Catholic Church contradicted itself on these issues

You accept an elaborated creation tale from a few thousand years ago as the basis of universal materialism, and therein lies the first massive contradiction.

It is impossible to know anything factual relating to this folktale.

Then along came a bloke claiming to be the son of a GOD...Yep such deluded people pop up from time to time.

And then some years later the tales migrate along with new tales of the charismatic charlatan and are adapted as systems of mass subjugation...And numpties suck it up...Yep it's what numpties continue to do.

There is no credible evidence for the existence of an actual pre-universal creator GOD...Elaborate yarns and ritualism are what they are...And the burgeoning wealth and power of the RC Church and others and the continuing brainwashing and subjugation of the masses is what it is.

So, if and when you can provide credible evidence for the existence of a pre-universal creator GOD, then I will undoubtedly care...But elaborated folk tales are of no use.

If you're watching and listening GOD, just pop down and re-introduce yourself to all Earth based life forms...It would perhaps do a whole lot of good if you did...But don't just rock up on a mountain and set fire to a bush or something stupid like that.

Such is the nature of the unconditioned Debs.

Belief is futile linate.

One either knows something or one doesn't.

You and I are just as ignorant of the truth as everyone else is.

Though you are a wishful thinker and I am not.

So definitively, I'm not even a skeptic.

Debby Jesus was an explorer. He discovered heaven and made it accessible to all.

Do you actually realise the import of what you have written there? Because I doubt you do.

Debby John 14:2-4. My fathers house (in heaven)has many rooms, if that were not so would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you.

Just as I thought, you just do not realise nor understand what it is that you have written.

According to the BIBLE, god/Jesus created heaven he didn't "discover" it.

And not everyone is welcome in heaven unconditionally. That includes YOU!

God the father created heaven and Jesus was his son born from Virgin Mary. Read your Bible.

To start off this response, I don't know what religion you thought I followed but Catholicism is against materialism (CCC 285, 2124). If you have some other understanding of what materialism, or universal materialism, is then please do share with the class to prevent further confusion.

Another correction of one of your errors, this "bloke" claimed to be the Son of God, not a god, and also claimed to be God. You also claim that he's deluded but failed to show any real evidence for that claim (not a surprise). Also, for centuries Christianity spread through word not the sword. Now, I do agree that governments did try subjugating masses throughout history in the name of Christ, yet this is nothing new for governments, as I am sure you're aware of being that atheist governments love not just mass subjugation but the slaughter of its own subjects. What's even more humorous is calling everyone numpties. This is quite strange as all these numpties have made the most contributions to the math, science, philosophy, et cetera that you yourself know. So, if they're numpties I can only imagine what that makes you who has contributed nothing.

When you say there is no evidence of God's existence, to what standard are you basing this claim? Philosophically, I can point you to the Quinquae Viae (Five Ways) of St. Thomas Aquinas. Maybe, I'll even just point you to the "charlatan/bloke", as you refer to Him, and you can debunk his own claims. Maybe you can explain the Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires 1996. Explain the creation of the universe, you seem to have all the answers. If your argument is the need for empirical data, this is fallacious as, in what way or you to measure repeated material phenomena on a being that is outside of space and time? This is called a category error. Also, the posit of "mass brainwashing" is quite humorous, although not surprising from such childish minds. Pray tell, where is your credible evidence for this? Methinks you have none to offer. Also, is it just the Roman Catholic Church or the entirety of the Catholic Church? You seem heavily influenced by Protestant thought, so it would be unsurprising you have no idea that other rites exist besides that of the Roman. Positing that no credible evidence has been given to you is also quite a dishonest thing to say. However, it seems that the only evidence that you'd truly except would be that of the likes given to St. Thomas the Apostle.

Onto your last childish outburst. All this shows is you've never read the Bible. Even the Israelites, to whom God made very clear His existence, rejected Him over, and over, and over, and over. They even earn the nickname, "stiff-necked people". What's even more humorous is the last time God "popped down" He was crucified. The claim that you'd undoubtedly believe is quite questionable, or perhaps you're right, you'd recognize that He does exist and still turn your back on Him anyways.

