Have you ever wondered whether there’s any sin so bad God can’t forgive it? You have? Why? What are you planning on doing, anyway?
Sorry. If St. Thomas Aquinas taught us anything, it’s that humor and theology go together like confession and hand puppets. So I apologize.
As it turns out, the Bible tells us there is one sin beyond forgiving. We find it at Matthew 12:31-32, where Jesus says, “And so I tell you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Like just about everything Jesus said (and there’s no shame in admitting this) this is at first a deeply confusing statement. For centuries theologians, philosophers, pundits and others basically unsuited for normal employment have bent their minds trying to decipher what exactly Jesus meant by that quote. If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one being, they’ve pondered, how is it okay to blaspheme against one, but not the other?
I believe that what Jesus meant in the above quote is that he understands why people might reject him; he has, after all, presented himself in mortal form, which is bound to leave some people unconvinced.
I believe that what he is saying there is, “Fair enough. I can forgive you if you insist that I, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man—the human-seeming person you see here today—am lying, am not who I say I am. Apparently raising the dead just isn’t enough for some people, but whatever. That’s why I gave you free will; everyone has the power to doubt. But once the Holy Spirit has eradicated your reason to doubt the reality of who I am by awakening within in you the certain knowledge of it, you and I have bonded. Then the truth is within you. And if you later reject that truth—if, having accepted me into your house, you then kick me back out again—then you have visited upon yourself a woeful state that even I cannot relieve.”
This means (yay!) that a Christian cannot commit the one unpardonable sin, because doing so would mean they’re not Christian, since it’s impossible to simultaneously believe in Christ and reject him. So we believers can rest assured that there’s nothing we can do—and nothing we have ever done—for which Christ, in his boundless mercy, cannot lovingly forgive us.
Whoo-hoo! Bust out the hand puppets!
Now, if you don’t believe in the vibrant, transforming power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit—well, then, all I can say is the obvious: God help you.
**********************************************************************************************************
Email: johnshore@sbcglobal.net
Follow: http://twitter.com/johnshore
Friend: http://www.facebook.com/john.shore1
Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Shore/89494795412?ref=s
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 62 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
John,
I like it. Best explanation I’ve heard yet. Good job.
Godspeed!
Rich Glenn
truthfromthehip.com
Thanks for the link to your blog, Mike. I will check it out soon. I commend you John for the way you use your creative God-given gifts like a manual type can opener. I have been a Christian/believer/born-again for 26 years. Since I've joined your blog my mind has literally been pried open. I believe that that's a good thing.
John, I promise, my last comment completely ignoring the subject of your post…
Mike, I would love to continue this conversation. You raise a very important (and largely correct) point about "adjusting the interpretation of the narrative". I hope to have a post on one of my blogs on Christian agnosticism within the next few weeks. Feel free to stop by.
http://christiansthink.wordpress.com
No good will squandered.
This is all very well said, Mike.
Mark:
No doubt! I am convinced that if you are NOT agnostic, you have no choice but to kill apostates and such. If one Knows that God wants them to do that, then…gosh darn it…you are going to do it. No hesitation, no regrets, just follow God's word.
At the risk of squandering the good will I might have earned earlier….
It is my observation that this typically means adjusting the interpretation of the narrative to fit what you know to be right. It is too seldom that that uncertainty motivates the person to take one more step back and actually ask the important question…Is it true?
Lynn:
I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. You are right, though, we shouldn't tie up John's thread on "the unforgivable sin" with off-topic banter. If you would like to e-mail me, go to my [under-tended] blog at http://fvthinker.blogspot.com and get my e-mail address there.
I did a short piece on this very topic earlier this year. It's at:
http://johnshore.com/2008/05/31/certainty-in-…
Sheesh, it's not fair John, there are no editing capabilities in this particular blogging format. A proofreader's nightmare. I noticed I had repeated myself. I promise I won't say it again…(that you like Mike hanging around
Mike, thanks for your detailed reply. I definitely sense that you made every effort to show respect in answering my questions. I appreciated your openess as you shared a portion of your bio. You know, don't you, that your respectful approach will probably invite more questions/discussion? And yes, it appears that John does like you hanging around. But, the particular topic that John began here, has given in to a detour or two. Soooo, I wouldn't think of asking two more things that I had in mind…if you could help me to understand your thoughts regarding religion vs. faith and if you thought our (Christian)God is a rational being/entity. Maybe at another point or time
BTW, it does appear as if John likes you hanging around. Even though the discussion on this topic got a bit murky for my depth of understanding, I likewise enjoyed it. Thanks again, Mike.
