It's offensive if we don't speak up. If we don't speak up we let our fellow man be governed myth, that's offensive and obscene to me.

Did you pimp slap her?

I wonder if that guy has read some of the darker parts of the bible or looked into wars or anything like that...

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Caeh5j-Q7wE

And have you seen some of the hateful comments on these videos? One actually said I have the eyes of a child molester (has he examined the eyes of child molesters?) All they got is ad hominem and the same old tired bullshit.

Done. What a moron.

sa-weet. I'm too painfully shy to go on a web cam and do that.

What is this blasphemy challenge, could one of you explain, I heard something on the radio that said that it was based off a verse in Mark?

http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

wow. I thought the link explained it pretty thoroughly. hethsixoespa, it's not a joke. Believing in an invisible friend and making laws that support the notion is not a joke either.

The definition of blaspheme is to speak disrespectful of God or sacred entity. According to the Bibull, if you do this you will not be accepted into heaven. (I believe the passage was mentioned already). I deny the Holey Spirit, therefore I will not be going to a fantasy world when I die. Once these words are spoken, the religious person can no longer attempt to save the soul of the blasphemer. It's a loss cause. In doing this on YouTube, atheists can assert what it means to be an atheist-the lack of god belief. Religious people can get mad and name call and threaten the atheist with hell but it just goes to show how they don't use facts just hatefulness and ignorance.

I really hope this is what you were looking for. If not, please ask exactly what aspect of blaspheming you are looking for and I will try my best.

edit Whoops. Not up there. Here it tis: Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Also there's this: Matthew 12:31-32
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Luke 12:10
But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

I was raised Christian. I prayed, went to church. I was "saved." Now I deny the Holey Spirit. Surely if Hell exists that's where I'm going. Where in Mark 3:29 does it say I have to believe in the holey spirit? Read it again.

I said "Fuck the Holy spirit." We are not "trying to go to hell." We don't believe God, the Holy Spirit or Hell exist, and we are showing just how scared we are.

Marthaspatterhead, may I call you Martha for short?

The greek word used for blaspheme in those passages is blasphemeo (strongs 987,988, and 989), and it means to speak impiously, slanderous, or to have impious speech. The context of the passage in Mark 3:28, 29, is found in verses 20-27. The religous leaders had accused Jesus of being possessed by Satan when he was casting out demons. They were attributing to the Devil the work that Jesus, who claimed to be God, was doing. Indeed what the religous leaders were doing was blasphemy, but not against the Holy spirit, but agianst Jesus. Matthew 12:32 also inlcudes..."Anyone who blasphemes against me, the Son of Man, can be forgiven..." That is precisely what the religous leaders were doing, blaspheming, or attributing to the Devil the work of God, against Jesus. To bring it back around...blasphemy against the Holy Spirit then, would be attributing to the devil the work of the Holy Spirit. The religous leaders in were in no way denying the existence of God, the Messiah (they were, though, denying that Jesus was the messiah), or the Holy Spirit. In fact, in order to attribute to Satan the work of God, you must believe that God exists as the religous leaders did. If you don't believe that God exists, you can't attribute his work to Satan. Denying the existence of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is not blasphemy, it's merely believing that they don't exist, which is not dealt with in the three passages cited.

That doesn't even make sense. Who that actually believed Christianity true would be dumb enough to do that?

OK, I will break it down. Under Christian doctrine, we all, you and me and mankind, are God's, in particular, Yahweh's, children. Yes? When any of His children speak against Him, we are blaspheming. This goes for any religion that is not about Yahweh, as well. Please do not lie (esp. to yourself). In the passage it clearly states

Where does this say, "unless he doesn't believe in Me, then all bets are off?"

and

*here I added your assumption of the verse.

blas·pheme Pronunciation (bls-fm, blsfm)
v. blas·phemed, blas·phem·ing, blas·phemes
v.tr.
1. To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner.
2. To revile; execrate.
v.intr.
To speak blasphemy.
[Middle English blasfemen, from Old French blasfemer, from Late Latin blasphmre, from Greek blasphmein, from blasphmos, evil-speaking, blasphemous; see bh-2 in Indo-European roots.]

Don't try to twist the meaning of blaspheme. It doesn't say "1. To speak of (God or a sacred entity that one believes in) in an irreverent, impious manner.

But all this aside, I would like to say the idea behind the blaspheme challenge is also a way for atheists to out themselves and perhaps provide a bit of empowerment. I do not wish to argue the semantics. I think you get the idea. Take care.

