katieo mark 3;29 must be put into context
jesus was addressing the scribes...telling them if they are stong[unbound by deceit, thus not adulterating gods word]then 28 applies..

mark 3 28<<..ASSUREDLY, i say to YOU,...ALL SINS WILL BE FORGIVEN the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies THEY utter...>>they not you scribes...think along the lines of too whom much is given much is expected...in this case he is talking of the sheep[not the shepards]

to the shepards/scribes, he says mark 3;29.. BUT he who blasphemes..[adulterates gods words]...against the holy spirit...[so as to turn people against good/god]...never has forgiveness,..but is subject to eternal condemnation..[that ye do to the least, you do to god]

30..because THEY SAID...he [who blasphemes untruths re gods good]''he''..has an unclean spirit

john has much the same..[jesus is adressing the chief rabbi..explaining how we are all reborn after death in spirit..[and how thinking of the flesh is of the flesh/mortal..not spirit/eternal

[but he..as the acclaimed man of spirit..must think in spirit/eternal..[3;9..are you the teacher of israel and do not know these things]

3;10 most assuridly,..i say to YOU,...WE speak of that WE know,..and testify what WE have seen..[and you do not recieve witness]

note 3;19...and men loved the darkness..[flesh]..rather than the light[spirit]..because their deeds were evil

important too is 3;8...and you hear the sound..but cannot tell where it comes from...[understand this in the light of..even a beast knowing its masters still quiet voice]

know god voice..is that good voice of love and grace..[that still quiet inner voice on concionse]..not that same still quiet voice of vengance..[those of god know gods good voice]..all good comes from god]...good is the only truth

3;18..he who believes in him..[god/good]..is not condemed..he who thus does not believe in good/god is condemed allready

OUG,

I’m not here to continue that long Christian tradition of sniping at other Christian faiths… and I greet you as a brother in spirit, if not to the letter.

Personally, I find it helpful to use the NIV. It dispenses with the thee and ye confusion and I have confidence in the translation:

(from the Preface):

“ In the process of making the NIV, the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style….The goal was to have an accurate translation, one that would have clarity and literary quality.”

I’m satisfied that the NIV attains this goal and the NIV’s widespread usage across the mainstream Christian faiths would support that.

The NIV Mark 3:28 reads: “I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them”.

I can’t honestly see that the KJV adds a new dimension to this translation.

Jesus’ words may be addressed directly to the scribes but isn’t the application to everyone who hears the Word and rejects it? To any hypocrite who claims to uphold the law but tramples on it? Believer and unbeliever (and the scribes fall into the latter category, agree?)? Aren’t the scribes the embodiment of Isaiah’s warning? Let’s not forget that the scribes – the teachers of the law, with their thorough knowledge of scripture - would immediately have understood that Jesus was repeating Isaiah. Of course they hated him! They hated to hear the truth! But they haven’t been singled out here, they are being made an example of.

I’ve only brought Mark 3 into this thread to help shed some light on Matthew 12, which was introduced by Oliver.

Occasionally I come across a phrase that makes an impact - many thanks Dan S de Merengue for this one:

>>I am asking how we can be confident that our thinking is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable. I’ve previously posed the question of how we can trust what flows from the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey.<<

"the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey"

Love that.

But in the process of admiring the reductio ad absurdum of our thought processes into a single phrase, I noticed there is a question attached.

>>I still invite an answer to that question<<

The short - and long - answer is, of course, that we cannot.

There are simply so many secretions, and they are triggered by so many different conditions - fear, love, confusion, anger, bliss - that they are not possible to map, only to observe.

Sure, we can induce particular reactions by artificially introducing a chemical stimulus, but that doesn't make them controllable. And our different physical make-up, possibly also the imprint of our DNA, would defy any attempt to predict outcomes. Why else would two people respond differently to physical pain, for example.

So we are at the mercy of those dratted chemicals, yet rely upon them for a great deal of our minute-by-minute decision making.