The only reason I might say you could be right on some of these issues is because thats how mushy philosophy is. Almost Any statement can be changed to mean something else simply by insisting the original is taken out of context. That i admit this but you admit nothing just proves you are dedicated to the cause. Yiu are the one trying to wiggle out of things in overly lawyerly ways. "What did they truly mean by original sin?" What about what interest is, or what subject to the roman pontiff is? I keep showing how these ideas were understood by Catholics and you keep saying everyone got it wrong. Here is another example. I showed you the original sin example going to hell thing from Florence. I also show you from the same Florence them stating baptism is the only way for babies to avoid hell. But you distract by saying maybe original sin didn't apply to them. The statement of requiring baptism might have been dicta I give you that. I show you thousands of years of less official understanding on these things and you just brush it aside as non official even though its still evidence. On the this issue, you take probably the last resort and say God's grace can do anything no matter the rule. Sure yes I'll give you like I said anyone can Weasle out of anything if they're desperate enough. But us it a cop out? Is it a genuine development or a post hoc rationalization? And even if you personally insist its a development how can you fault someone who thinks you're simply stretching the limit beyond the breaking point when theres so much evidence of that?

So, a delusional charlatan...Well yes, over the succeeding centuries there have been many, but for sure I can obviously offer no character witness for the bloke often referred to as Jesus, but neither can you...All that you have are latterly constructed hand me down folktales, which are a mixture of locational fact with a whole lot of fantasy inclusion, essentially myth.

Within this non-philosophical context, universal materialism should be self explanatory and describe the basis from which or before which any creator source arises from...Now as I see it the idea of a pre-universal creator is illogical and is what it is, an idea...So can you prove that it is anything more than an idea and therefore a logical possibility.

Brainwashing, is something that we are all subject to, such is the human condition. If all data was unacquired and innate then we would all sing from the same hymn sheet as it were, but as we clearly know, transferrable operating data varies considerably according to regional and social segregation.

As for "miracles", well a miracle is an against all odds positive outcome and if one considers that todays odds are perhaps 1 in 8.2 billion then we should expect an occasional miraculous outcome...Not to be confused with an hallucinatory apparition...Though for sure, conditioned numpties do love an hallucinatory apparition, as do theo-political business corporations...Yep theo-tourism is a big money spinner and also helps keep the masses subjugated.

Relative to the above, Thomas Aquinas is self explanatory, so I won't go into that at any great length...Just a comparatively well educated 13th century bloke with myth based ideas relative to his own conditioning.

As for myself...British raised at a time when religious influence was diminishing rapidly...Atheist parents whose WW2 experiences were confirmation enough that the idea of an all loving GOD was absolute baloney...So other than the fact that England thanks to King Henry VIII and his sexual shenanigans was deemed non-Catholic, the society that I was conditioned by was secular and predominately non-religious.

And so, GODDO did pop down to downtown Judea, just to get himself crucified so that he could prove some sort of bizarre point to a few local bods...Yep dead omni-clever...Shame that he forgot to tell the Chinese and the Indians and all the rest of the world that he was coming...Don't make me laugh.

The Bible withstood the test of time and Jesus was resurrected to continue his mission. China prints 80% of the Bibles sold and India remains a religious country.

First, philosophy isn't mushy. It's very logical and precise, something I see you don't like, but mushy no. Is the claim that anything taken out of its original context directed at me? Because it seems everyone time I take your arguments and bring them to a logical conclusion, we arrive at a crossroad of contradiction.

Ex: You claim that the destination of unbaptized infants was dogmatically defined at the council of Florence. Somehow, 400 years later, before Vatican I, the clergy were petitioning to define the destination of unbaptized infants going to limbo/hell (see citation from last comment three months ago). If you're right, then the Catholic Church doesn't even know what it dogmatically defines. Looking at this objectively, it seems the Church disagrees with your view that the statement was previously dogmatically defined. Clearly I should take your word for it, right? Maybe I am just slithering my way out of it, right? Also, if you're going to lie about my beliefs, do a better job. I do not believe that origianl sin doesn't apply to unbaptized infants. Of course, you couldn't cite where I said this, but hey, I'm just slithering my way out of it I guess.

