# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Global Christianity report.  Look at how many people believe in a "mythical God".

## Terry1

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/g...stianity-exec/


 The number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010. But the worlds overall population also has risen rapidly, from an estimated 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010. As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the worlds population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%).

----------


## phill4paul

Why did you put "mythical God" in quotes?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Fascinating.  Looks like a lot of Christians moved from Europe to America.

----------


## Terry1

> Why did you put "mythical God" in quotes?


Do you really wanna know how deep the rabbit hole goes? 



Hint:  This thread is the *other side of the same coin*.

----------


## Terry1

If God doesn’t exist, and you live as though He doesn’t exist, you have        no losses.5If God doesn’t exist, and you live as though He does, you have no losses but        gain the advantages of a better life.If God does exist, and you live as though He doesn’t, you lose big time.If God does exist, and you live as though He does, you have no losses and gain everything.



_Pascal's wager

If you go to the racetrack--why would you bet against the odds?_

----------


## phill4paul

> Do you really wanna know how deep the rabbit hole goes? 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint:  This thread is the *other side of the same coin*.


  So you are deliberately trying to pick a fight with other forum members that may have different beliefs?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Do you really wanna know how deep the rabbit hole goes? 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint:  This thread is the *other side of the same coin*.


I don't understand, Terry. Please explain.

----------


## Terry1

> So you are deliberately trying to pick a fight with other forum members that may have different beliefs?


Is that what it looks like to you?  That is your opinion as well.  What do you see wrong with attempting to discuss the reasons, unless it's something you don't wish to discuss.  Your post is the first to contest anything.  You either wish to discuss it or you don't.  No problem-o.

----------


## HVACTech

> Why did you put "mythical God" in quotes?


blasphemy!

----------


## phill4paul

> If you go to the racetrack--why would you bet against the odds?[/I]


  I often wager against the odds in hopes of a higher payout. Most times it doesn't pay off. When it does it does in a big way. Terrible simile.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't understand, Terry. Please explain.


I'm wanting to discuss the reasons why anyone wouldn't want to believe in the Christian God in the first place and how giving any consideration to such might seem offensive to some.  What perceived threat could this belief be to anyone or how that might impact their life in a negative way.  Honest discussion for inquiring minds and all.

----------


## phill4paul

> Is that what it looks like to you?  That is your opinion as well.  What do you see wrong with attempting to discuss the reasons, unless it's something you don't wish to discuss.  Your post is the first to contest anything.  You either wish to discuss it or you don't.  No problem-o.


  That _is_ what it looks like to me. Otherwise an appropriate title might be..."Global Christianity report. Look at how many people believe in Christianity."

----------


## Terry1

> I often wager against the odds in hopes of a higher payout. Most times it doesn't pay off. When it does it does in a big way. Terrible simile.


I would never bet against the odds if my pockets were already empty.

----------


## Terry1

> That _is_ what it looks like to me. Otherwise an appropriate title might be..."Global Christianity report. Look at how many people believe in Christianity."


Sorry about that--I'm terrible at the art of political correctness--always getting in trouble there.  I have flaws.

----------


## phill4paul

> I would never bet against the odds if my pockets were already empty.


  If your pockets were empty you wouldn't be able to place the bet.

----------


## Ronin Truth

5. If God hates the folks that play the odds on his existence, then UH OH.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm wanting to discuss the reasons why anyone wouldn't want to believe in the Christian God in the first place and how giving any consideration to such might seem offensive to some.  What perceived threat could this belief be to anyone or how that might impact their life in a negative way.  Honest discussion for inquiring minds and all.


Okay. Thanks. I'm terrible with deciphering hints. Good luck with your research.

----------


## Terry1

I mean--how is it possible that so many people in this world are all *wrong*?  It's really something to consider in my mind--eh?

----------


## Terry1

> Okay. Thanks. I'm terrible with deciphering hints. Good luck with your research.


Well, I'm interested in your opinion, if you have one.

----------


## Terry1

> If your pockets were empty you wouldn't be able to place the bet.


Good point--okay--maybe if I'd said something like--placed your last dollars betting against the odds.

----------


## Spikender

I don't know whether or not a God exists, but I try to live a moral life anyway. I was a raised a Christian.

Also, I guess that means people that I've had tell me that Christianity is on the decline didn't have facts to base it off of. Wonder how many of these Christians actually live a Christian lifestyle?

----------


## Terry1

> I don't know whether or not a God exists, but I try to live a moral life anyway. I was a raised a Christian.
> 
> Also, I guess that means people that I've had tell me that Christianity is on the decline didn't have facts to base it off of. Wonder how many of these Christians actually live a Christian lifestyle?


Only God knows that.  I look at things more in a logical sense when it comes to believing in God or not.  Personally and spiritually that was my starting point many years ago when I questioned wars, hatred, pain and suffering and the meaning of my own existence.  When suffering and pain become the predominant factor in anyone's life who doesn't believe in God--that is when one questions why they should endure to the end of such a miserable existence in the first place. 

To ask the questions "why"--then to hear something speak to your heart and mind and say--"if you end it now--you will never know." Revelations and all of that.

----------


## phill4paul

> I mean--how is it possible that so many people in this world are all *wrong*?  It's really something to consider in my mind--eh?


  Since when has a simple majority made something *right*? We do this all the time in America between the two political parties. Having a simple majority does not make either party *right*. It only reinforces partisan belief that their party is *right*.

----------


## Spikender

> Only God knows that.  I look at things more in a logical sense when it comes to believing in God or not.  Personally and spiritually that was my starting point many years ago when I questioned wars, hatred, pain and suffering and the meaning of my own existence.  When suffering and pain become the predominant factor in anyone's life who doesn't believe in God--that is when one questions why they should endure to the end of such a miserable existence in the first place. 
> 
> To ask the questions "why"--then to hear something speak to your heart and mind and say--"if you end it now--you will never know." Revelations and all of that.


Suffering and pain occurs in everyone's life, no matter what their religious beliefs are. I've gone through rough times but came out fine and I give nary a thought to God or any religion for that matter. I don't say that to downplay anyone's point of view, but that's simply my perspective and my experience in the past five years since I stopped being an ardent believer in God.

Perhaps God will speak to me when the time is right. I've always said I don't confirm or deny his existence. My moment hasn't come yet to face him. I'm still a young man, I'm sure if there is a moment it's waiting in my future. Hopefully God will be there to save me from my mid-life crisis.

----------


## Terry1

> Suffering and pain occurs in everyone's life, no matter what their religious beliefs are. I've gone through rough times but came out fine and I give nary a thought to God or any religion for that matter. I don't say that to downplay anyone's point of view, but that's simply my perspective and my experience in the past five years since I stopped being an ardent believer in God.
> 
> Perhaps God will speak to me when the time is right. I've always said I don't confirm or deny his existence. My moment hasn't come yet to face him. I'm still a young man, I'm sure if there is a moment it's waiting in my future. Hopefully God will be there to save me from my mid-life crisis.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Spikender again._ *I admire your honesty and open mindedness. 
*
Everyone has their own appointed time and place in this journey we call *life*.  Some come sooner--some later--the reward is the same for both.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, I'm interested in your opinion, if you have one.


*1) Operate with ethically sound principles.
*
 Be honest and truthful.
 Work to promote a peaceful, freedom loving, compassionate society.

----------


## otherone

> I'm wanting to discuss the reasons why anyone wouldn't want to believe in the Christian God in the first place and how giving any consideration to such might seem offensive to some.  What perceived threat could this belief be to anyone or how that might impact their life in a negative way.  Honest discussion for inquiring minds and all.


When I consider the vastness of human experience, individual religions appear parochial.   It harms me in no way if someone chooses to worship a head of lettuce, golden calf, or ancestor's ashes so long as no one's Rights are infringed upon.

_It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
-Thomas Jefferson_

----------


## Crashland

> If God doesn’t exist, and you live as though He doesn’t exist, you have        no losses.5If God doesn’t exist, and you live as though He does, you have no losses but        gain the advantages of a better life.If God does exist, and you live as though He doesn’t, you lose big time.If God does exist, and you live as though He does, you have no losses and gain everything. 
> 
> 
> 
> _Pascal's wager
> 
> If you go to the racetrack--why would you bet against the odds?_


If you are looking for a serious, more in-depth response to Pascal's wager, I would recommend this video. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

----------


## Terry1

> If you are looking for a serious, more in-depth response to Pascal's wager, I would recommend this video. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.


Very interesting and thanks.  Here's what I found in the first 2 minutes of the vid.  Go to the 1:34 minute mark and listen to his version of Pascal's Wager---then compare it with the original one here:

The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from _Pensées_, part III, §233):

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.You must wager (it is not optional).Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.


I'm going to give the video the benefit of the doubt before I shoot it down for any reason--keeping an open mind here.  But, I have to say that he isn't getting off to a good start with me by giving an inaccurate interpretation of Pascal's original version.  Seems to me already here that he's setting the stage based upon his interpretation to debate what Pascal is in actuality saying--which isn't even honest debate--whether intentional or not.   In other words--it appears that within the first 2 minutes he's building a strawman debate which is based upon a fallacy--being his own interpretation and not Pascal's.  We shall see where he goes from there. 

I'll keep you updated as I go--thanks.

----------


## Terry1

> Since when has a simple majority made something *right*? We do this all the time in America between the two political parties. Having a simple majority does not make either party *right*. It only reinforces partisan belief that their party is *right*.


True, but then a "simple majority" is relative to whatever their frame of reference is--that being any number of diverse things, circumstance or events.  In which case--numbers have little meaning because a "simple majority" can consist of a very large or small amount of people as in 2 or 2 million.  So we have to look at what's being agreed upon and the reasons why IMO.

----------


## Terry1

> When I consider the vastness of human experience, individual religions appear parochial.   It harms me in no way if someone chooses to worship a head of lettuce, golden calf, or ancestor's ashes so long as no one's Rights are infringed upon.
> 
> _It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
> -Thomas Jefferson_



Well then we have alternatives to consider when the evidence or lack thereof seems this over-whelming.

1. We can ignore it and pretend nothing matters except only that which matter to us.

2. We can question it and try to understand it with an open mind, seeking to understand the reasons behind, for or against it.

If scientists, great minds and inventors ignored what they couldn't understand--we wouldn't be sitting here today typing out words on a keyboard and reading the responses on a monitor either.

----------


## Terry1

> If you are looking for a serious, more in-depth response to Pascal's wager, I would recommend this video. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.


I'm now at the 3:00 minute mark where he's giving examples of many religious beliefs while comparing one "god" to another.  Here's my opinion of why I think his reasoning is flawed.  

1. I can't take anyone serious until I know that they have at least done a thorough theological investigation of religions and why they exist before they condemn what they don't understand to begin with--obviously.

2. All religions are not equal--the same as people are not all equal.  They are all very individual and unique--tailored to a specific culture, race and lifestyle.  Attempting to lump all religions into the same ball of dough will not make a loaf of bread because the dough will never be the right consistency to bond itself together to create a loaf of bread.

3.  It would seem in this case that one who is truly curious about why people subscribe to religions in general would then be to seek out the origin's of such and how they came into existence in the first place.  I don't see any of that happening in this video yet.  All I am seeing at this point is a broad condemnation of all religions based upon a theory of someone who has never given theology serious study.  

Other than Matt Dillahunty being raised in a Southern Baptist church, who claims to have sought out the ministry at some point--has no formal theological training--other than his opinion and the influence of being married to an avid Atheist activist--his wife.


I'll continue to give my updates.

----------


## otherone

> Well then we have alternatives to consider when the evidence or lack thereof seems_ this over-whelming.
> _


Evidence of what? Popularity?
Am I to buy a Justin Bieber CD too?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> When I consider the vastness of human experience, individual religions appear parochial.   It harms me in no way if someone chooses to worship a head of lettuce, golden calf, or ancestor's ashes so long as no one's Rights are infringed upon.
> _It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
> -Thomas Jefferson_


IIRC, the full TJ quote is 


> But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.


Adding the second sentence adds to the profundity and accuracy IMHO.

----------


## Jamesiv1

Aren't the article's numbers off?

 2 billion Christians divided by 6.9 billion population = 29%, not 32%
Google says there are 1.6 billion Muslims divided by 6.9 billion population = 23%
And the percentage of the global population that is Christian is the same as it was 100 years ago.

The article says "Christianity is the world's largest religious group by far" - I'm not sure 6% difference is necessarily "by far"

Attendance at Christian churches is declining also. 40% of American Christians *say* they attend regularly, but the number actually attending on any given Sunday is 17%.

"Regular attendance" is defined as 3 out of 12 Sundays. Seems kind of lame.

This article reports "Ask most pastors what percentage of their members are inactive and they say 40% - 60%"

----------


## Terry1

And there you have it--Matt asks the question "why was I" and "why were you willing".

My answer would be--*why not Matt and what are you actually sacrificing at all*?  Certainly not your humanity and certainly not your choices or liberty--so yes indeed---why would you be so adamant on crushing and destroying what you can't understand in the first place then---unless in your history of indoctrinations--you began to question what you were subscribing to in the first place and simply gave up on theology all together.

Nothing like tossing the baby out with the bathwater is there and then try to convince yourself by attempting to convince everyone else your right so that you might actually believe what your teaching yourself. 


After all--it's so much easier to fear and condemn something we don't understand than to try and figure out why we don't understand it at all.

----------


## Terry1

> Evidence of what? Popularity?
> Am I to buy a Justin Bieber CD too?


What I said was---the evidence or lack thereof.  You're focusing on one side of the coin here and I'm attempting to give reasons for not tossing the baby out with the bathwater by attempting to give relevance to both sides of the coin.  Would you toss the whole coin away because one side is bad if you could still use it?  Keeping an open mind is always good too.  

I don't want to get fanatical here--only trying to make a point--that a coin with only one side is no coin at all.

----------


## otherone

> What I said was---the evidence or lack thereof.  You're focusing on one side of the coin here and I'm attempting to give reasons for not tossing the baby out with the bathwater by attempting to give relevance to both sides of the coin.  Would you toss the whole coin away because one side is bad if you could still use it?  Keeping an open mind is always good too.  
> 
> I don't want to get fanatical here--only trying to make a point--that a coin with only one side is no coin at all.


I apologize.  I misunderstood.  I'm still not of the importance of using the word "overwhelming", though.

----------


## Crashland

> And there you have it--Matt asks the question "why was I" and "why were you willing".
> 
> My answer would be--*why not Matt and what are you actually sacrificing at all*?  Certainly not your humanity and certainly not your choices or liberty--so yes indeed---why would you be so adamant on crushing and destroying what you can't understand in the first place then---unless in your history of indoctrinations--you began to question what you were subscribing to in the first place and simply gave up on theology all together.
> 
> Nothing like tossing the baby out with the bathwater is there and then try to convince yourself by attempting to convince everyone else your right so that you might actually believe what your teaching yourself. 
> 
> 
> After all--it's so much easier to fear and condemn something we don't understand than to try and figure out why we don't understand it at all.


Weren't we talking about Pascal's wager? I'm really not interested in Matt Dillahunty.

----------


## Terry1

> I apologize.  I misunderstood.  I'm still not of the importance of using the word "overwhelming", though.


No need to apologize--you didn't do anything wrong at all.  It's really hard to get meanings, tones and inflections clear through the use of  a keyboard and monitor or phone--whatever.  We're all just making the best of it.

----------


## Terry1

> Weren't we talking about Pascal's wager? I'm really not interested in Matt Dillahunty.


Aren't we talking about his opinion of Pascal's Wager--hence the vid?  I guess I did get off track focusing on Matt's person rather than his opinion of Pascal's Wager--I apologize for that--I gets emotional sometimes about that.

But yeah--Pascal's Wager has merit IMO.

----------


## Terry1

> Aren't the article's numbers off?
> 
>  2 billion Christians divided by 6.9 billion population = 29%, not 32%
> Google says there are 1.6 billion Muslims divided by 6.9 billion population = 23%
> And the percentage of the global population that is Christian is the same as it was 100 years ago.
> 
> The article says "Christianity is the world's largest religious group by far" - I'm not sure 6% difference is necessarily "by far"
> 
> Attendance at Christian churches is declining also. 40% of American Christians *say* they attend regularly, but the number actually attending on any given Sunday is 17%.
> ...


I actually believe that a lot of true Christians are being driven away from the church of four walls in these times because of what many of the churches are subscribing to.  I'm of the opinion that there's actually far more Christians than that number reflects as a whole.  I would describe them as more God's little spiritual wanderers dropping seeds where they're led.

----------


## Cabal

> True, but then a "simple majority" is relative to whatever their frame of reference is--that being any number of diverse things, circumstance or events.  In which case--numbers have little meaning because a "simple majority" can consist of a very large or small amount of people as in 2 or 2 million.  So we have to look at what's being agreed upon and the reasons why IMO.


I think he's saying a majority in either case isn't a good argument for the validity of something. This in reference to rhetorical and logical fallacies such as 'appeal to popularity,' and 'appeal to common belief.' In other words, it's a fallacious argument to suggest that because so many people believe something, it is probably true.

----------


## Crashland

> Aren't we talking about his opinion of Pascal's Wager--hence the vid?  I guess I did get off track focusing on Matt's person rather than his opinion of Pascal's Wager--I apologize for that--I gets emotional sometimes about that.
> 
> But yeah--Pascal's Wager has merit IMO.


In the video, one of the points is that Pascal's wager assumes that belief in God is the condition for the eternal reward. We do not know that this is the case -- if a God exists, he could even have made it such that the opposite is true, where people are rewarded for not believing in unsubstantiated claims. Not knowing what the condition for eternal reward or eternal punishment is makes it impossible to evaluate the wager -- it only works if you assume that it must be either the conditions described in the Bible, or nothing. Another one of the points was that he claimed Pascal's wager encourages people to pretend to believe. How would you respond to those two issues?

----------


## Terry1

> I think he's saying a majority in either case isn't a good argument for the validity of something. This in reference to rhetorical and logical fallacies such as 'appeal to popularity,' and 'appeal to common belief.' In other words, it's a fallacious argument to suggest that because so many people believe something, it is probably true.


Hi Cabal--glad you joined in the discussion.   I agree with your reasoning--all the more reason so many people should take the responsibility to get informed by doing their own homework and theological studies before getting on Youtube and attempting to debunk something they don't fully understand and have not given it the full attention it or any thing deserves before it's trashed.

Also adding that this applies to anything in life as in politics as well.  This country suffers under the burden of pure undiluted ignorance.  I cringed at the amount of people who discredited Ron Paul when he ran for President--they did not understand his positions because they never took the time to try being that they were already close-minded and brain washed by the MSM.

----------


## Voluntarist

> 


Do me a favor and build the truth table more realistically - to at least get us out of the false dilemma fallacy. Put the following subset of options along the horizontal axis (I say subset because this is only a small fraction of the possibilities):
God (as portrayed by the Jewish Torah) does exist
God (as portrayed by the Jewish Torah) does not exist
God (as portrayed by Catholic interpretations of the New Testament) does exist
God (as portrayed by Catholic interpretations of the New Testament) does not exist
God (as portrayed by Calvinist interpretations of the New Testament) does exist
God (as portrayed by Calvinist interpretations of the New Testament) does not exist
Allah (as portrayed by Shiite interpretations of the Quran) does exist
Allah (as portrayed by Shiite interpretations of the Quran) does not exist
Allah (as portrayed by Sunni interpretations of the Quran) does exist
Allah (as portrayed by Sunni interpretations of the Quran) does not exist
Shiva (as portrayed by each of the many interpretations) does exist 
Shiva (as portrayed by each of the many interpretations) does not exist 
Vishnu (as portrayed by each of the many interpretations) does exist 
Vishnu (as portrayed by each of the many interpretations) does not exist 
Devi (as portrayed by each of the many interpretations) does exist 
Devi (as portrayed by each of the many interpretations) does not exist 

... and build the vertical axis accordingly. And then fill in the meat of the truth table.

----------


## Cabal

I'd also wonder what choices, or consequences are being assigned or denied value here, in relation to what constitutes "nothing" and "everything?"

For example, I've known people who have let their faith play a significant role in what relationships they maintain or avoid. If it turns out god does not exist, and they've allowed their faith in god to affect their relationships, is that not a potential loss or gain?

What about monetarily? It seems most people who regularly attend church tend to tithe or donate to that church. Ultimately that is a loss of whatever wealth they are devoting to their faith, is it not?

There seems to be a neglect of the butterfly effect here, too, theoretically speaking. It's impossible to fully extrapolate what one choice (with a basis in faith, or non-faith) will ultimately lead to, going forward, as it relates to the butterfly effect of other choices following it. And this could then be said to play a role in a wide array of potential losses and gains.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'd also wonder what choices, or consequences are being assigned or denied value here, in relation to what constitutes "nothing" and "everything?"
> 
> For example, I've known people who have let their faith play a significant role in what relationships they maintain or avoid. If it turns out god does not exist, and they've allowed their faith in god to affect their relationships, is that not a potential loss or gain?
> 
> What about monetarily? It seems most people who regularly attend church tend to tithe or donate to that church. *Ultimately that is a loss of whatever wealth they are devoting to their faith, is it not?*
> 
> There seems to be a neglect of the butterfly effect here, too, theoretically speaking. It's impossible to fully extrapolate what one choice (with a basis in faith, or non-faith) will ultimately lead to, going forward, as it relates to the butterfly effect of other choices following it. And this could then be said to play a role in a wide array of potential losses and gains.


Not if the church does with it as expected.  At my parish, there is a parish council, and the balance sheets have to be kept up.  All donating members have a say in what happens.  If there is funny business going on, voting members can choose to take a number of actions of recourse.  I'd be weary of _any_ org with no accountability, balance sheets, etc.

----------


## presence

> _Pascal's wager
> 
> If you go to the racetrack--why would you bet against the odds?_




Except in reality it plays out:

If I'm catholic and you're protestant... you're going to hell.
If I'm protestant and you're catholic... you're going to hell.
If I'm muslim and you're protestant or catholic... you're going to hell.
If I'm a jew and you're a muslim... you're going to hell.

ad infinitum

----------


## Terry1

> Except in reality it plays out:
> 
> If I'm catholic and you're protestant... you're going to hell.
> If I'm protestant and you're catholic... you're going to hell.
> If I'm muslim and you're protestant or catholic... you're going to hell.
> If I'm a jew and you're a muslim... you're going to hell.
> 
> ad infinitum


Sort of amusing when you put it that way. Lol   Thank goodness not all Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Jews all think like their own peers eh?  Not all of us presume upon God as to whom He chooses and whom He doesn't.  Sort of careless to broad-brush a group of people without understanding them personally.  While we all might have labels, we don't all fall into lock-step broad characterizations of them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sort of amusing when you put it that way. Lol   Thank goodness not all Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Jews all think like their own peers eh?  Not all of us presume upon God as to whom He chooses and whom He doesn't.  Sort of careless to broad-brush a group of people without understanding them personally.  While we all might have labels, we don't all fall into lock-step broad characterizations of them.


You clearly don't understand Unconditional Election or Double Predestination!!!11!!1!

----------


## Deborah K

> http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/g...stianity-exec/
> 
> 
>  The number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010. But the worlds overall population also has risen rapidly, from an estimated 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010. As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the worlds population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%).


