And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven...

>saying bad words against a part of the Trinity is not
Slander can be forgiven, blasphemy against the spirit can not.

It's presumably on the level of being an ascended archwizard and doing sin for the lulz.

>As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain.

>For he says,
>"In the time of my favor I heard you,
>and in the day of salvation I helped you."

>I tell you, now is the time of God's favor,
>now is the day of salvation.

You fucked up OP, arguing for no reason against the most patrician, divinely-inspired philosophy ever.

>thinking this quote is about speech

oh boy

God has a more refined morality than you
"this hurts my feelings and makes my brain itch" isn't an argument

Shame. You could have enlightened a fellow user who didn't have a clear understanding about scripture, yet you didn't because "I don't have to explain shit to you bruh lmao"

Watch OP. Then keep your mouth shut for a while. Merci.

youtu.be/1zMf_8hkCdc

God doesn't exist home boy

About what is it then? Help me out, will ya?

Problem is it's not God's morality, it's the morality of whoever wrote Matthew.

still not an argument

Presumably God is the author of the Bible which includes Matthew. Plus the concept of Blasphemy against the Spirit is present in Mark and Luke as well.

Oh, and Mark and Luke too? They both speak about the exact same thing.

>Presumably God is the author of the Bible

...

Good link user. Except Fr. Barron references Augustine as an authority. He's just a scrub commentator, like the authors of the hadiths in Islam.

The blasphemy in this quote is linked to "non-repentance", as in the act of denying the Spirit's influence, of denying Logos, denying truth. Which means if you throw away all your chances of acknowledging your sins, each refusal will not be forgiven; by yourself if you eventually repent, and by God, and the World, if you don't.

*tips meme hat*

Say about Buddhists what you want, at least they don't have shitty rules like "don't talk shit about my god or you're goinna hell son"

instead they have shitty rules like "wanting things is the source of all evil, therefore lets all stop wanting things"

>He's just a scrub commentator, like the authors of the hadiths in Islam.

Jihadists are pseuds? who would have thought. Islam and quran is absolute garbage, here's proof:

>Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.

you're*

If you had any genuine reverence for God you'd appreciate the seriousness of the sin of blasphemy.

Holy fuck. No theologian, no Church authority actually thinks that this Matthew quote is referring to slander.
This is a caricatural interpretation.

That's just an interpretation of what is otherwise a pretty straightforward passage. I don't how the passage has another than the actual words Jesus said.

...

The actual words Jesus said were not in English. The meaning is still there if you actually use your faculties earnestly.

Is it funny that I read that bit about ravenous wolves and think of every poser in Christian theology after Christ? Even the council of Nicea, just a few hundred years later. They took a perfectly good message on how to live and turned it into something bad. Augustine was a heretic pseud and plagiarist.

The hadiths are the sayings and parables about Muhammad (PBUH) that circulated after his death and tell people how to live. Like sharia (or pleb Christianity), it's almost a complete misunderstand of the source material fabricated in its time.

>Augustine was a heretic pseud and plagiarist.
source needed

Neither did he speak Greek and yet the whole New Testament is written in it. How is anyone supposed to know what his actual words were.

Truth remains, because the fruit remains; Christianity has given us the Western Civilization.

>how does it feel to worship a god as petty as a 6 year old school child

>how would it feel to not do this?
>be william blake
>ywn know
>*Imagination intensifies*

Was gonna post a side by side of my books but BAM this is easier for you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism_and_Christianity

Pic related is almost word for word copied by Augustine, except his work is addressed to a divine "Thou" and drenched in mortal obsequiousness.

The Holy Spirit will guide you.
If you respond to this post with cynicism, beware - eternal sin.

Why are there so many Christian demoninations then if all you needed to understand God's Word was praying for the Holy Spirit?

Not only prayer is required, anyway largest denominations don't differ that significantly; they're still called denominations and not different religions.

one of my favorites

Friendly reminder that God is a being of indescribable horror and terror and far more antihuman than Satan.

>whoever wrote Matthew.
hmm would that by any chance be Matthew?

I'm not sure where you get this idea from? It's explicit that the bible is written by multiple authors, presumably divinely inspired, but it's hard to argue that he actually possessed their bodies and wrote the words for them... that being said, everything that is in the bible is in it by God's will

But you know this god exists how?

>durrrrr atheist r dumb because they don't know thomas aquinas but me conveniently ignoring the last 500 years of philosophy is ok
>durrrrrrrrrrrr modern sciences can't say if there is a God because God is outside the realm of physical things but I CAN SAY HE EXISTS BECAUSE MUH PHYSICAL EXPERIENCES AND MUH BIBLE
>and not only i can say that God exists but i can also describe his will in detail

This is your brain on intellectualized christianity

was responding to