Axiomatological Genealogy of Lying
When it comes to lying, the term itself is rarely concrete or absolute. Rather, it is fundamentally relative—its meaning shifts in relation to what is known and by whom. From an Axiomatological perspective, the core question becomes: To what extent does the person uttering the lie possess knowledge of the fact that they are lying? In other words, lying is not merely a matter of words spoken—it is a reflection of the internal alignment (or misalignment) between subjective awareness and objective reality.
Blasphemy
One of the most direct teachings about blasphemy comes from Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels:
“Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
(Mark 3:28–29, NIV)
This teaching is echoed in both Matthew 12:31–32 and Luke 12:10.
To fully grasp the actual meaning of this statement, it is crucial to distinctively define two core elements:
Blasphemy itself
The Holy Spirit
A Unique and Asymmetrical Punishment
The concept of an “unforgivable sin” is rare and striking in its asymmetry. It represents a unique form of punishment—an irrevocable rejection of the possibility of forgiveness and, by extension, the denial of any meaningful afterlife or divine communion.
But what does this truly signify when we examine it in depth? At first glance, one might interpret it as an example of God inflicting an extraordinarily harsh penalty upon those who commit this specific offense. However, such a surface-level interpretation is insufficient and does not fully account for the profound metaphysical and moral dimensions of the phenomenon.
Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit
When examining the notion of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, there emerges a fascinating nuance within the scriptural text: the distinction between Christ and the Holy Spirit in this context.
This distinction is laid out explicitly in Matthew 12:31–32:
“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
At first glance, this can appear to contradict the Christian understanding of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as co-equal in essence and divinity. Why would a sin against the Son of Man (Christ) be forgivable, while a sin against the Holy Spirit is not?
This apparent contradiction dissolves when we see that the distinction is not about hierarchy within the Trinity, but about the mode of revelation and the nature of the human response. Christ, as the Son of Man, entered history in human form, accessible to the limitations of human perception and judgment. Thus, speaking against Christ can be seen as an error of historical understanding, forgivable because it arises from finite human limitations.
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit and Enlightenment Thought
However, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit transcends historical or cultural context. It involves the rejection of the direct and interior witness of the divine—the moral conscience, the inner spark of truth, the intuitive sense of right and wrong. This form of rejection is not merely an intellectual misunderstanding; it is a deliberate suppression of truthknown internally, an act of willful moral inversion.
This conceptual division has carried forward into modern times, especially through the legacy of the Enlightenment. Western legal frameworks, grounded in the notion of inalienable human rights, implicitly recognize the dignity of the individual as a moral being—a subject who must respond to an inner, transcendental sense of conscience. In this sense, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can be seen as the voluntary erasure of that moral center, an act that cannot be externally corrected or compensated for by social structures or legal codes.
1. Speaking Against the Traditional Order: Freedom of Speech as the Freedom of Thought
The freedom of speech is inseparable from the freedom of thought. From Genesis onward, the entire biblical narrative is built upon the concept of choice. Without choice—without the possibility of free will—there would be no Nature in the Fichtean sense, and indeed, no reality at all. Limiting speech is not simply a political act; it dismantles the neurological and existential basis of what it means to be a conscious being.
When speech is constrained, thought itself is stifled. The mind becomes a passive receptor of preordained ideas rather than an active processor of lived experience. Without this freedom to express, challenge, and explore, existence collapses into determinism. There is no longer a living, self-defining part of Nature—the individual becomes just another link in an endless causal chain, stripped of agency and uniqueness.
Consciousness as Divine and Infinite
This idea reaches into the deepest foundations of consciousness itself. There is no doubt that consciousness is a part of Nature, infused with divine origin—whether one sees that as God-given in the panentheistic sense or as an emergent property of an ordered cosmos. Yet within the finite constraints of the human mind, consciousness must contain infinite potential. It is this tension between infinity and finitude that grants us the capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood, to err, and to grow.
