Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

In my profession I constantly find others reading the bible and on occasion praying. I'm always delighted to see others looking for a spiritual connection to our father. I look for opportunities to talk with others about Gods word, and the other day was no exception.

What I found was a gentleman discussing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He had his own belief on what this subjects interpretation means, as many do. He even asked me to look it up and research it myself because he felt my understanding was off. Always looking to make sure I have my own head on straight I went for it. Plus, to be honest I don't argue with others. Most people I've ever met are stuck in their ways of thinking, and some have accused me of heinous things in the past. However, I do listen, check my own understanding, and am very willing to change my thinking if I find I'm off the word. So I looked.

Mark 3:22-30

-And the scribes that came down from Jerusalem said, "He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils." And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shallblaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme agasint the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" Because they said he hath an unclean "spirit."-

For me the real question comes in "why?" They blasphemed against the Holy Spirit by accusations against our Lord that he was casting out devils by the power of Satan. But why? If they didn't believe in God they would have been happy for the healings and went about their business. If they were truly working for the one true God they would have rejoiced that God worked through this man even if they didn't believe he was the Son of God. So the real question is WHY. Why were they so quick to dismiss it?

John 8:42-44

Jesus said unto them, "If God were your father ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand My speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (emphasis mine)

John 8:48-49

Then answered the Jews, and said unto Him, "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" Jesus answered, "I have not a devil; but I honor my father, and ye do dishonour me.


So from this will can conclude that the Jews in John A) sold out to the devil, and B) accused jesus of being possessed with a devil, which is exactly what was happening in Mark. So blasphemy against the Holy Spirit may very well have been accusing Jesus of casting out devils by the power of Satan. However, what came before that? What causes a man to accuse our saviour of being possessed? It would make sense that such a man had already given his life to Satan. I don't know if the Jewish leaders of that time knew they had sold out to the Devil. Many people in the old testament sold out to devils in Ashtaroth, Molech and other pagan gods. I'm not saying that people can't have a change of heart and turn from Budda to Christ. I am saying that many of the hard core leaders in any movement have already sold out to their God. The followers of such leaders do many times find Christ. However, the guys in the seats of power (the gurus if you will) have sold out to their god. Unfortunately, they just don't realize yet that they've sold out to the wrong one.

In the end I hope this was beneficial to you. Please do the research yourself. I have found many many interpretations of this passage, but mostly find that people theorize that because it's never mentioned again it must mean: X,Y,and Z. I know what I believe to be the truth through prayer and study. But who's to say I'm right? Please do your own reseach on this subject.

Below is a opinion slightly different from my own that I got off the web (with the site listed). My objective here isn't to get you to believe me but to do your own research and believe the truth.







http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html

The following was taken from the above site.

Question: "What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?"Answer: The concept of “blasphemy against the Spirit” is mentioned in Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:22-32. The term blasphemy may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” The term can be applied to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to God. It is also attributing some evil to God, or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him. This case of blasphemy, however, is a specific one, called “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:31. In Matthew 12:31-32, the Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that the Lord was possessed by the demon “Beelzebub” (Matthew 12:24). Now notice that in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what they did to commit “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”

This blasphemy has to do with someone accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of Spirit-filled. As a result, this particular incidence of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be duplicated today. Jesus Christ is not on earth—He is seated at the right hand of God. No one can witness Jesus Christ performing a miracle and then attribute that power to Satan instead of the Spirit. The closest example today would be attributing the miracle of a redeemed person’s changed life to Satan’s power rather than to the effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The blasphemy of the Spirit today, which is the same as the unpardonable sin, is the state of continued unbelief. There is no pardon for a person who dies in unbelief. Continual rejection of the Holy Spirit’s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ is the unpardonable blasphemy against Him. Remember what is stated in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Further on in the same chapter is the verse “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him” (John 3:36). The only condition wherein someone would have no forgiveness is if he is not among the “whoever believes in Him,” for it is he who “rejects the Son.

”Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, & Brauch.

interesting site

http://www.trueworldhistory.info/

The Little Red Hen reloaded.

My friend Danica posted this on her blog on myspace. I had to share it with you it's very good.


We were all taught a story back in elementary school that resembled the first part of this, but somewhere along the lines the ending was changed. We need to get back to the truths in the original version.

The little red hen called all of her Domocrat neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread.
"Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."
"Excess profits!" cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
"Capitalist leech!" screemed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signed and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obsenities.
Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand."
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. "Fairness" had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread the "the rich" were paying for.
EPILOGUE
Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything
IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?

FSA, interesting.