But didn't you know, Terry?  We're all suffering from some form of mass delusion.

----------


## Terry1

> But didn't you know, Terry?  We're all suffering from some form of mass delusion.


I guess so--but who said that in a battle between the mass delusionals it's not who's right, but who's left.

----------


## Terry1

> You clearly don't understand Unconditional Election or Double Predestination!!!11!!1!


LOL--It certainly doesn't make for a great conversation starter over the dinner table.

----------


## otherone

> But didn't you know, Terry?  We're all suffering from some form of mass delusion.


Wouldn't be the first time...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wouldn't be the first time...


Oh, snap!  Winner, winnar, chicken dinner!

----------


## Voluntarist

> http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/g...stianity-exec/
> ...
> As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the worlds population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%).


That's kind of an optimistic spin on the numbers. The actual numbers from the article were 34.8% in 1910 and 31.7% in 2010. Dividing 31.7% by 34.8% tells you that Christian influence in terms of relative world population is about 91.1% of what it was in 1910. From a proportional perspective, Christianity has been on the decline for the last century. It's losing market share. What's taking its place?

----------


## Terry1

> Originally Posted by *Terry1*  http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/g...stianity-exec/
>  ...
>  As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the world’s population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%).





> That's kind of an optimistic spin on the numbers. The actual numbers from the article were 34.8% in 1910 and 31.7% in 2010. Dividing 31.7% by 34.8% tells you that Christian influence in terms of relative world population is about 91.1% of what it was in 1910. From a proportional perspective, Christianity has been on the decline for the last century. It's losing market share. What's taking its place?


How strange because that quote is also part of the article itself.

----------


## Deborah K

> Wouldn't be the first time...


Explain to me how a country having a banner is a symptom of mass delusion.

----------


## Voluntarist

Here's a set of figures from a Baha'i database. The 1910 figures for Christianty match the PEW report, but the Baha'i 2010 figures for Christianity  are higher than the PEW figures. You can see that the big gainer in overall market share is the Muslim faith, with Agnostics close behind. There are slight gains for Hinduism. 

In terms of percentage improvements over their 1910 positions, noboby is doing better than atheists and agnostics. They're not known for being prolific breeders - so they must be winning people over.

	Religion
	% 1910
	% 2010

	Christians
	34.8
	32.8

	Muslims
	12.6
	22.5

	Hindus
	12.7
	13.8

	Agnostics
	0.2
	9.8

	Chinese folk-religionists
	22.2
	6.3

	Buddhists
	7.9
	7.2

	Ethnoreligionists
	7.7
	3.5

	Atheists
	0.0001
	2.0

----------


## VIDEODROME

> That's kind of an optimistic spin on the numbers. The actual numbers from the article were 34.8% in 1910 and 31.7% in 2010. Dividing 31.7% by 34.8% tells you that Christian influence in terms of relative world population is about 91.1% of what it was in 1910. From a proportional perspective, Christianity has been on the decline for the last century. It's losing market share. What's taking its place?


The Church of the Sub-Genius

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That's kind of an optimistic spin on the numbers. The actual numbers from the article were 34.8% in 1910 and 31.7% in 2010. Dividing 31.7% by 34.8% tells you that Christian influence in terms of relative world population is about 91.1% of what it was in 1910. From a proportional perspective, Christianity has been on the decline for the last century. It's losing market share. What's taking its place?


The difference you're pointing out isn't that large at all.  As the article says, it's about the same.

----------


## otherone

> Explain to me how a country having a banner is a symptom of mass delusion.


I didn't mean "you" specifically, Deb.
Flags are symbols of states; I used them to represent state-worship.  I might have used a donkey and elephant, but international worship of the state far exceeds the scope of Christianity.

----------


## jmdrake

> Fascinating.  Looks like a lot of Christians moved from Europe to America.


Look again.  The growth of Christianity is the Americas pales in comparison to its growth in Africa.  Asia is growing rapidly as well.  It's stagnant in the Muslim dominated regions (North Africa/Middle East) but that's not surprising.



I don't believe European Christians are moving as much as Christianity in Europe in general is waning while in Africa and Asia it is growing through mass conversions.  High birth rates in those regions spur growth as well.  Don't forget that communism had just started spreading in Eastern Europe in 1910.  Part of the drop of Christianity in Europe is a direct result of the period of communist/atheist domination in half of Europe.  It would be interesting to see how much Christianity has grown in Europe in general and in Eastern Europe in particular since the fall of the Berlin wall.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's kind of an optimistic spin on the numbers. The actual numbers from the article were 34.8% in 1910 and 31.7% in 2010. Dividing 31.7% by 34.8% tells you that Christian influence in terms of relative world population is about 91.1% of what it was in 1910. From a proportional perspective, Christianity has been on the decline for the last century. It's losing market share. What's taking its place?


It lost market share in Eastern Europe due to communism.  Being told at the barrel of a gun that you can't freely worship God tends to put a damper on things.  All things considered Christianity is holding up fine.

----------


## Terry1

> I didn't mean "you" specifically, Deb.
> Flags are symbols of states; I used them to represent state-worship.  I might have used a donkey and elephant, but international worship of the state far exceeds the scope of Christianity.


I did a course in Symboloy, signs and symbols, their origins and meanings years ago.  It was fascinating and enlightening.  People would be surprised to know just how many times in their daily lives they come into contact with, use and buy many things and religious items.  They buy them, use them, decorate with them, wear them and hang them without knowing the history and origin of them.

Also, some of the events and holidays people celebrate--mainly just for fun and a day off--unbeknownst to them--are religious in nature and go back thousands of years to either phallic or druidic rituals and practices.

Everything has meaning, a source and origin that we come in contact with everyday.  Nothing has been lost over the millennia--but incorporated into everyday life today at some level.

A good portion of these symbols came here with the Scandinavians long ago.  They did not leave their baggage behind--it's all here, alive and well today, only in a much more subtle seemingly harmless form.

----------


## Terry1

Is God a "myth"--how is it then that the very words spoken by the prophet Isaiah have come to pass here:

*Isaiah 9:10 states, “The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.” 

*The old Sycamore tree that once grew at ground zero NY. NY--the very same spot the Founding Fathers gathered and dedicated this country to God.  They Sycamore in the bible always symbolized hope and strength--now dead and it's roots preserved in remembrance here:




Then again--remember the prophecy of Isaiah here:

*Isaiah 9:10 states, “The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.”

*A cedar tree has replaced the Sycamore--being the biblical symbol here and on that very same spot where the Sycamore once grew at ground zero.*

** 

Isaiah 2:12-13 states: “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every thing that is high and lifted up … upon all the cedars of Lebanon.” And Zechariah 11:2 states, “For the cedar (erez tree) is fallen, as the mighty are spoiled.”*


Coincidence?  I think not.

----------


## Terry1

This scripture in Isaiah was spoken by John Edwards, and Tom Daschle in response to America's determination to rebuild after September 11th. And it was a curse on the US.

“ The bricks have fallen down, 
      But we will rebuild with hewn stones; 
      The sycamores are cut down, 
      But we will replace _them_ with cedars.” (Isaiah 9:10)

----------


## Deborah K

> I didn't mean "you" specifically, Deb.
> Flags are symbols of states; I used them to represent state-worship.  I might have used a donkey and elephant, *but international worship of the state far exceeds the scope of Christianity*.


Except for the fact that Christianity is, and always has been used as a tool for promoting state worship.

----------


## otherone

> Except for the fact that Christianity is, and always has been used as a tool for promoting state worship.


agreed.
But there are a lot of flags that don't represent Christian nations.  Which is why I chose that graphic .
Happy Easter, btw.

----------


## Terry1

Are my images showing up now?  Had some technical difficulty there.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are my images showing up now?  Had some technical difficulty there.


Yes!  Thank you for fixing that.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes!  Thank you for fixing that.


Thanks for letting me know.

----------


## Deborah K

> agreed.
> But there are a lot of flags that don't represent Christian nations.  Which is why I chose that graphic .
> Happy Easter, btw.


Thank you.  You too.

----------


## Voluntarist

> But yeah--Pascal's Wager has merit IMO.


In what sense does it have merit? It's a false dilemma. If I were to present it to you with the word "Zeus" replacing the word "God"; what would be your reaction to its validity? Would you live your life as though Zeus existed?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In what sense does it have merit? It's a false dilemma. If I were to present it to you with the word "Zeus" replacing the word "God"; what would be your reaction to its validity? Would you live your life as though Zeus existed?


It makes no difference, really.  You atheists keep getting hung up on the specific identity of God, but the point is that there is a Creator of the universe, and you have to find out who He is.  I think we can rule out Zeus pretty early on.  In fact, if there is a Creator of the universe, it's a monotheistic God, so that narrows it down pretty good for you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Except for the fact that Christianity is, and always has been used as a tool for promoting state worship.


Wow, no.  False.  All of the communist mass-murdering regimes were atheistic regimes.  I'm not blaming the crimes on atheism specifically, but if anything promotes state worship, it's atheism.  Christianity is the enemy of the state because it tells people to obey God rather than the state, so precisely the opposite of what you said.  God worship and state worship are incompatible.  You can't do both.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I'm thinking Deborah was referring to things like the so-called Divine Right of Kings that was used to keep monarchies going.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm thinking Deborah was referring to things like the so-called Divine Right of Kings that was used to keep monarchies going.


I'm sure she was, but there is no such doctrine in Christianity.  The state has always tried to pander to Christians, but Christianity itself has never promoted such things.  Quite the opposite, actually.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Except for the fact that Christianity is,* and always has been used as a tool for promoting state worship*.


Except for those times and places in which Christians were/are an oppressed minority.  Jesus never said it would be easy living amongst non-Christians.  Exactly the contrary, in fact.

----------


## Crashland

> It makes no difference, really.  You atheists keep getting hung up on the specific identity of God, but the point is that there is a Creator of the universe, and you have to find out who He is.  I think we can rule out Zeus pretty early on.  In fact, if there is a Creator of the universe, it's a monotheistic God, so that narrows it down pretty good for you.


The specific identity of God is crucial when it comes to Pascal's wager, because the specific identity of God is what determines the criteria which must be met in order to receive the reward or punishment, and the specific identity of God also determines if God even offers such a reward or punishment in the first place.

----------


## jmdrake

> The specific identity of God is crucial when it comes to Pascal's wager, because the specific identity of God is what determines the criteria which must be met in order to receive the reward or punishment, and the specific identity of God also determines if God even offers such a reward or punishment in the first place.


Well PaulCWV rejects Pascals wager anyway because he believes in ultimate reconciliation for everybody.  I'm not sure if there is a "different level" of heaven or some temporary punishment for the wicked before being let into some kind of paradise.  I'm just saying for everyone it's not the "Believe in God as I say or face eternal fire" argument.

That said, I rule out Zeus because what kind of a god turns himself into a swan just to have sex?  I mean, you're freaking Zeus!  You could show up to a toga party, flash some lighting bolts out of your eyes and pick up any girl in the room.  The Greek myths seem more comic book than anything.  No gods worth patterning your life after, just super powered beings consumed by lust and infighting.  And that may be part of the reason for their resurgence in popular culture.  They're somebody for Wonder Woman and Superman to fight or sometimes ally with.

----------


## Terry1

> The specific identity of God is crucial when it comes to Pascal's wager, because the specific identity of God is what determines the criteria which must be met in order to receive the reward or punishment, and the specific identity of God also determines if God even offers such a reward or punishment in the first place.


I think we have to keep in mind too that Pascal's wager was the result of his critical analysis using raw knowledge, logic, mathematics and common sense and not something that was divinely inspired as in *spiritual*.  

Pascal approached his position on his wager through his own careful examination of what he saw through science and perception alone and coming from his original position of non-belief.  As in something for example as:  I saw no evidence that proves that God does not exist--therefore I can not say that the evidence exists.  That's just my own words there.

----------


## otherone

> Christianity is the enemy of the state because it tells people to obey God rather than the state, so precisely the opposite of what you said.  God worship and state worship are incompatible.  You can't do both.


Christianity has taught that obedience to the state is obedience to God.  The state is aware of this.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ority-is-wrong




> Hebrews 13:17 
> Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. 
> 
> Romans 13:1-5
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 
> 
> Romans 13:2
> Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 
> 
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> Christianity has taught that obedience to the state is obedience to God.  The state is aware of this.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ority-is-wrong


Yeah....so why did Nero try so hard to stomp Christians out?  Hint, it wasn't just because they wouldn't pray to him.  There is more than one way to resist tyranny.  Gandhi used Christian principles to end British rule of India.

----------


## otherone

> Yeah....so why did Nero try so hard to stomp Christians out?  Hint, it wasn't just because they wouldn't pray to him.  There is more than one way to resist tyranny.  Gandhi used Christian principles to end British rule of India.


Could you provide the chapters and verses that call for resistance to authority?  I'd like to use them in debates with my "patriotic" friends.
Thanks, Jim.

----------


## Terry1

> Could you provide the chapters and verses that call for resistance to authority?  I'd like to use them in debates with my "patriotic" friends.
> Thanks, Jim.


Actually Jesus taught *non-resistance* physically and used His words/Logos as His "sword".

----------


## otherone

> Actually Jesus taught *non-resistance* physically and used His words/Logos as His "sword".


Do you mean "passive resistance", or "non-resistance", Terry?

----------


## Voluntarist

> It makes no difference, really.  You atheists keep getting hung up on the specific identity of God


It's not a theist or atheist perspective. It's merely critical for the validity of the Pascal's Wager truth table. If you can't narrow "God" in that table down to a specific interpretation of what "God" is then you have to list all of the interpretations of what "God" is (or could be - including all of the pre-historic interpretations that have existed since the dawn of man and others than haven't even been uncovered yet). And once you add in those permutations, then the outcome of the truth table is really fuzzy - there is no obvious best square to be sitting on.

What I'm saying is that Pascal's wager is not useful in establishing how to deal with the unknowable - unless you can limit the choice to two (which in the case of religion, you can't).

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's not a theist or atheist perspective. It's merely critical for the validity of the Pascal's Wager truth table. If you can't narrow "God" in that table down to a specific interpretation of what "God" is then you have to list all of the interpretations of what "God" is (or could be - including all of the pre-historic interpretations that have existed since the dawn of man and others than haven't even been uncovered yet). And once you add in those permutations, then the outcome of the truth table is really fuzzy - there is no obvious best square to be sitting on.


That is exactly correct. Good post, Voluntarist. The very model demands a theist versus atheist perspective. And so we revert to debating over deities lock step. As well, agnostics, ignostics, and so forth remain systematically lumped into the atheist label for convenience.

----------


## Deborah K

> Wow, no.  False.  All of the communist mass-murdering regimes were atheistic regimes.  I'm not blaming the crimes on atheism specifically, but if anything promotes state worship, it's atheism.  Christianity is the enemy of the state because it tells people to obey God rather than the state, so precisely the opposite of what you said.  God worship and state worship are incompatible.  You can't do both.


You misunderstood my point.    I'm talking about statists who use Christians and Christianity to promote statism.  There's no denying it.  They wrap a flag around the cross and convince God-fearing youth (among others) to fight wars that do nothing to protect our freedoms and do everything to protect our so-called "vital interests".

But thanks for the neg-rep.  smfh.

----------


## Terry1

> Do you mean "passive resistance", or "non-resistance", Terry?


I can only answer that with a quote from Jesus Himself here:


Luke 9:
*51* And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,  *52* And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.  *53* And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. *54* And when his disciples James and John saw _this_, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?  *55* But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.* 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.*

----------


## Voluntarist

> I think we have to keep in mind too that Pascal's wager was the result of his critical analysis using raw knowledge, logic, mathematics and common sense and not something that was divinely inspired as in *spiritual*.


with respect to "was the result"; you omitted "and assumptions". The biggest of those is that everyone could/would agree on a single definition of God and what the directives and intentions of that God were.




> Pascal approached his position on his wager through his own careful examination of what he saw through science and perception alone and coming from his original position of non-belief.  As in something for example as:  I saw no evidence that proves that God does not exist--therefore I can not say that the evidence exists.  That's just my own words there.


As above, one of the big items in Pascal's approach are the undocumented assumptions (which I think Bryan mentioned as oneof the guidelines for this forum). At least one of those assumptions, critical to the line of reason, was that there is only one God, and that there is no uncertainty as to the nature, charateristics and intentions of that God. It's a truth table that "works" only under those assumptions.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The specific identity of God is crucial when it comes to Pascal's wager, because the specific identity of God is what determines the criteria which must be met in order to receive the reward or punishment, and the specific identity of God also determines if God even offers such a reward or punishment in the first place.


I know it is, but that's the point.  If you assume that God exists, then it's important to find out who He is.  You're just saying "Oh, there are so many options, it's pointless!" but in fact, you're assuming that you can't even rely on your ability to find out.  If you accept Pascal's Wager, then the only question left is "Who is God?" and you may have to search to find the truth, but you have already accepted that the truth is out there, so why not find it?  After all, if He does exist, then finding out who He is is probably the most important question in your life.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Christianity has taught that obedience to the state is obedience to God.  The state is aware of this.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ority-is-wrong


I can't help but laugh when atheists try to quote the Bible to me.  I don't even need to use Scripture to disprove your point.  History bears it out.  Christians were pandered to when it was the most convenient, but religion was most often reviled by the state in every communist regime.  Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc.  The list goes on and on.  Even if the Bible did teach obedience to leaders, it has always been far more important to obey God first.  It would be so much easier for the state if they could just get God out of the way, and that's what Stalin et al tried to do.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's not a theist or atheist perspective. It's merely critical for the validity of the Pascal's Wager truth table. If you can't narrow "God" in that table down to a specific interpretation of what "God" is then you have to list all of the interpretations of what "God" is (or could be - including all of the pre-historic interpretations that have existed since the dawn of man and others than haven't even been uncovered yet). And once you add in those permutations, then the outcome of the truth table is really fuzzy - there is no obvious best square to be sitting on.
> 
> What I'm saying is that Pascal's wager is not useful in establishing how to deal with the unknowable - unless you can limit the choice to two (which in the case of religion, you can't).


No, Pascal's Wager doesn't assume any specific identity.  All you're essentially saying is that, "If God exists, then finding out who He is would be really hard, so it's best not to even bother."  Wait a minute, but you haven't tried yet!  You can't use confusion over who God is to avoid belief in Him.  If you accept Pascal's Wager, then it doesn't matter who God is because it assumes that there is a particular God out there, and it's up to you to find the truth.  I don't think it's nearly as hard as you're making it out to be because you're already assuming there's no more evidence for one than there is for another.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You misunderstood my point.    I'm talking about statists who use Christians and Christianity to promote statism.  There's no denying it.  They wrap a flag around the cross and convince God-fearing youth (among others) to fight wars that do nothing to protect our freedoms and do everything to protect our so-called "vital interests".
> 
> But thanks for the neg-rep.  smfh.


It's important to get your terms straight.  The state doesn't use Christianity as a "tool" because it would be a pretty bad tool for their purposes.  Christianity itself doesn't promote state-worship, the statists do.  They just happen to do so by sometimes pandering to the church, and I'll grant you that it has worked to some extent, but it was never Christianity or the Bible that taught this.  The state doesn't "use" Christianity, it just panders to it.  

Oh, and you're welcome.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> with respect to "was the result"; you omitted "and assumptions". The biggest of those is that everyone could/would agree on a single definition of God and what the directives and intentions of that God were.
> 
> 
> 
> As above, one of the big items in Pascal's approach are the undocumented assumptions (which I think Bryan mentioned as oneof the guidelines for this forum). At least one of those assumptions, critical to the line of reason, was that there is only one God, and that there is no uncertainty as to the nature, charateristics and intentions of that God. It's a truth table that "works" only under those assumptions.


Pascal's wager doesn't require that there be no uncertainty.  You want it to be so easy that you will reject any argument that won't lead you to the pointed truth right off the bat.  What if Pascal's Wager simply answers the question of whether there is an all-powerful Creator of the universe?  Well, in that case, it can't be multiple gods because there can only be one all-powerful Creator of the universe.  If God is not all-powerful, then that means part of the universe exists independently of Him, in which case He wouldn't be God, but that's not the question.  The question is whether God exists.  If He does, then you don't need to be told who He is to know that it's important to find out, which is all that Pascal's Wager intends to prove.

----------


## otherone

> I can't help but laugh when atheists try to quote the Bible to me.  I don't even need to use Scripture to disprove your point.


I'm not an atheist, and I'd love to read some scripture that demonstrates your point.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm not an atheist, and I'd love to read some scripture that demonstrates your point.


Whatever label you call yourself these days, my point stands.

----------


## otherone

> Whatever label you call yourself these days, my point stands.


This isn't about "me".   The bible clearly states that ALL government comes from God, and that Christians are to be obedient to it.   

http://rcg.org/articles/scstga.html
http://www.victorious.org/authorty.htm
http://www.tobechristian.org/Chapter...government.htm

Do you know of any scripture to counter this?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Well PaulCWV rejects Pascals wager anyway because he believes in ultimate reconciliation for everybody.  I'm not sure if there is a "different level" of heaven or some temporary punishment for the wicked before being let into some kind of paradise.  I'm just saying for everyone it's not the "Believe in God as I say or face eternal fire" argument.
> 
> That said, I rule out Zeus because what kind of a god turns himself into a swan just to have sex?  I mean, you're freaking Zeus!  You could show up to a toga party, flash some lighting bolts out of your eyes and pick up any girl in the room.  The Greek myths seem more comic book than anything.  No gods worth patterning your life after, just super powered beings consumed by lust and infighting.  And that may be part of the reason for their resurgence in popular culture.  They're somebody for Wonder Woman and Superman to fight or sometimes ally with.


I think Wonder Woman is such a character being an Amazon

----------


## Natural Citizen

> with respect to "was the result"; you omitted "and assumptions". The biggest of those is that everyone could/would agree on a single definition of God and what the directives and intentions of that God were.
> 
> As above, one of the big items in Pascal's approach are the undocumented assumptions (which I think Bryan mentioned as oneof the guidelines for this forum). At least one of those assumptions, critical to the line of reason, was that there is only one God, and that there is no uncertainty as to the nature, charateristics and intentions of that God. It's a truth table that "works" only under those assumptions.


Way too many assumptions are offered as guiding terms of controversy. I agree with you. Is destructive in a diverse community such as this. Divisiveness, historically, is the only product that I see evolve from otherwise healthy diversity when assumptions are permitted to define the terms of controversy.

----------


## Deborah K

> This isn't about "me".   The bible clearly states that ALL government comes from God, and that Christians are to be obedient to it.   
> 
> http://rcg.org/articles/scstga.html
> http://www.victorious.org/authorty.htm
> http://www.tobechristian.org/Chapter...government.htm
> 
> Do you know of any scripture to counter this?


Christ was a living example of what happens to you if you defy the government.  He was crucified for treason - on purpose.

----------


## Deborah K

> It's important to get your terms straight.  The state doesn't use Christianity as a "tool" because it would be a pretty bad tool for their purposes.  Christianity itself doesn't promote state-worship, the statists do.  They just happen to do so by sometimes pandering to the church, and I'll grant you that it has worked to some extent, but it was never Christianity or the Bible that taught this.  The state doesn't "use" Christianity, it just panders to it.


You seem to be the only one who didn't understand my point.  The rest of what you wrote above is preaching to the choir, with exception to your last point, with which I disagree.

