It’s official, I’m going to Hell.

I’ve made a lot of noise lately about renouncing my religion and such. It is very easy for someone to simply get frustrated at their religion and “give it up” out of anger or a even out of a need for attention, but that’s not where I’m coming from. I’m sure some folks out there are smiling smugly to themselves, assume they know better and that’s exactly where I’m coming from.

Well, to those who don’t believe me, or think that I’ll eventually “come around” suffice to say that I’m a firm believer in putting my “money where my mouth is”. . . So even if I do “come around” I am no longer welcome in God’s eternal family. You see, God’s infinite mercy and compassion isn’t really that infinite Mark 3:2

I am now bound for eternal damnation and I now give you evidence:

Thanx to the Rational Response Squad and the Blasphemy Challenge.



Filed under Atheism, Christianity, Religion

12 responses to “It’s official, I’m going to Hell.

  1. fitzy4144

    Im goin to hell too! scince i dont beilive in the cristian god!

  2. allisonsjournal

    Good grief, that is SO final! I’m going to have to take this up with my priest first thing Saturday.

  3. dezrah

    Yeah, it’s pretty tough to weasel out of. Let me know what he says.

  4. *ROLL EYES* You haven’t committed the unpardonable sin.

  5. Eric

    Ugh – i just tried to post and lost the text when I clicked submit.

    This isn’t meant as harsh (just explanatory) – but your post offers a narrow, out-of-context reading of Mark 3:28-29. In the passage Jesus is responding to his being accused by religious leaders (in verse 3:22) of healing people under the devil’s power (rather than God’s power). This is reiterated in verse 3:30. Jesus words are hard, but it’s clear in the Greek that they are aimed at his accusers who where educated and should have been able to recognize God’s healing power.

    There is a fair amount of debate whether or not Jesus’ words in this passage extend beyond his accusers. While many think that it does, there’s a lot of scholarly support suggesting that the unforgivable blasphemy talked about in the passage is not an act of blasphemy, but rather a condition/constant state of failing to recognize God’s healing/saving power (or that God’s power comes from an evil source) to the point that someone’s “heart” is “hardened” beyond the desire/perceived need for repentance. Paul was a blasphemer and tried to get others to blasheme as well, but he repented (and reportedly forgiven). The Greek in this passage suports the idea of the unfogivable sin being something that is ongoing, rather than something that has ended.

    While some might disagree with me, if you were to “come around” (your words), it is my understanding (and belief) that God would welcome and forgive you.

    Note – I apologize for using Christianese above. I did it to stay brief. I also have back-up for what I’ve written if you’d like to read it.

  6. dezrah

    Okay, so saying “I don’t believe in the holy spirit” is not the unforgivable sin. Attributing the H.S.’s powers to demons is the unforgivable sin. So, there’s still an unforgivable sin.

    Wait, it only applies to those guys Jesus was talking to then? Well, then they’re still banned from the party, no matter what happened afterwards.

    and if that’s still too harsh, then we can say, well that’s not what it really meant after all?

    Eric, I spent so many, many years doing the same thing. Coming across, harsh, contradictory or just plain horrible language and commands in the Bible. I tried to rationalize and re-interpret, I tried reading it in context and out of it, the fact is, the fundamentalists have it right. Once you start moving away from the literal word on the page, you can make the bible (or any text) say what you want it to say.

    If, in the end, we’re using our own ideas, then why use the Bible? I trust in our own human moral intuitions and reason. Why does this passage sit badly with us? Because we intuitively know it’s unfair and unmerciful to even have a concept of an unforgivable sin.

  7. Matt

    Scott, I don’t think Eric was saying that the words were relevant only to his accusers, but merely that his accusers provide the context for his words, giving them meaning.

    Yes there is an unforgivable sin – the only thing that separates you from God is your separation from God. But, it is implied that you can do something about it.

    You say that the only correct way to interpret the Bible is literally, irregardless of context. I say that that is the rough equivalent to developing policy based on initial research findings. We reproduce experiments under a variety of conditions (contexts) in order to form a more comprehensive or explanatory theory. I’m sure you know that the process is similar with the Bible. We use what we know about the passage, the book and the Bible in general, coupled with history to develop a set of contexts that might explain the passage in question. Then we choose the interpretation that best agrees with the most likely context.

    We may be able to make the bible say anything, but we probably won’t be the most rational person at the table. We may be using our own ideas about what a passage might mean, but not without first applying reasonable limits on our imagination via context. The process assumes limitations of our knowledge, and we don’t always come to the right conclusion, but that’s life. I mean, how many times has the egg been promoted as bad for you, then good for you…it all depends on context (perhaps that’s a bad illustration, but the idea is what I’m trying to convey).

    Concerning intuition, I’ve always thought of intuition as a “red flag” as well. I’ve struggled with the thought of an unforgivable sin. It never jived with my concept of God – loving, faithful, self-sacrificing. But then I realized (decided) that in Mark 30, Jesus was saying, “the only thing I won’t do to forgive you is violate your rejection of me. But I offer myself to you.” That does jive with the God I love.

    Anyway, that’s my mind on the matter. I’m glad you are talking about these things. It helps me understand where you are coming from. I’m not upset; I’m excited to express my thoughts on the subject (as you can see 🙂 ). Thanks.

  8. dezrah

    Okay, this ties in my Eostre post and my hell post.

    You said that: “…the only correct way to interpret the Bible is literally, irregardless of context…”


    “It never jived with my concept of God – loving, faithful, self-sacrificing. But then I realized (decided) that in Mark 30, Jesus was saying, “the only thing I won’t do to forgive you is violate your rejection of me. But I offer myself to you.”

    That’s not what the text says. Period. We can’t have it both ways. Either we take the text literally, regardless of context or we re-interpret it to fit our personal theology or feelings.

    I’ll also point out that I didn’t say we should only trust our intuition. Our reason and experience are just as crucial to a moral life.

  9. Matt

    You said that: “…the only correct way to interpret the Bible is literally, irregardless of context…” I did not say this; I was citing you.

    My intention was to stress the need for correct interpretation, and I believe my interpretation of Mark 30 is a very reasonable one given the context.

    And, I didn’t mean to say that you trust your intuition with disregard to reason (I’m assuming that you “interpreted” me to mean that since I made no literal statement indicating that I did). I was actually agreeing that intuition can be a “red flag” sort of check to our logic.

    Are you trying to show me how easy it is to take people out of context?

  10. Matt

    I guess my answer (in the event that you are) is that it’s pretty easy to take someone out of context if you are trying, but harder when you are not. And it’s even harder when you have centuries of scholars from various fields whom people will be comparing your research to. In short, my idea of context involves more than a quick read through of one document.

  11. Eric

    Scott, I, too am not upset in any way.

    Matt has clarified my comments well so there’s no need to add anything there.

    Regarding Bible literalism: the problem I see with strict literal interpretation is that it often fails to account for colloquial expressions, ancient Jewish and first century Christian writing styles, figures of speach, common-knowledge stories of the day and a host of other things. Compounding this are the difficulties in translating the Greek text into English and the misunderstandings (or limited understanding) that arise from it. I agree that an everyone-for-his/herself approach to the Bible is dangerous, which is why scholarship, tradition, communities of faith, reason, personal experience, tradition, prayer all factor in. Rather than literalism, I advocate for an educated understanding of the Bible.

    Yes, the Bible can (and has been) manipulated, but science can be (and has been) manipulated as well. Both require challenges when things don’t quite seem right.

  12. lid

    you need to read the verse in its full contxt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s