I also never questioned what original sin meant, I have known its meaning for years now. Also, no, you haven't shown how any of the beliefs were understood. What you have done is cite sources and say what you claim them to mean. Then I came along and said you were wrong, cited sources and brought your positions to their logical conclusions and we're still here waiting for you to properly defend your position. But you can't. What's even funnier is you say that I brush off 2000 years of less official understanding, but I personally agree with them. What doesn't follow is non-dogmatic teaching saying that they go to limbo, sometimes hell, and a true statement saying that God can save them if He wants. I'll show you an example. If you follow tradition, or have read the Divine Comedy, Pope. St. Gregory the Great prayed endlessly for the salvation of the pagan emperor Trajan, who was already dead and in hell. God granted his prayer and gave him a warning afterwards. St. Thomas Aquinas mentions this in the Summa as an example of extraordinary grace. The issue you have is you want the Church to teach that there is no hope for others and through this can show contradictions and how evil it is. On the contrary, the Church never declares that any individual is in hell. Are there rules that exist that one must follow? Yes. Is this an absolute? No. Again, St. Paul discusses this in the Bible when talking about the salvation of the Gentiles and how God judged them differently. You failing to understand a concept is not my fault. Your inability to comprehend ordinary vs. extraordinary salvation is a fault on you for not studying it. You can disagree that it exists, sure, but that doesn't mean the Church now doesn't hold to extraordinary means for salvation or has never. But, hey, maybe this is me slithering my way out of it, right?

How do you reconcile the quote from Florence that those with original sin go to hell with the fact that the church has consistently taught even if usually unoffically that babies need to be baptized to avoid hell? And that the church traditionally taught everyone is born in original sin? How do you reconcile the following quote with that original sin quote from the same council?

Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time"

The only plausible argument you can make is ordinary grace versus extraordinary grace even if that's sketchy logic. But I know you've been making other arguments on this point and im trying to pin you down.

You seem to be going all over the place with your arguments. I might not always be characterizing you right, but you are the one who keeps playing word games.

linate is right on both counts. Unless a baby is baptized it is going to hell. The original sin is what we inherited from Adam and Eve who disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit.

I think modern popes who say slavery is intrinsically immoral would be surprised at your theory that generations of children can morally be kept in slavery due to the debts owed by their ancestors. Your theory is these popes are just mistaken though and its your understanding thats right?

So your theory also is the millenieums long understanding that humans are born into original sin could be mistaken all this time? Im curious how many people in all of Christian history got the memo on that. Age of reason starts original sin? Ive never read anyone argue that like you imply. Or who other than babies stsrts becoming guilty of original sin.

That Florence quote saying baptism is the only way to save babies. Do you call this unauthoritstive dicta? I dont know how else you'd wiggle around it

On the contrary, there are actually four biographies written about Him from the same century. Having read them I agree with the assertions that were made afterwards. So, what makes him delusional? What evidence do you have for this claim other than "I don't believe in God"?

As I previously stated, St. Thomas Aquinas gives his Quinquae Viae as logical evidence for the existence of God. Ergo, He is a logical possibility. As to your definition of universal materialism, if the material exists before the creator, then he isn't a true creator he is more of what is referred to as a "divine craftsman", e.g. Demiurge, Mormon god. That follows suit with creatio ex creatio. If however, the creator truly created the material world, then the creator would have to be immaterial for if not then we would be in the same place as before asking who created this already created being. This follows suit with creatio ex nihilo or Dio.

Well, if we are all brainwashed then you're brainwashed so I shouldn't listen to you because you're brainwashed and can't be trusted. And if that's the case then you cannot trust anything you believe because someone brainwashed you to believe it, or did they?

Your view of miracles is quite the funny. Also, redefining it as just an improbable, positive outcome is just disingenuous to what it actually means. Arbitrarily picking the world population and saying "weird stuff happens" is not what defines a miracle, but rather the recognition of anomalies/outliers. Is it that all apparitions are hallucinatory, or maybe you just don't like them so you just call them hallucinations? Maybe you do that because you're brainwashed. Who knows?

Are you positing that philosophy is a myth? Or myth based?

Ah, yes, because human beings commit evil acts, against the wishes of God, that truly has disproved His existence. Although it is depressing the hard life of your parents that's merely evidence of the fallen nature of man, not the inexistence of God. Now, as a catch-22 here (I never liked that book by the way), seeing as you were conditioned by a secular and non-religious society, aren't therefore projecting your brainwashing onto everyone else?