"it was clear that religious ideology…claimed certainty of things unknowable"
Mike, you may find this difficult to believe (as you have pointed out, many nuances about our views are lost due to the limitations of this forum), but I, too, am often disturbed by this tendency of many Christians to claim "certainty of things unknowable." Of course, I come at the issue from a different angle. I am convinced that sincere and mature Christians are agnostics at some level. It's not that they don't know (sorry, I could think of no better word) if there's a God or that they believe God to be unknowable, but that they acknowledge that there's a lot we don't or even can't know this side of eternity. To claim otherwise is to believe the lie perpetrated in Eden, that we can know what God knows. This attitude is marked by arrogance and results in stagnation. Sure, certain core beliefs we hold as knowledge (for reasons too detailed to go into here). The rest is part of the journey. For a person of faith, it is the uncertainty that drives us deeper.
It has indeed been a pleasure. I look forward to future discussions.
Thanks…comin frum a perfeshunul riter, that meens a lot!!
Of course, you're still going to hell. But well said!
Lynn,
I will attempt to distil my biography in a few short paragraphs so, necessarily, some nuance and detail will be missed.
I was raised a believing Catholic (considered by some to be a heretical cult) so, yes, I have given the Author/Bible the benefit of the doubt. Even at a young age some things did not make sense though I just assumed I would come to understand them with time.
I give John my time because I enjoy his humor and I recognize in him the desire to really understand things. He also recognizes there are just some things that don’t make sense in the Christian narrative and will say as much. John rarely quotes scripture which I like. Doing so for the believer is superfluous. Doing so for the non-believer is like throwing a feather at a brick wall. I am sure that John really, really, really likes me hanging around too!!
I do know the biography of both Yaweh, but that is immaterial. Even if the narrative is compelling, it is infinitely more important that it be true…and there is no indication that it is. In my early adult years, I had a growing discomfort with religion insinuating itself into public policy. After 9/11, it was clear that religious ideology…claimed certainty of things unknowable…was one of the greatest threats to civilization. Trying to address this threat with arguments like “your interpretation of scripture is wrong” is, I feel, a waste of time. There is no wrong answer when interpreting scripture. We have been doing it for the better part of 2000 years (at least with the Abrahamic faiths)…we should have had it buttoned down by now if there was a ‘correct’ interpretation. The moderates are right. The liberals are right. John is right. You are right. Osama bin Laden is right.
The only way to address the threat of extremism is to demonstrate that their beliefs are false (or at least demonstrating so to the younger generation). You and I know that the narrative of the Koran is false. Some would like to demonstrate that through philosophical arguments…or simply disregarding tracts of the text. I set about the same task using the best tools available to garner genuine knowledge…evidence and facts. It is unfortunate (for the Christian) that those same tactics diminish the Christian narrative just as they do the Islamic narrative.
For what it is worth, I do not doubt the motives of anyone here…or of Osama bin Laden. Innately, everyone wants to do good (there are exceptions). I have come to the conclusion that supernatural belief is a characteristic of the human animal. We want answers…and we will insert an actor (a god) for things that we cannot explain. We prefer as conspiracy theory to no theory at all. I am so made that such placeholders are insufficient for me. While some are satisfied, for example, to accept that morality is handed down from God for humanity; I am compelled to research what we actually know about morality (and related characteristics) in humans and other species. Guess what….there is a huge body of empirical data on the matter…and it does not jive with the biblical narrative. The same is true for (the claim by some) that non-believers are less moral/ethical, that prayer can influence events, that more religious societies are healthier societies. The list goes on and on.
I have been challenged to read the scriptures and popular apologetic tomes. I have several bibles myself and I generally read books recommended to me. Not too many recommend the bible…again…that is the feather against the brick wall. I have read Lewis and Strobel and Aquinas. What most Christians don’t recognize, though, is that these writers ‘arguments’ may be affirming to the believer, but fail abysmally in terms of rationality. Almost invariably, a failed premise is put forth and then the hang the rest of the book on that failed premise. Strobel was great at doing that. It seemed that in the first two pages he makes a totally unsupported assertion and then spends 100+ pages expounding on it. Very painful reads. Moreover; these tomes do not merely fail to convince, they diminish the position of the person recommending it and strengthen my position.