You forget that many of us are apostates. I was at one time a staunch Catholic. I DID believe. I've since renounced, ala "the unforgivable sin" that tripe.

Indeed, and that's the point Flemming makes in his movie. To question or entertain doubt when you DO believe is a VERY scary thing to do.

Martha-

Indeed all may blaspheme whatever they want, God included. But the specific tense of Blaspheme in the three passages we are discussing refers not to a general disrespect, but specifically what the religous leaders were doing, which was attributing to the devil the work that jesus was doing. The passage in Matthew says that even blasphemy against the Son of God could be forgiven. The religous leaders were not denying the existence of anything, as the participants in the challenge videos do, for that is something that most people do at some point in there lives. What they were doing was far more severe, but still forgivable, as they were doing it to jesus, and not the holy spirit.

This is not twisting anything, but looking at the context of the passage we are discussing, and you can't dismiss that.

That's fine if you want to empower yourselves, as long as you understand that the meaning that has been derived from those passages has been taken out of the context of the situation, it's simply that easy. You aren't a lost cause for denying the existence of God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit.

If you still do not want to discuss then I will leave you alone.

Where is that passage?

...but not the Holy Ghost. I'm pretty sure that's what it says.

I am not an idiot and I know where you are trying to go with this. I want you to understand this: I was raised Christian. I believed in God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus as One. I have read a lot of the Bibull. I volunteered when I was young to help at the retirement home with my church. I saw the good in that. I am not trying to get off subject but I think you are implying that I was not Christian "enough" and I take offense to that since I gave my heart to that belief. When I do what the passage says is the unforgivable sin then I am blaspheming for crying out loud.

I am looking at the passage and what I read is what it says. I don't know why there's a need to "interpret" it.

Again you are telling me it was taken out of context. I want proof, a passage you are referring to that will back up this point that you are trying to make.

Yeah, because he doesn't exist.

I will discuss anything until I see that we aren't getting anywhere. I almost think we are at that point but maybe not. I think you have an interesting take on the whole thing. I am assuming you are a Christian? As a Christian, you are probably pretty good at justifying whatever you think. I don't mean this as a put down because to be a Christian means one has the power to rationalize anything. Example, donkey's talking. Numbers 22:28
Yahweh then gave the donkey the power to talk, and she said to Balaam, 'What harm have I done to you, for you to strike me three times like this?' and Numbers 22:30 The donkey said to Balaam, 'Am I not your donkey, and have you not been riding me all your life? Have I ever behaved like this with you before?' 'No,' replied Balaam. Now, when I read those passages, I think wtf? a talking donkey? But a Christian may read that and think "well god can do anything so it's probable back in those days when miracles where more abundant that a donkey could talk." Or as I've heard before too, "it's just symbolism."

I don't know what you are referring to. Esp. since that is what preachers do no matter any evidence against the bibull.

Whether or not I believe doesn't mean squat. (Refer to Yellow Number 5 post above).

Martha-

The context to which I was referring is as follows:
Mark 3:20-30-When Jesus returned to the house where he was staying, the crowds began to gather again, and soon he and his disciples couldn't even find time to eat. When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him home with them. "He's out of his mind," they said. But the teachers of religous law who had arrived from Jeruselum said, "He's possessed by Satan, the prince of demons. That's where he gets the power to cast out demons." Jesus called them over and said to them by way of illustration, "How can Satan cast out Satan? A kingdom at war with itself will collapse. A home divided against itself is doomed...I assure you that any sin can be forgiven, including blasphemy; but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. It is an eternal sin." He told them this because they were saying he had an evil spirit.

You see the context of the passage, Jesus was talking to the religous leaders and responding to what they were saying. The religous leaders adamently believed in God, the Holy Spirit and the Messiah, but were attributing Jesus power to the devil because they couldn't admit that he was the messiah.

Indeed you are right to say that blasphemy against the Son of Man is forgivable and not blaspemy against the Holy Spirit.

Whether or not you were a Christian at some point I had no idea and was not trying to imply anything of that nature...that is not something that I can be the judge of...I would say that is between you and God. I do apologize for any offense, and for implying that you are an idiot, for I certainly do not think that.