The Right to Err as a Foundation of Subjectivity
To err is not merely a moral failing—it is a necessary condition for individuality. Without the right to make mistakes, the human mind would be nothing more than a monolithic construct—a mechanical part of an impersonal cosmos. True subjectivity arises when the individual wrestles with error, discerns meaning, and shapes values within the flux of lived experience. This is the core of human dignity and the essence of freedom.
Subjective Individuality and the Right to “Speak Against the Son of Man”
There is no mercantile or ideological formula for generating one’s identity. This is precisely where Postmodernismand certain strains of leftist ideology have gone too far: they promote the fantasy of a purely self-constructed identity—an idea that, in its essence, borders on insanity.
The flaw in this logic lies in the inability to define boundaries and to establish a normative structure—the very structure that roots identity in the fabric of Nature and ensures it remains coherent. In the Fichtean sense, we often mistake the task of setting boundaries: while we attempt to separate the I from the Not-I, the truth is that our identity is not limited to the physical body. It extends outward, conceptually captured in the form of a cross:
The horizontal axis represents the closest relationships—in the Axiomatological sense, this is most clearly seen in the nuclear family.
The vertical axis represents the linkage between governing moral structures (the transcendent normativity) and our day-to-day behavioral patterns.
Identity as a Cross-Structured Choice
The essential idea here is that identity is not an atomized or pre-packaged construct—like the dystopian automaton of Orwell’s 1984, or the passive “consumer” of identity in modern culture. Rather, identity must be rooted in choice. It is the existential burden—the suffering willingly undertaken and the decisions consciously made—that forges an identity which is not merely personal but cross-structured: a living bridge between transcendent moral order and the immanent reality of everyday behavior.
The Freedom to Critique: Speaking Against the Son of Man
In this light, the right to “speak against the Son of Man” (as described in the Gospels) can be seen as a symbolic expression of this principle: the human being must have the freedom to err, to question, and to challenge even the most revered figures—not out of malice, but out of the necessity of forming a coherent, authentic self. It is precisely because identity is not pre-ordained but must be earned through confrontation with truth, error, and moral obligation that this right is essential.
The Absolute Necessity for the Right to Err
This is precisely why we need free will—the freedom to think, and just as importantly, the freedom to err. This is why we must be allowed to make mistakes, even in relation to the most fundamental aspects of existence. It is exactly this idea that is affirmed in the words of Jesus:
“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.”
(Matthew 12:32)
In modern Western legal foundations, this principle finds its parallel in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In essence, we must have the right to err—because it is only through this freedom that we can truly recognize, appreciate, and choose the truth. To be able to disagree with the most fundamental truths—even to speak against the “Son of Man”—is not a sign of betrayal; it is the very condition of authentic belief.
Doubt as a Path to Faith
We see this in the story of Thomas, who doubted and demanded to see the wounds of Christ. His doubt did not condemn him; it became the pathway to a deeper faith. Similarly, in the story of Job, who wrestled with God in the face of undeserved suffering, Job’s lack of understanding was not a sin. It was, paradoxically, the gateway to a direct encounter with the divine.
Even in these sacred narratives, the freedom to question and to err is not just forgivable—it is an essential precondition for faith. As Jesus teaches in Matthew 7:13–14:
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
The Necessity of Boundaries and Finite Choice
The ancient Greeks intuited this profound truth. They believed the gods envied mortals—not because of our suffering, but because our limited lifespans and restrictive conditions force us to choose. In finitude, every choice carries moral weight. If we lived forever, then—like an infinitely tossed coin—every possibility would eventually be realized, and there would be no meaningful difference between right and wrong.
It is precisely because we have boundaries—between truth and error, between faith and doubt—that our lives acquire meaning. This is why speaking against the “Son of Man” is not only forgivable; it is, in a profound sense, the very foundation of belief itself.