It is my hope that I can demonstrate to the occasional passerby that religion does not support their life, but rather their life supports their religion. Once someone discards the supernatural, they don’t go emotionally and morally adrift. Nothing actually changes. You are still kind to your neighbor, you don’t shoplift with impunity, you don’t do anything differently other than claiming your motives are because of the supernatural. I suppose I might be more effective if I were more subversive about my motives (Morse seems to stay under the radar), but I don’t feel comfortable being subversive.
…and no…I do not consider you a dim bulb nor have I run into any dim bulbs here.
Mike Burns: If you do not believe in the Author of the scriptures then the scriptures probably do not mean much to you. But, have you given the Author the benefit of the doubt? Of all the many writings and authors you have gleaned from in your lifetime, have you read some of the biographies of those authors?
It is evident that you have given John some of your time and consideration by reading his thoughts and posting on his blog. Thus, John has somehow influenced, inspired, agitated, stirred, prompted (or whatever is the appropriate adjective to be used here)… a response from you. Have you read John's biography? Have you given the Author of the scriptures the same benefit…your time, thought, and consideration?
Have you been challenged by someone to read the scriptures? If so, have you read any portion of them? Have you at least read God's biography? One last question…I was wondering if there ever had been a point in your life where you had an open-mind toward the possibility of there being a higher authority or entity that gives undeniable credibility to extreme, unfathomable intelligence and compassion…and, no, I am not referring to John, although the platform he stands on is one that is unshakeable.
After reading this post, you may have concluded that I am pretty simple-minded (or confused or a "dim bulb" or whatever), and this may have caused you to chuckle. I do not lay claim to having the attributes of logical or philosophical thinking, or an educated intellect like some people have displayed here. Nonetheless, I still would appreciate your reply to my questions…in a simplified manner, if possible. Thanks Mike.
Twas only an example that one can not believe things by force of will. I should have used Zeus or Osiris or Krisha as an example. I just find it unfair that I am damned because of rational thought.
Sorry I didn’t use any smiley faces before…it did sound a little snarky.
John,
You are reading far to much into what I say. I call nobody a moron. I would venture to guess the bright and dim bulbs are nearly evenly distributed amongst believers and non-believers. If I say something like "God waited 98,000 years to make his presence known" I say it in the sense that these are the things that keep me from believing, but you may have an explanation for that. You may or may not share that explanation with me. I would challenge you to find where I directly demeaned believers. If one considers it snarky or demeaning to ask questions they don't have an answer for…well…I guess I can't do anything about that.
You mentioned somewhere that you like technical writers. I am an engineer/computer scientist and I do endeavor to be precise (notwithstanding the ridiculous mistakes made in haste on blogs such as this). This, of course, drives my family nuts when I am giving them instructions/explanations.
Best regards…
Morsecode,
I should explain "well-attested" (and no, you're not stupid) and the comparison with Homer. I am not claiming that the events in the Odyssey ever actually happened. The attestation issue does not speak to the truth of what is written. It speaks to whether what we have today accurately reflects what was originally written. This is the role of a discipline called textual criticism. You see, we have no originals either for Homer or for the New Testament. So, we have to look at the copies that we have, compare them and discern what the originals said. This is why I limited the comment to the "second" possibility, that is not whether the New Testament is true (which, only incidentally to this discussion, I do believe) but whether what we have accurately reflects what the original manuscripts said. Yours is actually a great question.
It's not snarky because you didn't illustrate it with an emoticon. It's snarkly because you're claiming that anyone who subscribes to a faith-based theology is a moron.
And why do you keep saying you're damned? If YOU don't believe you're damned, why should you care what people whom you KNOW to be idiots think or say about you? Seems to me like you're absolutely frittering away your time and energy.
Mike: No one's asking you to accept any theology whatsoever. If you're comfortable asserting as proof of your eminnent rationality that the possibility of a divine, creative intelligence who oversees and sustains the world is equal to the possibility of gremlins living in a computer screen, then … then that's what you think! At that point, it's certainly none of my business.
So John,
On the original topic of your essay of the unforgivable sin…
So someone like myself who finds no evidence for the god of Abraham is most assuredly destined for hell…that much is clear. The same is true for the vast vast majority of humanity who lived well before the time of Jesus' time or had no communications with the remote desert tribes expounding the message.
