Unpardonable sin?

God and the law are very different things. Suicide is illegal but since the person is dead, there is no one to hold responsible.

Unpardonable sin and blasphemy are fairly much the same, and to my understanding, blasphemy is the denial that you need to ask for forgiveness. Plain and simple, it is more of a 'mindset' than a single action.

Agreeing with anything that you would say...now that would be unpardonable.

Exactly. "Unpardonable" simply because the nature of the sin is preventing any pardon.

A typical response to critics of a religion's dogma or doctrines. Religion is full of unsubstantiated hypotheses and will brook no rival religion nor endure the slightest criticism thus the creation of the word 'holy' which means untouchable. Critics and doubters are labelled sinners, apostates, blasphemers, heretics, anti-christs, infidels, pagans, heathens all subject to violence and death. Unforgiveable sin? Please no more threats of violence for those who do not believe nor care for the religion.

Are you, uh, aiming that paragraph at me?

No, just my response to the topic.

Cool beans.

If you'll be so kind as to butt in anyway...



Not a response to critics at all, at least within the general Christian doctrine. Jesus mentions the "unforgivable sin" twice in the New Testament-- once in Mark to the scribes that came down from Jerusalem, and once in Matthew to the Pharisees in clarification as they began twisting what he was saying to the crowds.



Herein lies faith. It's a fundamental part of everyone's life-- cogito ergo sum-- whether you activately embrace it "religiously" or not.



Take a class or two in etymology. The concept of "holiness" (which the word "holy" describes) in the Christian tradition is from the Jewish tzadik (Hebrew for "righteous one"). It was a title of righteousness, a pure sort to the point that it could only be applied to someone who not only avoided sin but also had no inclination towards it (see the Tanya). Christianity, through the belief of Jesus Christ as Messiah, added onto this tradition with the meaning of the reshaping of a person through spiritual rebirth (acceptance of Jesus Christ as Messiah).

It's doesn't mean "untouchable" at all-- it means a transcendance over sin (see the Mishneh Torah, Sefer Madda, Laws of Repentance, 3:1)



In light of the use of religion in this manner such as in the Crusades, I heartily agree with you. When believers begin carrying out their own sentences, religious "structure" melts into massacre and death.

bookmarking

talk 72000,

As a christian, it is not our job to threaten, our job is to teach that separation from god is literally hell. And the only way to bridge that gap is through Jesus.

All the religions are bogus. Religions are being taught to children who are not able to make critical judgement. So the rubbish is so ingrained in their minds they cannot undo the damage until well into adulthood.

Much like American History.

No, really Bobby, the Indians were mean and savage. Kept attacking us for no reason.

Yeah, where did you ever learn that?

Public school system. The American History teacher swore up and down that the Indians were the original agressors.

For many years in most schools the history textbooks, after the whole entire first Thanksgiving story turned the Indians into barbaric monsters. Of course there was no mention of what we did to the Native Americans. Come to think of it the history books oddly neglected to mention Nazi Germany or various other things.

Let me see what Rise of The American Nation by Lewis Paul Todd and Merle Curti (Harcourt Brace and World, Inc, 1961) says...yes it was my history book back in high school...
page 96: "Fearful that colonial farmers would pour over the mountains and destroy their hunting grounds the Indians went on the warpath. The uprising known as Pontiac's Conspiracy started in 1763 under the leadership of Pontiac,chief of the Ottawa Indians and a formidable foe. For nearly a year death and destruction raged along the western frontier. Settlers fled as flames of their burning cabins lighted the forest and war whoops of the Indians rang in their ears." Oh yeah that sounds pleasant.. The use of 'war whoops' is clearly meant to present an image in the mind of the person reading of it of the Indian having a grand old time destroying the homes and land of these sweet settlers. Of course it neglects telling the reader how the sweet settlers, chopped down trees, tore town native dwellings, killed natives on a regular basis, tossed disease laden blankets at the natives, herded them on to desert lands where crops would not stand a chance, poured booze down the surviving natives throats and then made claims that they were sinners and beyond redemption...Read the books Custer Died For Your Sins and Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee among others for another view on how things were going in those days. The sad fact is history is skewed in its presentation according to who is doing the presenting.


And of course earlier on page 71, the frontiersmen became the first true Americans. Hmm... wonder what happened to all those good folk who were here before them.

It's a rather dismal book as far as what it tells and it tells a rather slanted story, not just when it comes to the Native Americans but to just about all non-Europeans as well. Glad I took it off the shelf it'll be good to read through it again.

How about the scalping myth? It was the white folks who started the scalping and in retaliation the Indians also startedscalping but the NativeAmericans have been falsely portrayed as the scalpers.

How then, do we distinguish truth from hearsay and myth in history?

The one who wrote the stuff down was usually the one who was still alive to write it. A lot of the history we were taught is a one sided look at what really happened.

That doesn't answer my question...

At this point I'm not really certain that you can.

History is almost always written by those that retain power. Unless there is an un-corruptible group of historians documenting events as they occur, or shortly after based upon reliable eye-witness accounts; most history is little more than educated guesswork and blatant exaggerations.