Next, the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was given power to scorch the people with fire. And the people were scorched by intense heat, and they blasphemed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues; yet they did not repent and give Him glory.
And the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness, and men began to gnaw their tongues in anguish and blaspheme the God of heaven for their pains and sores; yet they did not repent of their deeds. ~~ Revelation 16:8-11
God is holy. Holiness when applied to God refers to everything that separates Him from His creation and His creatures. It includes moral purity but it’s not limited to that. God is self-sufficient, infinite in wisdom, all-powerful, all knowing, omnipresent. He sees the beginning from the end. We are none of these things. We are finite and limited and imitate God in certain ways but cannot be like Him in every way. He’s holy and in a category all by Himself. He cannot be compared to anything or anybody. To do so is to make a categorical error. Universalists compare God to Hitler because of His fiery hell and therefore blaspheme His holiness. If God has morally sufficient and justifiable reasons for hell then hell isn’t unjust. His holiness remains intact. Because of God’s holiness He’s in a privileged position. As finite and limited creatures we are to depend on Him in humbled trust as we walk in mercy and love. God is holy. He’s no evil monster.
And we can’t really blame God, for the Zombie Apocalypse; - during the tribulation. I would blame it on the Devil. 
Look qaz you either believe God is Love, or you are going to swim in a continual sea of contradictory opinions. You may be looking at the wrong sources if you think otherwise.
good luck 
Where did you read that at?
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. [1 Tim.1:13]
Saul was a serial killer, like Hitler & others. He was an Inquisitor, persecutor & murderer of those of faith in Jesus. He compelled them to blaspheme, both men and women.
Yet he received mercy because he acted in unbelief & ignorance (1 Tim.1:13). Just as millions of others who have already died in such a condition of unbelief & ignorance shall receive mercy.
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”, Jesus prayed on the cross.
Like serial killer Inquisitionist Saul, who had not blasphemed the Holy Spirit, neither have those who have died in unbelief and ignorance. Therefore they SHALL be pardoned. Jesus said so:
28 Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming, 29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin-" 30 for they said, “An unclean spirit has he.” (Mark 3, CLV)
31 Therefore I am saying to you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be pardoned men, yet the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be pardoned."
32 And whosoever may be saying a word against the Son of Mankind, it will be pardoned him, yet whoever may be saying aught against the holy spirit, it shall not be pardoned him, neither in this eon nor in that which is impending. (Mt.12:31-32, CLV)
Since there are Scriptures speaking of multiple future ages (i.e. eons) to come (Eph.2:7; Rev.11:15, etc), there is the possibility that this sin against the Holy Spirit may be pardoned after the coming age. In fact it will be:
Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life’s justifying."
Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."
Where does the idea come from that Spirit blasphemers receive retributive “punishment” after they’ve repented?
None of the Spirit blasphemy passages mention “punishment”, but speak of not being “pardoned”. The Greek word can also be translated forgiven, let off, etc. What they will not be “let off” from (or the consequences of such) is not explained.
Their are various ways to interpret the BHS passages in harmony with universalism, e.g. MacDonald, Talbott, Pratt. Personally i wouldn’t go with davey on anything, but everyone’s entitled to be wrong. 
Not being “let off” the hook for something may not necessarily involve an active “punishment” with torments, but might merely require the loss of a reward. “If you don’t eat your dinner, you get no hot fudge sundae.”
This is simply the quagmire of futurism. When said blasphemy is seen for what it WAS, past tense, i.e., a generational sin and thus cumulative of Jesus’ CONTEMPORARIES just as he PLAINLY said, then all such fear is unwarranted and unnecessary and simply evaporates.
Phew, that’s a relief for me… no guilt by association with Origeney.
I didn’t read the whole thing above, Qaz, but sometimes words are used imprecisely. The Bible isn’t a science textbook; it’s literature. An “age” may easily mean “a long time.” I am certain this means “for as long as it takes” not because it’s specifically delineated in scripture, but because it is the only understanding that makes sense.
[size=130]
Davo just ain’t got no future![/size]
[size=150] Such blaspheme!! [/size]
Don, knowing what Davo believes and espouses and how he puts a great deal of his time into the issue, how could you stoop to such a low as to caricature his beliefs with such a cartoon?
But maybe there is a violent hatred to what David is espousing?
Hey Chad, all is good… I always appreciate your appreciation 
Don and I don’t mind mixing it, even with a cartoon
Perhaps he is learning some lessons, from the Russian Orthodox, Holy Fools tradition? And how yours truly, tries to implement it?
And cartoons can be a theological tool. Watch this short YouTube video - for proof.
Mt.12:32 And whosoever may be saying a word against the Son of Mankind, it will be pardoned him, yet whoever may be saying aught against the holy spirit, it shall not be pardoned him, neither in this eon nor in that which is impending. (CLV)
Does the translation “be saying” (rather than “say”) imply a continuous action, and allow an interpretation that the “not be pardoned” only applies as long as one continues “saying” aught “against the Holy Spirit”? If so, then could such be pardoned at any time should they repent, either in this eon or “that which is impending”?
“The Concordant Greek Text with Literal Sublinear” states: “…who yet ever may be saying down of the spirit the holy not it-will-be-being-from-let to-him…” (Mt.12:32b). Likewise: scripture4all.org/OnlineInte … /mat12.pdf
Compare:
Heb.10:26 If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and raging fire that will consume all adversaries.
Mt.18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Interesting group of people here
Yes, the TRANSLATION so implies. But is it a correct translation? The tense for continuous action is the imperfect, not the aorist as in this verse. The aorist is used for a simple action, usually in the past, and not a continuous action.
I have checked many translations and none of them render the verb as “may be saying” except the CLV.