Sinning for Others

And I'm right. Meh, you'll be forgiven.The question was about an unforgivable sin.

And my answer was that the definition of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is too wishy-washy for us to be sure we're not doing it.

Huh? You just said I was being too specific, now its wishy-washy?Make sense already

Yes. The definition is wishy-washy and you're cherry-picking one possibility to make it simple. Like if the Bible says "a large animal" and you say, "a cow".

No, the story I posted is the only mention of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit and is the only mention of an unforgivable sin.It can't be cherry-picking when there's only one piece of fruit.I agree that blasphemy, in general, is fairly nebulous. But its not an unforgivable sin.And the single example that we have of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is fairly well-defined and even comes with a concrete example.I think you're just equivocating.

Whether the example is helpful or not, it's pretty clear that the sin itself is pretty open ended. Notice that the sin itself is defined as "but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost". That's not very specific at all.It's like pointing out that someone going 70 MPH is speeding and then declaring speeding against the law without ever actually saying what the fuck the speedlimit is.As a directive, it couldn't be any more useless.

Lets try saying it another way. "Whosoever speaks against what they know their conscience to be...". There. Does that ever happen? Well basically it shouldn't. The disconnect is obvious.If we keep going against what we know to be correct, we are in trouble.

That's the problem. You can't derive a general principle from one example. You have one cherry in the nebula but you have no basis for drawing a line.

If you mean doing/not doing things despite knowing doing/not doing so to be 'right', then I'd argue that it's pretty much impossible to be a human and not be guilty of something like that.We always go against our judgements and often fail to do what we believe to be right. In fact, I'd say people, even the best, likely fail to do what they know is right far more often than they do do what they think is right or even avoid doing something they think is wrong. Homo sapiens just seems to be a synonym for 'miserable fucking failure'.Doing our best is so hard; but that is also what makes it so absolutely meaningful when weon the most rare of occasionsactually manage to do it.

You're just pointing to the summary, its more specific than just that. There's the concrete example before them that Jesus explains further with an analogy. Its quite detailed so I don't understand how you can complain that it isn't specific.I posted the whole section already, there's more to it than "but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost". Sure it could, it could have contained a lot less.

You're still not making sense, Ringo. What is this general principle I have derived and what line have I drawn? How did this problem go from me cherry-picking one possibility to make it simple to now me only having one example to choose from so its not enough?

Because as you said, it's an example. Going 70 MPH is also an examplea very detailed and concrete one.But just offering that one example doesn't really clarify "thou shalt not speed".The directive is vague as hell, and you need more than one example to clear it up. No need to tell jokes. Your position is funny enough as is.

You've drawn a line between blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and plain old garden variety blasphemy. You've used one example in the Bible to "prove" that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unique. But the Bible as a whole isn't all that clear on what the Holy Spirit even is, so it isn't possible to pinpoint what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is either.