[quote=caynen]I'm sure most of you are aware, via the Blasphemy Challenge, of the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the holy spirit (Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10). However, I am sure that many of you have not realized a wider application of these passages.[/quote]

Mark talks about the Pharisees.

Anyway, let's start from Mark 3:22.

[i]"3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

3:23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

3:24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

3:26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

[b]3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.[/b] "[/i]

[quote]Many realize it is unforgivable to doubt the existence of the Holy Spirit; this is true, but denial of the whole is just a single form of blasphemy[/quote]

Jesus announced the unforgivable sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" because they said he had an unclean spirit. Not because they denied the existance of the Holy Spirit.

[quote]Undeniably, there is a cornucopia of disagreement within the Christian religion, and after contemplating the unforgivable sin I conceived of an interesting application concerning one of the biggest debates within Christianity- Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. This phenomenon is, according to advocating Christians, a product of inspiration from the Holy Spirit.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_in_tongues)
Guess what that means. Hypothetically, if Glossolalia is a illegitimate product of the Holy Spirit than those who deny it are blaspheming the Holy Spirit! Conversely, if the act is illegitimate than those that claim the Holy Spirit is responsible are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Either way, a considerable portion of Christianity will be damned for eternity! [/quote]

So, you're saying that if Christians don't want to speak in tongues in their church, then its blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Well...

[i]1 Corinthians 14:22- "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"[/i]

It's saying that speaking in tongues is wrong if you don't believe or understand, yet you do it anyway.

I think that the controversy in Christianity is that speaking in tongues should be optional, I'm not sure. I guess I should look up some information about Glossolalia.

But I don't think it's a bad thing, the Apostle Paul spoke in toungues, according to
1 Corinthians 14:18-
[i]"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"[/i]

[quote=mikeh0303]what about telling a lie on the bible, is that not unforgivable to? [/quote]

We were talking about Glossolia, but I'll answer that question.

You meant if I lie about the bible? I don't know why anyone would do such a thing. :)

The bible is the inspired word of god. :)

[b]1 Corinthians 2:12-13[/b]
[i]2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [/i]

[b]2 Peter 1:21[/b]
[i]1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. [/i]

But I could correct the Bible according to 2 Timothy 3:16. :)

[b]2 Timothy 3:16-17[/b]
[i]3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:[/i]

[quote]In fact, Luke 12:10 "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven", confirms this without referring to to any accusations of an unclean spirit. So what does 'blaspheme' mean? The word comes from the Latin word blaptein (to injure) and pheme (reputation), therefore 'blaspheme' essentially means to damage the reputation of. Many actions qualify for this, including denial of existence and speaking of false attributes. The Bible also refers to blasphemy meaning many different things besides calling spirits unclean.[/quote]

[b]Psalm 14:1 [/b]
[i]-The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. [/i]

Can you deny the existence of a god/holy spirit by saying it in your heart even if you don't believe in it?

If you don't believe, then how is it blasphemy?

[quote] For more information see:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcb-cOFHrec or "Brian Flemming on John Gibson" at http://www.myspace.com/rationalresponders[/quote]

Yeah, I'm a member of the RRS...

[quote]My point concerning Glossolalia is only that if Christian group A practices speaking in tongues and Christian group B denies it is authentic someone is committing the unforgivable sin. If A's practice is authentic (hypothetically of course) than group B is blaspheming against the spirit through denial of its presence. However, if the action is unauthentic then Group A is falsely attributing the spirit to their actions, another act of blasphemy.[/quote]

Christians don't read the Qur'an, so Glossolalia should be no big deal.

[quote=American Atheist]Can you deny the existence of a god/holy spirit by saying it in your heart even if you don't believe in it?

If you don't believe, then how is it blasphemy?[/quote]

From dictionary.com: deny: to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
One is not required to believe any propisition at one time to qualify as a deniar of that propisition.
Here are examples of blasphemy meaning many different actions from the Bible (from the video I suggested): 1 Corinthians 4:12- to speak against, 2 Samuel 21:21- to reproach or deny, 1 Chronicles 20:7- to revile, 1 Chorinthians 10:30-to speak evil of, Titus 3:2- to speak evil of. This shows the definition of blasphemy is not as rigid as you claim.

[quote=lilangelofterror]If we are talking about Hypothetical possibilities... than in that case.. it is possible the world is ruled by machines and we are all living in the matrix[/quote]

I am not pulling anything out of the air; some Christian groups do believe the practice to be illegitamite. If you don't believe me check out http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/can_christians_speak_in_tongues_today

Again, some Christians say that speaking in tongues in modern times for worship is acceptable and some do not. Because this is a product of the holy spirit someone is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (either by denial or false claims concerning it).

[quote=caynen][quote=American Atheist]Can you deny the existence of a god/holy spirit by saying it in your heart even if you don't believe in it?

If you don't believe, then how is it blasphemy?[/quote]

From dictionary.com: deny: to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
One is not required to believe any propisition at one time to qualify as a deniar of that propisition.
Here are examples of blasphemy meaning many different actions from the Bible (from the video I suggested): 1 Corinthians 4:12- to speak against, 2 Samuel 21:21- to reproach or deny, 1 Chronicles 20:7- to revile, 1 Chorinthians 10:30-to speak evil of, Titus 3:2- to speak evil of. This shows the definition of blasphemy is not as rigid as you claim.[/quote]

[b]1 Corinthians 4:12 [/b]
[i]-labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it[/i]

[b]2 Samuel 21:21[/b]
[i]- 21:21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him.[/i]

[b]1 Chronicles 20:7 [/b]
[i]-But when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David's brother slew him.[/i]

[b]1 Corinthians 10:30 [/b]
[i]-For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?[/i]

[b]Titus 3:2 [/b]
[i]-To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.[/i]

Titus 3:2 is about doing good works; be gentle toward others; avoid fighting or speaking unkindly about others.