If humanity has been around for 100,000 years (a conservative estimate), doesn't it seem odd that God waited around 98,000 years to pop in and make his presence known? All the while, his subjects suffering excruciated and early deaths from predation and dental disease. When he does drop in, he gives the message to an semi-literate, isolated tribe with no means of communicating to the rest of the world. He could have at least created the Internet to help get the word out.
I am sorry, but I cannot, by sheer force of will, make myself believe something that has no evidence…and I cannot be forgiven for that? I could certainly feign belief for my mortal friends, but I certainly couldn't fool The Omniscient One. It would be like you, through conscious will, making yourself believe that the pixels on your gorgeous monitor were really little gremlins holding up different colored placards. If you cannot adopt the gremlin theory…then you are normal. If you can…then I will get back to you with a great, ground-floor investment scheme…er…opportunity that I will fabricate…er…let you in on!
“If it is the second, I will remind you that the New Testament, in particular, is the most well-attested document of the period, with over 5000 attesting sources. Contrast that with the works of Homer, for which we have less than 800.”
Two things:
What do you mean by “well-attested”? (This is just me being stupid.)
The works of Homer don’t try and convince us that the events portrayed in them really happened. (At least I don’t think they do. I could be just confirming my stupidity, of course.)
Be very careful about confusing theism with religion. The terms are not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, Buddhism is atheistic (though some iterations contemplate celestial beings but not in the same sense as theists contemplate a god).
Also, Mike, your assertions regarding the origin of the Bible are a little misguided. First, with the exception of the Pentateuch and Joshua, the entire Bible was written outside of the Bronze Age. Secondly, there are few books of anonymous authorship — only one in the New Testament (Hebrews). Finally, at least with regard to the New Testament, the writings were removed from the events they described by less than a century (a very short period of time by standards of historiography — the Old Testament is a little more complicated, but that is another debate regarding the idea of inspiration best reserved for another time), the last book being dated around A.D. 90-100. While we can argue over the idea of supporting “scholarship”, some of the most recent findings (including recent information gleaned from fragments of Matthew) tend to support traditional dating. Obviously, all scholarly conclusions are colored by predispositions to one view or another. Finally, I agree that claiming absolute knowledge is a dangerous thing. That does not mean, however, that we shouldn’t seek it nor does it mean that ALL things are absolutely unknowable.
Mark,
The last time I looked up the dates of the 'ages' (stone, bronze, iron, etc) they were not very precise and, indeed, overlapped. So, Bronze Age…Iron Age…whatever…it was a very very long time ago. In an age where literacy was the exception, awash in messiahs and miracles. We can do a much better job looking at 1908 than people of the year 100 looking back at the Jesus' time.
My point stands.
Wow! You guys are really ROCKIN this comments section! Here I've been off babbling about John Tesh and some hate-mongering troll (on my new post, I mean), and you guys are here actually THINKING. And making so many great points (and doing so so graciously, which I REALLY appreciate) that I can barely juggle them in my sad little head. This is so awesome. It's a real pleasure to host this exhange.
Huh? Jesus at the tail end of the Bronze Age would put him on Earth between about 1000 and 800 BC, at latest datings. That aside, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about scripture. Is it that the writings were originally unreliable or that they have become unreliable through transmission? If it is the second, I will remind you that the New Testament, in particular, is the most well-attested document of the period, with over 5000 attesting sources. Contrast that with the works of Homer, for which we have less than 800.
Lindsey,
It sounds like you an I are almost in the same camp…except for the God part.
Mark,
The age when Jesus was walking around was just the tail end of the Bronze Age but, you are right, much of the writings are well into the Iron Age. Some of which was written as much as *600 years* removed from described events! My readings demonstrate such inconsistencies and conflicts in the bible that we can conclude that MOST of the authors are anonymous…but we won't find common ground here.
I suppose if you are looking at our ability, in 2008, to describe the events of 1908, you are right…we have many resources to rely on and can do a pretty passable job. Documentation several thousand years ago is far more akin to folklore told around a fire. Did you ever play the game of 'telephone'. Stories can get totally munged in the span parlor game…add a couple millenia and, WHEW, we get angels and resurrections and global floods and people from dust, etc. etc..
…and it was you that called Atheism a religion…which it ain't.