----------


## otherone

> It's important to get your terms straight.  Christianity itself doesn't promote state-worship, the statists do.  They just happen to do so by sometimes pandering to the church, and I'll grant you that it has worked to some extent, but it was never Christianity or the Bible that taught this.  
> .


"Terms straight"?  No one has claimed that Christianity promotes state-WORSHIP.  The claim is that Christianity promotes OBEDIENCE to the state.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> No, Pascal's Wager doesn't assume any specific identity.


Of course it does.  It assumes a God that will punish those who don't believe in Him.  That's why the wager says it's better to believe than not to.

While this assumption may be consistent with the deity depicted in the Bible, there is absolutely no logical basis to assume this is really the case.  I could turn the wager on its head by assuming a God that will punish those who do believe in Him.  Under such an assumption, no one should believe in God.

----------


## Deborah K

> Of course it does.  It assumes a God that will punish those who don't believe in Him.  That's why the wager says it's better to believe than not to.
> 
> While this assumption may be consistent with the deity depicted in the Bible, there is absolutely no logical basis to assume this is really the case.  I could turn the wager on its head by assuming a God that will punish those who do believe in Him.  Under such an assumption, no one should believe in God.


Except that your wager isn't backed up by Biblical and historical accounts.

----------


## Deborah K

> "Terms straight"?  No one has claimed that Christianity promotes state-WORSHIP.  The claim is that Christianity promotes OBEDIENCE to the state.


Actually, my claim is that Christianity is used by statists to promote statism.

----------


## jmdrake

> Except for the fact that Christianity is, and always has been used as a tool for promoting state worship.





> Wow, no.  False.  All of the communist mass-murdering regimes were atheistic regimes.  I'm not blaming the crimes on atheism specifically, but if anything promotes state worship, it's atheism.  Christianity is the enemy of the state because it tells people to obey God rather than the state, so precisely the opposite of what you said.  God worship and state worship are incompatible.  You can't do both.





> I'm sure she was, but there is no such doctrine in Christianity.  The state has always tried to pander to Christians, but Christianity itself has never promoted such things.  Quite the opposite, actually.





> Except for those times and places in which Christians were/are an oppressed minority.  Jesus never said it would be easy living amongst non-Christians.  Exactly the contrary, in fact.





> You misunderstood my point.    I'm talking about statists who use Christians and Christianity to promote statism.  There's no denying it.  They wrap a flag around the cross and convince God-fearing youth (among others) to fight wars that do nothing to protect our freedoms and do everything to protect our so-called "vital interests".
> 
> But thanks for the neg-rep.  smfh.


I took care of the neg-rep with an offsetting +rep.  PCWV has a tendency to misunderstand people.

Anyway, I do disagree with the point that "Christianity has always been used to promote state worship."  That didn't happen until Constantine co-opted Christianity.  Up until then Christians were literally "enemies of the state."  Not enemies that fought with weapons but enemies that fought with ideas.  If a Roman soldier converted to a religion of non-violence and that recognized no god but Jesus, how could he fight for a caesar who declared himself to be a god?  So Constantine took the logical step of converting his own troops to a new version of Christianity that allowed fighting for emperor and empire.  The rest is history.

----------


## jmdrake

> "Terms straight"?  No one has claimed that Christianity promotes state-WORSHIP.  The claim is that Christianity promotes OBEDIENCE to the state.


Only in so much as the state is in line with God.  Christians willingly offered themselves up to be martyrs in defiance of the state.  In fact there is one story of a Roman official who turned down a group of Christians who had shown up at his down, openly proclaimed that they were in violation of Roman law, and demanded to be martyred.  Now you may call that "crazy" but you can't call that obedience to the state.

----------


## Deborah K

> I took care of the neg-rep with an offsetting +rep.  PCWV has a tendency to misunderstand people.
> 
> Anyway, I do disagree with the point that "Christianity has always been used to promote state worship."  That didn't happen until Constantine co-opted Christianity.  Up until then Christians were literally "enemies of the state."  Not enemies that fought with weapons but enemies that fought with ideas.  If a Roman soldier converted to a religion of non-violence and that recognized no god but Jesus, how could he fight for a caesar who declared himself to be a god?  So Constantine took the logical step of converting his own troops to a new version of Christianity that allowed fighting for emperor and empire.  The rest is history.


Thank you, and point taken.  I was too literal.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Except that your wager isn't backed up by Biblical and historical accounts.


If one believes in the Bible the argument behind Pascal's Wager is unnecessary.  Both Pascal's Wager and my variation on it are addressed to theists and non-theists without any biblical assumptions.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Except for the fact that Christianity is, and always has been used as a tool for promoting state worship.


During its early history, the state tried to eliminate Christianity.

----------


## otherone

> Only in so much as the state is in line with God.


Chapter and verse?

----------


## jmdrake

> Chapter and verse?


Acts 5:29King James Version (KJV)

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

----------


## Deborah K

> If one believes in the Bible the argument behind Pascal's Wager is unnecessary.  Both Pascal's Wager and my variation on it are addressed to theists and non-theists without any biblical assumptions.


Have you read the Bible?  Assuming you haven't, are you aware that its contents are a combination of history, metaphor, philosophy, theology and more, that are written by many authors that span about 1500 years?  That its writings were collected into one volume by people whom you may or may not have approved of, doesn't diminish its factual importance.  Especially given that many of the events that are recorded within its pages are backed up by independent historical writings of the time, and modern archeological and anthropological findings.

----------


## Deborah K

> During its early history, the state tried to eliminate Christianity.


Yes, I've already been corrected for oversimplifying.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This isn't about "me".   The bible clearly states that ALL government comes from God, and that Christians are to be obedient to it.   
> 
> http://rcg.org/articles/scstga.html
> http://www.victorious.org/authorty.htm
> http://www.tobechristian.org/Chapter...government.htm
> 
> Do you know of any scripture to counter this?


To counter what?  You'll have to be more concise than a few articles worth of pontification on what certain verses mean.  From glancing at it, though, it's pretty easy to explain.  All government comes from God because God puts people in power, but He never says you should obey them.  The Bible is and has always been clear that God is the only true authority.  You have a pretty strong burden of proof if you want to disprove that.  If you're not willing to do the work, then you're just wasting everyone's time and you're never going to get it.  

Something tells me you have never actually tried to read the entire Bible in its proper context, though.  Someone who doesn't read and understand the whole thing won't get it.  You have to take off your "Christianity is false" glasses before you can read it properly or of course you're going to interpret it wrong.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Have you read the Bible?  Assuming you haven't, are you aware that its contents are a combination of history, metaphor, philosophy, theology and more, that are written by many authors that span about 1500 years?  That its writings were collected into one volume by people whom you may or may not have approved of, doesn't diminish its factual importance.  Especially given that many of the events that are recorded within its pages are backed up by independent historical writings of the time, and modern archeological and anthropological findings.


Nothing I said was intended as a knock on the Bible, which I have indeed read and which obviously has had a huge influence.  My point was that if one believes in its theology one doesn't need to be persuaded by Pascal's Wager.  If one doesn't believe in the Bible, it may be that one will not be persuaded by the Wager because it assumes a certain kind of deity who demands belief upon pain of eternal damnation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You seem to be the only one who didn't understand my point.  The rest of what you wrote above is preaching to the choir, with exception to your last point, with which I disagree.


What, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "Terms straight"?  No one has claimed that Christianity promotes state-WORSHIP.  The claim is that Christianity promotes OBEDIENCE to the state.


WRONG




> Except for the fact that Christianity is, and always has been used as a tool for promoting* state worship*.

----------


## otherone

> All government comes from God because God puts people in power, but He never says you should obey them.


Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Titus 3:1
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,

1 Peter 2:13-15
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.




> Something tells me you have never actually tried to read the entire Bible in its proper context, though.  Someone who doesn't read and understand the whole thing won't get it.  You have to take off your "Christianity is false" glasses before you can read it properly or of course you're going to interpret it wrong.


I'd prefer to not make this thread personal.

----------


## Deborah K

> WRONG


The only thing I was wrong about was the "always" claim.  But ever since Christianity has been an accepted form of worship, there have been statists who have used it to their means.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hebrews 13:17
> Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
> 
> Romans 13:1
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
> 
> Titus 3:1
> Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
> 
> ...


But you *keep* skipping this:

_Acts 5:29King James Version (KJV)

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men._

The Bible does not teach obeying governments that are requiring you to disobey God.

----------


## Deborah K

> What, exactly, are you disagreeing with?


This:




> The state doesn't "use" Christianity, it just panders to it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This:


What is wrong with that statement?

----------


## otherone

> But you *keep* skipping this:
> 
> _Acts 5:29King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men._
> 
> The Bible does not teach obeying governments that are requiring you to disobey God.


Thank you for the passage.  I've read it, and it's context.   Now I'm confused.  What do the passages that I've quoted mean?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hebrews 13:17
> Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.


You have to prove that "leaders" means what you think it means.




> Romans 13:1
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.


What "authorities" do you think this is referring to?  Is it just a blanket statement, as you assume?




> Titus 3:1
> Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,


"Every *good* work...




> 1 Peter 2:13-15
> Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.


I don't know the context of this as you've quoted it, but I believe the message was for specific people who, in doing the Lord's work, were not to be distracted from their goal by rebelling against authority, which was not part of the plan.  Sometimes, in carrying out a task, it's important not to get side-tracked by alternate causes that don't serve the purpose you were sent to do.  Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but it's a far cry from telling people the state is always right and you should always do what it says. 




> I'd prefer to not make this thread personal.


The thing is, you're quoting a book that you have a vested interest NOT understanding.

If you are going to use the Bible to make your case, you have a heavy burden of proof and you can't fulfill that just by throwing a bunch of verses at us that you took a certain way.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The only thing I was wrong about was the "always" claim.  But ever since Christianity has been an accepted form of worship, there have been statists who have used it to their means.


If you can't fight 'em, join 'em.  Hitler even tried to get the churches to get on board with Jew extermination, but they didn't buy it.

----------


## Deborah K

> What is wrong with that statement?


Actually there isn't anything anymore wrong with that statement than there is with this one:




> ...ever since Christianity has been an accepted form of worship, there have been statists who have used it to their means.


And you seem to disagree with that statement, and I'd like to know why that is.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Actually there isn't anything anymore wrong with that statement than there is with this one:
> 
> 
> 
> And you seem to disagree with that statement, and I'd like to know why that is.


I don't like the word "use" because it implies that Christianity fits their needs and purposes in the first place.  I think they were just trying to formulate their message to the Christian audience.  If they had it their way, Christianity would be abolished, but as the 20th century proved, that's pretty much impossible.

----------


## Deborah K

> Nothing I said was intended as a knock on the Bible, which I have indeed read and which obviously has had a huge influence.  My point was that if one believes in its theology one doesn't need to be persuaded by Pascal's Wager.  If one doesn't believe in the Bible, it may be that one will not be persuaded by the Wager because it assumes a certain kind of deity who demands belief upon pain of eternal damnation.


I didn't take what you wrote as a knock, per se.  I was responding to your suggestion that your wager could turn Pascal's on its head.  As you point out, Pascal uses the Bible as his reference for wagering that it is better to believe than not believe.  Your comment seemed to dismiss his point of reference out of hand and so I was trying to qualify it.  Btw, what is _your_ frame of reference for your wager?

----------


## Terry1

> But you *keep* skipping this:
> 
> _Acts 5:29King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men._
> 
> The Bible does not teach obeying governments that are requiring you to disobey God.


I have to disagree with you here.  I agree with otherone's interpretation and believe his is spot on.  The reason we are told to obey government is because it follows rules of law and justice instead of chaos and disorderliness in rebellion.  Then God gives warning to those in government who are corrupt and force those to obey laws opposite the will of God.  And he goes onto say that they will be judged for that too.

If Christians started rising up against TPTB as in disobeying laws and causing uprising's--then it becomes every mans personal war and (whatever his axe to grind free-for-all) based upon his idea of Gods will and word.  So then because of this--we are told that we must obey the laws of the land--God knowing our hearts and our obedience to Him can and will intervene on our parts--despite the laws we are forced to obey.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't like the word "use" because it implies that Christianity fits their needs and purposes in the first place.  I think they were just trying to formulate their message to the Christian audience.  If they had it their way, Christianity would be abolished, but as the 20th century proved, that's pretty much impossible.


Well I disagree.  The monarchy was successful in "using" Christianity as a means to an end for centuries.  Potato - Pa-tot-Oh!!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well I disagree.  The monarchy was successful in "using" Christianity as a means to an end for centuries.  Potato - Pa-tot-Oh!!


Do you agree with the assessment that, if they had their way, they would rather there were no Christians at all?

----------


## otherone

> The thing is, you're quoting a book that you have a vested interest NOT understanding.
> 
> If you are going to use the Bible to make your case, you have a heavy burden of proof and you can't fulfill that just by throwing a bunch of verses at us that you took a certain way.


Vested interest?
What are you talking about?   MY case? I don't interpret the scriptures....I'm relaying what Christians all over the WORLD believe. 
The verses I use are what Christians quote in regards to authority.  There are threads all over RPF alone about how pastors are preaching civil obedience in regards the police.  My family believe it, my friends believe.  It's UBIQUITOUS.
Help me argue with THEM.  Give me some ammo when people shove ROMANS in MY face.

----------


## otherone

> Well I disagree.  The monarchy was successful in "using" Christianity as a means to an end for centuries.  Potato - Pa-tot-Oh!!


It's how the Vatican ruled Europe.  Monarchs were threatened with massive excommunications unless they played ball.

----------


## Deborah K

> Do you agree with the assessment that, if they had their way, they would rather there were no Christians at all?


Not really, because in many regions they think they can control the masses by using the various religions against each other.  It's a good excuse for war, and control of all sorts.  I do agree however, that some regimes don't need religion to accomplish full control.  In this country though, religion is useful to the statists, imo.

----------


## Deborah K

> It's how the Vatican ruled Europe.  Monarchs were threatened with massive excommunications unless they played ball.


Yes, but it had to evolve into that.  The monarchy has been around much longer than Christianity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Vested interest?
> What are you talking about?   MY case? I don't interpret the scriptures....I'm relaying what Christians all over the WORLD believe. 
> The verses I use are what Christians quote in regards to authority.  There are threads all over RPF alone about how pastors are preaching civil obedience in regards the police.  My family believe it, my friends believe.  It's UBIQUITOUS.
> Help me argue with THEM.  Give me some ammo when people shove ROMANS in MY face.


It's one thing to say "people believe this."  

It's quite another to say "this is RIGHT."  

I was under the impression that you thought this interpretation was right, but if that's not your argument, I've given you some ammo.  If they want to interpret it that way, they have to show that they are right.  I do NOT however, do Bible study with people who don't accept the Bible as truth because they're not willing to do the work to UNDERSTAND.  They just want to argue.

If you want me to help you build a counter-argument for what is RIGHT, then that's impossible unless you actually think your argument is TRUE, but you can't do that unless you accept what the Bible says as truth.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not really, because in many regions they think they can control the masses by using the various religions against each other.  It's a good excuse for war, and control of all sorts.  I do agree however, that some regimes don't need religion to accomplish full control.  In this country though, religion is useful to the statists, imo.


That's where you're wrong.  Religion is not useful to statists in this country or any other.  It's just something they have to deal with, and yes, they do it quite well here.  However, that does not change the fact that every major communist regime of the last century had the abolition of religion as one of its core tenets.

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## jmdrake

> I have to disagree with you here.  I agree with otherone's interpretation and believe his is spot on.  The reason we are told to obey government is because it follows rules of law and justice instead of chaos and disorderliness in rebellion.  Then God gives warning to those in government who are corrupt and force those to obey laws opposite the will of God.  And he goes onto say that they will be judged for that too.
> 
> If Christians started rising up against TPTB as in disobeying laws and causing uprising's--then it becomes every mans personal war and (whatever his axe to grind free-for-all) based upon his idea of Gods will and word.  So then because of this--we are told that we must obey the laws of the land--God knowing our hearts and our obedience to Him can and will intervene on our parts--despite the laws we are forced to obey.


You're disagreeing with the Bible?  Okay.  Because I am not.  We are to obey God rather than man.  So if man says "Priest you must now perform gay weddings", unless that priest believes God approves gay weddings, he should obey God rather than man.  I'm shocked that this is even debatable.  

Edit: And how do you explain all of the Christian martyrs who died for Christ rather than worshiping Nero  Seriously you can't agree with otherone's position.  You must be confused.  Obeying God rather than man doesn't mean that you disobey any law.  But if a law causes you to violate your Christian beliefs it is your *duty* to disobey it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh, Terry this is so wrong.
> 
> Please please please read the Bible (the *whole* Bible) and pray God blesses you with the correct understanding. Your soul is at stake, here.
> 
> I will pray for you!!


I think she just got her wires crossed.  Otherwise all of the early church fathers who disobeyed the state and were martyred are going to hell.  There's no way an EOC christian believes that.  Either that or somebody hacked her account.

----------


## otherone

> I think she just got her wires crossed.  Otherwise all of the early church fathers who disobeyed the state and were martyred are going to hell.  There's no way an EOC christian believes that.  Either that or somebody hacked her account.


Here's an edifying commentary, including a critique:

http://www.livingwaterfellowship.biz...a_biblical.htm

The link's claim is for disobedience, but not rebellion, in those instances when the state either forces you to break God's law, or does not allow you to follow God's commandments.  In either situation, rebellion is not justified and one is obligated to suffer the punishment imposed by the civil authority.  This follows God's law and respects civil authority.   
I wonder what the FF's found to be contrary to God's Laws?  Was the revolution righteous?

----------


## Deborah K

> That's where you're wrong.  Religion is not useful to statists in this country or any other.  It's just something they have to deal with, and yes, they do it quite well here.  However, that does not change the fact that every major communist regime of the last century had the abolition of religion as one of its core tenets.


Well you obviously don't believe tptb have figured out how to get around that.  As I stated here:




> .....Statists .. use Christians and Christianity to promote statism.  There's no denying it.  They wrap a flag around the cross and convince God-fearing youth (among others) to fight wars that do nothing to protect our freedoms and do everything to protect our so-called "vital interests".


Do you deny this?

----------


## Crashland

If we are going to pick up Pascal's wager again, let's do please remember to pick up where we left off:




> It makes no difference, really.  You  atheists keep getting hung up on the specific identity of God, but the  point is that there is a Creator of the universe, and you have to find  out who He is.  I think we can rule out Zeus pretty early on.  In fact,  if there is a Creator of the universe, it's a monotheistic God, so that  narrows it down pretty good for you.





> The specific identity of God is crucial when it  comes to Pascal's wager, because the specific identity of God is what  determines the criteria which must be met in order to receive the reward  or punishment, and the specific identity of God also determines if God  even offers such a reward or punishment in the first place.





> No, Pascal's Wager doesn't assume any  specific identity.  All you're essentially saying is that, "If God  exists, then finding out who He is would be really hard, so it's best  not to even bother."  Wait a minute, but you haven't tried yet!  You  can't use confusion over who God is to avoid belief in Him.  If you  accept Pascal's Wager, then it doesn't matter who God is because it  assumes that there is a particular God out there, and it's up to you to  find the truth.  I don't think it's nearly as hard as you're making it  out to be because you're already assuming there's no more evidence for  one than there is for another.





> Of course it does.  It assumes a God that  will punish those who don't believe in Him.  That's why the wager says  it's better to believe than not to.
> 
> While this assumption may be consistent with the deity depicted in the  Bible, there is absolutely no logical basis to assume this is really the  case.  I could turn the wager on its head by assuming a God that will  punish those who do believe in Him.  Under such an assumption, no one should believe in God.

----------


## Voluntarist

> No, Pascal's Wager doesn't assume any specific identity.  All you're essentially saying is that, "If God exists, then finding out who He is would be really hard, so it's best not to even bother."  Wait a minute, but you haven't tried yet!  You can't use confusion over who God is to avoid belief in Him.  If you accept Pascal's Wager, then it doesn't matter who God is because it assumes that there is a particular God out there, and it's up to you to find the truth.  I don't think it's nearly as hard as you're making it out to be because you're already assuming there's no more evidence for one than there is for another.


What you appear to be saying is go out and find which interpretation of God is the true God, and then plug that proven fact into Pascal's truth table. But if you do that then Pascal's Wager is a worthless exercise because you've already determined that God, in some form, exists. Once you determine that a particular God exists then to live as if he doesn't (per the entires in Pascal's truth table) is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. The reality is that there are many options for who God (or multiple Gods) is/are. For Pascal's truth table to be intellectually honest, it has to account for all of them.

But it doesn't take an infinity of God choices for Pascal's Truth Table to break down. All it takes is the introduction of a second choices for the thing labeled God in the table r(ather than having a single choice). Once the table consists of more than four cells, then there is risk inherent in each individual cell - because "living life as though one God exists" pisses off the other God. And the more choices that are introduced for God, the more Gods there are to piss off.

----------


## Terry1

> Oh, Terry this is so wrong.
> 
> Please please please read the Bible (the *whole* Bible) and pray God blesses you with the correct understanding. Your soul is at stake, here.
> 
> I will pray for you!!


Thanks for the prayers, but I'd like to see where you've found any teaching on the justification for violence and uprising against TPTB from the Apostles or Jesus in the NT.  They taught against Jewish law, paganism and evil, but their resistance to that law was by and through passive teaching.  No--they were never going to stop teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ--hence the reason they were martyred and crucified.

----------


## Terry1

> I think she just got her wires crossed.  Otherwise all of the early church fathers who disobeyed the state and were martyred are going to hell.  There's no way an EOC christian believes that.  Either that or somebody hacked her account.


As I asked james as well--
I'd like to see where you've found any teaching on the justification for violence and uprising against TPTB from the Apostles or Jesus in the NT.  They taught against Jewish law, paganism and evil, but their resistance to that law was by and through passive teaching.  No--they were never going to stop teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ--hence the reason they were martyred and crucified.

----------


## jmdrake

> As I asked james as well--
> I'd like to see where you've found any teaching on the justification for violence and uprising against TPTB from the Apostles or Jesus in the NT.  They taught against Jewish law, paganism and evil, but their resistance to that law was by and through passive teaching.  No--they were never going to stop teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ--hence the reason they were martyred and crucified.


Were did I mention violence?  Let's see...*I didn't*.  So....what are you talking about?

----------


## jmdrake

> Thanks for the prayers, but I'd like to see where you've found any teaching on the justification for violence and uprising against TPTB from the Apostles or Jesus in the NT.  They taught against Jewish law, paganism and evil, but their resistance to that law was by and through passive teaching.  No--they were never going to stop teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ--hence the reason they were martyred and crucified.


Yeah....you have your wires crossed as I suspected.  You still do apparently.  I said nothing about violence.

----------


## jmdrake

> Here's an edifying commentary, including a critique:
> 
> http://www.livingwaterfellowship.biz...a_biblical.htm
> 
> The link's claim is for disobedience, but not rebellion, in those instances when the state either forces you to break God's law, or does not allow you to follow God's commandments.  In either situation, rebellion is not justified and one is obligated to suffer the punishment imposed by the civil authority.  This follows God's law and respects civil authority.   
> I wonder what the FF's found to be contrary to God's Laws?  Was the revolution righteous?


