tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post1304885762774346111..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: The Blasphemy Challenge and the blasphemy against the Holy SpiritStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-56328916796090731252007-02-16T19:56:00.000+09:002007-02-16T19:56:00.000+09:00Frank>If you're interested, I have a blogsite agai...Frank<BR/><BR/>>If you're interested, I have a blogsite against the blasphemy challenge here.<BR/><BR/>Thanks. I had a brief look at it.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your point under "2. Is the Blasphemy Challenge rational?" [http://tinyurl.com/387awc]<BR/> <BR/>If atheists *really* didn't think there was a God, it would be irrational challenging what doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>For example, no atheist would waste their time challenging Zeus or Wotan (or the Tooth Fairy), because they *know* they don't exist.<BR/><BR/>So the fact they waste their time (in fact a *lot* of time) challenging the Christian God, shows that deep down they must think He does (or at least could) exist!<BR/><BR/>The late atheist Stephen Jay Gould, when writing about Darwinist treatment of the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, pointed out that it is "a general principle for objects of intense ridicule" (which therefore includes God), "No one likes to waste time on a nonentity":<BR/><BR/>"Who then was this Goldschmidt whom so many reviled in ignorance? First of all-and this must be a general principle for objects of intense ridicule-he could not have been a minor or second-rate thinker, for such scientists are not worth the emotional energy devoted to Goldschmidt's intellectual persecution. No one likes to waste time on a nonentity." (Gould, S.J., "The Uses of Heresy: An Introduction to Richard Goldschmidt's The Material Basis of Evolution," in Goldschmidt, R.B., "The Material Basis of Evolution," [1940], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1982, reprint, p.xiv).<BR/><BR/>That atheists like Richard Dawkins and the organisers of The Blasphemy Challenge waste *so much* time on ridiculing and attacking the *Christian* God, shows that deep down they don't think He is a "nonentity", i.e. they *do* think He is an entity!<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-74011053703418817872007-02-16T18:35:00.000+09:002007-02-16T18:35:00.000+09:00If you're interested, I have a blogsite against th...If you're interested, I have a blogsite against the blasphemy challenge <A HREF="http://blasphemychallenge.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">here.</A>Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-66091337994715169252007-02-15T10:02:00.000+09:002007-02-15T10:02:00.000+09:00Unguided>Calling Dawkins a blasphemer seems to be ...Unguided<BR/><BR/>>Calling Dawkins a blasphemer seems to be overly harsh.<BR/><BR/>The issue in my comment (I did not even mention Dawkins in my post) is not whether Dawkins is "a blasphemer" but whether he had committed the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." <BR/><BR/>As my post with its quotes pointed out, they are two entirely different things. As per my comment, the Apostle Paul admitted to having been "once a blasphemer ... in ignorance".<BR/><BR/>There can be no reasonable doubt that Dawkins is "a blasphemer" in the first sense and I am sure he would proudly admit it! For example, in his book, "The God Delusion," he described the "God of the Old Testament" (who in Christianity is the same God of the New Testament) as:<BR/><BR/>"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.31).<BR/><BR/>However, if you disagree that this makes Dawkins "a blasphemer" in the first sense, then we must agree to differ.<BR/><BR/>The next question is whether Dawkins is "a blasphemer" in the second sense, of having *knowingly* and *deliberately* blasphemed God, and therefore having committed the unforgivable sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit".<BR/><BR/>As I said, "I *personally* think that extreme anti-Christians like Dawkins" do know "deep down that Jesus is (or at least could be) God, and yet still ... *deliberately and knowingly* opposes Jesus, Christianity, and Christians, calling it and them evil, and calling evil and evildoers good" in which case they have "committed the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit".<BR/><BR/>However, if you disagree that this makes Dawkins "a blasphemer" in the second sense also, then again we must agree to differ.<BR/><BR/>I accept that, as I quoted in my post, "Ultimately only God can know when an individual's opposition to his work has reached this stage of irreversible rejection," and so Dawkins could still become a Christian and prove me wrong, in which case I would be *delighted*. Indeed, inconsistently I have often prayed for Dawkins' conversion, the last time only a matter of days ago.<BR/><BR/>In the final analysis, the proof of this pudding is in the eating. <BR/><BR/>>From what I have seen, his issue is evidence. I agree he also ridicules those he sees as doing evil in the Lord's name for their own benefit (and unfortunately these people are not uncommon).