Stop Federal Takeover of Food Regulation in H.R.875..March 11, 2009Ethan Huff(NaturalNews) The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund recently reported the unveiling of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875) on Feb. 4, 2009, by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), to both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture. Cosponsored by 36 other Congressmen, all Democrats, H.R. 875 would essentially transfer all state control over food regulation to the Food Safety Administration (FSA), a newly-established federal bureaucracy to be created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Its implications point to the elimination of all independent, family farms as well as all organic farming operations due to overbearing federal regulations subjectively determined by FSA in favor of corporate factory farms.Some of the requirements set forth within H.R.875 include:- Designating FSA as sole regulator of food safety rather than the individual states, including granting FSA the power to implement and administer a "national system for regular unannounced inspection of food establishments" under its own terms.- Reclassifying all farms as "food production facilities", ensuring they come under the regulatory and inspection protocols of FSA as well as enforcing compliance with whatever FSA deems as appropriate food safety requirements.- Requiring farmers to comply with FSA-established "minimum standards" for farming practices, including requiring them to establish Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans and other written documentation as determined and mandated by FSA.- Granting FSA the power to arrogate "preventative process controls to reduce adulteration of food" as it deems fit.- Instituting FSA as food safety law enforcement, allowing it to assess civil penalties and fines for violation of any and all FSA safety laws up to $1 million for each violation. Collected fines would become unappropriated slush funds to be used however FSA deems fit in order to "carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law".While many of these provisions may appear benign due to language emphasizing safety and to standardized regulations, the implications are far more mischievous. While stripping states of what little tenth amendment powers remain, H.R. 875 would establish a central regulatory body with even more unaccountable authority than that of the FDA. Similar to the provisions contained in the Obama "stimulus" package and the Bush "bailout" before it, H.R. 875 would bolster the ever-burgeoning federal empire in eliminating state sovereignty and individual freedom, particularly in relation to food.The legality of any type of raw milk distribution across the country is also in jeopardy as H.R. 875 would grant FSA the statutory authority to impose a ban on its sale and distribution, period. If, for example, FSA determines that pasteurization is a necessary "preventative process" for safe milk production, it could override any current state provisions permitting intrastate raw milk sales, an area where even the overbearing FDA does not have legitimate jurisdiction. This limit would not apply to FSA, however, which would be granted unlimited jurisdictional power over all decisions concerning food safety, despite the unconstitutionality of such authority.Additionally, the bill contains language that would expand the definition of the word "contaminant" for purposes of widening the scope of what constitutes "adulterated food". In other words, the vague, open-ended language would grant seemingly unlimited authority to FSA to arbitrarily levy fines whenever and to whomever it deems fit for breaching its subjective food safety rules.The full text of H.R. 875 can be found here as well as committee contacts and a listing of the bill..s cosponsors. It is important to keep in mind that Rep. DeLauro..s husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for biotechnology giant Monsanto, the multi-national corporation responsible for the creation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in cows, the perpetuation of "Round-Up Ready" sugar and soy products hidden in conventional foods, and the instigation of lawsuits against farmers whose fields were contaminated by Monsanto..s patented seeds. H.R. 875 provides the means by which corporations like Monsanto can seize control of the last-remaining independent farming operations in the United States.H.R. 875 is still being reviewed by the committees with no official date set for a vote. Now is the time to contact both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture to express opposition to this federal takeover of the food supply. Also, be sure to contact your representatives to express opposition as well."Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." -Henry Kissinger, 1970

Trickle Down Poverty

If you want to know who funded the money to get your representative elected look at this site.

www.OpenSecrets.org

Oh my representative Mr. Brian Baird of Washington got 52% of his money from the ultra socialist LABOR UNIONS... A good amount from Mr. Bill Gates Microsoft, and a decent portion from single issue special interests (you know the stuff earmarks are famous for in the senate). Good thing for us that Mr. Baird isn't a senator to strangle our economy by adding more waste to the current pork spending Marxist/Obama anti stimulus package. The sad thing is that the people of my district had another candidate who called himself a "Ron Paul Republican" who ran against him. He openly stated he intended to eliminate the federal reserve. Nope, we didn't vote for him (Of course I don't mean me I really mean the idiots who voted for increased slavery by voting for Baird). For those who are interested you might look at the web site above to see how your representatives are helping support trickle down poverty to your backyard. Take care comrades.....

cool website

www.wilderness-survival.net

Edible Wild Plants A northwest field guide, by thomas s. elias and peter a. dykeman

Now I will be the first to admit I did not read this book cover to cover, and honestly I doubt that's the design of it anyway. I found the information in this book solid, educational, and yet it made me realize I need more than just this book. Of course the authors themselves would agree with me.

"Since it is impossible to distinguish among the 20,000 North American species in this or any other book, you may also want to refer to identification guides devoted to your own region or state."

After the above statment the authors list some good regional resources. So lets get down to what I liked and didn't like about this book.

Likes: Easy to follow, color photos, key makes it easy to identify uses for the plants. They even tell you how to best use the plant as well as how it can be used in survival in some cases. I also like that they seperated the plants by season. They also have an index where you can look the little guy up by name.

Dislikes (or they could have added this): They have a small picture of the region the plant grows on each photo. This is OK but I would also liked to have had a regional index. This way you could look up plants by their season in your region. Then all you have to do is turn directly to the specific page. This would have made more sense to me. I also have to agree with another reviewer that stated the pictures were TOO close up. This is nice but doesn't give you a clear visual how the plant will look in relation to the landscape. Sure, they give you a description of it's size in the text, but I would have like to have two smaller photos for each plant (they did this in some cases but not as frequently as I would have liked.

All in all I give this book a solid 4 stars. It's worth it's money and in my opinion is worth more than some three star reviewers are giving it credit for. However, I do believe (as do the authors) that you will probably need to supplement it with another text.

This is a good purchase.