That's ironic because I study the ancient languages and I say it's plenty fine.

Its funny, a mormon girl at my school also told me i wasn't actually committing the sin. From what i gathered she said that in order to blasphemy the holy spirit i would have to actualy believe in it and still be in denial of it. but if your denying it you cant believe in it so by that logic its impossible.

That objection always makes me chuckle. It's like hearing "You can't prefer Coke, unless you love Pepsi" or "You can't deny Santa and dispel his myth unless you actually believe a jolly fat man climbs down your chimney once a year". "You cannot argue against the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, unless Nessie sank your boat!"

 Sigh.

Circular logic aggrevates me as well.

Sadly, as I have been trying to point out elsewhere, you have a very superficial understanding of what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Theologians throughout history have generally agreed that this means to be finally unrepentant at death, not to just say that the Holy Spirit does not exist. As I pointed out elsewhere, there would be no difference between this and normal blasphemy (which, nevertheless, remains a mortal sin which kills the soul). If we wanted to construe it as such, any sin would be unforgivable as every sin is, in a manner of speaking, an insult against the Holy Spirit (this of course being absurd).

Lastly, if you want to seem rational in an argument, I don't think the "Blasphemy Challenge" is a particularly rational attempt at anything. It seems to be just an insult or attack upon religion, not an argument. The same goes for remarks such as, "F**k religion," which does not seem to do anyone any good if they want to do more than insult people, and is especially detrimental if you want to seem at all serious about rationally engaging Christians.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael 

I don't see why, seeing as you beg the question of the 'existence' of your 'god' in every argument you make. One would think you were in love with that fallacy.

You didn't say which theologians say this. You also imply that there is universal agreement, when there is not.

But I agree, in general, that blasphemy requires that one accept the existence of 'the thing being blasphemed' (leaving aside the ontological problems of the supernatural for a moment). But others seem to feel that not believing in the 'holy spirit' is blasphemy, and therefore, their 'blasphemy' is implied statement that they do not fear the threat, seeing as they do not believe in the spirit in the first place.

I'd rather that the challenge just be an expression of atheism myself....

The point of the challenge is for people to battle through their irrationalism by standing up to the supposed threat of hellfire that has been inculcated into us since infancy. In that regard, I find the challenge useful.

Yours in Bart Simspon

- todangst

 The Church believes it was right more than because it decided the canon of the Bible. It believe it is right because it existed from Christ and had the authority to determine the canon, which is also an authority to teach what the Bible means. This is important, looking at the splintered sects of Protestantism.

That statement seems rather irrational to me. Nevertheless, I think that the history has anticipated a great deal of your arguments, but many people here have not looked at what the Church taught. A fundie operates according to blind faith, which the Church basically condemned at the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church has always emphasized faith and reason as being in harmony from its earliest days (and in Scripture). 

 I have not made this fallacious assumption.

There is not a universal positive interpretation of the verse, however, most disagree with your particular interpretation. The view you speak of originated very recently and is held by very few fundamentalists. I refer you to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this issue, which is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm.

There is nothing useful about blasphemy (it is still a mortal sin that could send you to hell). I would also argue that it makes you look merely insulting, if not irrational, when you do those videos. There are a great deal of more rational ways to persuade people to your viewpoint rather than sinking to insults.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

It would be question begging if the argument was whether God existed and I assumed He did. If you ask, "how can God do x," or a like question, you assume His existence. If we want to show how faith can be rational, we can do so, giving the scenario in which it is rational. Assuming [a] God exists, and [b] He reveals something X, fact X cannot be in conflict with fact Y known in by natural reason unaided by God. If X and Y have the same source, no contradiction is possible. If you wanted to ask me whether God existed, that is a different question entirely. I could likewise make accusations that you have been question begging throughout your arguments, assuming God did not exist in your replies, or (as you however did) that faith was defined as "a belief without evidence" or the supernatural as "without ontological character," both of which beg the question as to how you justify these definitions.

Christians do not believe it hurts God's feelings when you blaspheme (except metaphorically).

Blasphemy does not amount to 'hurting God's feelings' with a subsequent reprisal. I think you have a mistaken notion of blasphemy. I quote the Catholic position on what blasphemy is:

2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin."

The reason blasphemy is a sin is because it infringes on the just debt of respect we owe to God as creator. It is not God who destroys the soul when blasphemy occur, but, as with all sin, sin itself is the death of the soul. Blasphemy does not hurt God, but hurts the human soul who blasphemes.

I can't imagine what inspires such irrational hatred of religion. I point out the things I said earlier about blasphemy.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom

StMichael

 Please think. Please. The idea of a god who concerns himself with precisely the same things that concern an emotional child is so self refuting that anyone who thinks it through can see the truth.

I don't understand why people purportedly rational would engage in childish insults and post it on the Internet. It is beyond me why you all do it.

I would however agree,

Finally,

If atheism is really the answer, I would find it contradictory, or at least unseemly, that the atheists would become missionary religious zealots of hatred and blasphemy toward religion.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 This is rich coming from a Seminarian, but also false.  Organizing atheists and unifying to rid the world of a disease that has caused more deaths then any other reason in existence to me is not being religious - it's being anti-religious.  It isn't being hateful, we don't hate you.  We hate your beleif, and what your belief spurs in people.  And our blasphemy, again - does it hurt your wittle Gods feelings?  If not, stop whining.  Please.

Perhaps you can explain why your fellow theists do it even more often then?

If you want to call the challenge a bit arrogant, I would have to agree. However it pales in comparison to the arrogance within religion, and the tactics used to spread it.

The point of the video isn't to argue religion. That's what the forum is for. The video is for attention grabbing, and has been quite successful. 

It wouldn't have happened if we weren't the target of hatred from religious zealots for the last few thousand years, up to and including today. You don't blame the dog for biting someone who always hits it. You people asked for it, now it's time to take it in the face. I think you should be happy we use reasonable words instead of threats and death, like your side did.

I'm sorry, would you like to refute something ot just post worthlessly?

Perhaps you are somehow deluding yourself into believing that this site is full of insults towards people? I see a lot of logical conversation, but not a whole lot of insults.