Okay.  Let's get one thing straight.  You and Terry apparently think I mentioned violence when I didn't.  The founding fathers used violence.  That wasn't what I was talking about at all when I said:

*The Bible does not teach obeying governments that are requiring you to disobey God.*

Now I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and not be snarky, but I is slightly irritating that both of you went so far away from what I actually said.

That said, the teachings of Jesus don't actually give Christians permission to use violence at all when read literally.  That means the Christian police officer can't use violence.  Neither can the Christian soldier.  Saying "Well Paul said the government doesn't wield the sword in vain" doesn't get you off the hook.  The government at Paul's time wasn't even close to Christian.  It's a bastardization of Christianity to teach "no violence against the government" but then turn around and teach "Violence by Christians in the government is okay."  Think about it.  Christian soldier invades country and teams up with guerrilla fighters to help him overthrow the enemy government?  How can Christians helping Christians violate the literal reading of Romans 13 be Christian?  Rhetorical question.  If you want to be literal with this "Do not resist evil" stuff, be a Quaker or a Mennonite.  If you are RCC or EOC or most versions of protestant then your church has abandoned that teaching to some degree or another.

Next thing to wonder is, what was Paul and Peter really teaching?  That physical resistance to evil is always a sin?  I don't think so.  But look at the historical context.  Rome dominated everything.  Christianity was seen as a fledgling sect of Judaism.  Jews were having failed rebellion after failed rebellion.  The easiest way to get wiped out would be to get swept up into such rebellions.  One way to get around that was to stress non violence.  But non violence does not be "giving in."  Gandhi used non violence to end British rule of India.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well you obviously don't believe tptb have figured out how to get around that.  As I stated here:


No, they're just getting better at undermining it in a rather sneaky way so that it crumbles to the point where they can, hopefully, ignore it.  They do this with the state-run education system and the media.  Less Christianity = good for the statists.  




> Do you deny this?


They may convince some God-fearing youth, but I bet you they convince more atheist youth, per capita.  It would probably be a lot easier to convince an atheist to go fight a war for money than it would be to convince a principled Christian to abandon or twist their moral values somehow to go fight.  Seeing the way the soldiers talk, I find it hard to believe there are many real Christians in that bunch.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you agree with the assessment that, if they had their way, they would rather there were no Christians at all?


I disagree.  For one thing I don't presume that all monarchs were cynical.  Some truly may have wanted to spread Christianity.  For another  when something is useful why get rid of it?  Constantine is the prototype of a ruler that decided to work with Christianity instead of against it.  It was easier to have troops rally around a single religion than multiple pantheons of multiple gods.  He actually persecuted pagans at one point.  Further why would Christian monarchs send in missionaries to convert the "heathen?"  That would seem counterproductive if the goal was no Christians at all.

----------


## otherone

> Okay.  Let's get one thing straight.  You and Terry apparently think I mentioned violence when I didn't.  The founding fathers used violence.  That wasn't what I was talking about at all when I said:
> 
> *The Bible does not teach obeying governments that are requiring you to disobey God.*
> 
> Now I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and not be snarky, but I is slightly irritating that both of you went so far away from what I actually said.


My apologies Jim.  My comments weren't actually in reference to yours, per se, but more to the point that Christian doctrine is useful to the state.
Yes, Christians are called upon to be civilly disobedient under a narrow set of criteria, but, as you've mentioned, the state has no fear of Christians revolting violently.  Providing that the state does not compel Christians to violate God's law, Christians may be considered the perfect population to oppress.

----------


## jmdrake

> My apologies Jim.  My comments weren't actually in reference to yours, per se, but more to the point that Christian doctrine is useful to the state.
> Yes, Christians are called upon to be civilly disobedient under a narrow set of criteria, but, as you've mentioned, the state has no fear of Christians revolting violently.  Providing that the state does not compel Christians to violate God's law, Christians may be considered the perfect population to oppress.


But if Christians take the non violence thing too seriously, and if the population becomes too Christian, who does the state get to oppress others?  Who fights the state's wars?  If you say "Well the state will just convince Christians that there is such a thing as a just war and Christians should fight for that" then what happens when Christians say "Okay.  But this government is tyrannical.  Overthrowing it would be just."  It's a difficult balancing act.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What you appear to be saying is go out and find which interpretation of God is the true God, and then plug that proven fact into Pascal's truth table. But if you do that then Pascal's Wager is a worthless exercise because you've already determined that God, in some form, exists. Once you determine that a particular God exists then to live as if he doesn't (per the entires in Pascal's truth table) is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. The reality is that there are many options for who God (or multiple Gods) is/are. For Pascal's truth table to be intellectually honest, it has to account for all of them.
> 
> But it doesn't take an infinity of God choices for Pascal's Truth Table to break down. All it takes is the introduction of a second choices for the thing labeled God in the table r(ather than having a single choice). Once the table consists of more than four cells, then there is risk inherent in each individual cell - because "living life as though one God exists" pisses off the other God. And the more choices that are introduced for God, the more Gods there are to piss off.


Pascal's Wager only seeks to establish that you should assume one possible god exists.  So there are only two possible choices: 1) one possible god exists 2) no god exists.  So with those two options in mind, we can apply Pascal's Wager.

So the reasoning goes as such:
1) If Pascal's Wager is valid, I should try to find out who God is.
2) Pascal's Wager is valid
3) Therefore, I should try to find out who God is.

Following that reasoning, we can establish that one possible god exists.  Once you've established that one possible god exists, it makes the most sense to at least try to find out who that God is because if you know one possible god exists, then indifference as to which one is no longer an option.

Since we can reasonably define God as an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the entire universe, that narrows it down to the major monotheistic religions.  From there, all you have to do is evaluate each one and figure out which one is the most consistent, both internally with itself and externally with reality.  After you have established which one is the most consistent, a lifetime of study and devotion to that particular religion is called for.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> But if Christians take the non violence thing too seriously, and if the population becomes too Christian, who does the state get to oppress others?  Who fights the states wars?  Is you say "Well the state will just convince Christians that there is such a thing as a just war and Christians should fight for that" then what happens when Christians say "Okay.  But this government is tyrannical.  Overthrowing it would be just."  It's a difficult balancing act.


Is that when it's time to split off another Denomination that suits needs of the Monarchy better?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I disagree.  For one thing I don't presume that all monarchs were cynical.  Some truly may have wanted to spread Christianity.  For another  *when something is useful why get rid of it?*  Constantine is the prototype of a ruler that decided to work with Christianity instead of against it.  It was easier to have troops rally around a single religion than multiple pantheons of multiple gods.  He actually persecuted pagans at one point.  Further why would Christian monarchs send in missionaries to convert the "heathen?"  That would seem counterproductive if the goal was no Christians at all.


Because Christianity is not "useful" to the state.  There may be some religion that teaches violence that would help rally the troops, but that's not Christianity.  I think it would be much easier to get a bunch of atheists to compromise their "morals" to fight a war than it would be to get a Christian to compromise their morals to fight.  

And sure, some monarchs may have been sincere in their belief, but we can forget about those because they certainly do not exist today.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But if Christians take the non violence thing too seriously, and if the population becomes too Christian, who does the state get to oppress others?  Who fights the state's wars?  If you say "Well the state will just convince Christians that there is such a thing as a just war and Christians should fight for that" then what happens when Christians say "Okay.  But this government is tyrannical.  Overthrowing it would be just."  It's a difficult balancing act.


In a previous post, you appeared to disagree with me, but I find myself agreeing with this post completely.  I posed that "they" (meaning an atheistic state) would rather no Christians exist, and you appear to confirm this in the post I am responding to right now.  It would be much easier to control people whose morals are not set in stone or whose morals can change given the amount of pay offered.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Crashland

> Pascal's Wager only seeks to establish that you should assume one possible god exists.  So there are only two possible choices: 1) one possible god exists 2) no god exists.  So with those two options in mind, we can apply Pascal's Wager.
> 
> So the reasoning goes as such:
> 1) If Pascal's Wager is valid, I should try to find out who God is.
> 2) Pascal's Wager is valid
> 3) Therefore, I should try to find out who God is.
> 
> Following that reasoning, we can establish that one possible god exists.  Once you've established that one possible god exists, it makes the most sense to at least try to find out who that God is because if you know one possible god exists, then indifference as to which one is no longer an option.
> 
> Since we can reasonably define God as an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the entire universe, that narrows it down to the major monotheistic religions.  From there, all you have to do is evaluate each one and figure out which one is the most consistent, both internally with itself and externally with reality.  After you have established which one is the most consistent, a lifetime of study and devotion to that particular religion is called for.


Pascal's wager loses all value if it is invoked *prior* to establishing the specific identity of God. This is because the _conditions_ for reward or punishment necessarily depend on the specific identity of God.
Again:



> The specific identity of God is crucial when it  comes to Pascal's wager, because the specific identity of God is what  determines the criteria which must be met in order to receive the reward  or punishment, and the specific identity of God also determines if God  even offers such a reward or punishment in the first place.





> No, Pascal's Wager doesn't assume any  specific identity.  All you're essentially saying is that, "If God  exists, then finding out who He is would be really hard, so it's best  not to even bother."  Wait a minute, but you haven't tried yet!  You  can't use confusion over who God is to avoid belief in Him.  If you  accept Pascal's Wager, then it doesn't matter who God is because it  assumes that there is a particular God out there, and it's up to you to  find the truth.  I don't think it's nearly as hard as you're making it  out to be because you're already assuming there's no more evidence for  one than there is for another.





> *Of course it does.  It assumes a God that  will punish those who don't believe in Him.  That's why the wager says  it's better to believe than not to.
> 
> While this assumption may be consistent with the deity depicted in the  Bible, there is absolutely no logical basis to assume this is really the  case.  I could turn the wager on its head by assuming a God that will  punish those who do believe in Him.  Under such an assumption, no one should believe in God.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Pascal's wager loses all value if it is invoked *prior* to establishing the specific identity of God. This is because the _conditions_ for reward or punishment necessarily depend on the specific identity of God.
> Again:


First of all, the assumption that God will punish those who don't believe in Him is a valid assumption.  Based on all the data available, God wants you to know who He is.  To conjure up some imaginary God that doesn't want you to know who He is violates Occam's Razor. 

Secondly, it does not follow that Pascal's Wager loses validity if it is invoked before the specific identity of God is established.  If you invoke it before, then it becomes obligatory to find out who God is.  You can still accept Pascal's Wager as valid even if you do not know the specific identity of God and then you can either choose to remain ignorant and indifferent, or you can choose to find out.  You are assuming that, because the second step involves a lot of work, it necessarily undermines the importance of the first step, but this is not true because if you accept that Pascal's Wager is valid in the first step, then indifference is no longer an option and no amount of work is too great for the specific identity of God to be relevant.

----------


## Crashland

> First of all, the assumption that God will punish those who don't believe in Him is a valid assumption.  Based on all the data available, God wants you to know who He is.  To conjure up some imaginary God that doesn't want you to know who He is violates Occam's Razor. 
> 
> Secondly, it does not follow that Pascal's Wager loses validity if it is invoked before the specific identity of God is established.  If you invoke it before, then it becomes obligatory to find out who God is.  You can still accept Pascal's Wager as valid even if you do not know the specific identity of God and then you can either choose to remain ignorant and indifferent, or you can choose to find out.  You are assuming that, because the second step involves a lot of work, it necessarily undermines the importance of the first step, but this is not true because if you accept that Pascal's Wager is valid in the first step, then indifference is no longer an option and no amount of work is too great for the specific identity of God to be relevant.


No, it is not a valid assumption. If we are considering the decision table of Pascal's wager - if God exists, then he wants us to know who He is and will reward us for it? Based on what available data? This piece of information _requires_ an assumption about the specific identity of God and what God's desires are, and you are invoking it as a justification of the initial wager which is itself the motivation for seeking out God's specific identity.

----------


## jmdrake

> In a previous post, you appeared to disagree with me, but I find myself agreeing with this post completely.  I posed that "they" (meaning an atheistic state) would rather no Christians exist, and you appear to confirm this in the post I am responding to right now.  It would be much easier to control people whose morals are not set in stone or whose morals can change given the amount of pay offered.


I guess it depends on what you are defining as "Christian."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I guess it depends on what you are defining as "Christian."


People who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, it is not a valid assumption. If we are considering the decision table of Pascal's wager - if God exists, then he wants us to know who He is and will reward us for it? Based on what available data? This piece of information _requires_ an assumption about the specific identity of God and what God's desires are, and you are invoking it as a justification of the initial wager which is itself the motivation for seeking out God's specific identity.


A quick scan of all the world's religions will tell you that any possible God you could fathom believing in wants you to know Him.  It is not necessary to accept any of them as valid in order to make that assumption.  The application of Occam's Razor tells us that it is not necessary to conjure up any additional gods that do not want you to know Him because the simplest explanation is that all world religions believe this way because that's the way any possible God would be.

Therefore, it's a valid assumption and Pascal's Wager can be invoked to see if you should try to find out if any of them are true.

----------


## presence

> People who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God.


Which of the 20 odd English versions is the inerrant one? 




> A quick scan of all the world's religions will tell you that any  possible God you could fathom believing in wants you to know Him.



Buddhism?
Wicca?
Taoism?
Vedanta?

Perhaps a quick scan of Abrahamic religions there's a god that wants you to know "Him" ...but I suppose those are the only ones that count?

----------


## Crashland

> A quick scan of all the world's religions will tell you that any possible God you could fathom believing in wants you to know Him.  It is not necessary to accept any of them as valid in order to make that assumption.  The application of Occam's Razor tells us that it is not necessary to conjure up any additional gods that do not want you to know Him because the simplest explanation is that all world religions believe this way because that's the way any possible God would be.
> 
> Therefore, it's a valid assumption and Pascal's Wager can be invoked to see if you should try to find out if any of them are true.


If I do a quick scan of the world's religions, if you set aside the  Abrahamic faiths, I see a much larger diversity of belief than you are  letting on. Anyway, this is not a valid application of Occam's Razor for this reason. [Edit....] The ideas that God wants us to know him and rewards that, versus not... The former claim does not require fewer assumptions than the latter. Sure, the latter claim assumes that many religions are incorrect about God wanting to be known, but this is the _exact_ same claim that is being evaluated in the first place, so it does not make sense to count those as unnecessary assumptions. The only thing that remains from this would be an appeal to the majority which is not valid either.

Now, going back a little bit, I do in fact agree with you about the conclusion you just made. The wager can be invoked as a fairly easy motivation _to try to find out_ if any of them are true (Answer: yes). However, taking that particular bet and doing that course of action does not preclude one from being an atheist.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Which of the 20 odd English versions is the inerrant one? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddhism?
> Wicca?
> Taoism?
> Vedanta?
> ...


I like you pres.  Don't screw it up with your mockery.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If I do a quick scan of the world's religions, if you set aside the  Abrahamic faiths, I see a much larger diversity of belief than you are  letting on. Anyway, this is not a valid application of Occam's Razor for this reason. [Edit....] The ideas that God wants us to know him and rewards that, versus not... The former claim does not require fewer assumptions than the latter. Sure, the latter claim assumes that many religions are incorrect about God wanting to be known, but this is the _exact_ same claim that is being evaluated in the first place, so it does not make sense to count those as unnecessary assumptions. The only thing that remains from this would be an appeal to the majority which is not valid either.
> 
> Now, going back a little bit, I do in fact agree with you about the conclusion you just made. The wager can be invoked as a fairly easy motivation _to try to find out_ if any of them are true (Answer: yes). However, taking that particular bet and doing that course of action does not preclude one from being an atheist.


I'll let you have your views of Pascal's Wager.  My argument for the existence of God doesn't depend on it.  I still think you're wrong, but if anything convinces you, this definitely won't be it.

The whole point is that this isn't nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be, evaluating every little nook and cranny and protesting every little point that says, "Hey, maybe you should just try to find out."  

You never wanted to find the truth.  You are willfully ignorant.

Just keep wishing, hoping... praying that one day there will be a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe so you won't have to think about whether God exists or not.  Gotta stay strong and keep the faith that one day science will tell you where the laws that govern our universe came from.

----------


## lilymc

> The whole point is that this isn't nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be, evaluating every little nook and cranny and protesting every little point that says, "Hey, maybe you should just try to find out."


I couldn't agree more.  I see that all the time with atheists.... and it drives me bonkers.        They act as if it's so difficult to figure out which religion is true, so might as well not even try.   That seems to be another excuse to avoid what some people know deep down they should do... but just don't want to do.

----------


## jmdrake

> People who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God.


Well there are people who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God but are absolute statist warmongers.  Acceptance doesn't = reading and/or application.

----------


## jmdrake

> Pascal's wager loses all value if it is invoked *prior* to establishing the specific identity of God. This is because the _conditions_ for reward or punishment necessarily depend on the specific identity of God.
> Again:


It doesn't lose all value.  It certainly loses some but not all.  Think of it like the Publisher's Clearinghouse sweepstakes.  You could believe it's completely fake and not send it in.  You are guaranteed not to win anything.  Or you could send it in and hope to win.  There's no guarantee that you have the winning entry.  Similar with Pascal's wager if you "pick a god...any god" you automatically go to a higher percentage chance of "winning" than if you don't pick any god at all.  Also some theorized gods don't have a specific "believe in me" component.  They just want you to live a moral life.  So if through Christianity you are living a moral life then you are beating the odds even further.

----------


## Voluntarist

> Pascal's Wager only seeks to establish that you should assume one possible god exists.  So there are only two possible choices: 1) one possible god exists 2) no god exists.  So with those two options in mind, we can apply Pascal's Wager.


Then it  in error; or at least it needs to state the assumption that all god choices are identical w/r to the outcomes in the truth table. That's due the fact that the truth table assumes that all God choices would be a vengeful god that would reward follows for believing in him and punish those who do not. That's not the compete set of outcomes you could expect. You could also have:
- A god that rewards followers but does not punish non-followers
- A benevolent god that rewards all
- A god that provides an eternal life for no one, follower or non-follower
- Etc.

Ignoring the possible god choices ar at least the categories they fit into (w/r to outcomes) invalidates the truth table.

----------


## Terry1

> Yeah....you have your wires crossed as I suspected.  You still do apparently.  I said nothing about violence.



Okay--then let me ask you a question.  Using your best common sense judgment--who would you be more likely to support in a case where the "Draft" has been initiated to call all qualified men to war.  One Christian man decides to obey the government and enlist, while another conscientious objector Christian decides to disobey government and flee to Canada.

Which one of these two men in your opinion is more correct Biblically speaking?

----------


## Crashland

> I'll let you have your views of Pascal's Wager.  My argument for the existence of God doesn't depend on it.  I still think you're wrong, but if anything convinces you, this definitely won't be it.
> 
> The whole point is that this isn't nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be, evaluating every little nook and cranny and protesting every little point that says, "Hey, maybe you should just try to find out."  
> 
> You never wanted to find the truth.  You are willfully ignorant.
> 
> Just keep wishing, hoping... praying that one day there will be a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe so you won't have to think about whether God exists or not.  Gotta stay strong and keep the faith that one day science will tell you where the laws that govern our universe came from.


Wait, what? Didn't I just agree with you that it is a good idea to try and find out if any of them are true? Why do you think that I haven't, or don't? Trying to find out if any of them are true is why I became an atheist in the first place, and it is part of why I continually put my beliefs and arguments to the test by engaging with people like you. Willful ignorance is a gross misrepresentation for people who constantly try to understand and evaluate Christian arguments.

----------


## robert68

> Yeah....so why did Nero try so hard to stomp Christians out?  Hint, it wasn't just because they wouldn't pray to him.  There is more than one way to resist tyranny.  Gandhi used Christian principles to end British rule of India.


Actually, Gandhi didnt succeed at his endeavor. First of all though, it was harder for Britain to hold on to their colonies in 1946 due to the toll of their fighting in WWII, than it was before WWII. Their loss of control of things in Palestine is an example of that. But to the main point, the British offered independence in 1946 on condition India be partitioned on Hindu/Muslim lines. Gandhi opposed it, but Nehru agreed to it behind his back. The partition was very deadly and forced a population transfer of over 10 million Indians. It saddened Gandhi greatly, and ended up costing him his life. Negative consequences of that partition exist to this day. 

Then, btw, there's the terrible economic policies of quasi Marxist ruler Nehru that followed, keeping Indians economically poor for decades.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well there are people who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God but are absolute statist warmongers.  Acceptance doesn't = reading and/or application.


I know that, but I mean the state worked hard to make it that way.  I think it would have been easier if everyone was an atheist.  The fact that they are successful at brainwashing some Christians doesn't mean Christianity itself is helpful to the statist cause as some seem to be implying.  I hate it when people confuse the two.  It's an important point because the idea of Christianity being a tool to the state implies that there is something inherently statist in Christianity that undermines freedom and serves the purposes of the elite, but I think it's the opposite.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Then it  in error; or at least it needs to state the assumption that all god choices are identical w/r to the outcomes in the truth table. That's due the fact that the truth table assumes that all God choices would be a vengeful god that would reward follows for believing in him and punish those who do not. That's not the compete set of outcomes you could expect. You could also have:
> - A god that rewards followers but does not punish non-followersl


Lose nothing, gain everything




> - A benevolent god that rewards all


Lose nothing.



> - A god that provides an eternal life for no one, follower or non-follower


Lose nothing.




> - Etc.
> 
> Ignoring the possible god choices ar at least the categories they fit into (w/r to outcomes) invalidates the truth table.


Not necessarily.  If you plug in enough of those factors, as I've shown, in almost all cases, you lose nothing.  The only possible case in which you could lose something is if God punishes believers and rewards non-believers, but why would you believe something like that?  It's an unnecessary assumption that 1) No religion in the world gets it right and 2) The true religion that no one gets right is harmful to believers and 3) The one that's harmful cares if you believe in the other gods in the world as opposed to strictly that one.  You see, if there's a god out there that punishes believers, then nobody's found him yet, which would kind of suggest that he hasn't really been discovered and hasn't punished anyone.  It's a really unnecessary abstraction to come up with a lose-lose situation for believers.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Wait, what? Didn't I just agree with you that it is a good idea to try and find out if any of them are true? Why do you think that I haven't, or don't? Trying to find out if any of them are true is why I became an atheist in the first place, and it is part of why I continually put my beliefs and arguments to the test by engaging with people like you. Willful ignorance is a gross misrepresentation for people who constantly try to understand and evaluate Christian arguments.


I'm sorry, Crashland.  I was really just making a blanket statement to the atheists and other assorted non-atheists who reject all religion.  You're probably one of the good ones.

----------


## jmdrake

> Okay--then let me ask you a question.  Using your best common sense judgment--who would you be more likely to support in a case where the "Draft" has been initiated to call all qualified men to war.  One Christian man decides to obey the government and enlist, while another conscientious objector Christian decides to disobey government and flee to Canada.
> 
> Which one of these two men in your opinion is more correct Biblically speaking?


Poor question.  I assume you believe that this Christian believes he can be a non combatant in this war and still obey God.  My point is that if obedience to the government requires violation of Christian beliefs then it is the duty of the Christian to disobey.  If your conscience tells you that God would be displeased with you helping with a particular war effort at all then you should obey God rather than man.  If your conscience tells you that you can be of more service to God by still serving in the military but as a conscientious objector then there is no conflict between God and man on that issue.