What's even funnier about your last statement is that we've had Christians in China and India for almost 2000 years already. Also, don't know if you've read the news lately but those "local bods" turned into about 2.5 billion people.

So your theory is even though popes have said interest is immoral its not immoral as long as they call it a cost of doing business? And profit is ok as long as its looked at as a time value of money? Yes some of those popes might have said basic expenses can be applied to loans but as long as we redefine all terms suddenly interest and profit is OK? You dont see this at all as potentially slippery logic? I understand philosophy need not be slippery but thats the way you are treating it, and the only way you can change all these teaching is engaging in slippery logic

Interest is immoral changes to excessive interest is immoral and you view yourself as taking things out of context? I can see maybe a cost of doing business interrst allowance if the original popes allowed it. But at least on the profit point its slippery logic. I think to my understanding that popes originally thought asking for profit is unchristian but suddenly its only excessively asking for profit as long as its called a time value of money

I will try to make this as clear to you as possible. Your claim was that the statement was a dogmatic declaration that pertained to the destination of unbaptized infants. The issue with your claim is firstly, the fact that the Church clergy petitioned to define the destination of unbaptized infants 400 years after this council. So, again, this action seems to show that your claim is false, unless the almighty Linate knows more than the Church Herself. Secondly, if you were correct, to where are they headed? Is it eternal hellfire or peaceful limbo? And seeing as the text pertains not just to unbaptized infants, but even non-believers (without personal sin of course), if any of them were not to have committed a mortal sin in their lifetime, would they join these unbaptized infants? Finally, the most obvious issue is that you have to deduce it is referring to unbaptized infants. For a council that is making a dogmatic declaration on unbaptized infants, it's a shame they refuse to even mention unbaptized infants.

I would request though, because you claim this to be dogmatically defined, can you please show me where Thomas de Vio was tried for heresy, or even thought of as a heretic, for proposing that unbaptized infants can be saved in his commentaries on the Summa. It was post-Florence, so I am sure that because it was dogmatically defined that he met repercussions for heresy, no?

I think modern popes who say slavery is intrinsically immoral would be surprised at your theory that generations of children can morally be kept in slavery due to the debts owed by their ancestors. Your theory is these popes are just mistaken though and its your understanding thats right?

No, that's not what I posited actually. Your claim is that when popes state "slavery is intrinsically immoral" that applies even to just titles of servitude/slavery. If I follow your claim to its logical conclusion, then you would also posit that the Church is against taking prisoners in war and for crimes, right? Does it then follow that St. Paul promoted immorality when not telling Christian masters to emancipate their slaves? I'll continue to ask until you're able to respond. When you say, "debts owed by their ancestors", how far back do you mean? The purpose of debt slavery, which is still unofficially practiced today sometimes, is to pay off debt with labor. Once the debt is paid off the slave is generally freed. Again, whether the child is considered a slave depends on the law applying it, e.g. Roman Law. However, you still have not presented an argument of what is intrinsically immoral about entering yourself into slavery to pay off a debt.

So your theory also is the millenieums long understanding that humans are born into original sin could be mistaken all this time? Im curious how many people in all of Christian history got the memo on that. Age of reason starts original sin? Ive never read anyone argue that like you imply. Or who other than babies stsrts becoming guilty of original sin. That Florence quote saying baptism is the only way to save babies. Do you call this unauthoritstive dicta? I dont know how else you'd wiggle around it

Nope, that's not my theory. Age of reason doesn't start original sin. What I did say however was, "The statements of the council would apply generally to those beyond age of reason." Are you going to continue to strawman me or are actually going to present evidence against what I've actually said? And, no I actually agree that baptism is the only way to save babies, ordinarily of course. Anything else? Do I need to explain ordinary vs. extraordinary means of salvation to you or are you grown enough to do it yourself?

