Unforgivable sin

[nobspeople]

What is it?
How do you do it?
Why is it unforgivable (in your opinion)?
Why is it unforgivable (based on the bible)?
Can you do it without knowing?

What other 'need to know' bits about unforgivable sin can you offer that needs debated?

[TRANSPONDER]

The simplest answer to this most mysterious conundrum is ;

Whatever the individual feels they have done which is unforgivable, then that is what is unforgivable.

What if they feel it's forgivable but someone else doesn't?

Then refusing to be forgiving has its own penalty on the unforgiving?

But then the one who has done something bad (by all morality) but thinks it's good gets away with it while those who cannot let it pass (until at least the fellow repends and admits the wrong) get punished? How would that make sense, or even be moral?

Any sin being unforgivable is theologically untenable, as it would essentially make sin more powerful than God.

Not necessary, because it can be that God just don't want to forgive all sins.

Except.....

"'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord God. 'Therefore turn and live!'" (Ezekiel 18:32)

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." (2 Peter 3:9)

Other than the ones who have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, I presume, unless the dubious 2 Peter knows better than Jesus, who said what would Not be forgiven, presumably even if they repented.

But there's also this twist:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

And this one:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

Well, there we are. If the person does not confess his sins (say, he is convinced that God told him to do it) then he is not going to repent and indeed has already forgiven himself and it is those who will not forgive (and forget) who are going to be punished. Ok I know different people made the two posts but you see how different Interpretations come into a car crash?

It's the reason I found that Buddhists dogma of Karma didn't add up, because if there is no god that judge deeds and it's an unthnking natural phenomenon, who decides whether a deed is good or not, if the person thinks it is but other think not?

[1213]

Any sin being unforgivable is theologically untenable, as it would essentially make sin more powerful than God.

Not necessary, because it can be that God just don't want to forgive all sins.

Except.....

"'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord God. 'Therefore turn and live!'" (Ezekiel 18:32)

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." (2 Peter 3:9)

I agree that God doesn't want anyone to perish. But, I don't think it means God wants that at any cost.

[Athetotheist]

Any sin being unforgivable is theologically untenable, as it would essentially make sin more powerful than God.

Not necessary, because it can be that God just don't want to forgive all sins.

Except.....

"'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord God. 'Therefore turn and live!'" (Ezekiel 18:32)

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." (2 Peter 3:9)

I agree that God doesn't want anyone to perish. But, I don't think it means God wants that at any cost.

A god who is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) and shows mercy to those he will show mercy (Romans 9:18) has put himself on the hook as being both willing and able to forgive any sin.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #31]

But then the one who has done something bad (by all morality) but thinks it's good gets away with it while those who cannot let it pass (until at least the fellow repents and admits the wrong) get punished? How would that make sense, or even be moral?

I wasn't saying so through the filter of mortality.

However, the questions are still worth answering.

But then the one who has done something bad (by all morality) but thinks it's good gets away with it

We are speaking about something which does not [perhaps because it cannot] include 'what it is' which constitutes "blasphemy against The Holy Ghost"
_______
Q: Why is the GHost not seen?

A: BEcause it is full of holes.
_______a joke I think I just made up

Since it is undisclosed what "blasphemy against The Holy Ghost" actually is, we have some options.

We can jump at shadows and live life fearfully
We can make things up and tell others they can never be forgiven
We can assume that anything we cannot forgive our self from having done, the same as "blasphemy against The Holy Ghost"
[perhaps the list goes on but that will do.]

while those who cannot let it pass (until at least the fellow repents and admits the wrong) get punished?

That is what I refer to as victim/vampire dynamics.

That includes those things you mention plus 'those who cannot let it pass get punished.'

These are a big part of what I call 'The Human Drama'.

Well, there we are. If the person does not confess his sins (say, he is convinced that God told him to do it) then he is not going to repent and indeed has already forgiven himself and it is those who will not forgive (and forget) who are going to be punished. Ok I know different people made the two posts but you see how different Interpretations come into a car crash?

It's the reason I found that Buddhists dogma of Karma didn't add up, because if there is no god that judge deeds and it's an unthnking natural phenomenon, who decides whether a deed is good or not, if the person thinks it is but other think not?

That is what I am arguing - the one who decides is the one who does the deed and deals with it however they choose to deal with it.

FOr example, "those who cannot let it pass" are dealing with 'it' the way they choose to.

Bob rapes Jill.

Bob is punished by society.

THrough the punishing sequence, Bob realizes his raping Jill was wrong on many levels, and Bobs sets about dealing with each and every one of those levels until he is clear as to why he raped Jill in the first place [as a matter of personal choice with explanatory notations attached] and why it was correct for society to punish him for doing so, what he learned about himself re his actions, what he never wanted to ever repeat again...all that and more...

Bob eventual gets to the point where he can forgive himself for having raped Jill.

Jill on the other hand, has allowed what Bob did to her, to ruin her whole life and she never gets very far along from that position of ruination.

Now lets assume that Jill was kept informed of Bobs life behind bars and throughout the years comes to know that Bob is a changed individual - and as far as society is concerned, Bob has changed for the better.
Let us even assume that Bob sent Jill a letter of sincere regret and remorse and even offered Jill he would do anything he could to help Jill restore the damage his actions had inflicted upon her, and she wrote back asking him to hang himself, because she felt that this would help her immensely.