I'm pretty certain - although short of any proof, not being a neurosurgeon - that our inclination or disinclination to religion would be a good example of an entirely chemical issue.

We experience a particular reaction to the religious stories we are told - they induce fear, love, confusion, anger, bliss, whatever - and the chemicals take over. Simple.

So your definitions in relation to our thinking, is it "accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable" cannot be objectively measured, since they are the result of those dratted chemicals, to which we each respond uniquely.

DSM,

Your quote "how we can trust what flows from the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey" is waving the white flag.

In substituting mockery for reason, you have simply admitted that your argument has no logical foundation.

My answer is "why not!" We trust the polarised charges in a piece of stone to keep our planes and satelites flying and handling our banking etc.

How can we trust a man in a frock who probably rogers children to give us moral and scientific guidance based on a book written centuries ago based on handed down tales from several generations previously?

As long as religion does not claim to have any foundation in science, and religious nuts don't assume that because they have found god that they have to drag everyone else down their "true path" of questionable morals and flexible ethics, then there will be no clash.

Shadow, no one's waving the white flag. In fact, Dan is simply providing a solid argument against naturalism- one which is been put forward, in a few variations by people such as CS Lewis, Victor Reppert and the great Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga. It's a fair objection to the naturalist account, IMO.

And, thoughts differ greatly from any of the examples you gave in your "why not"? Why should we have the ability to direct our thought processes? How can we obtain rationality from irrational atoms and molecules? These are fair questions. Why not? Doesn't do them any justice whatsoever.

katieo<<..sins and blasphemies of men..forgiven them”>>im reluctant to accept the new-age/version's..[i first read the/new-testiment in the new age version only...later..i came across a full/traditional bible,i understood it much better.

see...''them''..dosnt represent properl;y.''sons of men''..i recall specificlly..in job..a referance to the sons of god,..thus sons of man/men..cearly is intended to diferentiate..[teacher from student?]

<<Jesus’ words may be addressed>>..is..'will'..the same as..'may'..?

..as directed..<<..to the scribes..but isn’t the application to everyone who hears the Word and rejects it?>>..im not sure it can be [how can the same spoken to one..'of'..the flesh,..be the same as to, one of the spirit...[or say an unbeliever/..believer/..or a knower..?]

<<directed To any hypocrite who claims to uphold the law/but tramples on it?>>..what is worse one claiming belief..to lie..[or one not believing?]

there comes to mind the words of jesus..[about how the law was made for men,...specificcly..added an exclusion/clause..something like the law dosnt apply to you..[now]..it isnt..as WAS written

there are different levels..[a shepard who lies to his sheep,..is one to whom much is given,..and/thus much is expected..

think of the talents..[one got saved and saved 10,..thus was given more..[one got saved and only saved himself]...thats what that parrable..equates to

<<Believer and unbeliever..(..scribes fall into the latter category,..agree?)?>>...im sorry i cant..[we need only look at those who rape children[..may well have been scribes...but they didnt serve their flock..[for them]..to know god..indeed may have caused them to reject..god..all because some lying/cheating deciever..wolf..in sheeps/clothing...[hell will fall mercilessly on them]

<<Aren’t the scribes the embodiment of Isaiah’s warning?>>yes and not issiah alone ezikial/jemmiah..etc..[it is a predonminant theme]

<<..scribes...would immediately have understood..Jesus/repeating..Isaiah.>>..they would have had great difficulty,..actually equating the words/with the reality...havnt you ever met a famous person...[and got lost..for words,..then..later thought i should have..done..said...

<<..They hated to hear the truth!..But..haven’t been singled..made an example of...>>..i call them more..a teaching aid..[a warning]...

recall..its not what a mas..puts in his mouth..that makes us unclean..but that which comes out..remember..there will be many messiah's..you will hear he is here..etc..yet..by their deeds will we know them

to whom..much is given ...much is expected..likely more than those who got none..but in the end..we all get equal wages..[grace]