TER just posted a thread recently about Christians who disobeyed the Nazi government by refusing to turn over lists of Jews, lying is some cases, stealing or pretending to steal[1], and do all sorts of things to save lives.  These people were disobeying the state.  Some of the things they did in disobedience would even be "sins" under normal circumstances.  I recall in a college religion class a professor posed the question say if you were in Nazi Germany and you saw a little Jewish girl hiding and the Nazis came and asked "Have you seen her?"  Some of the hard core theology majors were like "I would not lie.  I trust God that He would work this out.  I would say I have seen her but I won't tell you."  Okay.  *That's just stupid*.  By telling the truth, even holding back details, they would have told the Nazis vital information to aid in their search.  What did Rahab do in that situation?  She lied and said she hadn't seen the Hebrew spies.  The New Testament praised Rahab for what she did.

I posted the story in that same thread of a Seventh Day Adventist who was drafted into Hitler's army as an engineer.  He built bridges for Hitler.  To avoid killing people he threw away he real gun and carried a fake gun he carved out of a piece of wood and painted black.  He would go ahead of Hitler's army and warn Jews to flee.  That was a good thing.  But at the same time the bridges he helped build arguably made the Nazi killing machine that slightly more efficient.  Oh and his wife had their oldest son hide rather than let him be taken and forced into the Hitler youth.  Do you think a mother should let her child be brainwashed by evil men who hate Christ just to fit your definition of what is more "Christian?"

I think in a way this shows the weakness of being hung up on works.  Jesus said David was blameless when, as he was fleeing from Saul rather than obediently standing still so that Saul could run him through with a spear, he ate the shewbread that only the priests were supposed to eat.  David also lied to the priests and said he was on a mission for Saul when instead he was running for his life.  Jesus told this story to point out that the Pharisees were too hung up on works when it came to the Sabbath.  But the same principle applies to other aspects of the Christian life.

So no.  A person who avoids the draft is no less Christian than a person who is drafted.  If Christians had more fully put Christ first during WW II then that horrible war might never have started because neither side would have had enough soldiers.  And think about the Christmas day truce in World War I.  It started because Christians on both sides decided to fraternize with the enemy rather than kill him.   Neither side's officers could get their men to continue fighting at all.  After that there were strict rules against fraternization put into the military.  Can't have German and British soldiers wishing each other peace on earth afterall.

Go back and read some more on early Christian martyrs.  Some of these men and women were badass.  They wouldn't even surrender Christian documents to the authorities.  Technically speaking turning in essentially what is your Bible isn't a sin.  They could have "gone along to get along."  But they raised their allegiance to God over allegiance to the state.  It was their willingness to defy the state through peaceful means that caused the rapid growth of Christianity.

[1]Cory Ten Boom's group had to get ration cards in order to feed their Jewish refugees.  To protect safety of those who would give them ration cards they had to make it look like a robbery and beat them up.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually, Gandhi didn’t succeed at his endeavor. First of all though, it was harder for Britain to hold on to their colonies in 1946 due to the toll of their fighting in WWII, than it was before WWII. Their loss of control of things in Palestine is an example of that. But to the main point, the British offered independence in 1946 on condition India be partitioned on Hindu/Muslim lines. Gandhi opposed it, but Nehru agreed to it behind his back. The partition was very deadly and forced a population transfer of over 10 million Indians. It saddened Gandhi greatly, and ended up costing him his life. Negative consequences of that partition exist to this day. 
> 
> Then, btw, there's the terrible economic policies of quasi Marxist ruler Nehru that followed, keeping Indians economically poor for decades.


You're making several assumptions without foundation.

1) That just because it was harder for the British to keep control after WW II meant that losing control was inevitable.  It wasn't.  The British kept control of other territories.

2) That "losing" control of Palestine wasn't because Lord Balfour had already promised to give it to the Zionists back during WW I.

3) That just because Gandhi wasn't 100% successful means that he wasn't successful at all.

4) That the mismanagement of Neru has anything to do with my point whatsoever.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well there are people who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God but are absolute statist warmongers.  Acceptance doesn't = reading and/or application.


or accurate interpretation.

----------


## Crashland

> I'm sorry, Crashland.  I was really just making a blanket statement to the atheists and other assorted non-atheists who reject all religion.  You're probably one of the good ones.


Ah ok. Well, I agree that it's an important issue, and I think the wager is good for at least that much, to the point that the existence or nonexistence of a god, and its particular identity, is something that merits a serious effort, and an ongoing one at that. I do not think it is wise to be closed minded about the nonexistence of god or about God's identity. Its just that taking this aspect of the wager does not automatically translate to belief. Pascal acknowledged this in the original form of the argument, and stated that one is not necessarily able to choose to believe. His solution to this in the original argument though, is that it is in such a person's best interest to attempt to deceive themselves into believing - and I don't agree with that. God would be smart enough to see right through that kind of thing anyway.

----------


## Terry1

> Poor question.  I assume you believe that this Christian believes he can be a non combatant in this war and still obey God.  My point is that if obedience to the government requires violation of Christian beliefs then it is the duty of the Christian to disobey.  If your conscience tells you that God would be displeased with you helping with a particular war effort at all then you should obey God rather than man.  If your conscience tells you that you can be of more service to God by still serving in the military but as a conscientious objector then there is no conflict between God and man on that issue.
> 
> TER just posted a thread recently about Christians who disobeyed the Nazi government by refusing to turn over lists of Jews, lying is some cases, stealing or pretending to steal[1], and do all sorts of things to save lives.  These people were disobeying the state.  Some of the things they did in disobedience would even be "sins" under normal circumstances.  I recall in a college religion class a professor posed the question say if you were in Nazi Germany and you saw a little Jewish girl hiding and the Nazis came and asked "Have you seen her?"  Some of the hard core theology majors were like "I would not lie.  I trust God that He would work this out.  I would say I have seen her but I won't tell you."  Okay.  *That's just stupid*.  By telling the truth, even holding back details, they would have told the Nazis vital information to aid in their search.  What did Rahab do in that situation?  She lied and said she hadn't seen the Hebrew spies.  The New Testament praised Rahab for what she did.
> 
> I posted the story in that same thread of a Seventh Day Adventist who was drafted into Hitler's army as an engineer.  He built bridges for Hitler.  To avoid killing people he threw away he real gun and carried a fake gun he carved out of a piece of wood and painted black.  He would go ahead of Hitler's army and warn Jews to flee.  That was a good thing.  But at the same time the bridges he helped build arguably made the Nazi killing machine that slightly more efficient.  Oh and his wife had their oldest son hide rather than let him be taken and forced into the Hitler youth.  Do you think a mother should let her child be brainwashed by evil men who hate Christ just to fit your definition of what is more "Christian?"
> 
> I think in a way this shows the weakness of being hung up on works.  Jesus said David was blameless when, as he was fleeing from Saul rather than obediently standing still so that Saul could run him through with a spear, he ate the shewbread that only the priests were supposed to eat.  David also lied to the priests and said he was on a mission for Saul when instead he was running for his life.  Jesus told this story to point out that the Pharisees were too hung up on works when it came to the Sabbath.  But the same principle applies to other aspects of the Christian life.
> 
> *So no.  A person who avoids the draft is no less Christian than a person who is drafted.  If Christians had more fully put Christ first during WW II then that horrible war might never have started because neither side would have had enough soldiers.  And think about the Christmas day truce in World War I.*  It started because Christians on both sides decided to fraternize with the enemy rather than kill him.   Neither side's officers could get their men to continue fighting at all.  After that there were strict rules against fraternization put into the military.  Can't have German and British soldiers wishing each other peace on earth afterall.
> ...


So then there is no absolute here then and Ecclesiastes 3 is right--that To every _thing there is_ a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

To every man in Christ--live your own convictions and calling being led by the Holy Spirit.  There is a time for the warriors and a time for the peace makers as well.  

So if I believe it's right for me to obey the law--God knowing my heart can and will intervene on my behalf--just the same as God would another to who believes God wants him or her to disobey the law to obey their Spiritual calling in Christ.

----------


## jmdrake

> So then there is no absolute here then and Ecclesiastes 3 is right--that To every _thing there is_ a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
> 
> To every man in Christ--live your own convictions and calling being led by the Holy Spirit.  There is a time for the warriors and a time for the peace makers as well.  
> 
> So if I believe it's right for me to obey the law--God knowing my heart can and will intervene on my behalf--just the same as God would another to who believes God wants him or her to disobey the law to obey their Spiritual calling in Christ.


I didn't say that and I don't believe you can reasonably imply that from anything I said.  I'm not saying the position you are pushing is wrong, it's just not what I said.

Let's go back to the Bible.  The verse I quoted is taken from Acts.  Peter and John were told to quit preaching Jesus in the temple.  They could have obeyed the authorities and just preached Jesus elsewhere.  They did not.  Do you think they were wrong?

----------


## Terry1

> I didn't say that and I don't believe you can reasonably imply that from anything I said.  I'm not saying the position you are pushing is wrong, it's just not what I said.
> 
> Let's go back to the Bible.  The verse I quoted is taken from Acts.  Peter and John were told to quit preaching Jesus in the temple.  They could have obeyed the authorities and just preached Jesus elsewhere.  They did not.  Do you think they were wrong?


What exactly is your point then?  Are you saying that we should disobey corrupt government in all cases or just some cases?

----------


## jmdrake

> What exactly is your point then?  Are you saying that we should disobey corrupt government in all cases or just some cases?


_Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men._

That goes for government.  Neighbors.  People on the internet that make you mad.  (I have a lot to work on here).  Even criminals.  If at all possible live at peace with them.  Tell me this.  What do you believe the main goal of the Christian is with respect to the rest of humankind?  What was the apostles' main goal?

Edit: Here is a question that I used to wrestle with.  I'm curious as to your answer.  Peter was locked away in prison.  An angel shook his chains off and opened the door.  Peter left the prison and went to the believers who were praying for him.  Later Paul was in prison.  An angel shook his chains off and opened the door.  Paul decided to stay.  The jailer and his family were converted to Christ.  Was Peter somehow less righteous than Paul for leaving?  After all escaping prison is against the law.

----------


## Terry1

> _Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men._
> 
> That goes for government.  Neighbors.  People on the internet that make you mad.  (I have a lot to work on here).  Even criminals.  If at all possible live at peace with them.  Tell me this.  What do you believe the main goal of the Christian is with respect to the rest of humankind?  What was the apostles' main goal?
> 
> Edit: Here is a question that I used to wrestle with.  I'm curious as to your answer.  Peter was locked away in prison.  An angel shook his chains off and opened the door.  Peter left the prison and went to the believers who were praying for him.  Later Paul was in prison.  An angel shook his chains off and opened the door.  Paul decided to stay.  The jailer and his family were converted to Christ.  Was Peter somehow less righteous than Paul for leaving?  After all escaping prison is against the law.


Yeah---I get it.  Now--in this post you're corroborating my point in another thread that I made.  Ecclesiastes 3---There's a time and a purpose for everything under heaven.  I time to fight and a time for peace, a time to love and a time to hate--ect--  The only directive here is to walk in the Spirit of the Lord and be guided by Him in all circumstances where we might have to make peace or fight.  

You attempting to make me out to be some sort of pacifist who would never fight for anything under any circumstance.  My original point to you was that Jesus never taught or condoned violence or disobedience to the law.  What He did teach was to abide in Him in all circumstances--then and only then were they justified doing whatever it was they were being called to do in that particular circumstance.

----------


## robert68

> You're making several assumptions without foundation.


Says the one who wrote this without foundation: "Gandhi used Christian principles to end British rule of India."




> 1) That just because it was harder for the British to keep control after WW II meant that losing control was inevitable.  It wasn't.  The British kept control of other territories.


I didn’t say it was inevitable only because of that. 




> 2) That "losing" control of Palestine wasn't because Lord Balfour had already promised to give it to the Zionists back during WW I.


Britain tried to limit Jewish arrivals into Palestine with the issuance of the White Paper, had their military headquarters in Palestine bombed, and voted against the UN partition. Policies of empires aren't determined by 3 decade old political promises (assuming that's exactly what the promise was). 




> 3) That just because Gandhi wasn't 100% successful means that he wasn't successful at all.


If his opposition to the British conditions for "independence" and what followed it isn’t good enough for you, then nothing is. 




> 4) That the mismanagement of Nehru has anything to do with my point whatsoever.


The existence of the immense poverty of the Indians was a big part of what motivated Gandhi to do what he did. You would know that if you knew about the subject matter. Nehru’s Marxist views were known, and Gandhi disagreed with them. Nehru was of the privileged class in India and his motivation was mainly to gain power.

----------


## otherone

> My point is that if obedience to the government requires* violation of Christian beliefs* then it is the duty of the Christian to disobey.  If your conscience tells you that God would be displeased with you helping with a particular war effort at all then you should obey God rather than man.





> My original point to you was that Jesus never taught or condoned violence or disobedience to the law.  What He did teach was to abide in Him in all circumstances--then and only then were they justified doing whatever it was they were being called to do in that particular circumstance.


It is my understanding that the ONLY time disobedience to civil authority is acceptable is if that authority compels you to violate God's law.   "Injustice" would not warrant disobedience, for instance, nor violation of christian "beliefs".  In any event, one who is disobedient for conscientious reasons must still submit to civil authority for punishment.  
If I am incorrect, please let me know why!

----------


## jmdrake

> Says the one who wrote this without foundation: "Gandhi used Christian principles to end British rule of India."


My statement is well established history.  If you want to undermine it then the burden is on you.  You have failed to meet your burden.




> I didn’t say it was inevitable only because of that.


Okay.  But if you are trying to argue that there is "no foundation" to the belief that Gandhi's non violence helped end British rule you must have enough causes for the end of British rule for Gandhi's contribution not to mean anything.




> Britain tried to limit Jewish arrivals into Palestine with the issuance of the White Paper, had their military headquarters in Palestine bombed, and voted against the UN partition. Policies of empires aren't determined by 3 decade old political promises (assuming that's exactly what the promise was).


Smoke and mirrors.




> If his opposition to the British conditions for "independence" and what followed it isn’t good enough for you, then nothing is.


Non sequitur.  If your argument is that everytime someone attempts to accomplish something if it doesn't come out exactly the way they wanted it to that means nothing happened then nothing ever happens.  The revolutionary war didn't happen because things didn't turn out the way all of the founding fathers wanted it to. 




> The existence of the immense poverty of the Indians was a big part of what motivated Gandhi to do what he did. You would know that if you knew about the subject matter. Nehru’s Marxist views were known, and Gandhi disagreed with them. Nehru was of the privileged class in India and his motivation was mainly to gain power.


None of your counter arguments at all undermine my premise that Gandhi's used Christian principles to end British rule.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah---I get it.  Now--in this post you're corroborating my point in another thread that I made.  Ecclesiastes 3---There's a time and a purpose for everything under heaven.  I time to fight and a time for peace, a time to love and a time to hate--ect--  The only directive here is to walk in the Spirit of the Lord and be guided by Him in all circumstances where we might have to make peace or fight.  
> 
> You attempting to make me out to be some sort of pacifist who would never fight for anything under any circumstance.  My original point to you was that Jesus never taught or condoned violence or disobedience to the law.  What He did teach was to abide in Him in all circumstances--then and only then were they justified doing whatever it was they were being called to do in that particular circumstance.


What?  Your wires are crossed again.  I'm not trying to make you out to be anything.  Take a deep breath, go back and re-read the thread and try again.  The point that I made early on is that Christians are not expected to obey government decrees that go against God.  I'm not even sure why you attempted to debate that.  It's a cut and dry truth that every Christian knows.  From there you "disagreed" with me by saying something about the verse I quoted didn't support violent rebellion.  Okay. *But I never said anything about violence one way or another*.  And now you're claiming that I'm trying to say you are a pacifist?  I never said that.

Seriously.  I'm totally lost as to what it is that you are trying to prove.

----------


## jmdrake

> But you *keep* skipping this:
> 
> _Acts 5:29King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men._
> 
> The Bible does not teach obeying governments that are requiring you to disobey God.





> I have to disagree with you here.  I agree with otherone's interpretation and believe his is spot on.  The reason we are told to obey government is because it follows rules of law and justice instead of chaos and disorderliness in rebellion.  Then God gives warning to those in government who are corrupt and force those to obey laws opposite the will of God.  And he goes onto say that they will be judged for that too.
> 
> If Christians started rising up against TPTB as in disobeying laws and causing uprising's--then it becomes every mans personal war and (whatever his axe to grind free-for-all) based upon his idea of Gods will and word.  So then because of this--we are told that we must obey the laws of the land--God knowing our hearts and our obedience to Him can and will intervene on our parts--despite the laws we are forced to obey.


Terry, I'm quoting myself and quoting you so as to get this back on track.  Otherone was quoting a bunch of verses about "obey government".  I quoted Peter saying "We should obey God rather than man" saying that obeying a government that is trying to force you to disobey God is not a requirement of a Christian.  You started talking about "rebellion" and "chaos."  I'm not at all sure what you were or are trying to say.

----------


## jmdrake

> It is my understanding that the ONLY time disobedience to civil authority is acceptable is if that authority compels you to violate God's law.   "Injustice" would not warrant disobedience, for instance, nor violation of christian "beliefs".  In any event, one who is disobedient for conscientious reasons must still submit to civil authority for punishment.  
> If I am incorrect, please let me know why!


If Peter and John had not preached in the temple would that have been a violation of God's law?  Note there was a point that Jesus quit going to the temple to preach.  

_John 11:54 As a result, Jesus stopped his public ministry among the people and left Jerusalem. He went to a place near the wilderness, to the village of Ephraim, and stayed there with his disciples._

So clearly it's not a sin to restrict one's self from preaching at a particular location.  Yet Peter and John said they had to obey God rather than man by preaching in the temple after they had been forbidden to do so.  Why did they say that?  (If you've ever done a Bible study on Acts and how it was the apostles "decided" where to preach then you should know the answer.)

Peter "disobeyed" civil authority by leaving prison.  Paul "obeyed" civil authority by staying.  Was Peter "sinning?"  Was Paul?

----------


## otherone

> If Peter and John had not preached in the temple would that have been a violation of God's law?  Note there was a point that Jesus quit going to the temple to preach.  
> 
> _John 11:54 As a result, Jesus stopped his public ministry among the people and left Jerusalem. He went to a place near the wilderness, to the village of Ephraim, and stayed there with his disciples._
> 
> So clearly it's not a sin to restrict one's self from preaching at a particular location.  Yet Peter and John said they had to obey God rather than man by preaching in the temple after they had been forbidden to do so.  Why did they say that?  (If you've ever done a Bible study on Acts and how it was the apostles "decided" where to preach then you should know the answer.)
> 
> Peter "disobeyed" civil authority by leaving prison.  Paul "obeyed" civil authority by staying.  Was Peter "sinning?"  Was Paul?


I am neither Peter nor Paul's judge.  I am trying to understand the biblical justification for civil disobedience.

excerpt:




> In Romans 13:1-7 the Apostle Paul sets out his teaching on this which we can summarize in six propositions:
> 
> (1) God has established, or instituted, all governing authorities (vs. 1b, 2b).
> (2) As such the government of a state is God's servant, responsible to reward those who do right and punish those who do wrong (vs. 3-4).
> (3) To rebel against a civil authority is to rebel against what God has instituted (v 2a).
> (4) Such rebellion rightly brings punishment (vs. 2b, 4b) N.B. "the sword" here symbolises the force that may legitimately be used to maintain law and order.
> (5) The proper response of every citizen is submission (vs. 1,5.). N.B. how in 1 Pet. 3: 5-6 submission and obedience are used as parallel terms.
> (6) One example of submission (obedience) is payment of taxes (vs. 6-7 cf.). Supported by Christ's statement on paying Roman taxes in Mall. 22:17-21. (see also 1 Pet.2:3-17 and Titus 3:1-2)





> Scripture addresses the issue of individual godliness and is not a primer on civil government. Nowhere does the New Testament encourage believers to actively oppose wicked rulers or their actions. Jesus will judge unjust authorities when he returns, but in the meantime we are to affect our world by winning converts for God's kingdom, one soul at a time. To claim that Christians should reject any unjust government is to state that Christians should not submit to any human government, because all human governments are unjust. God created human authority and places sinful humans in positions of authority, and we are to obey them, respect them and honor them as God's agents, regardless of their sinful condition. Some claim it is blasphemy to say tyrants and oppressors are God's servants; that when they act contrary to their God-given charge or when they abuse the populace instead of protecting it, they cease to be God's representatives. However, there is no such exception in the New Testament. Nowhere does the New Testament even imply that we are only to submit to godly rulers.

----------


## jmdrake

> I am neither Peter nor Paul's judge.  I am trying to understand the biblical justification for civil disobedience.
> 
> excerpt:


I'm not asking you to judge them.  I'm asking you to look at their examples to answer your question.  I don't believe either one of them sinned.  And here's the point.  If the only time can disobey the government is if obeying the government causes you to sin the one of them had to have sinned.  Either not leaving prison when God opened the way for you to leave is a sin in which case Paul sinned, or leaving prison, and thus disobeying the government when you don't absolutely have to in order to keep from sinning, is a sin and Peter sinned.

Or there is a third possibility.  Maybe you can think for yourself.  Maybe God doesn't want you tied up in knots worrying about whether or not it is a "sin" to disobey the government.  Maybe there was a deeper purpose in the admonishments given to Christians in the New Testament regarding how to deal with the outside world, including the government, that has *absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the interaction is a sin*.

I asked Terry a question that she didn't seem inclined to answer.  I'll answer it.  What was the primary purpose of the apostles?  Why to spread the gospel of course.  Doing that most efficiently requires being in tune with the Holy Spirit.  There are times when the apostles were planning to go to a particular city to preach the gospel and didn't simply because the Spirit told them not to.  While the Bible doesn't say specifically, I believe that the difference between Peter and Paul's actions when in prison had nothing to do with "sin" and everything to do with the Spirit telling Paul "Hang around a bit.  If you stay you can convert the jailer and his whole family."

So the Bible gives two overarching principles.

1) Don't go around breaking laws just for the hell of it.  That makes Christianity look bad to the rest of the world and hinders the spreading of the gospel.
2) If you have to choose between God and man, always choose God.

There is a third more important principle that most Christians gloss over.  Some Christians love to drone on and on about "obey government because God said so" but then ignore the command "live peaceably with *all* men" even though God said that.  That is hypocritical Christianity.

Now I do want to zoom on one quote that you have.

_Some claim it is blasphemy to say tyrants and oppressors are God's servants; that when they act contrary to their God-given charge or when they abuse the populace instead of protecting it, they cease to be God's representatives. However, there is no such exception in the New Testament. Nowhere does the New Testament even imply that we are only to submit to godly rulers._

Something to think about.  When most people think of the worst tyrants in recent memory, Saddam Hussein often comes to the top of the list.  But Saddam Hussein *protected Christians*.  So does Assad as long as he isn't being thwarted by our own tyrants in the U.S. government.  Saddam Huessein's second in command was Tariq Aziz *who was and is Christian*.  The Shiite government tried to convict Aziz for various atrocities but there was never any evidence.  The only think they could try him on was suppressing Islamic militants.  That's right.  A Christian is on death row in the country we brought "freedom" to because he suppressed Islamic terrorism.  Imagine that?  Anyway, my broader point is that Christians in that region have survived for centuries because they have often not tried to overthrow the tyrants.  Not getting caught up in every revolution that comes your way is a good survival mechanism especially if you are a religious or ethnic minority.  But it's wrong to mistake survival tactics for what is/is not "sin."

