Remember the The Blasphemy Challenge, sponsored by The Rational Response Squad, who were giving away 1001 copies of the movie The God Who Wasn’t There to people who will create a video of themselves denying the existence of God, and especially, the Holy Spirit?  They posted their videos on YouTube.
So, what should Christians make of this atheist antic? I watched all of the videos, and have some comments
1. They were encouraging people to “deny the Holy Spirit”
They were doing so in the belief that, in committing the “unpardonable sin,” they were showing that they were not afraid of damnation nor any of the demands or threats of the Christian faith.
They were doing so based on the following passages
Matthew 12:22-33
Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”Knowing their thoughts, he said to them,
“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Luke 12:8-10Â (see also Mark 3:28-29)
And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
So, in “denying the Holy Spirit, these people felt like they were purposely comitting the “unpardonable sin” in order to show their unbelief in, disdain for, and courage in abandoning the Christian faith.
2. But were they blaspheming correctly?
Um, probably not. In his sermon on this subject, well known and respected (fundamentalist) preacher John MacArthur says the following:
The Pentecostal people tell us that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is when you say their experience in the Holy Spirit isn’t valid, and that isn’t true either. That isn’t even the issue here!  Nobody is even talking about that! What is the issue here is simply this: Jesus did what He did by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So, in context (that of saying that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Satan), just saying “I deny the Holy Spirit” is cute, but not really damning.
Now, what it means is this: these people had received all the revelation they could receive. They had heard Jesus teach….The point here is, here were a group of men, the leaders of Israel, who had had the epitome of revelation. They had it all. The fulfillment of all Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament, the corroboration by the very statements of Christ and the deeds of Christ that He was the Messiah, and their conclusion was that He was of Satan.
Now, what happened? With all the revelation that God could possibly give them, they concluded the very opposite. And our Lord says, “It’s impossible for you to be saved.” Why? “Because when you had all the revelation, you concluded that I was satanic.” That’s hopeless.
This, then, is the unpardonable sin. It was a historic thing. It was committed at a very specific period in time by some specific people who attributed the works of Christ to Satan. And when they evaluated everything that Jesus was and did, they said He was from the devil.
That was the opposite to the truth and Jesus simply said, ‘If, when all the revelation is in, you conclude that I am satanic, you’re done. Because you couldn’t get any more than all the revelation, could you? You’re hopeless. You could never be forgiven! If you spoke a word against the Son of Man, the humanness, the life of Jesus Christ – you may misunderstand that, but you could never misunderstand the work of the Holy Spirit to this extent, that when He is pointing to me as God, you conclude that I’m Satan. You’re hopeless.”
3. So, can someone commit the “unpardonable sin” today? NO.
Let’s return to MacArthur:
No, I don’t think so; I think that has to be committed when Christ is here on earth.
Just to double check, I looked over at another favorite site of mine, Apologetics Press.
Opinions on this question certainly vary, and scholars seem to be divided in their positions. The evidence, however, seems to point toward the idea that this sin cannot be committed today.
4. What about those passages that talk about falling away or losing one’s salvation?
Some people like to tie the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” scriptures with others that discuss believers who fall away. But let me say clearly, that is an entirely different matter.
In the examples above, the Pharisees probably had NOT believed yet, so they were not losing faith. So that probably addresses unbelievers today who think they are “blaspheming the Holy Spirit.”
Some contend, however, that there is a related unpardonable sin, committed by those who once believed and no longer do.
Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
While it is theologically possible to lose one’s faith (see 2 Peter 2:20-22), losing one’s faith is not irreversible. I am a testimony to that. So is Peter the Apostle, who denied Jesus thrice (you could argue that the Holy Spirit had not yet come, so his example may not fit). As Reformation Theology warns:
Perhaps this is one of the most terrifying passages in Scripture, but, as is usually the case, when a passage is read in isolation and without regard to the context of the surrounding passage, theological error is bound to creep in.
I’ll cut to the chase – this passage does NOT teach that if you fall away, you can’t come back. Here’s Matthew Henry’s commentary
But the falling away here mentioned, is an open and avowed renouncing of Christ, from enmity of heart against him, his cause, and people, by men approving in their minds the deeds of his murderers, and all this after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and tasted some of its comforts. Of these it is said, that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Not because the blood of Christ is not sufficient to obtain pardon for this sin; but this sin, in its very nature, is opposite to repentance and every thing that leads to it.
In other words, men who purposely harden themselves to God have made an informed choice, and God will not force himself into such a heart. They know the deal, and refuse it. Does that mean all who understand the gospel, become “believers” and then turn away are doomed?
Let me say this – if you are worried about having fallen away, and hope that if God is real, God will help you to believe again, then you’ve got hope. However, if you purposely make a decision and, as many of those in the videos have said, “have no fear,” you may have made your bed, sorry to say.
Let me be the first to say that there is a bit of paradox here, as there are in all profound truths. In this case, it could be argued that the doctrine of falling away contradicts that of eternal security. And I would agree, just like the doctrines of predestination and free will seem to contradict. But in reality, they are both true, even if our logic breaks down. Contrary to opinion, reason and science alone can not explain all of reality, especially spiritual reality, because
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
5. So what’s really going on with the blasphemy challenge?
Easy. People hurt by religion are rejecting it. Obviously, many grew up in anti-intellectual churches, cults, or in some other way were hurt or offended by religion. Now, some may be rejecting the claims of Christendom and the Bible themselves for intellectual reasons alone.
6. Are these people rejecting faith for intellectual reasons alone?
No, no one really does that. You know why? Because their own souls witness to the fact that God exists. Maybe not the Christian God specifically, but the moral law is written on our hearts, and all of creation screams that a God exists.
Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)Psalm 19:1-3
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
As has been said, too, atheism is a type of faith – it is believing that something does NOT exist even though you can’t prove it. While agnosticism is defendable with reason, atheism is merely it’s own belief system, or anti-faith if you like, not a stand based on reason alone.
7. What could we do to help these suffering people?
Of course, they would resent the adjective “suffering” above, though it is obvious that many are suffering the effects of bad religion. Sure, they feel better now that they are not serving out of compulsion and forced, outward belief, but is that the END of their journey of faith?
For many, it will be their last dealings with faith. Having left unhealthy faith systems, they may forever abandon the God with the bathwater, never knowing the true joys of faith, nor the transforming power of God’s love and truth.
In my next post, I’ll discuss what Christians can do to address the Blasphemy Challenge.
…the doctrines of predestination and free will seem to contradict. But in reality, they are both true, even if our logic breaks down.
Wise words indeed. Real religion demands that when logic breaks down and contradictions arise, just believe without logic. This is faith. Those who call it insanity or delusion have not yet learned to jettison reason.
…never knowing the true joys of faith, nor the transforming power of God's love and truth.
It saddens me that these young people who took up the Blasphemy Challenge will never know the bliss religious ignorance can bring. I live by those words "destroy the wisdom of the wise" as any real Christian would. Things like logic, reason and science are only barriers between man and a true understanding of God. One can not use reason and logic to understand the spiritual, the supernatural, and the irrational. So why bother? Be like sheep and don't think about it; just believe.
Atheists kicking and tossing the religious can :)
Tell me, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
2006 may go down in history as the year the Religious Right finally jumped the shark, going over the top so high at last (as every Great Awakening in history ever has) that even some of their own followers noticed that their utopian fantasies were, finally, unworkable. Unmoored at last from the real-world concerns of their own moderates, and convinced (as authoritarians usually are) that the only answer can ever be more intrusion, more patriarchy, and more control, they’ve given us some singularly gobstopping moments this year, as a stunned nation finally stood in shock and awe, taking in the fully revealed and spectacularly bizarre details of their version of a Christianized America.
We saw the reductio ad absurdum of the idea that life begins at fertilization, which brought us false tragedy of frozen “snowflake babies,” and the real tragedy of Michael J. Fox’s frozen features — and, ultimately, the thawing awareness that if America turns its back on stem cell research, it is doing nothing short of opting out of the biggest revolution in medicine since the discovery of germs.
We saw the pro-choice activists — who have been telling us for years that the real target wasn’t Roe but Griswold — proven catastrophically right, as South Dakota tried to ban all abortions and the National Right to Life Foundation openly put itself on record as opposing most forms of birth control. Many of us were quite surprised. And quite a few of us weren’t, because we knew they’d never stopped saying this kind of thing to each other in private since the days of Margaret Sanger.
We finally saw the media take a good hard look at longstanding experiments in radical patriarchy like Quiverfull families and fundamentalist Mormonism. And we realized that among patriarchy’s greatest perversions is the way it fetishizes women as children, and children as women; and that men who gravitate to these extreme forms too often have some very weird psychosexual shit going on that makes them unsafe around minor girls.
And if there was any doubt about that, we saw videos ricocheting around the Internet of earnest young women at “purity balls” publicly pledging their chastity to their daddies — and daddies, in turn, publicly swearing to “cover” (a choice word that means one thing to fundies, and quite another to anyone who grew up where livestock were bred) their daughters by holding them to it. And we watched, and shuddered, and the only word that seemed to fit was creepy.
We heard from the anti-environmental extremists who are learning in church that global warming isn’t an issue, because God will fix it. (Would this be the same God who once deliberately drowned his entire creation in a flood? Just asking.) And we realized that the right-wing War on Science is not only real; but that it has already been more deadly than the war in Iraq — and we have yet to see the full magnitude of the disaster.
We finally faced up to the size of the conservative movement’s walk-in closet, which is big enough for Mark Foley and Ted Haggard and Ken Mehlman and a whole lot of Congressional aides, and we wondered once again just what Jeff Gannon was doing during those nights at the White House.
Alongside this, we saw the deeply venal corruption of the most “Christian” members of Congress, who betrayed the futures of the poor and middle class — both in America, and elsewhere — on behalf of their wealthy friends, even as they attempted to tear up the Constitution and institute Government by Divine Fiat. And we learned — bitterly — that the bigger and brighter a public figure’s faith or patriotism appears to be, the more likely it is that they have never actually paid much attention to what’s really in either the Bible or the Constitution.
And, to cap This Year in Hypocrisy, we’ve got the Department of Health and Human Services telling Americans under 30 to just stop fooling around. At which point pretty much everybody in the country knew that we’d ascended to a whole new shark-jumping level of whackadoodlery, and stopped being gobstopped, and just started rolling their eyes and laughing. Our self-appointed moral scolds finally overplayed their hand. No need to hold it back any more — it’s OK now to giggle and point. In fact, we have a moral duty of our own to do so, loudly and long, whenever we’re confronted with this sort of reactionary absurdity.
The recurring theme in all these stories is this: The Religious Right, overweening in its self-righteousness and drunk on hubris and power, is no longer making even the slightest effort any more to keep its crazies in the closet. Free at last from any accountability to reason, they’re increasingly taking positions that are guaranteed to alienate ever-wider swaths of the American electorate.
Over 90% of American women will use contraception at some point in their lives (most of them, ostensibly, with the support of their male partners). A National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association study done last spring found that even 80% of anti-choice Americans support giving women access to contraception. Likewise, 70% of Americans consider themselves environmentalists; and 88% think global warming poses a serious future threat. Two-thirds of us think the government should support stem-cell research. The election showed that most of us had had about enough of the GOP’s devotion to charity for the upper classes only. And now, this week, it’s being reported that 95% of all Americans engage in premarital sex, and have been doing so rather robustly for several generations now.
When you set the opinions of the vast majority of Americans against the extremist views the religious right staked out this year, you have to wonder: What are they thinking? Surely, they can’t believe that staking out such extreme positions is the way to recover their political clout, and win back hearts and minds?
Actually: Yes. It is quite possible that this is exactly what they believe.
Remember that while the soft core authoritarian right was drawn to the movement for reasons of security in a time of fear (and is equally susceptible to being drawn away if their own perception of threat changes, as it is now), the smaller and more enduring hardcore has a different agenda. These people are lifelong right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) because they believe that a world without strong authority enforcing black-and-white rules is a world in which chaos must reign. To them, the only authorities worth following are those that place the most stringent demands from their followers. Rigidity and extremism are a sign that their leaders care enough to set high standards; punishment is a sign that they are noticed and loved.
Because of these beliefs, the first authoritarian response to any failure — a lost election, dropping ratings, or a stymied legislative agenda — is to demand that ever-stronger authority step in to enforce even more draconian standards. At this late hour, when their three-decade-long party is finally showing signs of breaking up, the hardcore RWAs are increasingly the only ones left. Drunk on the hard stuff, this is how they think: The more they lose, the more obstreperously they will insist on doing more of whatever it was they were doing before, back in the days when they were succeeding.
Opposing abortion was a 30-year winner. If we’re losing support now, it’s because we got too soft; so let’s regain the moral high ground by opposing contraception and stem cell research, too. If opposing environmentalism made us powerful friends in the past, then opposing global warming should attract quite a few more. If our emphasis on family purity and patriarchy attracted millions of members, then making a public spectacle out of our oversized families and our prepubescent daughters’ virginity oughta really wow the crowd.
Stay tuned. It’s only going to get weirder for a while. We’re probably going to see even more Fundie Follies in 2008, as the realization dawns that their social and political clout are fading. The more acutely they feel the loss, the more outrageous their attempts to push old favorite themes to new extremes will become. Which will, of course, only speed the continued loss of clout and followers, and turn up the volume on the general derision level. Which will, in turn, lead to even stranger pronouncements and more aggressive attempts to ship us all back to the 19th century, the shuddering machinery throwing off bolts and sparks and passengers with every accelerating and doomed orbit.
The good news is this: The stranger it gets, the closer we are to done. This is how Great Awakenings end in America — with the last handful of remaining True Believers yelling ever-crazier things on street corners, while the sane and sober citizens sidestep them on their way to doing the real work of the country.
Sara, I hope you're right.
"while the sane and sober citizens sidestep them on their way to doing the real work of the country."
Sara, I am afraid there arent really too many sober Americans left.
(I havent read the rest, I will come back later.)
I have been watching some of the video's from these kids and I really am impressed by how well spoken and intelligent they are. It makes me feel much better about the future of this country. What a great idea.
"Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matt. 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28, 29; Luke 12:10) is regarded by some as a continued and obstinate rejection of the gospel, and hence is an unpardonable sin, simply because as long as a sinner remains in unbelief he voluntarily excludes himself from pardon." (Eatons Bible Dictionary)
I agree with this.
I got more an impression of arrogance from the videos. But that really is a very youthful characteristic, so very understandable. :)
I don't get the impression of arrogance from most – more like angry rejection or religion, hurt, resignation, defiance, youthful and sometimes immature bravado, some healthy rebellion maybe.
Cin, your caricature of faith is not worth arguing with. You can not enter into the more esoteric and meaningful discussions of spiritual reality, like the reality of paradox and mystery when we try to probe the depth of reality. You need it to be overly simple, and to bow to your narrow intelligence and reason.
These things I am talking about don't contradict reason, but rather, like Einstein's relativity needed to go beyond the limits of simple Newtonian physics, these things go beyond the often puerile demands and limits of formulaic reason.
You can not pass beyond the limits of reason because you won't. Nobody can make you.
But my main point in writing this was to show one thing – these people are ineffectively and futilely trying to commit the "unpardonable" sin because of their poor understanding of scripture.
What they are effectively doing is attempting to offend the religious, to display their displeasure with religion and their disbelief, and to display their purposeful self-liberation from unhealthy religion, fear, and superstition (which are good things) in order to become healthy people.
I applaud at least the last effort, having done it myself. However, in my case, I did not end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but instead, returned to a healthier, more mature and informed faith. At least, that's my estimation ;).
"But my main point in writing this was to show one thing – these people are ineffectively and futilely trying to commit the "unpardonable" sin because of their poor understanding of scripture."
That's your main point? None of these people needed you to tell them that. They all understand perfectly well that denying the Holy Spirit has no effect on their eternal existence. That's their main point. And moreover, they don't need some non-intuitive interpretation of the Bible in order to see it.
Suppose you're correct though: If god exists, and if denying the holy spirit isn't so bad after all, then what does that mean about the Bible? This is just another instance of your interpretation being the least obvious. It requires some not-trivial explaining to make this particular Holy Spirit 'problem' go away. And many, including myself, don't find the explanation very convincing anyway. To believe the apologetics you put forth (on this and other tricky issues), and to also believe that the Bible is the word of God, requires us to believe that God made his faith intentionally confusing.
It's not very plausible to think that an omnipotent God would produce a holy book that was easier to read badly than well. But that's the only explanation for the past 2000 years. Christian and non-Christians throughout history have been racist, violent, and closed-minded. They have used the vague poetry of their religious texts to validate their hurtful behavior, and they are still doing it today. There's barely anything in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Vedas, etc. that some significant group of followers can't point to and say "I think this means something else," or "This doesn't mean what our ancestors thought it did."
It would almost be funny if it weren't so painfully obtuse. These books are like the predictions of Nostradamus. They can be interpreted to support anything. The fact that slavery was a global phenomenon for so long is evidence of that. Even if, as you like, we credit Christians with finally abolishing slavery, it's hard to ignore the fact that they so easily embraced it, with scriptural arguments, for over fifteen hundred years.
But what is scripture worth, anyway? If I cite passages where God commands "his people" to slaughter innocents, you can tell me that they were all wicked. If he commands "his followers" to stone their family as punishment for trivial offenses, you can claim that God is difficult to understand. And further, you can cite some other verse to suggest that those rules don't apply anymore. And if we disagree as to which rules do and do not apply today, you can claim that my understanding of the Bible is shallow.
Maybe my understanding is shallow. If it is, however, that just reinforces my earlier point: The Bible and other holy texts are easy to interpret in multiple ways. Absurdly easy. And if my interpretation is shallow, then it doesn't bode well for the rest of your Christian family. I'm hardly a scholar, but most of the Christians around the world are less literate, and less educated than I am. Tough break for them, I guess.
If God really existed, and if he had really intended for humans to receive inspired texts about him, he would not have produced an ambiguous, seemingly-contradictory tome with a questionable authorship. He would have produced a twenty-page pamphlet in clear, understandable verbage. And the fact that you will almost certainly disagree with that assessment says a lot more about what you're looking for in a religion than it does about what God wants from humanity.
Stewart, you can interpret ANYTHING however you want. Look at any law in any country. Why do you think lawyers are so rich?
You said: I'm hardly a scholar, but most of the Christians around the world are less literate, and less educated than I am. Tough break for them, I guess.
I would have to point out that PEOPLE around the world have very little care to be "educated" and you may suppose literacy is a given, but I think you'd be surprised at how many illiterate people there really are. Not to mention thinkers.
It doesnt matter what they are thinking about, be it the Bible or The Origin of Species. Very few thinkers.
And I would also say that those who ARE thinkers tend to get high minded. Christians are no exception.
And when one gets high minded, they get power hungry, they get self absorbed, they get greedy.
THAT is the cause of all the evil in this world. People may use WHATEVER text they are studying to justify whatever action they desire to do.
The Bible is a Good Book. And that I will maintain. Abuse of it does not lessen it in my estimation.
Cin,
First, you have GOT to get your own blog! You have a lot to say, and sometimes you post this stuff in places that where it is off topic! I will be glad to help you get a blog set up if you like, and free.
Second, this is an interesting post, but I don't think that this is entirely correct. I'll post on it ;)
…you post this stuff in places that where it is off topic!
That article responds to stuff on this thread like…
…their (atheists) own souls witness to the fact that God exists. Maybe not the Christian God specifically, but the moral law is written on our hearts, and all of creation screams that a God exists.
This is simply wrong (see point #10). Atheists don't even believe in souls, that's why they are selling them for a DVD and your "screaming creation" just isn't convincing without evidence.
First, you have GOT to get your own blog!
You can visit my blog at http://www.moviemasterworks.com I posted this article here because it is meant for you, Aaron, Sam, Louis, Lawanda and other visitors. It's a response to the straw-men you erect here every day. It's obvious to me that you just don't understand non Christians because you repeat the same misconceptions with every post. I was hoping this could help Christians understand. When you say things like "Having left unhealthy faith systems, they (atheists) may forever abandon the God with the bathwater, never knowing the true joys of faith, nor the transforming power of God's love and truth." Atheists can only shake their heads at stuff like this (see point #7 above) because you have Atheists all wrong.
Listen, it's the holidays and this is meant to reach out to you and your fellow Christians so that they can better understand people like me, Sam and Louis better. My posts are meant for you guys specifically and they are right where they belong.
It's a response to the straw-men you erect here every day.
Heh, I'm sure we do some of that, but also, you confuse atheists with atheism – most of my contentions are with the fruits of atheism, not atheists themselves, in the same way that I can understand that most Muslims are nice people, but Islam itself is wicked. Many of the claims above seem to indicate that we blame atheists for atrocities, but it is their ideology that leads to atrocities, whether or not individual atheists are nice people.
Many of the claims above seem to indicate that we blame atheists for atrocities, but it is their ideology that leads to atrocities, whether or not individual atheists are nice people.
This is debunked in point #2 :) Don't respond with the same straw-man arguments Sam's article address. Please!
Here is more on how this challenge isn’t as “unpardonable” as we had hoped. So, Seeker is right. My question to Christians is what is a sure fire sin that I can commit that will send me to Hell yet not harm anyone? I want to know so I can commit it in keeping with the spirit of the Blasphemy Challenge.
reposted from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16409851/site/newsweek/
I want to know so I can commit it in keeping with the spirit of the Blasphemy Challenge.
There isn't one, short of continually hardening your heart and refusing to listen.
But even that may not be enough, because part of the gospel is that God's call is irresistible – in fact, the "I" in the 5 points of Calvinism, represented by the abbreviation "TULIP" – it stands for "Irresistable grace"
Sorry to say, if you are chosen, there is little you can do to resist God, and if you are not, there is naught you can do to change that either. And of course, the paradox of free will and predestination also means that you will probably find such a paradox maddening, even if it is true ;)
The Blasphemy Challenge makes Faux News. This is hilarious! They actually put black boxes over the atheists eyes. HUH?
Brian Flemming on Blasphemy Challenge (Fox News)
A couple of points, the "interviewer/preacher" ironically accuses Fleming of being angry. The interviewer has a parting shot, "I hope you turn around." Whatever that was supposed to mean, it sure didn't sound like the "unbiased" reporting Fox is famous for.
I don't think anyone believes fox to be unbiased, but they are a needed voice in the wilderness of liberal blather.
I don't think anyone believes fox to be unbiased, but they are a needed voice in the wilderness of liberal blather.
Translation: the "voice of reason" is the biased right wing voice. [rolls eyes] Seeker, "I hope you turn around."
Seeker's argument is essentially: "Two wrongs do make a right."
Okay, contrast this reporting about "The Blasphemy Challenge" with the reporting on Faux (FOX). Hey what happened too those cool black boxes over everyone's eyes?
Rational Response Squad on Nightline
Thanks ABC for the first major media news story so far. Pay attention you knuckleballs at Fox, try journalism school, and take a lesson from Nightline.