Can someone that knows about exegesis answer these:

Is the Quran inspired just because Mr. Muhammad was illiterate and had different men over a period of decades write down the many "revelations" he had? Is the Bhagavad Gita of the Hindus inspired? What of the Analects of Buddha? Are those writings any less "inspired"? The Jews were very good at preserving documents and copying every jot and title down from one copy to another. They believed these stories that had been handed down by their ancestors just as people of all different cultures are. The Jews are not the only people who were good at preservation. If the Bible were inspired and infallible, have you ever wondered why it describes insects as having FOUR legs, the Sun revolving around the Earth, different accounts of Jesus' last words, different accounts of Paul's conversion, the empty tomb of Jesus, what it takes to be saved, how many people God killed after King David ordered the census, which creation account is correct, where Cain and Abel got their wives and just who Cain was afraid of being killed by when God banished him if the only people on earth were his kin. How did anyone know what Jesus' words to his "father" were when he was praying ALONE in the Garden of Gethsemane? How did Moses write of his own death if he wrote the first five books of the Bible? Why was the gospel of John so highly disputed and why did it almost not make into the Bible as we know it? Why didn't Jesus have people write down what he was saying WHEN HE SAID IT instead of having the first gospels written many decades after his death when all eyewitnesses were DEAD. Why does Paul's opinion of salvation differ so greatly from Jesus'? Why does James claim that we are justified by our "WORKS" while Paul is adamant that is only by faith that one is justified?

[quote=lilangelofterror][quote=American Atheist]Can someone that knows about exegesis answer these:[/quote]

Thanks for the avoidance... and non answers ;), try again.

Terror
[/quote]

Same to you... :O

Sorry my last comment screwed up for some reason. Okay let me clarify this from beginning to end.

First I am not supporting that Glossolia is an authentic phenomenon, it is just as unsuported as logic and evidence as the rest of Christianithy. I am merely presenting a proof concerning the Holy Spirit and Glossolia that many Christians may find uncomfortable.

1.) The Bible says in both Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:0 that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. To Blaspheme is to damage the reputation of and includes, but is not limited to, denial of its existence, false claims considering the Holy Spirit, and denial of its presence. Some Christian apologist claim that this is not what Jesus meant, but this is clearly a biased reading. There is no reason to believe that this is not what Jesus meant. Brian Flemming has already established this in interviews that you can watch at the rational response squat myspace.
2.) Some Christians believe that Glossolia is contemporarily legitamite and some do not. What does this have to do with the unforgivable sin?
3.) Christians who advocate that Glossolia is contemporarily acceptable in worship see it as a product of the Holy Spirit. Whether this is biblically supported or not I don't know, but it is irrelevant nonetheless some Christians maintain it is not, don't believe me, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolia: "This utterance is believed to be inspired directly by the Holy Spirit"
4.) Even if Christianity were metaphysically correct (which it is not) one of these groups would have to be blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, because they both logically can not be right. Both denial of presence and false attribution are forms of blasphemy, by definition. What did Jesus mean by Blasphemy? I would have to say that our best guess would have to be the definition of Blasphemy.
5.) Therefore, if Christianity were right a considerable portion of its believers would be blasphemers of the Holy Spirit. (Again, this is true no matter who would be hypothetically right).
6,) Because Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin, the wrong portion would have to be damned to hell,according to the Bible.
*Note: I am not arguing that either side is biblically right. Why there are verses listed to support speaking in tongues, I dont know. The point is that some Christians do and some don't. Proof of this is on the link of my last post( the one that worked). If you are a Christian and are worried about this, don't. The Holy Spirit is imaginary anyway.

[quote=lilangelofterror][quote=caynen]
*Note: I am not arguing that either side is biblically right. Why there are verses listed to support speaking in tongues, I dont know. The point is that some Christians do and some don't. Proof of this is on the link of my last post( the one that worked). If you are a Christian and are worried about this, don't. The Holy Spirit is imaginary anyway.[/quote]

I'm not worried about it at all. I'm waiting for a point. BTW I do love how you threw your own biasness in at the end. ;)

Terrory
[/quote]
I don't know how to make the point any clearer, this is a proof that when assembled comes to the conclusion that even if Christianity were correct a considerable portion of Christians would still be damned. I can not imagine how you fail to see a 'point' in this. This has devastating consequences to Christians. How fond of ones religion will one remain when one realizes that Grandma, Grandpa, and many other innocent Christians have to suffer in hell for an eternity just because of their denominations stance on Glossolalia. And you ask where the point is?

As for your second comment, if scientific skepticism is a bias than I am guilty as charged.

[quote=lilangelofterror]'m waiting for a point. So what, what does this prove? *shrug*[/quote]

This proves that as unjust and ignorant the Christian god seems, he is even more unjust and ignorant. Furthermore, it makes Christianity look a little more ludicrous and less appealing.

The overall point of the post was to make Christians question whether or not they really want to stand by what their religion demands.

Wouldn't you agree?

i mean, along time ago when you had to put your hand over the bible and say some promise to god that you would not lie. So then if you lie with your hand on the bible would you go to hell?