----------


## robert68

> My statement is well established history.  If you want to undermine it then the burden is on you.  You have failed to meet your burden.


In other words you can’t back up your initial assertion. You also have one of the fundamentals of rational argument backwards.




> Okay.  But if you are trying to argue that there is "no foundation" to the belief that Gandhi's non violence helped end British rule you must have enough causes for the end of British rule for Gandhi's contribution not to mean anything.


The protests started in 1920. Quit India in 1942, well into WWII, wasn’t non violent, and Britain left in 1947. So 22 years of non-violent protests didn’t make Britain leave. Then there was the violence I already cited (that you’re blowing off) from creating Pakistan out of India, that caused the largest forced migration of people in history and the deaths of around a million people, and a permanent bad relationship between those countries. If the “Christian principles” you cite will do that, and make most of India ruled by a quasi Marxist for the next 17 years and the rest of India a Muslim state, that’s not saying much for what resulted from using those “Christian principles”.  




> Smoke and mirrors.


It's best not to post in bars.




> Non sequitur.  If your argument is that everytime someone attempts to accomplish something if it doesn't come out exactly the way they wanted it to that means nothing happened then nothing ever happens.  The revolutionary war didn't happen because things didn't turn out the way all of the founding fathers wanted it to.


But you claimed “Christian principles” of “non violence” are what ended British rule in India. You’re not claiming  “Christian principles” of “non violence” are what ended British rule in the US colonies, so the comparison isn’t valid. Not to mention the fact the ARW didn’t have majority support of the inhabitants of the colonies, and came at the expense of the long term rights of a significant portion of them.

----------


## libertygrl

This will blow the minds of both the believers and non-believers.

----------


## jmdrake

> In other words you can’t back up your initial assertion. You also have one of the fundamentals of rational argument backwards.


No I haven't.  You are arguing just to argue.  The initial assertion stands on it's own and is proven by your own admissions.




> The protests started in 1920. Quit India in 1942, well into WWII, wasn’t non violent, and Britain left in 1947. So 22 years of non-violent protests didn’t make Britain leave. Then there was the violence I already cited (that you’re blowing off) from creating Pakistan out of India, that caused the largest forced migration of people in history and the deaths of around a million people, and a permanent bad relationship between those countries.


LOL.  That's just a retarded argument.  Gahndi didn't use violence against Britian.  That Britain was able to engineer violence against Gandhis people doesn't make Gahndi's movement against Britain violent.  "Blow it off"?  You made a non argument.





> If the “Christian principles” you cite will do that, and make most of India ruled by a quasi Marxist for the next 17 years and the rest of India a Muslim state, that’s not saying much for what resulted from using those “Christian principles”.


Gandhi didn't rule India.  In fact Gandhi was killed right at the beginning of the Indian state.  This is another non argument from you.  I never argued that India was ruled by Christian principles or that Gandhi was a Christian.  I argued that Gandhi used Christian principles successfully against Great Britain.  And he did.  Your false counter argument is just one stupid straw man argument after another.






> But you claimed “Christian principles” of “non violence” are what ended British rule in India.


Right.  And that's what makes your cournter arguments stupid.  That the government, which Gandhi was not even a part of, used Marxism later has nothing to do with.  That the British were able to engineer violence later has nothing to do with that.




> You’re not claiming “Christian principles” of “non violence” are what ended British rule in the US colonies, so the comparison isn’t valid.


Oh please!  *YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE FALSE COMPARISONS!*  The point that I'm making about the U.S. revolutionary war is to show that your comparisons are false!  It is false to compare the tactics Gandhi used against Great Britain to the way India was ruled after Gandhi died.  It is false to compare Gandhi's non violence to Britains engineered violence and then call Gandhi's movement violent.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm not asking you to judge them.  I'm asking you to look at their examples to answer your question.  I don't believe either one of them sinned.  And here's the point.  If the only time can disobey the government is if obeying the government causes you to sin the one of them had to have sinned.  Either not leaving prison when God opened the way for you to leave is a sin in which case Paul sinned, or leaving prison, and thus disobeying the government when you don't absolutely have to in order to keep from sinning, is a sin and Peter sinned.
> 
> Or there is a third possibility.  Maybe you can think for yourself.  Maybe God doesn't want you tied up in knots worrying about whether or not it is a "sin" to disobey the government.  Maybe there was a deeper purpose in the admonishments given to Christians in the New Testament regarding how to deal with the outside world, including the government, that has *absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the interaction is a sin*.
> 
> I asked Terry a question that she didn't seem inclined to answer.  I'll answer it.  What was the primary purpose of the apostles?  Why to spread the gospel of course.  Doing that most efficiently requires being in tune with the Holy Spirit.  There are times when the apostles were planning to go to a particular city to preach the gospel and didn't simply because the Spirit told them not to.  While the Bible doesn't say specifically, I believe that the difference between Peter and Paul's actions when in prison had nothing to do with "sin" and everything to do with the Spirit telling Paul "Hang around a bit.  If you stay you can convert the jailer and his whole family."
> 
> So the Bible gives two overarching principles.
> 
> 1) Don't go around breaking laws just for the hell of it.  That makes Christianity look bad to the rest of the world and hinders the spreading of the gospel.
> ...


What???  You may want to check your facts again there jm.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iraq
In 1987, the last Iraqi census counted 1.4 million Christians.[10] They were tolerated under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein, who even made one of them, Tariq Aziz, his deputy.* However, persecution by Saddam Hussein continued against the Christians on an ethnic, cultural and racial level, as the vast majority are Mesopotamian Aramaic speaking.* The Neo-Aramaic language and writing was repressed, the giving of Syriac Christian names or Akkadian/Assyro-Babylonian names forbidden (Tariq Aziz's given name is Mikhail Yuhanna, for example), and Saddam exploited religious differences between Iraqi Christians' denominations such as the Chaldean Catholic Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East. Over 2,000 Iraqi Christians were ethnically cleansed from their towns and villages under the al Anfal Campaign of 1988.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, wouldn't you say it's rather contradictory to say that it's okay to "disobey" laws and then say war is never "just" or justified under any circumstances?  I guess if one chose to--they can disobey the laws and then allow themselves to be arrested, imprisoned or killed for that belief, but then what would you call an aggressive defense against the government for upholding the law then?  Is not a declaration for revolution "war"?  Just curious here.

----------


## jmdrake

> What???  You may want to check your facts again there jm.  
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iraq
> In 1987, the last Iraqi census counted 1.4 million Christians.[10] They were tolerated under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein, who even made one of them, Tariq Aziz, his deputy.* However, persecution by Saddam Hussein continued against the Christians on an ethnic, cultural and racial level, as the vast majority are Mesopotamian Aramaic speaking.* The Neo-Aramaic language and writing was repressed, the giving of Syriac Christian names or Akkadian/Assyro-Babylonian names forbidden (Tariq Aziz's given name is Mikhail Yuhanna, for example), and Saddam exploited religious differences between Iraqi Christians' denominations such as the Chaldean Catholic Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East. Over 2,000 Iraqi Christians were ethnically cleansed from their towns and villages under the al Anfal Campaign of 1988.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Also, wouldn't you say it's rather contradictory to say that it's okay to "disobey" laws and then say war is never "just" or justified under any circumstances?  I guess if one chose to--they can disobey the laws and then allow themselves to be arrested, imprisoned or killed for that belief, but then what would you call an aggressive defense against the government for upholding the law then?  Is not a declaration for revolution "war"?  Just curious here.


LOL @ you using Wikipedia to check your facts.  Ask yourself these questions.  

1) If Christians were so persecuted under Saddam then why when Iraq was "liberated" did thy flee by the hundreds of thousands to the closest Saddam like country they could find?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/in...t/05syria.html

2) If Christians were so persecuted under Saddam, then why did the pope call for clemancy for *Christian* Tariq Aziz?

Hell Terry, even your own source *proves my point* if you actually read the whole thing.

*Prior to the Gulf War in 1991, Christians numbered one million in Iraq.[5] The Baathist rule under Saddam Hussein kept anti-Christian violence under control but subjected some to "relocation programmes".[5] Under this regime, the predominantly ethnically and linguistically distinct Assyrians were pressured to identify as Arabs. The Christian population fell to an estimated 800,000 during the 2003 Iraq War.[5] Just under 1,500,000 Christians were alleged in the region prior to August 2014*

I didn't say the man was perfect.  But "keeping anti-Christian violence under control" = "protecting Christians."

Really Terry, Saddam made some Christians move around and change their name (sounds like Nebuchadnezzar) but from your own source there is no claim that he systematically killed them.  But any reasonable interpretation, Saddam protected Chrstians.

----------


## wizardwatson

Pascal was very smart and had some good points and observations about Christianity.  That "Pascal's Wager" stuff I don't think was one of them.  Yet everyone focuses on it like it was his magnum opus.  

The bible says you reap what you sow.  There's no way to approach God in some sort of way that you get to negate what you've done except repentance and that comes by grace and is STILL no guarantee that you will be shown mercy.  So to any Christian worth their salt, Pascal's Wager is horse pucky.

Fear God and follow his commandments.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This will blow the minds of both the believers and non-believers.


My mind remains quite unblown.

----------


## libertygrl

> My mind remains quite unblown.


...because you believe it to be true or don't?

----------


## ctiger2

All religions were created to control humanity. ET's wrote the bible. There is a creator though. ET's say her name is Goddess Diana. So spirituality and prayer all good. You want to become a _service to others_ person to achieve higher dimensions of consciousness.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> All religions were created to control humanity. ET's wrote the bible. There is a creator though. ET's say her name is Goddess Diana. So spirituality and prayer all good. You want to become a _service to others_ person to achieve higher dimensions of consciousness.


If you were seeking lulz, you got some from me.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ...because you believe it to be true or don't?


It doesn't strike me as a "true or false" statement.  It's just an arbitrary opinion.  Doesn't mean anything.

----------


## Terry1

> Pascal was very smart and had some good points and observations about Christianity.  That "Pascal's Wager" stuff I don't think was one of them.  Yet everyone focuses on it like it was his magnum opus.  
> 
> The bible says you reap what you sow.  There's no way to approach God in some sort of way that you get to negate what you've done except repentance and that comes by grace and is STILL no guarantee that you will be shown mercy.  So to any Christian worth their salt, Pascal's Wager is horse pucky.
> 
> Fear God and follow his commandments.


Pascal's Wager might seem like horse pucky to someone who's already a believer--it may also be the hook that causes and unbeliever to give belief more consideration in light of the obvious too.  Everyone's different and is drawn in different ways.  Pascal approached the idea from a mathematical, scientific logical position.  For those who think in those terms usually, would be something to consider IMO.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Pascal's Wager might seem like horse pucky to someone who's already a believer--it may also be the hook that causes and unbeliever to give belief more consideration in light of the obvious too.  Everyone's different and is drawn in different ways.  Pascal approached the idea from a mathematical, scientific logical position.  For those who think in those terms usually, would be something to consider IMO.


At its root it's hell-fire preaching to the secular.  But it's dressed up all pretty to look like a sophisticated intellectual position.

We can validate any kind of preaching using the "everyone's different" angle.

----------


## Terry1

> At its root it's hell-fire preaching to the secular.  But it's dressed up all pretty to look like a sophisticated intellectual position.
> 
> We can validate any kind of preaching using the "everyone's different" angle.


Truthfully here, there's been a lot made of Pascal's Wager, but in all truth--after reading so much of Pascal, I actually believe that his wager was born out of his own resistance to belief in God himself.  I'm also not convinced that Pascal himself thoroughly believed in a supreme God, but out of his own fears that it might be true--he chose to wager on the safe side.  That's not belief--that's simply an observation of his own created by the understanding in wisdom that obviously said--*what if God truly does exist and I'm wrong*. 

Pascal was obviously a man who thought in terms of what he saw as truth and logic by the evidence or lack thereof where he drew his own opinions and conclusions.  It's still unknown if Pascal was actually a true believer at all.

IMO--all Pascal's wager really accomplishes is causing those who read it to consider the possibility based upon the evidence or lack of evidence either way.  Scientifically speaking--the evidence so far has proven that mankind can not find the beginning or end sources to anything in existence.  All they can do is *speculate* without evidence to support anything.  At this point within the limits of current technology--the evidence they do have supports creationism.  Until they find where anything begins or ends--that evidence will remain as a sign pointing towards a supreme creator.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Truthfully here, there's been a lot made of Pascal's Wager, but in all truth--after reading so much of Pascal, I actually believe that his wager was born out of his own resistance to belief in God himself.  I'm also not convinced that Pascal himself thoroughly believed in a supreme God, but out of his own fears that it might be true--he chose to wager on the safe side.  That's not belief--that's simply an observation of his own created by the understanding in wisdom that obviously said--*what if God truly does exist and I'm wrong*. 
> 
> Pascal was obviously a man who thought in terms of what he saw as truth and logic by the evidence or lack thereof where he drew his own opinions and conclusions.  It's still unknown if Pascal was actually a true believer at all.
> 
> IMO--all Pascal's wager really accomplishes is causing those who read it to consider the possibility based upon the evidence or lack of evidence either way.  Scientifically speaking--the evidence so far has proven that mankind can not find the beginning or end sources to anything in existence.  All they can do is *speculate* without evidence to support anything.  At this point within the limits of current technology--the evidence they do have supports creationism.  Until they find where anything begins or ends--that evidence will remain as a sign pointing towards a supreme creator.


Pascal's Wager takes a beating from both sides, Christians and atheists alike.  However, I think it does have some merit.  One of the biggest complaints is that believing in God "just to be safe" is not true belief, but the fact that you are looking for the safest option does not _a priori_ rule out the fact that you can have true faith.  Pascal's Wager should serve more as a reason to look for the truth, not to accept faith blindly.  There are plenty of other good reasons for faith that do not rely on a risk/reward evaluation.  In fact, I think most atheists are quite aware that there are good, logically sound reasons to accept the truth of God's existence but suppress the truth.  Pascal's Wager is just another way to break down that barrier that keeps the atheist from seeking out the truth.

----------


## Crashland

> Pascal's Wager takes a beating from both sides, Christians and atheists alike.  However, I think it does have some merit.  One of the biggest complaints is that believing in God "just to be safe" is not true belief, but the fact that you are looking for the safest option does not _a priori_ rule out the fact that you can have true faith.  Pascal's Wager should serve more as a reason to look for the truth, not to accept faith blindly.  There are plenty of other good reasons for faith that do not rely on a risk/reward evaluation.  In fact, I think most atheists are quite aware that there are good, logically sound reasons to accept the truth of God's existence but suppress the truth.  Pascal's Wager is just another way to break down that barrier that keeps the atheist from seeking out the truth.


That is pretty much the extent of its merit. However it doesn't only apply to atheists. It can just as easily be used to break down the barrier that keeps Christians from seeking out the truth. The essence of it is that it is in your best interest to at least investigate claims about God _that you don't currently believe_, and to do your due diligence and give them a chance to see if they might be reasonable or compelling. There are many claims about God that Christians don't believe, so it should be an incentive for example to seriously study and evaluate other world religions, not just your own religion. So I agree, yes, Pascal's Wager is at least a good reason for atheists to care about religion, but it is just as much a good reason for Christians (and anyone else) to do the same. I never hear Christians invoking Pascal's Wager though to convince other Christians to give serious consideration to Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That is pretty much the extent of its merit. However it doesn't only apply to atheists. It can just as easily be used to break down the barrier that keeps Christians from seeking out the truth. The essence of it is that it is in your best interest to at least investigate claims about God _that you don't currently believe_, and to do your due diligence and give them a chance to see if they might be reasonable or compelling. There are many claims about God that Christians don't believe, so it should be an incentive for example to seriously study and evaluate other world religions, not just your own religion. So I agree, yes, Pascal's Wager is at least a good reason for atheists to care about religion, but it is just as much a good reason for Christians (and anyone else) to do the same. I never hear Christians invoking Pascal's Wager though to convince other Christians to give serious consideration to Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.


But the thing is that it DOES only apply to atheists.  People who accept the intellectual argument for the existence of the Christian God have already studied other options to see if they are reasonable and compelling and we have _come to a conclusion._  The difference is that atheists simply avoid the question.  Sure, there are plenty of people who have a simple faith that is not based on intellectual arguments, and many prefer it that way, but that has nothing to do with the intellectual weight of Pascal's Wager or any other argument for belief in God.

----------


## Crashland

> But the thing is that it DOES only apply to atheists.  People who accept the intellectual argument for the existence of the Christian God have already studied other options to see if they are reasonable and compelling and we have _come to a conclusion._  The difference is that atheists simply avoid the question.  Sure, there are plenty of people who have a simple faith that is not based on intellectual arguments, and many prefer it that way, but that has nothing to do with the intellectual weight of Pascal's Wager or any other argument for belief in God.


No, it doesn't only apply to atheists. Just because one believes that God exists doesn't mean anything when it comes to those eternal consequences that are invoked in the wager. I think you as a Christian would agree that *what you believe about God* is critical and could easily make the difference between eternal reward or eternal punishment, just as belief in God's existence at all versus non-belief could potentially make such a difference.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, it doesn't only apply to atheists. Just because one believes that God exists doesn't mean anything when it comes to those eternal consequences that are invoked in the wager. I think you as a Christian would agree that *what you believe about God* is critical and could easily make the difference between eternal reward or eternal punishment, just as belief in God's existence at all versus non-belief could potentially make such a difference.


But you are assuming that we are both coming at the question from a state of complete ignorance.  The difference between atheists and Christians, as I've said, is that Christians have *come to a conclusion* whereas the atheist just avoids the question altogether.  Intellectual Christians have already invoked Pascal's Wager and come to a conclusion.  Once you arrive at a conclusion, it's time to stop asking the question.

----------


## Crashland

> But you are assuming that we are both coming at the question from a state of complete ignorance.  The difference between atheists and Christians, as I've said, is that Christians have *come to a conclusion* whereas the atheist just avoids the question altogether.  Intellectual Christians have already invoked Pascal's Wager and come to a conclusion.  Once you arrive at a conclusion, it's time to stop asking the question.


So if I were to conclude that God exists, then it is time to stop asking the question? According to your view, if I were a non-Christian theist, wouldn't I and all other non-Christian theists still be missing out on the eternal reward, and taking on the eternal punishment, if I do not *believe in certain specific things about God*? What good was the wager for then?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So if I were to conclude that God exists, then it is time to stop asking the question? According to your view, if I were a non-Christian theist, wouldn't I and all other non-Christian theists still be missing out on the eternal reward, and taking on the eternal punishment, if I do not *believe in certain specific things about God*? What good was the wager for then?


I said it is time to stop asking _once you come to a conclusion._  If you were a non-Christian theist, then I would think you were wrong, but that has nothing to do with the wager.  I think if you really study the different religions with an objective mind, you will find the truth.  You're trying to act like we're all just chasing our tails and nobody really knows which religion is the most valid, but you only say that because you take the assumption that none of them are true.

Pascal's Wager only deals with whether you should try to answer the question of who God is or keep on avoiding it.  Atheists avoid the question, theists tackle it head on and come to a conclusion.  It's that simple.  

When you say the Wager must apply to all religions equally you are making a category error in that Pascal's Wager doesn't attempt to answer the question of should you believe in x God.  It just answers the question of whether you should be a theist or a non-theist.

----------


## Crashland

> I said it is time to stop asking _once you come to a conclusion._  If you were a non-Christian theist, then I would think you were wrong, but that has nothing to do with the wager.  I think if you really study the different religions with an objective mind, you will find the truth.  You're trying to act like we're all just chasing our tails and nobody really knows which religion is the most valid, but you only say that because you take the assumption that none of them are true.


No, I'm trying to act like we all tend to be close minded and we don't consider other possibilities once we have our emotions attached to one particular view. This applies to atheists, but also applies at least as much to Christians and other religious people whose very identity is wrapped up in their ideology.




> Pascal's Wager only deals with whether you should try to answer the question of who God is or keep on avoiding it.  Atheists avoid the question, theists tackle it head on and come to a conclusion.  It's that simple.


Why do you think atheists avoid the question? Atheism means you don't believe in God. If someone says they are an atheist, then you still don't know the first thing about whether they have avoided the question or whether they have dedicated their entire lives to it. Similarly, if someone is a theist then it is possible that they were brought up that way and have never actually given the question any serious consideration or effort, or it is also possible that they dedicated their lives to seeking the truth. Being a theist or a nontheist says nothing about whether you have "tackled the question head-on".




> When you say the Wager must apply to all religions equally you are making a category error in that Pascal's Wager doesn't attempt to answer the question of should you believe in x God.  It just answers the question of whether you should be a theist or a non-theist.


Yes, but the principle that applies to whether one should consider theism is the same principle that applies to whether one should consider other specific claims about God. You are saying that one should consider theism because they might be wrong about non-theism and face the possibility of infinite consequences. That's fine on its own, but the same principle applies about specific gods. If I am a Buddhist, I need to consider Christianity because of the possibility that I might be wrong and might face infinite consequences as a result. And if I am a Christian then I need to consider the claims of Islam because I might be wrong and might face infinite consequences as a result. And I mean seriously consider other claims about God and actually pursuing them to give them a real chance, not just looking up rebuttals to views that you don't believe in. This is something that applies equally to both atheists and theists.

I also think I would slightly re-word your question. To ask whether you "should be a theist" is misleading, as if being convinced that a claim is true is something you can just choose to do. Rather, the wager answers the questions of whether you should ever completely dismiss the possibility that a god could exist (the answer is no), and also the question of whether you should attempt to find out (the answer is yes).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I'm trying to act like we all tend to be close minded and we don't consider other possibilities once we have our emotions attached to one particular view. This applies to atheists, but also applies at least as much to Christians and other religious people whose very identity is wrapped up in their ideology.


See what you're doing, though?  You come from the worldview that says there is no true religion, so of course you would say "keep an open mind."  If you find the truth, though, it's time to close your mind.  If you have proof that some guy committed a murder, you don't say, "But let's keep an open mind."  You have to commit to the truth at some point.  Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.




> Why do you think atheists avoid the question? Atheism means you don't believe in God. If someone says they are an atheist, then you still don't know the first thing about whether they have avoided the question or whether they have dedicated their entire lives to it. Similarly, if someone is a theist then it is possible that they were brought up that way and have never actually given the question any serious consideration or effort, or it is also possible that they dedicated their lives to seeking the truth. Being a theist or a nontheist says nothing about whether you have "tackled the question head-on".


As I've said, there are plenty of Christians like you mentioned that never think intellectually about theism, but I'm talking about the intellectual arguments, not those kinds of people.  I'm not going to invoke Pascal's Wager on them because, despite their ignorance, I think they've already found the right answer.  

If you're an atheist who's studied the world religions his whole life, then I don't need to invoke Pascal's Wager because the whole point was to get you to try and find the truth, but real atheists just don't do that because they think all world religions are the same.  An atheist is someone who does not believe in God (plain English definition).  Agnosticism, on the other hand, would be a far more intellectually honest position.  