So your theory is even though popes have said interest is immoral its not immoral as long as they call it a cost of doing business? And profit is ok as long as its looked at as a time value of money? Yes some of those popes might have said basic expenses can be applied to loans but as long as we redefine all terms suddenly interest and profit is OK? You dont see this at all as potentially slippery logic? I understand philosophy need not be slippery but thats the way you are treating it, and the only way you can change all these teaching is engaging in slippery logic. Interest is immoral changes to excessive interest is immoral and you view yourself as taking things out of context? I can see maybe a cost of doing business interrst allowance if the original popes allowed it. But at least on the profit point its slippery logic. I think to my understanding that popes originally thought asking for profit is unchristian but suddenly its only excessively asking for profit as long as its called a time value of money

I never mentioned cost of doing business. Do you want to talk about profit or interest (interest is a form of revenue, not profit, by the way)? See, the fact you don't know the difference between the two is revealing, or you're doing it intentionally. And no, my point was that how money was viewed changed over time, from being sterile to having economic potential. This therefore changed how usury was applied to interest. What you are essentially arguing is that the Church said X1=Y and later said X2≠Y, and that this is a contradiction because they are both X. In reality, the subscripts represent different X values. So, although they are refering to interest and usury, the understanding of money is no longer the same as it was. Since money is no longer the same, you cannot judge money on how it used to be but rather what it currently is. An economist example, you wouldn't, and shouldn't, treat fiat currency as if it were standard currency. Likewise, why would the Church treat money, that now is looked at with economical potential, as if it were sterile? Explain that logic to me.

So, modern theo-political technique and propaganda is highly stylised as it always has been, and post Jesus written narratives are basically copies of each other. Even "Jesus" is a stylised and Europeanised version of an assumed original...But you fall for this deception and take it at face value...Which if harmless, is harmless I suppose, though over the millennia since Abrahams hallucinatory experiences religion has had a tendency, to be somewhat harmful (to say the least)...Still is to this day...

Such is human nature isn't it?...Create divided societies with competing fantasy ideologies, et voila...And will we ever change?...Well for as long as we continue to teach our kids competing fantasy nonsenses, then we are never going to get any better.

Let's hope that AI doesn't inherit the human stupid gene.

Anyway, food for thought...It's quite simple and logical...Atheism disproves theism...Think about it objectively if you can...But I doubt that you can.

Debby Jesus was an explorer. He discovered heaven and made it accessible to all.

Do you actually realise the import of what you have written there? Because I doubt you do.

Debby John 14:2-4. My fathers house (in heaven)has many rooms, if that were not so would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you.

Just as I thought, you just do not realise nor understand what it is that you have written.

According to the BIBLE, god/Jesus created heaven he didn't "discover" it.

And not everyone is welcome in heaven unconditionally. That includes YOU!

Debby God the father created heaven and Jesus was his son born from Virgin Mary. Read your Bible.

Not according to Christian belief . Christians say that the evidence for Jesus being god can be found in Genesis and other parts of the OT.. So I think you aught to read yours.

It's not copies, actually. The belief is they had a common Q Source, which is for Jesus' sayings not anything else. However, this only applies to the Synoptic Gospels, i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John is very different from the other three. Although, European art has at times made him Europeanized, in the Catholic religion, at least, how he is depicted changes on where the art is from or the artist. Hence, you can find an African, European, Indian, Middle Eastern, East and South-East Asian Jesus in art. To my knowledge, only Black Hebrew Israelites deny he was Middle Eastern, and I am sure some American Evangelicals as well, which is quite humorous. Although you view religion as a means of division and a cause for harm, which has historically occurred. Your atheism is no better historically. And if we're being fair, it's the religious that have been the largest voices for peace and unity in the history of the world.

Atheism disproves Theism? Wow. That was like such a good argument. I see why you say everyone is brainwashed now.

Because you both are killing me here. Jesus created the world as the Son (Eternal Word); His human nature did not create the world. I will not stick myself in your other arguments. It just irked me that nobody was saying this. Have a good one!

Well, nice to see that you somewhat agree with the observation that most if not all post Jesus, Abrahamic theism is a stylised version of something or other that might have preceded it...Hand me down folk tales, I'm guessing.

Voices for peace and unity...Hmmmmm...But doesn't work in practice, never has done...It's been 2026 years, and global society sure is peaceful and unified.

And I did say think about it objectively...Take the baby and never mention religion to it and it will be atheist...It's quite simple...To become a theist requires a considerable amount of multifarious post natal data programming.

Everything that exists is because of something that preceded it. That does nothing for your claim.

Did I make the claim that global peace and unity has occurred? I don't believe I did. Global peace and unity will never work, here, because of the fallen nature of Man.