RQ: Can we see in this, why the idea of hell as punishment is so popular with certain types of Christians....

Point being, Bob is 'forgiven' even if Jill refuses to do so.

Because Bob has forgiven himself.

Because society gave him the opportunity to learn to do so.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well argued, but that has nothing to do with the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy. The point there (and on the topic) is not someone else (or society) forgiving a person (forgiving himself is a dubious standard indeed) but whether Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (whatever that actually is - examples are not given) is something hat God will not or cannot forgive, even if the rest of humanity forgives the perpetrator.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]

It really doesn't matter what constitutes any particular sin. The point is that if there's any sin a savior isn't made into (2 Corinthians 5:21), if any record of debt isn't nailed to a savior's cross (Colossians 2:14), if there's any sin over which a savior's grace doesn't abound (Romans 5:20), then a savior hasn't done the whole job, and the sinner is still living under the curse of a law.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]

It really doesn't matter what constitutes any particular sin. The point is that if there's any sin a savior isn't made into (2 Corinthians 5:21), if any record of debt isn't nailed to a savior's cross (Colossians 2:14), if there's any sin over which a savior's grace doesn't abound (Romans 5:20), then a savior hasn't done the whole job, and the sinner is still living under the curse of a law.

No one has been "saved", and everybody will die for their own iniquities (Jeremiah 31:30). As stated in Joel 2:31-32, the best one can do is "survive" the "day of the LORD", which is best described in Matthew 24 as the "great tribulation", which "immediately after" comes the "son of man". The time of the "great tribulation" will have to be "cut short" in order for anyone to survive (Matthew 24:22). According to what is written in Matthew 24:13, only those who "endures to the end" will survive (be saved). As for any "records", those will be recorded in the "book of life", which will contain the deeds everyone is to be judged from. As for 2 Corinthians 5:21-6:2, taken from Isaiah 49:8, it refers to Israel/Jacob, who will be "restored" (Joel 3:1) & (Isaiah 49:8-23) whereas the "nations"/Gentiles will become Jacob's servants (Isaiah 14:1-2).

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]

It really doesn't matter what constitutes any particular sin. The point is that if there's any sin a savior isn't made into (2 Corinthians 5:21), if any record of debt isn't nailed to a savior's cross (Colossians 2:14), if there's any sin over which a savior's grace doesn't abound (Romans 5:20), then a savior hasn't done the whole job, and the sinner is still living under the curse of a law.

No one has been "saved", and everybody will die for their own iniquities (Jeremiah 31:30). As stated in Joel 2:31-32, the best one can do is "survive" the "day of the LORD", which is best described in Matthew 24 as the "great tribulation", which "immediately after" comes the "son of man". The time of the "great tribulation" will have to be "cut short" in order for anyone to survive (Matthew 24:22). According to what is written in Matthew 24:13, only those who "endures to the end" will survive (be saved). As for any "records", those will be recorded in the "book of life", which will contain the deeds everyone is to be judged from. As for 2 Corinthians 5:21-6:2, taken from Isaiah 49:8, it refers to Israel/Jacob, who will be "restored" (Joel 3:1) & (Isaiah 49:8-23) whereas the "nations"/Gentiles will become Jacob's servants (Isaiah 14:1-2).

"....just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28)

You quote the Christian gospels, but you don't seem to believe that verse. What do you think Jesus means there?

[TRANSPONDER]

A very nice doctrinal fight between you two. (I love 'em ) but you do clarify the matter and the resultant question:

Given that we are all sinners deserving of 'death' (whether that is a euphemism for Hell or not) we were ALL for the high jump or rather the long drop before God sacrificed a man unto himself in order to create a loophole in his own Rules.

The philosophical question is: 'Is there a sin so bad that even repentance and genuine conversion to Jesusfaith won't save them?' Jack the ripper was never caught; he just stopped. Well suppose he saw the light and ended up following General Booth and banging a tambourine and praising Jesus? He's ok for heaven and never paid for his crimes? Well, for the atheists (not that they believe in Afterlives anyway) realising that retribution is futile is as heady a mental gear - shift as no longer being afraid of death (never mind being oblivious to hellthreat).

But the Doctrinal point here is: given the discussion about whether Any crime or wickedness can be forgiven aside from the argument that Good Deeds are enough to get you Saved when clearly it is only Jesusfaith that will save and good deeds are merely a backup to ensure you don't lose Grace (1), is there one deed of wickedness that is guaranteed to not ever be forgiven and even God can't overrule that? If so, just what is it to 'Blaspheme' or 'speak against' the Holy Spirit?

Interesting Bible -discussion. Which fortunately I don't have to worry about.

(1) which is what Paul is Really saying, though so man Biblereaders don't seem to get it, but we probably have the Ghost - Bible at work here again.

[William]

Well argued, but that has nothing to do with the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy. The point there (and on the topic) is not someone else (or society) forgiving a person (forgiving himself is a dubious standard indeed) but whether Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (whatever that actually is - examples are not given) is something that God will not or cannot forgive, even if the rest of humanity forgives the perpetrator.

My argument is that if the individual can forgive 'whatever BAHG is' then it cannot be called 'unforgivable.'

Is there any more information re the one who does the judging, as to what the criteria for being guilty of an unforgivable thing is?

The OP appears to at least suggest that there is more that is unknown about the subject than there is that is known about it.
"something that God will not or cannot forgive,"? Is there information you have about this which promoted you to write that?