Foundation of the Belief in God is the Freedom to Deny God
At the core of authentic belief lies the freedom to deny. The most important aspect of belief in God is that it must be chosen. If God were to manifest Himself so clearly that no doubt could remain—if divine presence were so overwhelming as to eliminate any possibility of dissent—then the act of “coming to faith” would lose all its meaning. Without choice, faith would not be a free act of love and trust; it would be mere submission to irresistible power.
This principle is made explicit in the Bible, particularly when Jesus is challenged to define the greatest commandment. In Matthew 22:37–40, he replies:
“And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.’”
Hierarchy as a Sign of Freedom
This response underscores a hierarchical structure within the moral law itself. Even within the divine commandments, there is a ranking of values—a prioritization that reflects the centrality of choice. The act of loving God above all elseis not merely a command; it is a willed alignment of heart, soul, and mind with the divine center.
This principle extends to the restructuring of commandments themselves. To rank one commandment above another—to marginalize lesser priorities in service of a central aim—is itself an act of moral agency. Jesus’ prioritization of commandments illustrates that even divine law is not a static equality of rules, but a dynamic hierarchy that requires human discernment and decision.
Freedom and Imperfection
As humans, we will never make these distinctions with the same perfect clarity that Jesus did. Yet we must have the freedom to present our case, however imperfect it may be. Our moral frameworks, our personal theologies, our understanding of right and wrong—all of these are built from the best of our knowledge, from the facts as we see them, and from the truths we have chosen to integrate.
This is why the freedom to question, to critique, and even to speak against the divine is not a sign of rebellion alone—it is the very foundation of moral responsibility. Without it, belief would be an empty reflex, not a living act of faith.
Going Against the Tradition: An Example
This is where the freedom to challenge tradition becomes essential: we must have the freedom to question anytraditional structure—to test whether it can be broken or reformed. However, this freedom must be exercised with caution. Traditions, after all, often emerge from deeply rooted human experience—they persist for good reason.
The Bible itself affirms this tension:
“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.”
Here, the act of questioning or speaking against even the most revered figure—the Son of Man—can be forgiven, reflecting the idea that constructive challenge is not inherently a betrayal.
Tradition, Slavery, and Psychometrics
We see this principle in historical contexts—most notably, the abolition of slavery. While slavery was once considered a social norm, it was ultimately broken because it clashed with deeper moral truths about human dignity and autonomy. Yet, even within this moral victory, it’s crucial to acknowledge that human tendencies—including those revealed through psychometric profiles—persist. Some individuals are predisposed to seek command structures because these provide a sense of stability and belonging they may not consciously articulate.
Modern Example: The Four-Day Workweek
Consider the contemporary debate about the four-day workweek. This represents a paradox—it challenges a traditional labor structure but may not fit everyone’s psychometric makeup.
From a Nietzschean perspective, the question is always: Who manifests the “master morality” in this new arrangement? Some employees—those high in assertiveness, gregariousness, and industriousness, but low in agreeableness and compassion—actually thrive on self-directed work. Paradoxically, telling them to take a day off undermines their productivity, because they work best when, how, and with whom they choose.
By contrast, employees higher in agreeableness may comply with a four-day week out of duty, but if they are also higher in neuroticism and lower in extraversion, the increased intensity can cause greater psychological strain. For them, the extra day off becomes merely a recovery day—not a meaningful improvement in well-being or productivity.
Thus, while tradition should not be uncritically accepted, it should not be discarded lightly either. Structural shifts like the four-day workweek may benefit only a specific segment of the workforce—one whose psychometric profile aligns with these new demands. This segment tends to be considerably smaller than optimistic predictions suggest.
Axiomatological Perspective: The Three Agents
From an Axiomatological perspective, we can conceptualize three participatory agents in any structural challenge:
The Individual
The New Normative Structure
Life as Truth Rooted in Tradition
For example, if a manager genuinely believes the four-day workweek is beneficial, there is no conflict within themselvesbetween the individual and the new structure. The real tension arises between the new structure and the broader realitygrounded in traditional experience.