So, if I take a baby and never mention anything to it, it will be an atheist? The first humans would've been atheist and at some point, humans became theists. Seeing as we are all brainwashed by those before us, according to you, it would seem then that for a deity to have been introduced into the minds of such naturally atheistic humans, a deity would've had to have existed.

Are you ever going to try and prove atheism at some point? I honestly would love to read what you deem to be the evidence for atheism, other than "because I said so".

Well deism is an obvious hypothetical outcome relative to an evolving intellectual species...So absolutely no need for a deity to exist...All that was required was the inquisitive species...If it wasn't for an asteroid, God and Jesus would probably have been divine lizards.

And man is pre-programmed to be a survivalist, so if God, then God designed "fallen man"...Bit of a daft thing to do.

"Evidence for atheism"...Evidence of what?...It's you who has a magic creator God, who impregnates a Jewish virgin who gives birth to.........God.....Who then gets himself executed, recovers, and then flies off to a magic realm named heaven, where he awaits the arrival of paid up believers...Otherwise it's of to the other magic realm named hell where the guy with the big horns is going to burn non-believers for eternity.................. You prove that.

Atheism is simply the opposite of theism and needs no other evidence..

Stephen wrote:

Debby Jesus was an explorer. He discovered heaven and made it accessible to all.

Do you actually realise the import of what you have written there? Because I doubt you do.

Debby John 14:2-4. My fathers house (in heaven)has many rooms, if that were not so would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you.

Just as I thought, you just do not realise nor understand what it is that you have written.

According to the BIBLE, god/Jesus created heaven he didn't "discover" it.

And not everyone is welcome in heaven unconditionally. That includes YOU!

Debby God the father created heaven and Jesus was his son born from Virgin Mary. Read your Bible.

Not according to Christian belief . Christians say that the evidence for Jesus being god can be found in Genesis and other parts of the OT.. So I think you aught to read yours.

jesus admitted he did not do anything.

John 5:30 I can do nothing on my own.

linate wrote:

Also my view on non Christians being condemned is the same as the catholic church.

That’s not what the Bible teaches.

Jesus said the most important commandment was to love God, and to “love thy neighbor as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke.10:27, James 2:8 to name a few). I don’t see how you can love your neighbor as you love yourself without recognizing that his faith is to him, what your faith is to you.

Jesus said “in his father’s house there are many mansions” (John 14:2), and “the kingdom of God is within” (Luke 17:21).

The Bible tells us that “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Corinthians 7:7) and that “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit from. (1 Corinthians 12:7).

In 1 Corinthians 12:12–27, the Bible uses the metaphor of a body with diverse parts working harmoniously together to express divine unity, unity is not about sameness, perhaps if we can stop confusing unity with sameness, and find the divine unity in diversity, then we will make the world a better place

Knowingly rejecting jesus is the basis for condemnation.

And yet, the Bible says that “whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him” (Matthew 12:32).

I can make a strong argument that the “unforgivable sin” is engaging in denominational strife and religious one-upmanship, that is in fact what Jesus referred to as “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, and I can’t imagine Jesus being anything but openly shamed by such a divided house. (I will start another thread regarding my interpretation of “unforgivable sin”)

And, its not so much that they cant advance in the afterlife, its that they aren't proactively saved by the covenant of jesus with the father

The Bible gives us an image of God’s kingdom that embraces diversity of religion, showing people from “every nation, tribe, people and language” worshiping together (Revelation 7:9).

The Bible tells us we should not judge others (Matthew 7:1) and that “the word of God is not bound” (2 Timothy 2:9), so how can you justify limit and confining the word of God?

Finally, the Bible is very explicit that you do not know what you are talking about. It says that at best it is as “seen through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12), that we only “know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9-10) and that “if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” (1 Corinthians 8:1-2}

The Bible quotes God directly in saying “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Given that the Bible tells you that you “do not know as you ought to know”, don’t you think it’s unpardonably arrogant to point at two billion Muslims and try to tell God that with that particular one-quarter of the global population, he’s doing it wrong?