> Yes, but the principle that applies to whether one should consider theism is the same principle that applies to whether one should consider other specific claims about God. You are saying that one should consider theism because they might be wrong about non-theism and face the possibility of infinite consequences. That's fine on its own, but the same principle applies about specific gods. If I am a Buddhist, I need to consider Christianity because of the possibility that I might be wrong and might face infinite consequences as a result. And if I am a Christian then I need to consider the claims of Islam because I might be wrong and might face infinite consequences as a result. And I mean seriously consider other claims about God and actually pursuing them to give them a real chance, not just looking up rebuttals to views that you don't believe in. This is something that applies equally to both atheists and theists.


You agreed with me in the first sentence and went right back to your category error.  I wouldn't invoke Pascal's Wager on a real theist because they're already involved in the question of who God is and I can persuade them using religious texts and they'll listen rather than an atheist who will just dismiss any religion out of hand.  

I don't consider Buddhists real theists because they don't even believe in a deity, much less a God of the universe.  I also wouldn't consider deists as true theists because a deity is more like some kind of superman, not the creator of the entire universe.  




> I also think I would slightly re-word your question. To ask whether you "should be a theist" is misleading, as if being convinced that a claim is true is something you can just choose to do. Rather, the wager answers the questions of whether you should ever completely dismiss the possibility that a god could exist (the answer is no), and also the question of whether you should attempt to find out (the answer is yes).


I agree completely, but I don't think the vast majority of atheists ever do attempt to find out.  I think their minds are completely closed to the possibility.  Like I said, I can talk to a theist about the truth of the Bible all day and they will at least listen and respond intelligently, but an atheist will just dismiss any kind of Biblical authority out of hand.

----------


## Crashland

> See what you're doing, though?  You come from the worldview that says there is no true religion, so of course you would say "keep an open mind."  If you find the truth, though, it's time to close your mind.  If you have proof that some guy committed a murder, you don't say, "But let's keep an open mind."  You have to commit to the truth at some point.  Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.


You might feel that you have found the truth in Christianity, but you can't know that you might feel even more convinced in another religion if you don't give those other views a chance. Muslims feel like they have found the truth in Islam, so should they close their mind about other ideas? The point is, even if you feel like you found the truth, the principle behind Pascal's wager should motivate you to keep seeking anyway in case you are wrong. This is exactly what you would tell to a person in another religion, and it applies to you in yours also.




> As I've said, there are plenty of Christians like you mentioned that never think intellectually about theism, but I'm talking about the intellectual arguments, not those kinds of people.  I'm not going to invoke Pascal's Wager on them because, despite their ignorance, I think they've already found the right answer.


The whole premise of Pascal's wager is that you should not presume to be right. You can have your belief but don't set it in stone. I think that atheists have already found the right answer, but that does not invalidate Pascal's wager in my mind. I am perfectly happy to encourage other atheists to keep looking. Christians and Muslims should do the same.




> If you're an atheist who's studied the world religions his whole life, then I don't need to invoke Pascal's Wager because the whole point was to get you to try and find the truth, but real atheists just don't do that because they think all world religions are the same.  An atheist is someone who does not believe in God (plain English definition).  Agnosticism, on the other hand, would be a far more intellectually honest position.


I am a real atheist and I don't do that. You can seek the truth and give religions a fair shake but still believe that all religions are not true.

Don't confuse atheism/theism with gnosticism/agnosticism. I am an agnostic atheist. The atheist part means I don't think there is a god. The agnostic part means that I am not 100% certain that there is or isn't a god.






> You agreed with me in the first sentence and went right back to your category error.  I wouldn't invoke Pascal's Wager on a real theist because they're already involved in the question of who God is and I can persuade them using religious texts and they'll listen rather than an atheist who will just dismiss any religion out of hand.


In my experience, religious people generally don't listen. Sure, Christians will listen to you if you quote the Bible, but they won't listen to you if you quote the Koran. Christians generally dismiss every religion other than their own as out of hand, just like you are accusing atheists of doing. However, people who understand the principle of Pascal's wager will listen, and actually seek. Not just research. How many Christians have prayed to Allah to reveal himself to them if he is the true God, or have attended mosques and tried to believe in Islam? Because this is what Christians expect others to do for their religion. "Taste and see". You don't know until you try honestly. As an atheist, I am happy to learn about or participate in various religious traditions, and to seriously consider them. That doesn't mean I am not an atheist, it just means I am taking the wager. Maybe many atheists are not willing to do this, but I sure know that almost all Christians and Muslims are not willing to do this either.




> I don't consider Buddhists real theists because they don't even believe in a deity, much less a God of the universe.  I also wouldn't consider deists as true theists because a deity is more like some kind of superman, not the creator of the entire universe.


People who are deists probably differ amongst themselves on that point. Some people might associate the deity with creation, others maybe more just like a powerful force that is in or of the universe rather than the creator of it.




> I agree completely, but I don't think the vast majority of atheists ever do attempt to find out.  I think their minds are completely closed to the possibility.  Like I said, I can talk to a theist about the truth of the Bible all day and they will at least listen and respond intelligently, but an atheist will just dismiss any kind of Biblical authority out of hand.


(Already addressed this above)

----------


## wizardwatson

> Truthfully here, there's been a lot made of Pascal's Wager, but in all truth--after reading so much of Pascal, I actually believe that his wager was born out of his own resistance to belief in God himself.  I'm also not convinced that Pascal himself thoroughly believed in a supreme God, but out of his own fears that it might be true--he chose to wager on the safe side.  That's not belief--that's simply an observation of his own created by the understanding in wisdom that obviously said--*what if God truly does exist and I'm wrong*. 
> 
> Pascal was obviously a man who thought in terms of what he saw as truth and logic by the evidence or lack thereof where he drew his own opinions and conclusions.  It's still unknown if Pascal was actually a true believer at all.
> 
> IMO--all Pascal's wager really accomplishes is causing those who read it to consider the possibility based upon the evidence or lack of evidence either way.  Scientifically speaking--the evidence so far has proven that mankind can not find the beginning or end sources to anything in existence.  All they can do is *speculate* without evidence to support anything.  At this point within the limits of current technology--the evidence they do have supports creationism.  Until they find where anything begins or ends--that evidence will remain as a sign pointing towards a supreme creator.


Well, I'd say he was a true believer.  I've read Pensee's and he goes on and on about how prophecy is the key to validating a religion.  It's why he rejects Islam, not because of it's lack of moral core or anything but because there's no prophetic lineage to that religion.  He also goes into detail about how the Jews have the oldest and most well kept scripture.  To paraphrase, he basically said because they have the most well kept records, therefore Egypt plagues happened, therefore Noah flood was real, etc.  He was not only a believer but what we today would call a "young earth" believer even though he was a scientifically minded person.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Pascal's Wager doesn't attempt to answer the question of should you believe in x God.  It just answers the question of whether you should be a theist or a non-theist.


The Wager assumes a particular kind of deity: one that will punish nonbelievers and reward believers.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The Wager assumes a particular kind of deity: one that will punish nonbelievers and reward believers.


Another good point.

The believers usually get the short end of the stick if you read the bible.  Look at Job.  God tortured him just to prove a point.  Though I guess you could say he eventually did reward or compensate him.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Another good point.
> 
> The believers usually get the short end of the stick if you read the bible.  Look at Job.  God tortured him just to prove a point.  Though I guess you could say he eventually did reward or compensate him.


Does anyone believe that he was fully compensated for the murder of his children?

----------


## wizardwatson

> Does anyone believe that he was fully compensated for the murder of his children?


Are they really dead?

If you're a Christian death is more an illusion than anything.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Wager assumes a particular kind of deity: one that will punish nonbelievers and reward believers.


A valid assumption.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Another good point.
> 
> The believers usually get the short end of the stick if you read the bible.  Look at Job.  God tortured him just to prove a point.  Though I guess you could say he eventually did reward or compensate him.


That's part of being a holy man.  You suffer in this life so you don't have to in the next.

----------


## wizardwatson

> That's part of being a holy man.  You suffer in this life so you don't have to in the next.


Well, if you're pagan.

If you're Christian suffering is just God's will and you simply have faith that one day it will be over.  Suffering and pain will still exist in the millenial kingdom.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, if you're pagan.
> 
> If you're Christian suffering is just God's will and you simply have faith that one day it will be over.  Suffering and pain will still exist in the millenial kingdom.


We're getting onto a completely different subject now, but yes, in the *millenial* kingdom (the thousand year age that come after the First Resurrection), there will be suffering, but not for the ones who were raised in that First Resurrection.  There are other ages, though, and the Great Jubilee will eventually bring all human suffering to an end.

There's nothing pagan about that.

----------


## wizardwatson

> We're getting onto a completely different subject now, but yes, in the *millenial* kingdom (the thousand year age that come after the First Resurrection), there will be suffering, but not for the ones who were raised in that First Resurrection.  There are other ages, though, and the Great Jubilee will eventually bring all human suffering to an end.
> 
> There's nothing pagan about that.


Where does it say those raised in the 1st resurrection will not suffer?  (Bonus points if you can try to back that up without quoting Paul)

And religious threads never stay on topic, so no worries.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Where does it say those raised in the 1st resurrection will not suffer?  (Bonus points if you can try to back that up without quoting Paul)
> 
> And religious threads never stay on topic, so no worries.


Where does it say they do?  

Sorry, I don't do Bible study with people who don't believe in the Bible.  You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you're one of those people.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Where does it say they do?  
> 
> Sorry, I don't do Bible study with people who don't believe in the Bible.  You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you're one of those people.


Rev 21:4 is where pain is eliminated from reality.  I assume it exists prior to that else why point it out?  But if you have some biblical evidence that suffering is eliminated prior to that I'd be glad to take a looksy.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Rev 21:4 is where pain is eliminated from reality.  I assume it exists prior to that else why point it out?  But if you have some biblical evidence that suffering is eliminated prior to that I'd be glad to take a looksy.


I don't see how that verse is inconsistent with what I said.  The ones raised in the First Resurrection don't suffer because they've already been judged.  When judgment is over, suffering is over.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I don't see how that verse is inconsistent with what I said.  The ones raised in the First Resurrection don't suffer because they've already been judged.  When judgment is over, suffering is over.


No.  Those people are just immune from "second death", whatever that is.  Pretty sure you can still cry after being resurrected.  I'm planning to ask Jesus about all this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No.  Those people are just immune from "second death", whatever that is.  Pretty sure you can still cry after being resurrected.  I'm planning to ask Jesus about all this.


You can believe that if you want.  Not sure why that would have to be the case, though.

I'm not just saying they don't suffer because that's the way I think it is.  I'm saying it because judgment brings with it the end of suffering.  That's in the verse you quoted.  If they suffered, then that would mean they had yet to go through judgment, and in that case, what was the First Resurrection for?  

The Second Death is the end of the millenial age after which the Second Resurrection will occur.

The period between the First Resurrection and the Second Death is "the coming age" referred to in Luke 18:30 and Mark 10:30.  It's also referred to as "the 1,000 years" in Rev. 20:1-6.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You can believe that if you want.  Not sure why that would have to be the case, though.
> 
> I'm not just saying they don't suffer because that's the way I think it is.  I'm saying it because judgment brings with it the end of suffering.  That's in the verse you quoted.  If they suffered, then that would mean they had yet to go through judgment, and in that case, what was the First Resurrection for?  
> 
> The Second Death is the end of the millenial age after which the Second Resurrection will occur.


Well, just think.  Perhaps you will be lucky enough to be at the marriage supper (millenial kingdom).  But your favorite grandma or perhaps your pet snake didn't make the cut.  You'd perhaps be a little sad maybe?

As long as we aren't all together how could we eliminate crying?  Pretty simple.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, just think.  Perhaps you will be lucky enough to be at the marriage supper (millenial kingdom).  But your favorite grandma or perhaps your pet snake didn't make the cut.  You'd perhaps be a little sad maybe?
> 
> As long as we aren't all together how could we eliminate crying?  Pretty simple.


That's just conjecture.  I see no logical reason why that would have to be the case.  You're appealing to emotions we have when we feel absence in this life, but I don't see any reason why the same should carry over.  Knowing that all will be saved eventually is all the consolation I need.

----------


## Crashland

> Well, just think.  Perhaps you will be lucky enough to be at the marriage supper (millenial kingdom).  But your favorite grandma or perhaps your pet snake didn't make the cut.  You'd perhaps be a little sad maybe?
> 
> As long as we aren't all together how could we eliminate crying?  Pretty simple.


I thought even God himself is supposed to be saddened by the fallen (don't recall where this is in scripture though). If that is true then I'm not sure how sadness could be totally removed. Unless people in heaven are just so distracted with the awesomeness of heaven that they totally forget about their lost loved ones. That in itself would be sad too.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I thought even God himself is supposed to be saddened by the fallen (don't recall where this is in scripture though). If that is true then I'm not sure how sadness could be totally removed. Unless people in heaven are just so distracted with the awesomeness of heaven that they totally forget about their lost loved ones. That in itself would be sad too.


It's only sad looking at it from the perspective you are now.  Why can't that perspective change?

I don't think anyone would argue that you necessarily have to be sad about anything.  It just depends on your state of mind.

----------


## Crashland

> That's just conjecture.  I see no logical reason why that would have to be the case.  You're appealing to emotions we have when we feel absence in this life, but I don't see any reason why the same should carry over.  Knowing that all will be saved eventually is all the consolation I need.


Sorry I haven't been following this discussion earlier so not sure if you have already answered this, but all will be saved eventually? I don't think that is a Biblically supportable view. I can see annihilationism maybe but not universal salvation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sorry I haven't been following this discussion earlier so not sure if you have already answered this, but all will be saved eventually? I don't think that is a Biblically supportable view. I can see annihilationism maybe but not universal salvation.


That's the  view I hold.  I've discussed this quite a bit on this forum before.  Basically, the idea that some people are damned for eternity is a later teaching of the church that stems from a mis-translation of the Bible (specifically the words "eternal" and "hell") and a warped view of God's justice.

In fact, I remember speaking to you in my earlier thread titled "The truth about eternall hell fire".

----------


## Crashland

> It's only sad looking at it from the perspective you are now.  Why can't that perspective change?
> 
> I don't think anyone would argue that you necessarily have to be sad about anything.  It just depends on your state of mind.


I don't want to forget or not care about my loved ones. God could make that happen sure I suppose, but that is such a foreign, unreasonable concept to me that I can't reconcile it without just blind faith that God will somehow make that work.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't want to forget or not care about my loved ones. God could make that happen sure I suppose, but that is such a foreign, unreasonable concept to me that I can't reconcile it without just blind faith that God will somehow make that work.


True enough, but that's one of the reasons I reject the teaching of eternal hell fire.

----------


## Crashland

> That's the  view I hold.  I've discussed this quite a bit on this forum before.  Basically, the idea that some people are damned for eternity is a later teaching of the church that stems from a mis-translation of the Bible (specifically the words "eternal" and "hell") and a warped view of God's justice.
> 
> In fact, I remember speaking to you in my earlier thread titled "The truth about eternall hell fire".


I previously thought you held to annihilationism though which is why I asked. I can potentially see that as being consistent with the Bible but not universal salvation. I'm not saying I don't like the idea it's just I have a hard time reconciling it with what the Bible says.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> A valid assumption.


I don't see why it's necessarily valid.  To be sure, it may be what most theists believe, but I fail to see that it's logically required.  The real deity may punish those who do believe in Him.  Or He may not punish anyone.  Or he may punish only those nonbelievers who die on alternate Tuesdays.  None of these possibilities is any more unreasonable than a deity that is so insecure that He punishes those who have the temerity to not believe in Him.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I thought even God himself is supposed to be saddened by the fallen (don't recall where this is in scripture though). If that is true then I'm not sure how sadness could be totally removed. Unless people in heaven are just so distracted with the awesomeness of heaven that they totally forget about their lost loved ones. That in itself would be sad too.


Well, I'm kind of curious myself.  But I think you are close.  Forgetting is one thing the Father has said He intends to do.  

This is maybe the verse you are thinking of:

Ezekiel 18 :21-23 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. *Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?* saith the Lord GOD: *and not that he should return from his ways, and live?*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I previously thought you held to annihilationism though which is why I asked. I can potentially see that as being consistent with the Bible but not universal salvation. I'm not saying I don't like the idea it's just I have a hard time reconciling it with what the Bible says.


The thing is, you're right, but it all hinges on the mis-translation of the word "eternal", over and over in the English versions.  People translated that word wrong according to their doctrinal bias, and it's as plain as the nose on your face that it doesn't really mean that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't see why it's necessarily valid.  To be sure, it may be what most theists believe, but I fail to see that it's logically required.  The real deity may punish those who do believe in Him.  Or He may not punish anyone.  Or he may punish only those nonbelievers who die on alternate Tuesdays.  None of these possibilities is any more unreasonable than a deity that is so insecure that He punishes those who have the temerity to not believe in Him.


Of course it's not logically required, but it makes the most sense.  Those other things most certainly are less reasonable because 1) They go against our intuition, and 2) no world religion holds that view, so yeah... I think Occam's Razors wins this one.  The most rational belief is the belief that God created you because He wants you to know who He is.  Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to create.

----------


## Crashland

> Of course it's not logically required, but it makes the most sense.  Those other things most certainly are less reasonable because 1) They go against our intuition, and 2) no world religion holds that view, so yeah... I think Occam's Razors wins this one.  The most rational belief is the belief that God created you because He wants you to know who He is.  Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to create.


I don't see it as intuitive at all that we should assume God rewards or punishes any particular behavior, including belief or non-belief in his existence. It is pure speculation.
Why do the beliefs of world religions make it more reasonable? Of course world religions teach that God rewards people for believing in their religion as opposed to not believing in it. If they taught otherwise then they wouldn't survive as religions. That teaching is a big part of why those world religions even became world religions in the first place.

----------


## Crashland

> The thing is, you're right, but it all hinges on the mis-translation of the word "eternal", over and over in the English versions.  People translated that word wrong according to their doctrinal bias, and it's as plain as the nose on your face that it doesn't really mean that.


This is getting unrelated to the topic at hand, but I am curious about your position. In your view, non-believers get punished or separated for some time but they all eventually are saved and get to live eternally in heaven? So the only difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians just get to go straight to heaven, but everyone else has to take an unpleasant detour (in order to serve justice or learn a lesson or something), but still end up in the same place?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't see it as intuitive at all that we should assume God rewards or punishes any particular behavior, including belief or non-belief in his existence. It is pure speculation.
> Why do the beliefs of world religions make it more reasonable? Of course world religions teach that God rewards people for believing in their religion as opposed to not believing in it. If they taught otherwise then they wouldn't survive as religions. That teaching is a big part of why those world religions even became world religions in the first place.


But that's the whole point.  Occam's Razor says there's no need to make up this completely different scenario to justify ignorance.  The belief that God wants us to know Him makes sense, just like it makes sense for us to want our children to know us (even though we didn't actually create them).  

You're really grasping at straws when you conjure up this completely fictional account of a God that is foreign to every human experience and to every idea of God anybody's ever had.  If that is enough for you to remain ignorant of religion in general, then be my guest, but don't tell me that's reasonable.  It's just a desperate bid for an excuse to ignore God and say you don't know and there's no reason for you to know about any God.  

But deep down, I think you know there really is a reason.  All of these fictional deterrents aside, I think you know there's evidence out there and all you have to do is look at it for it to lead you to the truth, but you don't want to look at it for that very reason.  You hold up this imaginary concept of a God and say, "See!  This is what's keeping me from investigating!  This might exist!"  

Let's be serious for just a second.  Do you honestly think holding up that made-up concept as some kind of scary reminder that the world could be completely senseless and you could be the victim of a God who hates what He, Himself made is going to justify your ignorance when all you had to do was *look?*

The very concept of the God you're asking me to imagine just does not make any sense.  I don't know how to explain it to you because you still insist that it might make sense even though it clearly doesn't.  It's just an intellectual barrier to investigation.  Anywhere else in life, investigation would be a very sensible thing to do, but here?  No, remain in the dark because you might not like what you find.  Since when has that stopped anyone from trying to know the truth?  When we went to space, do you think we worried about finding another race of intelligent life that would destroy us, or did we embrace the unknown and investigate anyway?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is getting unrelated to the topic at hand, but I am curious about your position. In your view, non-believers get punished or separated for some time but they all eventually are saved and get to live eternally in heaven? So the only difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians just get to go straight to heaven, but everyone else has to take an unpleasant detour (in order to serve justice or learn a lesson or something), but still end up in the same place?


The vague concept of "heaven" that many Christians talk about kind of stems from the same faulty doctrine that brought you eternal torment and the immortal soul.  I tend to think of "heaven" as the restoration of the Earth to its original perfect form.  I'm not entirely clear on this just yet, but there might be something after that.  I just don't call it heaven because that word has been abused a lot.  

EVERYONE will suffer justice, but yes, it will be temporary, just as all justice as we know it is temporary punishment for a temporary trespass.  That's how justice works, tit for tat.  I don't make the distinction between "believers" and "non-believers" because many believers are insincere and will face judgment as well, but as it says in Revelation, we will all be judged "according to our works" (Rev. 20:13).  Everyone takes the "unpleasant detour", but those in the First Resurrection get to go through that early so they don't have to later.  The punishment may even be long since some are obviously more evil than others, but in any case, it's not eternal.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I think Occam's Razors wins this one.  The most rational belief is the belief that God created you because He wants you to know who He is.  Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to create.


Occam's Razor would rule out both reward and punishment, since neither necessarily follows from the fact of creation.

If God wants man to know Him, why doesn't He just appear to everyone?  Why would He insist on faith, which after all is just a guessing game?

I have a serious problem with the idea that God wants anything.  If He is the Perfect Being, doesn't it follow that He is self-sufficient?  And if He is self-sufficient, why would He ever want anything?  Or create anything?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Occam's Razor would rule out both reward and punishment, since neither necessarily follows from the fact of creation.


When you make something, you want people to know about it, right?  Occam's Razor says this would be the most logical conclusion about any creating being.  When people take what you've made and present it as their own invention, you would prefer that people recognize you as the original creator and that the person responsible suffer some kind of justice, correct?  (Not necessarily state-sanctioned justice, but at least that they be known as someone who dishonestly takes the original work of others)




> If God wants man to know Him, why doesn't He just appear to everyone?  Why would He insist on faith, which after all is just a guessing game?


Is not faith in some things reasonable?  Can you demonstrate, scientifically and empirically, that the laws of logic exist?  What evidence would you even accept for God's existence?  Why does He have to present Himself only in the ways you want Him to?  If you saw the resurrection of Jesus, would you believe then, or would you require something else?  




> I have a serious problem with the idea that God wants anything.  If He is the Perfect Being, doesn't it follow that He is self-sufficient?  And if He is self-sufficient, why would He ever want anything?  Or create anything?


Why wouldn't He?  Does want necessitate that you don't have?  Can you want something you have?  Sure you can.

----------


## Ronin Truth

All of them?