Tradition and Evolution
Challenging tradition is not inherently destructive—it is vital for progress. Sometimes, as with slavery, the tension is resolved in favor of moral evolution. Other times, the new structure collapses—either because it is premature or needs refinement. Even then, the core of the tradition may grow stronger, adjusting slightly to new insights.
What will not happen, however, is the destruction of the individual who dares to speak out. The clash may defeat the idea, but it does not invalidate the person—a sign that the act of challenging, when done in good faith, is a constructive force.
This is the deeper meaning behind the biblical teaching:
“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.”
The courage to challenge—even when directed at the most central figure—is recognized, forgiven, and, at times, transforms the tradition itself for the better.
2. Speaking Against the Holy Spirit
The Meaning of the Original Blasphemy
When it comes to speaking against the Holy Spirit, we enter an entirely different realm. To understand the gravity and logic behind what is called the unforgivable sin, we must first revisit the precise situation described in the Bible.
In Matthew 12:22, Jesus had just performed a profound miracle:
He healed a man who was demon-possessed, blind, and mute.
This was a triple healing: He cast out the demon, restored the man’s speech, and gave him back his sight.
This event was more than an isolated miracle—it was a microcosm of the entire biblical narrative: the Holy Spirit, working through Jesus, confronts and overcomes the forces of darkness. As a result, the man’s eyes are opened and he can speak his truth—he is fully restored in his physical and spiritual being.
The Reaction of the Pharisees
What followed next is essential to grasping the true meaning of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The people who witnessed this miraculous healing were amazed. They began to wonder: “Could this be the Son of David?”—in other words, the long-awaited Messiah.
However, the Pharisees—the learned religious leaders of the time—responded with a deliberate lie:
“It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
(Matthew 12:24)
This statement was not merely a misunderstanding or a mistake. It was a willful distortion of the truth.
The Heart of the Unforgivable Sin
The Pharisees knew the Jewish Scriptures—passages like Isaiah 35:5–6, which foretold that the Messiah would heal the blind, the mute, and the afflicted. They also knew that no figure in the Old Testament had ever performed such a comprehensive healing—this was clearly an act of God, a sign of the Holy Spirit’s direct power.
Yet despite witnessing this firsthand, they chose to deny it. They saw the Holy Spirit in action and, fully aware of its divine source, they attributed it to demonic power. This was not an innocent error or an intellectual doubt—it was a deliberate moral inversion: calling the work of God the work of Satan.
This is why this sin is described as unforgivable—it is not merely a spoken error, but a total rejection of the moral and spiritual truth that the Holy Spirit had made undeniably manifest.
Introduction of the Idea of Self-Destruction
Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees was profound:
“If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?”
(Matthew 12:26)
This insight echoes throughout the Bible. For example, in Mark 3:24–26:
“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.”
Here, Jesus points out an eternal principle: any system—be it a kingdom, a household, or even an inner state of mind—that is divided against itself will inevitably collapse. This applies not only to spiritual forces like Satan’s kingdom but also to the human mind:
Any internal conflict—any cognitive dissonance—will eventually lead to destruction. No repression or suppression can endure indefinitely; the self-destructive nature of such a division is an inescapable law.
The Mechanics of Blasphemy
Jesus then clarified the true source of His power: He did not cast out demons by demonic power, but by the Spirit of God. By attributing His divine acts to Beelzebul, the Pharisees had committed a direct insult not just to Jesus, but to the Holy Spirit—the very power by which these miracles were performed.
This moment reveals a truth far more universal than many realize. It speaks to the divine spark of consciousness itself—the inner light that connects each person to a greater order of meaning. Blasphemy against something so profound and foundational is not just an intellectual error; it is a deliberate betrayal of the moral order. In this sense, it is an act that cannot—and perhaps should not—be forgiven, because it is a total rejection of the universal truth that binds reality together.