I understand what you are saying about doing what the passage says, but I think you may be mistaken as to what the passage says. You believe that simply repeating the words will secure your damnation. But words do not carry any power to either save yourself or damn yourself...it would be the same as just saying, "Lord I accept you as my savior" and then expecting to be saved because you said it. For you must truly believe it with all your being. If that is the case with yourself, then according to the bible you are indeed still saved, and the Holy Spirit still dwells within you, but again i cannot judge that.

Everything written must be interpretted as to the author's intention meaning. I think what you are referring to is reading into the passage (?), and I assure you that I am not. All of what I said can be easily derived from the passage.

As to your being a lost cause, if you don't believe in God, then from your perspective you aren't lost to anything.

As to justifing whatever I think, I am not terribly good at that. My first response to you took me over an hour to research.

As to the donkey, I don't think it was symbolism, I do think that God gave the donkey the ability to speak to balaam in that situation. Ironically, that story is often God Balaam and his Donkey (also called an ass), when it appears as Balaam was being the ass. (Ass is also another good example of meaning two different things depending upon the context).

Certainly I would not try to justify what many preachers say and claim to be true.

Whether or not you believe is the core of the matter. I would say that God cares far less what you say than what you actually believe...it's like telling a lie: you believe one thing and deliberately say another, yet telling the lie does not make it true, because words have no intrinsic power.

And I don't think our discussion is falling into the realm of getting know-where (how do you spell that?)

Symok, how are ya?

No, that is not the only way to blaspheme the holy spirit, because blaspheme means to speak impiously. But in the passage that I have been discussing with Martha, Mark 3:20-30, defines blaspheme more specifically within its context. The religous leaders, who couldn't admit that Jesus was the messiah, attributed Jesus' power to cast out demons to the devil. Verses 29 and 30 read: ..."but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He told them [the religous leaders] this because they were saying he had an evil spirit." That is the reason Jesus' responded the way that he did. Many times have the religous leaders blasphemed Jesus, but it was when they attributed his power to Satan that he responded with this specific answer. It's not illogical at all, and it doesn't defy the definition of blaspheme. The context of the passage simply gives blaspheme a more specific definition, called a connotation. If the religous leaders had said that to Jesus when Jesus was eating fish, then they would have been attributing his power to eat fish to Satan, which probably would have been more silly than anything. But they didn't, so that's really not relevant. Read the passages again and see if you can see where I am coming from. You can't isolate a passage of scripture from its context and interpret it by itself, you can't do that with any piece of writing by anyone, context is a basic method of interpreting the intention of the author.

What you actually believe about the holy spirit is your business, between you and God as I have said. But if you don't believe in the Holy spirit, why are you so adament to blaspheme Him? Why do you even care? I don't see people trying to rid the world of the belief in Santa Claus, and if you equate Santa Clause and the Holy Spirit, why is it so important to you?

Jeremiah Smith, hello-

It would seem to me that the best way not to get preached at would be to do nothing that would stimulate a response out of a christian. If that is what you want, then simply don't say anything at all or respond in anyway or disagree, then I am sure you will recieve the minimal amount of preaching.

I think that what is stimulating responses to your blaspheming is that at least I disgree with your interpretation of the specific passage as I have laid out. Best not to have an opinion at all in order to not be preached at.

Martha-

What I meant was that if Jeremiah Smith does not want to be preached at, it would be better to not say anything which would stimulate such a response. However I do not believe that anyone should keep quiet and that being preached at is a natural consequence of disagreeing with most people about most things. It isn't necessarily a negative thing to encounter.

And if you want Christians to leave you alone, then live peacably in your belief as Christians do who want to be left alone. A website such as this does not communitcate a desire to be left alone, but rather to stimulate discussion, which is a good thing.

No offense intended.

This philosophy would work better if it were not for the fact that the simple admission that one is an atheist will usually stimulate such a response, and the response is frequently just preaching. Yeah, we get theists who come around looking for a discussion, but other atheist forums I've been on tend to have a bunch of drive-by preachers who just post a bunch of Bible verses and arguments that have been rebutted a dozen times, and then never come back to the thread to follow up the discussion. We don't need that. No one wants that. A reasonable discussion is always fun, at least until it gets to sixty pages of one guy who just doesn't get it. But someone who has no inclination for discussion is just an annoying bother.

In any case, the second item on that list wasn't intended as seriously as the first, which is that denial of the Holy Spirit is a demonstration that we're not just faking it. That's probably the big reason we're all doing this: we're not just in denial, or going through a phase, we really do think it's all bollocks, and we'll prove it by putting it all on the line.