Your verse about disrespecting jesus is interesting but it says disrespecting Jesus can be forgiven but not disrespecting the holy spirit. The gist is it depends on the heart of the person and mere mocks are nothing but the heart is what matters, the holy spirit. The definition of sin is to intentionally do what you know is wrong and that extends to condemnation too. And again those who reject the spirit can go far in the next life but they can't be saved by the covenant of jesus unless they are loving but ignorant. The key is that having a relationship with the trinity means you have a relationship with love itself and rejecting that means you won't get far. Anyways to bolster that rejecting jesus brings condemnation is the overwhelming witness of scripture below (not accepting due to ignorance is different than rejecting, again)

The New Testament contains several passages where rejecting Jesus, refusing the light, or resisting God's truth is associated with condemnation, judgment, or remaining in darkness. Since you're interested in the theological implications, I'll distinguish between verses that explicitly pronounce condemnation and those that describe rejection as spiritually dangerous.

One important distinction: the Bible also distinguishes rejecting the light from never having fully understood or received it. That distinction matters when comparing these passages with Jesus' words that speaking against the Son of Man can be forgiven (Matthew 12:32).

### 1\. The clearest passages: rejecting Jesus or the light brings judgment

### 1\. John 3:17–21 — Rejecting the light

The most direct passage

> “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” — John 3:18, KJV“Men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” — John 3:19, KJVThe passage also says God sent his Son not to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through him.

### 2\. John 12:46–48 — Rejecting Jesus' words

> “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” — John 12:46, KJV“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him.” — John 12:48, KJVJesus connects his mission as light with the judgment of those who reject his words. The same passage also emphasizes that he came to save the world (John 12:47).

### 3\. John 8:24 — Dying in unbelief

> “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” — John 8:24, KJVOne of Jesus' strongest warnings about unbelief. The context concerns his identity and the consequences of refusing to believe in him.

### 4\. John 15:22–24 — Rejecting Jesus despite his revelation

> “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.” — John 15:22, KJVJesus says that his coming and works leave his opponents without an excuse for their rejection. This passage is especially relevant to the question of whether greater revelation brings greater responsibility.

### 5\. John 5:22–24 — Refusing the Son

> “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation.” — John 5:24, KJVThe passage contrasts receiving Jesus' word and believing the Father with coming under judgment. Read verses 22–29 for the full context.

### 6\. Luke 10:10–16 — Rejecting the messengers of Christ

> “He that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” — Luke 10:16, KJVJesus warns towns that refuse the disciples' message and identifies rejection of his authorized messengers with rejection of himself and the Father.

### 7\. Mark 16:16 — Unbelief and condemnation

> “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” — Mark 16:16, KJVThis is an explicit statement connecting unbelief with condemnation. A textual note: Mark 16:9–20 is absent from some of the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, so the passage's textual history should be acknowledged.

### 8\. Matthew 10:14–15 — Rejecting the proclamation

> “It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” — Matthew 10:15, KJVJesus describes a more severe judgment for towns that reject the disciples. The implication is that hearing and rejecting a message can increase responsibility.

### 9\. Matthew 11:20–24 — Refusing to repent despite miracles

Jesus condemns Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for failing to repent despite witnessing his mighty works. He says the judgment will be more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, and even Sodom than for some of these towns.

### 10\. Matthew 12:30–32 — Being against Christ and blaspheming the Spirit

> “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” — Matthew 12:30, KJVJesus warns about opposing his work and then speaks of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. However, verse 32 explicitly distinguishes speaking against the Son of Man, which can be forgiven, from blasphemy against the Spirit.

### 2\. More passages about rejecting Christ, truth, and salvation

These passages are also important, although some concern deliberate apostasy or refusal to repent rather than simple disbelief.

| Passage | What it says |

| ----------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| John 3:36 | Whoever rejects the Son will not see life, and God's wrath remains upon them. |

| John 6:53 | Jesus says that unless people eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, they have no life in them. Read with John 6:60–66 for the response of disciples who turn away. |

| John 8:12 | Jesus calls himself the light of the world; those who follow him will not walk in darkness. |

| John 9:39–41 | Jesus speaks of judgment in terms of spiritual sight and blindness, particularly addressing those who claim to see but refuse to recognize their blindness. |

| John 10:25–28 | Jesus says that some do not believe because they are not among his sheep, contrasting them with those who hear his voice and receive eternal life. |

| John 14:6 | Jesus identifies himself as the way, the truth, and the life, and says that no one comes to the Father except through him. |