<BR/><BR/>Disagree. See above. What "evidence" *could* convince Dawkins (in this life) that God exists and Christianity is true? If the answer is "none", then is that not an operational definition of one who has committed the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"? <BR/><BR/>And *why* does Dawkins selectively pick on the comparatively few Christians who do "evil in the Lord's name for their own benefit" (which persons are also criticised, if not disowned, by most Christians) and ignore *the vast majority* of Christians who *don't* do "evil in the Lord's name for their own benefit"?<BR/><BR/>>However, I would have thought this puts him in the doubting Thomas or Paul cateorgy rather than a blasphemer. <BR/><BR/>We must then agree to disagree. See above.<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-32271363747545088562007-02-15T08:42:00.000+09:002007-02-15T08:42:00.000+09:00StephenCalling Dawkins a blasphemer seems to be ov...Stephen<BR/><BR/>Calling Dawkins a blasphemer seems to be overly harsh.<BR/><BR/>From what I have seen, his issue is evidence. I agree he also ridicules those he sees as doing evil in the Lord's name for their own benefit (and unfortunately these people are not uncommon).<BR/><BR/>However, I would have thought this puts him in the doubting Thomas or Paul cateorgy rather than a blasphemer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-27227803423515613742007-02-14T13:57:00.000+09:002007-02-14T13:57:00.000+09:00Geocreationist>I was glad to see you write on this...Geocreationist<BR/><BR/>>I was glad to see you write on this. I don't think many people are clear on what blashpeming the holy spirit is. However, what you posted is pretty much my own understanding as well.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>>I find it interesting that blaspheming Jesus is forgivable, but it clearly is. Two examples that come to mind are Paul and possibly Peter.<BR/><BR/>I don't know about Peter but Paul admitted in 1 Tim 1:13 that he "was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man" but "was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief."<BR/><BR/>That Paul "acted in ignorance and unbelief" and was forgiven shows that he did not commit the unforgivable sin of "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit", which in turn shows that the latter is *knowingly* acting against God, Christ and Christians. <BR/><BR/>>Do you consider Judas an example of blaspheming the holy spirit?<BR/><BR/>Probably not because, like the other disciples and Paul, he did not really appreciate who Jesus was, i.e. God. <BR/><BR/>See the quote in my post that says, "Rather the _incognito_ character of Jesus' ministry means that failure to recognize him for what he was might be excusable". <BR/><BR/>>Personally, I've never thought the argument all the way through. <BR/><BR/>The key is the "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa 5:20) attitude.<BR/><BR/>That if one knows deep down that Jesus is (or at least could be) God (as I personally think that extreme anti-Christians like Dawkins and the organisers - not necessarily the participants - of this Blasphemy Challenge do), and yet still one *deliberately and knowingly* opposes Jesus, Christianity, and Christians, calling it and them evil, and calling evil and evildoers good (as Dawkins and his ilk do), then one has committed the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", because one has made it *impossible* for one to repent and receive forgiveness from God, which is mediated by the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>It is really nothing new, being contained in the Old Testament, as per one of my quotes: "The difference is then between failure to recognize the light and deliberate rejection of it once recognized; cf. Numbers 15:30-31 for unforgivable blasphemy in contrast with unwitting sin in vv. 27-29." <BR/><BR/>It is also in Isa 6:9-10 as quoted by Jesus in Mt 13:14-16 (see also Jn 12:40 & Acts 28:27): <BR/><BR/>"In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: `You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's *heart has become calloused*; they hardly hear with their ears, and *they have closed their eyes*. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and *turn, and I would heal them*.' But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear." (my emphasis).<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-35789833366706561382007-02-14T07:21:00.000+09:002007-02-14T07:21:00.000+09:00I was glad to see you write on this. I don't thin...I was glad to see you write on this. I don't think many people are clear on what blashpeming the holy spirit is. However, what you posted is pretty much my own understanding as well.<BR/><BR/>I find it interesting that blaspheming Jesus is forgivable, but it clearly is. Two examples that come to mind are Paul and possibly Peter.<BR/><BR/>Do you consider Judas an example of blaspheming the holy spirit? Personally, I've never thought the argument all the way through.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com