A Stern Warning
Jesus concludes with an unambiguous warning:
“And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”
(Matthew 12:31)
This blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not merely a mistake of perception—it is the ascribing of the work of the Holy Spirit to demonic forces. It is a hardened, deliberate rejection of the Spirit’s testimony about Jesus and the deeper reality of divine truth. It is, therefore, an act of spiritual self-destruction, severing the very root of life and consciousness.
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit in Everyday Life
In everyday life, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit hinges on a crucial distinction: the difference between uttering an untrue phrase due to misunderstanding or error, versus deliberately distorting the truth despite knowing it. From the Axiomatological perspective, the key tension in such cases does not lie between the idea and external reality but between the idea itself and the individual’s own moral alignment.
The Internal Nature of the Conflict
As in the biblical story, the conflict here is internal. The individual presents a version of truth they know is not aligned with reality. This is more than a simple lie or an exaggeration—it is a conscious denial of the truth. The person does not believe in the construct they present to others.
This internal contradiction—where the mind is divided against itself—is exactly what Jesus described when he spoke of a house divided against itself. Such constructs cannot endure because they are built on the impossible foundation of fighting evil with evil. In the end, they shatter the individual from within.
A Concrete Example: False Crime Reports
Consider, for instance, a false crime report filed against a close family member purely out of revenge. The initiation point here is not some misunderstanding—it is an act of deliberate evil: the bearing of false witness with the explicit intention of causing harm.
In such scenarios, there is no real benefit—only the risk of escalation and no path back, since admitting the falsehoodwould expose the deception itself.
To make such a report plausible, the person often amplifies details and lists every possible offense. They focus on the weakest points of the other party to maximize damage. This act of hyperbole—turning a minor physical contact into “violence,” or a raised voice into “yelling”—is inherently dishonest. While morally wrong, these distortions—which exaggerate the truth—are not yet direct blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Why This Is Different from Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit
These cases, however harmful, still involve some connection to real events. The distortions are exaggerations of actual interactions, which—though deceptive—are not outright fabrications from nothing.
True blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, by contrast, involves an individual fabricating an event that never occurred at all, fully aware of the lie they are constructing. It is a total severance from any moral or factual basis—a conscious inversion of the truth and a willful betrayal of the divine moral spark within.
A New, Fresh Node of Evil
What truly marks the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in its purest form is the creation of an event that never existed at all. In these cases, there is no initial event that could serve as a causal starting point. The act itself emerges entirely from the imagination—it is not a mistake or an exaggeration of something real. There is no blindness to the truth. Rather, the person fully understands that there is no truth at all in what they are saying, and yet they consciously choose to lie.
This is not a simple lapse or a fleeting deception—it is a deliberate act of evil. Such a person is fully aware of the moral weight of their actions. They know the meaning of conscience—the divine spark within each person, a miracle in itself—and they know it is a gift. Yet they choose to violate it, to profane it. They deliberately go against their own conscience, turning their moral compass upside down.
For example, a person might claim that they saw someone steal a cellphone from their home, while knowing with absolute certainty that no theft ever occurred and that the phone is still in their possession. This is not a modification of reality—it is the creation of a false reality, an act of calculated moral destruction.
Axiomatological Perspective: A New Occasion of Evil
From the Axiomatological perspective, such acts are manifold worse than simple distortions or lies. They do not merely alter an existing causal chain or bend a real event into something else. Instead, they initiate a new occasion—a fresh node of moral evil in the world. They override the clear moral sense—the Will of God that calls every conscience to truth—and replace it with their own evil intent.
This is more than just a lie—it is the generation of a new moral darkness. It is a deliberate act of creation, but instead of creating life or goodness, it births evil. It is a new node of corruption injected into the world’s unfolding story.
The Manifestation of Pure Moral Evil
There is something profoundly disturbing and different about this kind of act. It represents moral evil in its purest form—a darkness that begins in the human soul and then manifests outward into the world. It is the ultimate betrayal of the divine spark within, the deliberate choice to become an agent of evil.