| Acts 13:46 | Paul and Barnabas tell those who reject the word of God that they are turning away from it and judging themselves unworthy of eternal life. |

| Romans 1:18–25 | Paul describes people who suppress the truth, refuse to honor God, and exchange the truth for a lie. |

| Romans 2:5–8 | Stubbornness and an unrepentant heart are associated with storing up wrath for the day of judgment. |

| 2 Corinthians 4:3–4 | Paul says the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds have been blinded to its light. |

| 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9 | Christ's judgment is described in relation to those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel. |

| 2 Thessalonians 2:10–12 | Those who refuse the love of the truth and take pleasure in unrighteousness are described as coming under judgment. |

| Hebrews 2:1–3 | The author warns against neglecting the great salvation announced through the Lord. |

| Hebrews 10:26–31 | Deliberate, persistent sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth is treated with a particularly severe warning. |

| Hebrews 12:25 | The author warns readers not to refuse the one who speaks from heaven. |

| 2 Peter 2:20–21 | Turning back after coming to know the way of righteousness is described as worse than never having known it. |

| 1 John 5:10–12 | Rejecting God's testimony concerning his Son is contrasted with receiving the testimony and having life in the Son. |

| 2 John 9 | Going beyond and not remaining in the teaching of Christ is contrasted with having both the Father and the Son. |

For the passages that most directly say rejection leads to condemnation, see especially John 3:36, Romans 2:5–8, 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9, and Hebrews 10:26–31.

### 3\. Other relevant warnings about rejecting or denying Christ

These are additional references worth including in a comprehensive study:

* Matthew 10:32–33 — Whoever denies Jesus before others will be denied before the Father.

* Matthew 21:33–44 — The parable of the wicked tenants culminates in judgment on those who reject the owner's son; Jesus also speaks of the rejected stone becoming the cornerstone.

* Matthew 22:1–14 — The parable of the wedding feast warns about refusing the invitation and being unprepared to participate.

* Matthew 25:31–46 — The final judgment separates those who serve others from those who fail to do so.

* Luke 13:23–30 — Jesus warns that some will seek to enter but will be excluded from the kingdom.

* Luke 19:41–44 — Jesus laments Jerusalem because it did not recognize the time of its visitation.

* Acts 4:10–12 — Peter declares that salvation is found in no one else.

* 1 John 2:22–23 — Denying the Son is described as denying the Father.

* 1 John 5:11–12 — Eternal life is in God's Son; having the Son is associated with having life.

* 2 John 7–9 — The passage warns against denying Christ and failing to abide in his teaching.

* Revelation 3:5 — Jesus warns about the possibility of one's name being blotted out of the book of life, while promising the overcomer that he will not do so.

* Proverbs 1:24–31 — Wisdom warns those who refuse her counsel that they will reap the consequences of their rejection.

* Proverbs 8:35–36 — Finding Wisdom is associated with life, while rejecting her is associated with harm and death.

For further reading, [Bible Gateway's collection of passages about rejecting Christ](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A18%2C+John+3%3A36%2C+John+12%3A48%2C+Hebrews+10%3A26-29&version=KJV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) is a useful starting point.

### 4\. The important theological qualification

Since you are looking at this alongside Matthew 12:32, I would keep three distinctions in view:

* Explicit condemnation: John 3:18–20, John 3:36, John 8:24, and John 12:48 are among the strongest texts.

* Greater responsibility after greater revelation: Matthew 11:20–24, Luke 10:10–16, and John 15:22–24 suggest that receiving more revelation and then rejecting it can make judgment more severe.

* Deliberate apostasy or persistent resistance: Hebrews 6:4–6 and 10:26–31 are especially severe warnings about turning away after receiving the truth.

These texts should not all be treated as saying exactly the same thing. Rejecting a message one has genuinely understood, failing to believe because one has never encountered it adequately, struggling with doubt, and deliberately resisting what one recognizes as God's truth are not necessarily equivalent situations.

One especially important counterpoint is John 3:17: Jesus says that God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. The warnings about rejection appear within that larger statement of God's saving purpose.

The passages establish the seriousness of rejecting Christ, but they do not, by themselves, resolve every question about God's ultimate purposes, the fate of those who never adequately encountered the gospel, or whether anyone might repent after death. Those require additional theological argument rather than simply collecting condemnation verses.