The disaster of moral relatavism is found in Jim Jones, Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden, anyone who would trample another human being to death in a Wal Mart to buy a plasma TV. And these are just 20th century examples. What each of these people have in common is that their conduct was completely consistent with their morality. McVeigh thought what he was doing was right. Admittedly, most people do not give into the same impulses, but that’s because there is some standard against which they measure their conduct. John, I’m comfortable with the idea of an innate notion of morality (which I distinguish from human notions of morality. We have a definitional issue here. For me, human notions of morality begin and end in the individual’s mind), but the question is, from where do those spring? Sure there are non-Christians who are very moral, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t guided by divine moral principles (C.S. Lewis has a great take on innate morality in the first few chapters of Mere Christianity. Also see the first book of Calvin’s Institutes). The fact that I’m not Dutch doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy a good edam. I think that “innate, universal” morality comes from God. Personally, I am extremely pessimistic about human nature, which is completely self-serving. I am thankful that most (or at least many) simply go against that nature.
Well, I specifically tried to be vague by saying not just belief in God, but also what God represents- I think if one looks for truth in loving other people, for instance, they will find both truth AND God.
It's when one looks for truth in doctrine and absolutes, no matter what religion, that one gets in trouble.
I DO believe in absolute moral good and evil- but I also don't think we'll ever find them. We'll get closer, but actually finding them? I don't think it's possible. Life and mortality get in the way.
As a follow up…
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." — Mark Twain
Mark:
Atheism, by definition is not a religion. There is no creed. There are no tenets. There is no figurehead. There are no rituals. A-Theism…without theism.
Lindsey:
I've don't really know what you even mean by that. The danger seems in the arrogance of someone thinking they know ANY absolute. The bible was written long after the events described therein by, primarily, anonymous authors and there is a good deal of scholarship that attests to that. For its day, the bible and the bronze-age version of the god depicted within might have been pretty close to the best knowledge of the day. There is much danger in handing one's morality had on the fanciful musings of ignorant, bronze-age authors.
I too, believe, that there are moral absolutes, but they would be far less definable than what we (particularly believers)would like to have. I would rather have a clear picture a general concept than a to claim absolute knowledge and be wrong.
Mark- I think we're probably closer to agreement than you would think.
The danger, then, isn't in saying that morality is relative but in seeking for absolute morality outside of a basis in God and what belief in God represents (Jesus, love).
I do believe that there is absolute moral good, and that it exists because God does.
"Nor were any of Mark Lattimore’s examples truly morally relativistic, they were examples of people who were convinced of their own views to the point of subjugating others to it."
What, exactly, is the difference? While each example I cited would certainly claim to have the monopoly on truth and would not, therefore, SUPPORT a overtly and nominally morally relativistic system, in the scheme of "universal, innate" morality that John mentioned, their moral make-ups are certainly relative to their personal beliefs and socio-pathologies, and are internally consistent. Further, and on a slightly different but related subject, if we say what they did is wrong, then we must be using a standard against which to measure their conduct. If we agree that there is such a standard, then the statement that morality is relative makes no sense. If there is no such standard, then how are we to say that Hitler was wrong. Obviously, Mike and I disagree over the source of that standard and that's fine.
This is not a debate about denominational or even cultural differences in notions of what is moral. This is about truth. While, Lindsey, I agree that we may never grasp the fullness of absolute truth while on this planet, it does not mean that it doesn't exist, nor does it mean that we shouldn't seek after it. I wholeheartedly agree that many, including many Christians, miss the boat is having the arrogance to pronounce that they have the truth (I admit to having been guilty of it, myself). They may know parts of the truth, but it is not theirs to hold or to force on others. Truth is much larger than any one person and it must be accepted by individuals as individuals. That's why I agree with you, Lindsey, that situations such as the ones in the next to last paragraph of your comment are horrible. This does not mean, however, that truth does not exist or that it is customizable to individuals.
While there is no disputing that many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, we must understand two things. First, all human conduct is, at some level, motivated by religious beliefs, whether those be Christian, Muslim, Humanist, or Atheistic. Everyone has religion. Secondly, someone motivated by a perverse reading of their religious tenets, whether it be Hitler or Bin Laden, does not indict the religion, itself, but rather the individual(s) responsible for the perversion. It is easy and fashionable to pin these atrocities on religious systems, but it simply does not withstand scrutiny.
Finally, John, I'm sorry for taking this in a completely different direction. As many discussions do, it has taken on a life of its own. I thank you all, though, for this challenging forum.
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →