There is a small movement going on currently, principally within the realm of YouTube and other such sites in which people are making videos "denying the Holy Spirit." This "blasphemy challenge" as it has been promoted, comes from such groups as the Rational Response Squad. While the name alone should alert any self-aware person as to the presumptuousness inherent in the group, encouraging and endorsing antics such as these only makes criticism that much more important and needed.
Just what is this "denying of the Holy Spirit" that is being encouraged by the unbelievers and causes apoplexy in theists? Matthew 12: 31-32 states: 31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Using this verse from the so-called "Bible", people are making videos where they verbally say "my name is ______, and I deny the Holy Spirit."
I could get into the hermeneutical problems with this and point out that in the context of the chapter in Matthew, the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost (KJV) is only done so by denying the legitimacy of the Son of Man, the Christ, Jesus. Therefore, denying the Holy Spirit can only be done by denying the messianic message of Jesus. Simply saying you "deny the Holy Spirit" is pointless if you aren't denying the actions which the Holy Spirit is making manifest and endorsing. But such hermeneutical nuance is not something most atheists are aware of or even care to know, so pointing it out is probably pointless. In addition, there are several other ways the passage could be interpreted and nobody has it down in any sense approaching absolute certainty.
I could get into the fact that denying something that is already considered non-existent, seems rather absurd. In other words, only atheists are going to be making these videos and by definition, they have already denied or have no place in their conceptual paradigm for such things as the supernatural, the Holy Spirit of Christianity being one of them. Therefore, making a video denying something for which said person has, by definition of who they are, doesn't acknowledge as existing, seems rather ridiculous. In fact, it could be and I think rightly is, simply a publicity stunt, a childish antic like throwing oatmeal at the dinner table when you were 2 years old.
But I won't go into either of those (except that I already did) and instead will point out that such antics in no way do anything for the spreading of rational enquiry, which is what groups like the RRS and others claim they desire. Indeed, I have heard it mentioned that the reason for these videos is to show to believers how ridiculous atheists and humanists think the religious beliefs are. Thank you for stating the obvious, but what is to be gained by this? The only thing I can think of is one: notoriety. Mocking authority figures has been the mainstay of teenagers and social malcontents since the dawn of civilization and while it must be noted that atheists and the like do not acknowledge the authority of God or religion, since they don't believe in it, the fervent need to express such a disavowal indicates the still residual power that religion does indeed have.
I have little doubt that many who read this will look at the last comment and ridicule me, if they haven't already done so, for resorting to psychology and, as has been told to me at least once before, that I am "succumbing to religious propaganda." While I'm not quite certain what that means, since nobody has bothered to explain, I can admit that I do "fall for" certain aspects of religion, one of those being it's awesome power over people. But I hardly consider myself a fool for taking note of that. Indeed, the entirety scholasticism, created by the way by the Christian religion so often mocked, agrees that religion is a powerful influence. This of course in no way points to the legitimacy of any particular theological paradigm.
And it is precisely the social power of religion that makes me ponder with more seriousness that it deserves, the videos being promoted. Even a cursory reading of the news will show that people are dying daily over interpretive paradigms of various religious groups, the conflict in Somalia being only the most recent. Mocking such beliefs is not going to solve that conflict or any other that involves religion. In fact, for so many, such mockery only affirms the legitimacy of beliefs for the theist because it encourages the "martyr complex" that so many of them possess and are encouraged to hold. It also encourages another thought, that being atheists and others of like mind do not understand or even try to understand what believers adhere to.
What then is to be done? Such sophomoric displays as these videos show a complete disregard for the history of sacrifice and bloodshed that has been done in the name of religion and whether one agrees with the thinking, the very fact that at no time in the history of the human species has religion not been an integral part of its existence, should make anybody who attempts to fight it pause and do so with humility and intellectual responsibility. I am not against religion. I am against absolutism, intellectual irresponsibility and arrogance. Religion has had and continues to have its fair share of such moral failings, but simply because one does not count themselves as religious does not mean such failings are unknown. If love of humanity and the power of reason are what drive atheists and humanists, then such videos need to stop. Instead, understanding and legitimate scholarship need to happen. And in understanding and study, instead of mockery, perhaps will be found compassion and an acknowledgment of our shared humanity.
www.myspace.com/davidteachout
Graduated from a Bible college, majoring in theology and psychology. Currently working on Ed.D. in counseling psychology.
As clearly as I may put it, you interchange religious and spiritual. They are not the same thing.
As you put it, "... (no place in their) conceptual paradigm for such things as the supernatural, the Holy Spirit of Christianity being one of them." See, NO: Christianity is NOT 'one of them.' The 'teenagers' acknowledge, indeed, examine and measure and report, the supernatural. None of the religions are the supernatural, religions are but old world power-invoking versions of words for the supernatural -- it is its own thing and a religion is not it. 'Even' kids can tell the difference, when you see them affirm the supernatural ('spirit') and deny the 'Holy Spirit.' That's not contradictory behavior, that's distinguishing behavior.
Second, you cite Sudan violence, (and also 'martyr-minded suicides'), as motivated in individuals religious devotions. Poppycock. Sudan, Palestine, Iraq and other Persian enclaves, are filled with the violence instigated, provoked, and provided by CIA 'world as chessboard'-types. Maybe in your terms you should see it as inhumans intent on -- and with the logistical capacity to inflict world violence, which is the difference from any other look-alikes 'world beaters' in history -- making your and my common humanism, which knows supernature, declared less than 'their' elitist 'humanism.' CIA 'world as chessboard'-types see you and me as pieces, themselves as endowed to play us.
The violence you hear of is all -- ALL -- 'photo op' Legend fabrication in your media. None, none of it is as you pretend it: religious-motivated upheaval. The 'players' say as much in their writing, that they use the 'tool' of 'religious incitement' to disturb the peace, so you will (allow to) call them in (instigating players) as the police, to establish 'law and order,' but they come in to take control, for themselves. After all, they are the police, (FBI, CIA, etc.), how can you not trust them?, and if not, how could you deny them authority. Easy: Deny the Holy Spirit. Do it yourself (being police, establishing order) in your own life behavior. You be Holy. You can be. The supernatural can't.
by
meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 506 comments)
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 11:51:16 PM
I'm not sure where you get that I am saying religion and the spiritual are the same thing, other than a misunderstanding of what I wrote. What does seem to be occurring is a complete misunderstanding of what is going on in the world and a, fairly typical, liberal snobbery concerning an understanding of what religion is. In point of fact, religion is a systematic attempt to conceive of the supernatural in a particular way. This of course, like you seem to be doing, assumes the existence of the supernatural.
To be clear here, what is actually being confused by you is the supernatural with the spiritual. I and others can be "spiritual" and yet not believe in the existence of an ontologically other realm called the "supernatural." What you have done is simply assume that all religions are wrong in their understanding of the supernatural and you are right. But if you were asked what your concept of the supernatural is, you would be giving a systematic analysis and that could be classified as religious. Unless, that is, you are simply postulating some kind of intuitionism for the supernatural that transcends reason. Good luck with that, since you now have the same problem as all the other believers in the supernatural, i.e. showing just what it is you're talking about.
As to your conspiracy theory about the world conflicts being created by the CIA and that nobody is actually killing anybody because of religious reasons, I'm not sure what info you're basing that on. The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia are being done in the name of religion and the fervency in which those conflicts are being fought are done out of the absolutist mindset that their brands of religion allows. The declare it in their statements and in their actions. Do you really believe suicide bombers are lying when they say they are dying as holy-martyrs and will ascend to heaven? See, I take them at their word and respect the power that such ideologies have.
by
David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments)
on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 at 10:57:42 AM
Here is a reading path toward right-proper 'comprehending'
There is a supernatural. Not to be worshipped and no religion has the franchise of it.
However, it does not influence or direct events of humankind. Other way around, humankind's eventuating actions conjure the supernatural to be seen, witnessed. Humans the cause, apparitions one effect.
And the events of the world are, instead of godly, only the petty avarice, greed, sloth, envy, lust, gluttony, pride, and variations of what we all recognize in ourselves and in loving and hating, others, as 'human natures.' Natural, selfish, indiviual actions and deeds. Not the supernatural.
I agree with you it is depressing to fail to have superhuman leaders. World-media figureheads are jerks, and blessings, just like the people you work around every day. Except, 'they' got all the money in the world, and the people you work with, don't. And, in fact, as much a summary point as anything in this may be, (start and try and) consider a 'worldview' in your conscious mentation, which sees two kinds of people in existence -- a few 'elite' (a hundred, say, or a thousand, as best you can imagine them, in league and in synch with each other so far as sustaining the status quo together maintains them in the group, in league and in synch), and then, everyone else in the world, the rest of humankind. Two groups. Forget religion, forget nation, forget ethnic, forget culture. The only separation is those who can misappropriate religions, nations, ethnics, and cultures, and the rest of us who can't.
So this small group of world-operators works in mundane ways. Again, the disappointment that they are not superhuman.
Read here the most detailed journaling of the real and true deal in Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia. And while you're at the site, read back through December. Read Wayne Madsen daily, he is a hero. (He deserves a Pulitzer. Nominations still open.) http://waynemadsenreport.com/ Dec. 26-27, 2006 -- The U.S.-supported Ethiopian dictatorship of Meles Zenawi has launched a massive military strike on neighboring Somalia. The attack represents yet another front in the neo-con contrivance of a global "clash of civilizations" between Judeo-Christians and Muslims. Ethiopia is largely Coptic Christian while Somalia is almost entirely Muslim. ...
Two other cases, the elitists murdering JFK and the elitists staging Nine Eleven Op, (for the same reason both times, to make you fear them -- and you are advised, they are sociopathic murderers), shows the same (mundane) method of operation, (m.o.), in a 'comprehensive' talk given recently by Peter Dale Scott.
JFK and 9/11 - Insights Gained from Studying Both, by Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, December 20, 2006. (And while you are at that website Home, look around at other readings. Especially, especially this one: Al Qaeda -- the Database, by Pierre-Henri Bunel, Global Research, November 20, 2005.)
The writers to read are esteemed and knowledgeable persons. Respect that their accomplishments provide you to judge whether their interests are more for the selfish, or for humankind's interest. So, Peter Dale Scott.
The next piece I discovered only today. (So soon old, so late wise.) It's the blow-by-blow of the takeover of Iran -- by the 'elites', ('colonialists' may be a name for them which gives people a sense of their origins and establishment and m.o.) -- back in 1954. Compare the logistics description then, with the logistic description in the first reading about Somalia and Ethiopia 'rigged' conflict incited as 'a matter of religious intractability.'
A 'great venture': overthrowing the government of Iran, by Mark Curtis, From Lobster 30
This is a slightly abridged version of part of chapter four of Mark Curtis's book The Ambiguities of Power: British Foreign Policy since 1945 (Zed Press, 1995).
* * *
"In August 1953 a coup overthrew Iran's nationalist government of Mohammed Musaddiq and installed the Shah in power. The Shah subsequently used widespread repression and torture in a dictatorship that lasted until the 1979 Islamic revolution. The 1953 coup is conventionally regarded primarily as a CIA operation, yet the planning record reveals not only that Britain was the prime mover in the initial project to overthrow the government but also that British resources contributed significantly to the eventual success of the operation. Two first-hand accounts of the Anglo-American sponsorship of the coup - by the MI6 and CIA officers primarily responsible for it - are useful in reconstructing events." ...
And finally, which perhaps should be first to read, as in: RTFM - read the freakin' manual, here is the background (and foreground) book wherein the story is told of who resembles the elites and what their allegiance is to. Whether more of the scales fall from eyes which see elites in action or which see 'them' in theory, it is a shock to any humanism we realize in ourselves, to see inhuman sociopathic 'leading figures' are real. Trying to rule the world. Yeah, like you never thought of it. Only, you never thought of it when you were president of a country with an army you could deploy. But if you had ...
THE SECRET TEAM - The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World -- L. FLETCHER PROUTY, Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
Beware the person and opinion of one book. That paraphrases my aversion to religions. I apologize if my voice came curt to ear. "You're wrong." Only, I read all this stuff and in result I see it differently from you, and I recommend reading and reasoning together ... so, what do you think of all the information at the links in this reading list?
by
meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 506 comments)
on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 at 3:13:10 AM
While I appreciate your comments and am currently looking over the material, I cannot help but notice that nothing of what you've said actually has anything to do with the point of my article.
The point of the article had to do with a particular notoriety-grabbing act by certain atheist groups: the so-called "blasphemy challenge." My contention is that such actions in no way elevate debate to that of proper understanding and instead only continue in the type of childish behavior that is representative of absolutist ideologies, both religious and non.
Positing that the supernatural exists, which is an unwarranted assumption on your part, does nothing to address my point. In addition, going on and on about conspiracy theories does nothing to address my point. And lastly, trying to say that these religious groups don't actually mean what they say and that everyone is at the mercy of some grand elite who control everything misses the social point, that being the true power of religious ideology. The fact is, whether or not there is some kind of elite out there, a large majority of the human species believes in their religious doctrines and acts accordingly. To ignore that is to be willfully ignorant of the psychological and sociological facts.
by
David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments)
on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 at 11:11:28 AM
I have a novel view of this subject. When one curses the Holy Spirit, one is actually cursing the part of God that exists in all of us. See Luke 17, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."
If cursing yourself is not stupidity, I do not know what is.
by
Richard Girard (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 39 comments)
on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 at 3:34:07 PM
Most definitely an interesting way to interpret. And while I do not agree with the supernatural claims of christianity, I can interpret your quoted passage in a decidedly liberal way by positing that the ability to change and shape the world we live in, resides in each of us. The "kingdom of heaven" is an ideal, an image of possibility, that we can all appreciate and strive for. Perhaps perfection is unreachable, especially since I don't know what that is, but to be better, that we all know how to do or can learn.
by
David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments)
on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 at 3:42:13 PM
You are wonderfully correct. You and I know what we know. Did you hear about the minister who was eating a big juicy orange in front of the famous Republican, son a New England minister, Colonel in the Union Army, captured in the Battle of Shiloh and the great defender of "Agnosticism", Robert Ingersol?
The minister turned to the Republican world famous agnostic and said as he took a bite the orange and the juicy orange ran down his chin, "Ralph, how did that bite of this sweet, juicy orange taste?"
Ingersol looked at the minister like he was crazy, but smelled a trap, "How should I know. You ate it. I didn't."
"Exactly, Mr. Ingersol, I have tasted by faith the good Lord Jesus and you never have. I can tell you the taste is good and you can tell me nothing."
David, you are correct about the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" according to New Testament teaching. It is the continual rejection of the message of Christ dying for your sins and being raised three days later. You know what you know. We both know that the "Natural man receives not the things of the Spirit, neither can he understand them for those things of the Spirit are only spiritually discerned." (I Corinthians 2:14). The word "discerned" still means "understood." Hang in there bro, keep loving and keep the faith.
Phil
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Thursday, December 28, 2006 at 10:27:53 PM
I wonder sometimes if people are reading the same things that I write. I'm pretty certain and made even clearer in other comments that I am not in any way a Christian believer, theist or in agreement with any supernatural claim of any kind. While I thank you for your agreement in my hermeneutical elucidation of the text being used for such childish behavior, I in no way wish to come across as endorsing the salvific message of Christianity. I once was a part of it and unlike Mr. Ingersoll, who's books I have read, the taste of "salvation" become only that of ash because it was the taste of a lie. Freedom is already had by all and no imagined deity can grant or take it away.
by
David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments)
on Thursday, December 28, 2006 at 11:16:19 PM
8 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
