse. But God is merciful, and man certainly doesn’t have the right to decide who should live and who should die. Reading scripture to allow for any of those atrocities you mentioned is absurd in the extreme and is absolutely impossible if you take take scripture as a whole.

Where Hitchens addresses the Yugoslavia issue directly, he points out that religion is really the only thing that separates the different groups that were so eager to abuse one another.

If it weren’t that, it would be something else. People always find something to fight over.

 

[Miserissima]

Amusing to note that Cyberjacques has started ranting and raving about Communism.

No. your “[joke](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/Other ways to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit would be (as Catholics) to deny His gifts we were sealed with in Confirmation. Also, those who indulge in the seven deadly sins (But those are forgiveable sins.))” alluding to death camps and gulags brought up to that already.

So congratulations on successfully hijacking my thread, I’m sure you’re very proud of yourself.

It wasn’t hijacked, and if it was, that was my fault because I was the one who went on a tangent to refute one of Hitchen’s examples. (I still need more resources on the info about Hitchens and man’s beliefs simply about him. I do own The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Can anyone link me to more about this guy?)

Hitchens’ conclusion (that “religion poisons everything”) is not something I agree with, necessarily.[edit] at the same time, I think he does a great service in pointing out how easy it is to simply stop thinking for oneself, and rely on someone else (pope, prophet, mullah, who[m]ever) to make your decisions and take the blame for them.

When can personal actions cannot be “blamed” on religious and/or political leaders, whether those actions are good or bad? Perhaps those reasons are selfish: “If I follow this person, I can do what I secretly want to do,” Wouldn’t it be too easy to blame a leader, especially a charismatic one?

That kind of reasoning, I think, died in the Nuremberg trials. “I was just doing as I was told,” is no longer a valid excuse.

---

I would like to get back to the topic of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because the Q&A here deserve more discussion.

I was trying to think earlier what other ways there are to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The taking of an innocent life, I think, would be one, because one is denying another their right to live…with the choice to accept God or not. (No more Yugoslavia examples!)

Other ways to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit would be (as Catholics) to deny His gifts we were sealed with in Confirmation. Also, those who indulge in the cardinal sins, such as murder, are forgivable able to be forgiven, and I think it’s because of two reasons:

1 because (usually/hopefully) the sinner has the time to repent because of:
2. the Holy Spirit’s intervention into one’s conscience (thanks to puzzleannie’s exceptional contribution for that).

But we’re talking about, specifically, those who HATE the idea of religion and DENY the Holy Spirit exists, correct?

Going back to my little Love/Hate/Apathy chart, are the people who hate and reject the Holy Spirit proper in any more danger of blaspheming than those who just do not care about Christ’s sacrifice at all?

And how much of a difference is there between those who do not care and have never come to know the Holy Spirit between those who have known the Holy Spirit and chosen to reject Him?

And those who actively spew false information, is that a greater sin?