----------


## Crashland

> But that's the whole point.  Occam's Razor says there's no need to make up this completely different scenario to justify ignorance.  The belief that God wants us to know Him makes sense, just like it makes sense for us to want our children to know us (even though we didn't actually create them).
> 
> You're really grasping at straws when you conjure up this completely fictional account of a God that is foreign to every human experience and to every idea of God anybody's ever had.  If that is enough for you to remain ignorant of religion in general, then be my guest, but don't tell me that's reasonable.  It's just a desperate bid for an excuse to ignore God and say you don't know and there's no reason for you to know about any God.
> 
> But deep down, I think you know there really is a reason.  All of these  fictional deterrents aside, I think you know there's evidence out there  and all you have to do is look at it for it to lead you to the truth,  but you don't want to look at it for that very reason.  You hold up this  imaginary concept of a God and say, "See!  This is what's keeping me  from investigating!  This might exist!"


Actually there are a lot of people who believe that God is not a personal God who wants a relationship. But it is irrelevant what other people think about God so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if other people's combined speculations are evidence of something. Your account of God is just as fictional and imaginary as the ones I have proposed, and it does not require any fewer assumptions. Your theory is not exempt from Occam's Razor either.




> Let's be serious for just a second.  Do you honestly think holding up that made-up concept as some kind of scary reminder that the world could be completely senseless and you could be the victim of a God who hates what He, Himself made is going to justify your ignorance when all you had to do was *look?*
> 
> The very concept of the God you're asking me to imagine just does not make any sense.  I don't know how to explain it to you because you still insist that it might make sense even though it clearly doesn't.  It's just an intellectual barrier to investigation.  Anywhere else in life, investigation would be a very sensible thing to do, but here?  No, remain in the dark because you might not like what you find.  Since when has that stopped anyone from trying to know the truth?  When we went to space, do you think we worried about finding another race of intelligent life that would destroy us, or did we embrace the unknown and investigate anyway?


Why would it not make sense for God to not reward or punish people for certain behavior such as belief or non-belief? Look around you. Does the world look to you like it was created by somebody who rewards belief or punishes unbelief? It looks to me like if there was a creator, whatever created this world doesn't care about what we believe, or at least doesn't do anything about it.

I am not sure where you are getting this about it being an intellectual barrier to investigation. I am more than happy to learn about your God and investigate your claims. But your claims don't get special treatment, I am also willing to look into other people's religious claims. If I find one that I find to actually be compelling, I would be quite happy to change my mind and would let everybody know about it. Until then I'm still an atheist.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Actually there are a lot of people who believe that God is not a personal God who wants a relationship. But it is irrelevant what other people think about God so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if other people's combined speculations are evidence of something. Your account of God is just as fictional and imaginary as the ones I have proposed, and it does not require any fewer assumptions. Your theory is not exempt from Occam's Razor either.


People's combined speculations are evidence of our intuition, something I suggest you use.  If you don't believe in any God, then yes, I would expect you to say mine is "fictional", but I'm talking about what kind of God we might expect assuming, for the time being, that such a God exists.  The God I worship is much more reasonable than the one you just conjured up as an excuse not to take religion seriously.  As an atheist, you can always fall back on "Well, they're all fictional anyway", but the God I'm talking about doesn't come from our minds.  You had to create that god with your mind in order to use it as a deterrent to taking religion seriously, but the real God would never come from our minds, so I certainly do see Him as much less fictional and much more reasonable than your made-up entity designed specifically to keep you away from religion.  Occam's Razor says there's no need for such a stretch.  




> Why would it not make sense for God to not reward or punish people for certain behavior such as belief or non-belief? Look around you. Does the world look to you like it was created by somebody who rewards belief or punishes unbelief? It looks to me like if there was a creator, whatever created this world doesn't care about what we believe, or at least doesn't do anything about it.


You say that as if you knew what to look for.  When you say what the world "looks like", you are making an awful lot of assumptions.  When I look around me, I see a world that appears to be designed with intent imbedded in every single molecule.  Every action we observe appears to be purposeful because there's simply no explanation for why the world is the way it is unless somebody made it that way.  I call that somebody God.  I'm afraid I'm not following you if you think the world looks like it was made by something or somebody that doesn't care.  That just doesn't logically follow.  The idea that the world is the way it is because God made it that way is much more logically coherent than the idea that it simply is that way for no reason and needs no explanation.  To me, that's an unacceptable answer, but unbelievers will go to great lengths to keep their unbelief, and despite your proclaimed openness, I see the same thing in you.  You're really very closed off to the idea of God and you are avoiding it any way you can.  




> I am not sure where you are getting this about it being an intellectual barrier to investigation. I am more than happy to learn about your God and investigate your claims. But your claims don't get special treatment, I am also willing to look into other people's religious claims. If I find one that I find to actually be compelling, I would be quite happy to change my mind and would let everybody know about it. Until then I'm still an atheist.


I don't believe you.  Your being an atheist requires just as much faith as my being a Christian, so why do you make this special exemption to scrutiny for atheism?  You speak as though you are always the one "finding" and "looking into", but you never actually question or look into your own claims.  You just accept it on blind faith and ask to be convinced.

If you were really sincere, you wouldn't have to ask others what they think of the Bible.  You would read it yourself and devote much of your time to study and to try to find the answers, but instead you sit back and demand that others convince you, as if atheism required no evidence to be true.  Remember, atheists are making a claim, too, and you still have to support it just as much as we do ours.

----------


## Crashland

> People's combined speculations are evidence of our intuition, something I suggest you use.  If you don't believe in any God, then yes, I would expect you to say mine is "fictional", but I'm talking about what kind of God we might expect assuming, for the time being, that such a God exists.  The God I worship is much more reasonable than the one you just conjured up as an excuse not to take religion seriously.  As an atheist, you can always fall back on "Well, they're all fictional anyway", but the God I'm talking about doesn't come from our minds.  You had to create that god with your mind in order to use it as a deterrent to taking religion seriously, but the real God would never come from our minds, so I certainly do see Him as much less fictional and much more reasonable than your made-up entity designed specifically to keep you away from religion.  Occam's Razor says there's no need for such a stretch.


I am not using it to say anything about taking religion seriously. The only reason I brought it up was to point out that the principle behind Pascal's wager applies to specific claims about God too, not just the one question of God's existence, which means it applies to everyone not just atheists.




> You say that as if you knew what to look for.  When you say what the world "looks like", you are making an awful lot of assumptions.  When I look around me, I see a world that appears to be designed with intent imbedded in every single molecule.  Every action we observe appears to be purposeful because there's simply no explanation for why the world is the way it is unless somebody made it that way.  I call that somebody God.  I'm afraid I'm not following you if you think the world looks like it was made by something or somebody that doesn't care.  That just doesn't logically follow.  The idea that the world is the way it is because God made it that way is much more logically coherent than the idea that it simply is that way for no reason and needs no explanation.  To me, that's an unacceptable answer, but unbelievers will go to great lengths to keep their unbelief, and despite your proclaimed openness, I see the same thing in you.  You're really very closed off to the idea of God and you are avoiding it any way you can.


You are changing the subject to creation in general. We were talking about the specific claim about whether God rewards or punishes people, and that he does so based on their behavior or beliefs. This is an important part of Pascal's wager. Looking at the world, where is there a reason to believe this?




> I don't believe you.  Your being an atheist requires just as much faith as my being a Christian, so why do you make this special exemption to scrutiny for atheism?  You speak as though you are always the one "finding" and "looking into", but you never actually question or look into your own claims.  You just accept it on blind faith and ask to be convinced.
> 
> If you were really sincere, you wouldn't have to ask others what they think of the Bible.  You would read it yourself and devote much of your time to study and to try to find the answers, but instead you sit back and demand that others convince you, as if atheism required no evidence to be true.


Well, you are excused for your presumptuousness. I have read the Bible cover to cover three times. Twice when I was still a Christian and one time after I stopped believing. I still read Christian apologetics books on a regular basis. I have also put a significant amount of effort into looking into other world religions. You keep assuming this stigma you have about atheists. It would be presumptuous and condescending, for example, for me to assume that you are only a Christian because of your parents or because of your geographic location, and that you just haven't done enough research to recognize you are wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am not using it to say anything about taking religion seriously. The only reason I brought it up was to point out that the principle behind Pascal's wager applies to specific claims about God too, not just the one question of God's existence, which means it applies to everyone not just atheists.


Fine, but it certainly can apply to the question of God's existence, so let's apply it.  That means you should assume God exists.  Now it's up to you to find out who God is.  You can apply Pascal's Wager after that if you want, but simply applying it to the question of God's existence has the unmistakable effect of legitimizing belief in God, regardless of what else you apply the wager to.




> You are changing the subject to creation in general. We were talking about the specific claim about whether God rewards or punishes people, and that he does so based on their behavior or beliefs. This is an important part of Pascal's wager. Looking at the world, where is there a reason to believe this?


You said the world doesn't "look like" God rewards or punishes people, and I'm wondering how you drew that conclusion.  What does it look like?  

The reasons for believing it are the same as the reasons for believing in God.  I hope you're not seriously asking me for scientific evidence of what God's judgment is supposed to look like.




> Well, you are excused for your presumptuousness. I have read the Bible cover to cover three times. Twice when I was still a Christian and one time after I stopped believing. I still read Christian apologetics books on a regular basis. I have also put a significant amount of effort into looking into other world religions. You keep assuming this stigma you have about atheists. It would be presumptuous and condescending, for example, for me to assume that you are only a Christian because of your parents or because of your geographic location, and that you just haven't done enough research to recognize you are wrong.


Fine, but you ignored the rest of what I said there, which is that you are not immune to proving your position.  You can't just sit back and demand we prove God to you and you don't have to prove atheism to us.  Atheism carries just as big a burden of proof and requires just as much faith to believe.

And whatever reading you've done, you obviously haven't done enough because you would realize just how unique Christianity is compared to the other religions instead of lumping them together like they're all the same.

----------


## Crashland

> Fine, but it certainly can apply to the question of God's existence, so let's apply it.  That means you should assume God exists.  Now it's up to you to find out who God is.  You can apply Pascal's Wager after that if you want, but simply applying it to the question of God's existence has the unmistakable effect of legitimizing belief in God, regardless of what else you apply the wager to.


I don't accept that Pascal's wager means I should assume God exists. I do accept that Pascal's wager means that I should try to find out if he does.




> You said the world doesn't "look like" God rewards or punishes people, and I'm wondering how you drew that conclusion.  What does it look like?  
> 
> The reasons for believing it are the same as the reasons for believing in God.  I hope you're not seriously asking me for scientific evidence of what God's judgment is supposed to look like.


The world looks to me like bad things happen to both good and bad people alike, and that everyone meets the same fate. If there is any divine reward or punishment, it certainly doesn't seem to show itself at all here. And if there is some kind of reward or punishment after death, there is no way anyone would be able to know that. I am not convinced if the very best we have to go on is the claim that God communicates with us through the Bible.




> Fine, but you ignored the rest of what I said there, which is that you are not immune to proving your position.  You can't just sit back and demand we prove God to you and you don't have to prove atheism to us.  Atheism carries just as big a burden of proof and requires just as much faith to believe.
> 
> And whatever reading you've done, you obviously haven't done enough because you would realize just how unique Christianity is compared to the other religions instead of lumping them together like they're all the same.


Strong atheism requires a burden of proof, but weak atheism does not. I have said I am an agnostic atheist with regard to the existence of a creator god.

Yes, Christianity is a special snowflake. Sure, there are some things about it that might make it more remarkable than some of the less widespread religions, but even if Christianity was *completely* unlike every other religion, that in itself wouldn't be a good reason to believe its claims are true. The things which make it stand out need to be good reasons to believe in the truth of its extraordinary claims, and I just don't see it. If you want to talk about the "authenticity" of the Bible, I get what you are saying, maybe the Bible is unique in that regard, but we have already established previously that "authenticity" in the sense that you are referring does not imply truthfulness.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't accept that Pascal's wager means I should assume God exists. I do accept that Pascal's wager means that I should try to find out if he does.


Why don't you accept that Pascal's Wager means you should assume God exists?  The options presented in the payoff table clearly indicate that a belief in God is pragmatically justified, given the probability of God's actual existence is 50/50 (It's not, but that's the assumption).




> The world looks to me like bad things happen to both good and bad people alike, and that everyone meets the same fate. If there is any divine reward or punishment, it certainly doesn't seem to show itself at all here. And if there is some kind of reward or punishment after death, there is no way anyone would be able to know that. I am not convinced if the very best we have to go on is the claim that God communicates with us through the Bible.


You can't observe what happens after death, so why do you assume everyone meets the same fate?  Furthermore, why do you assume God's justice must be carried out in this life?  Have you learned nothing from your Bible study?  Can you say for certain that, if God rewarded believers and punished non-believers, you should only ever see good things happening to good people and bad things happening to bad people?  That doesn't logically follow.

God doesn't only communicate with us through the Bible.  That's just all you see because you already rule out evidences like the apparent order of nature as indicating the existence of a transcendent mind that ordered it.  You also dismiss miracles because you assume they always have a natural explanation.




> Strong atheism requires a burden of proof, but weak atheism does not. I have said I am an agnostic atheist with regard to the existence of a creator god.


The terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are mutually exclusive.  Do you believe God exists or do you believe He does not exist?  If you are simply an agnostic, then you place the same probability on atheism as you do theism, and yet you claim you are an atheist until God's existence is proven, but you require no proof to accept the atheistic position that God does not exist.  Even saying God "probably" does not exist (soft atheism) requires a burden of proof because you are making a probability claim, which you can't possibly know unless you have all of the information that would allow you to assess a probability.




> Yes, Christianity is a special snowflake. Sure, there are some things about it that might make it more remarkable than some of the less widespread religions, but even if Christianity was *completely* unlike every other religion, that in itself wouldn't be a good reason to believe its claims are true. The things which make it stand out need to be good reasons to believe in the truth of its extraordinary claims, and I just don't see it. If you want to talk about the "authenticity" of the Bible, I get what you are saying, maybe the Bible is unique in that regard, but we have already established previously that "authenticity" in the sense that you are referring does not imply truthfulness.


I never said that made it true.  I'm just saying you don't have to believe in it to tell that its claims are more valid than the other religions of the world and that things that would disqualify other religions, like an inauthentic text, do not disqualify Christianity.  So really you can narrow it down pretty quickly, and that just goes to show you that studying the world religions is not just a big card game like atheists like to imply.  Rather, the argument isn't between atheism and all other religions, but between atheism and a small subset of legitimate world religions that stand out from the fray, between which the finer points can be argued.

----------


## Crashland

> Why don't you accept that Pascal's Wager means you should assume God exists?  The options presented in the payoff table clearly indicate that a belief in God is pragmatically justified, given the probability of God's actual existence is 50/50 (It's not, but that's the assumption).


Because although the possibility for ultimate divine reward or punishment is a possibility, I do not know what the actual conditions would be for said reward or punishment, if there is a reward or punishment at all. Therefore it is in my best interest not to dismiss the possibility of a god, and it is also in my best interest to attempt to find out if there is a god, and also to attempt to find out whether he rewards or punishes people, and if so what are the necessary conditions for said reward or punishment.




> You can't observe what happens after death, so why do you assume everyone meets the same fate?  Furthermore, why do you assume God's justice must be carried out in this life?  Have you learned nothing from your Bible study?  Can you say for certain that, if God rewarded believers and punished non-believers, you should only ever see good things happening to good people and bad things happening to bad people?  That doesn't logically follow.


I meant that everyone meets the same fate here. I don't assume that God's reward or punishment must be carried out in this life - I am merely pointing out that it doesn't get carried out in this life, which is the only life we can observe. We do not know what happens after death if anything. The only way we could know anything about what happens after death would be if God tells us. I also know full well what the Bible claims, but again, if the only thing we have to go on is the claim that God communicates this information to us in the Bible, then I don't buy it.




> God doesn't only communicate with us through the Bible.  That's just all you see because you already rule out evidences like the apparent order of nature as indicating the existence of a transcendent mind that ordered it.  You also dismiss miracles because you assume they always have a natural explanation.


A second time you have changed the subject to God in general. We were talking about God's reward or punishment for us being conditioned on our beliefs. Can you point to anything other than the Bible that gives us an indication that God rewards or punishes people after death, and that he does so based on what we believe? The existence of divine reward and punishment, and the conditions for said reward or punishment are important for Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager has merit in the sense that there might be some kind of divine reward or punishment. This is why it is a good idea to attempt to find out if there is a god (applies to atheists) and if so, what he wants (applies to everyone).




> The terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are mutually exclusive.  Do you believe God exists or do you believe He does not exist?  If you are simply an agnostic, then you place the same probability on atheism as you do theism, and yet you claim you are an atheist until God's existence is proven, but you require no proof to accept the atheistic position that God does not exist.  Even saying God "probably" does not exist (soft atheism) requires a burden of proof because you are making a probability claim, which you can't possibly know unless you have all of the information that would allow you to assess a probability.


The weak atheism "position" is NOT "God does not exist". The position is "not believing in God". This is an important distinction and it is exactly what distinguishes strong and weak atheism.
Thinking that "agnostic" and "atheist" are mutually exclusive is one of the most common misconceptions. This is not true at all. Please read:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagn...Difference.htm



> Atheism is about belief, or specifically what you don't believe.  Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what you don't  know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know  if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need  not be.
> 
> Every agnostic is also either an atheist or a theist  because any given belief is either present or not — there is no  alternative to those two options. An agnostic may be unsure whether  atheism or theism is more reasonable. An agnostic may not consider their  theism or atheism very important. But regardless, belief that the  proposition "at least one god is true" is present or not in everyone.
> 
> Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and  atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism.  On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without  claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.
> 
> In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the  necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the  contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for  people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t  claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or  that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such  an entity does indeed exist.








> I never said that made it true.  I'm just saying you don't have to believe in it to tell that its claims are more valid than the other religions of the world and that things that would disqualify other religions, like an inauthentic text, do not disqualify Christianity.  So really you can narrow it down pretty quickly, and that just goes to show you that studying the world religions is not just a big card game like atheists like to imply.  Rather, the argument isn't between atheism and all other religions, but between atheism and a small subset of legitimate world religions that stand out from the fray, between which the finer points can be argued.


I'm not sure how the authenticity of the text has anything to do with it. If some religion has a really inauthentic text that has been changed over the years, but it turns out that the claims about God in its most current version are actually substantiated and reasonable, then I'll take the inauthentic text over the more authentic texts that are filled with unsubstantiated claims about God. I am interested in the truth of the claims about God, and couldn't care less about how popular the claims are, or whether they are new claims or old claims, or how many people have died for them, or whether the claims have evolved over time.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I meant that everyone meets the same fate here. I don't assume that God's reward or punishment must be carried out in this life - I am merely pointing out that it doesn't get carried out in this life, which is the only life we can observe. We do not know what happens after death if anything. The only way we could know anything about what happens after death would be if God tells us. I also know full well what the Bible claims, but again, if the only thing we have to go on is the claim that God communicates this information to us in the Bible, then I don't buy it.


I figured that was what you meant, but our fate here isn't all that matters if I'm right.  So saying we seem to all meet the same fate means nothing WRT Christianity.  How do you know God's judgment doesn't get carried out in this life?  All you can say is that it doesn't get carried out _completely,_ but I don't see how that would be a validating factor for Christianity since it was God's plan all along.  The fact that it's all we can observe doesn't mean that we should assume that it's all there is.  Do you "buy" the claims of atheism?




> A second time you have changed the subject to God in general. We were talking about God's reward or punishment for us being conditioned on our beliefs. Can you point to anything other than the Bible that gives us an indication that God rewards or punishes people after death, and that he does so based on what we believe? The existence of divine reward and punishment, and the conditions for said reward or punishment are important for Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager has merit in the sense that there might be some kind of divine reward or punishment. This is why it is a good idea to attempt to find out if there is a god (applies to atheists) and if so, what he wants (applies to everyone).


What kind of indication are you looking for?  Do we need more indication for the religious claims of punishment vs reward than the atheistic claim that there is none?  You seem to be saying that we should expect certain conditions to exist before it would be reasonable to believe in punishment or reward after death.  What kind of conditions are you referring to?




> The weak atheism "position" is NOT "God does not exist". The position is "not believing in God". This is an important distinction and it is exactly what distinguishes strong and weak atheism.
> Thinking that "agnostic" and "atheist" are mutually exclusive is one of the most common misconceptions. This is not true at all. Please read:


Okay, so you are an atheist who doesn't know.  Why aren't you just an agnostic instead of an agnostic atheist?  Why do you attach atheism to your agnosticism?




> I'm not sure how the authenticity of the text has anything to do with it. If some religion has a really inauthentic text that has been changed over the years, but it turns out that the claims about God in its most current version are actually substantiated and reasonable, then I'll take the inauthentic text over the more authentic texts that are filled with unsubstantiated claims about God. I am interested in the truth of the claims about God, and couldn't care less about how popular the claims are, or whether they are new claims or old claims, or how many people have died for them, or whether the claims have evolved over time.


That's silly.  That's like saying if you know a treasure map has been changed over the years, you would trust it over the authentic one.  If it's been changed to a large degree, then how do you even know where it's supposed to lead?  The problem with talking about "substantiated" claims about God is that you don't even know what would substantiate those claims for you.  The Bible has been substantiated and verified by history many times, including on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  It just so happens that the Bible is BOTH more authentic AND more substantiated than other texts, but you won't accept either one as evidence.  I wasn't talking about substantiation just to make the point that authenticity would be important because you want to know that you are getting the actual word of God and not just the modified word that has been greatly altered by groups of men.

----------


## Crashland

> I figured that was what you meant, but our fate here isn't all that matters if I'm right.  So saying we seem to all meet the same fate means nothing WRT Christianity.  How do you know God's judgment doesn't get carried out in this life?  All you can say is that it doesn't get carried out _completely,_ but I don't see how that would be a validating factor for Christianity since it was God's plan all along.  The fact that it's all we can observe doesn't mean that we should assume that it's all there is.  Do you "buy" the claims of atheism?


I agree that it should not be assumed. 
Weak atheism doesn't make claims. If you have a claim in mind though that you want to ask about, I will tell you whether I buy into it or not.




> What kind of indication are you looking for?  Do we need more indication for the religious claims of punishment vs reward than the atheistic claim that there is none?  You seem to be saying that we should expect certain conditions to exist before it would be reasonable to believe in punishment or reward after death.  What kind of conditions are you referring to?


The only ways for us to know anything about what happens after death would be if people were able to come back from the dead to tell us about it, or if God himself were to tell us about it. Either of those things might be totally valid. Unfortunately though, people don't come back from the dead, and there is no clear consensus from people who have had NDEs. Obviously you think that God told us about it in the Bible, but I don't think there is evidence that the Bible is God's word. If God wants to tell us, then tell us! And do it in a way that we can all understand, not in a way that most people who have ever lived will have never even heard about, and where the people who have heard it can't even agree on what it says or whether it even comes from God in the first place.




> Okay, so you are an atheist who doesn't know.  Why aren't you just an agnostic instead of an agnostic atheist?  Why do you attach atheism to your agnosticism?


Did you read the quote? Read it again.



> Atheism is about belief, or specifically what you don't believe.   Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what you don't   know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know   if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need   not be.
> 
> Every agnostic is also either an atheist or a theist  because any given  belief is either present or not  there is no  alternative to those two  options. An agnostic may be unsure whether  atheism or theism is more  reasonable. An agnostic may not consider their  theism or atheism very  important. But regardless, belief that the  proposition "at least one  god is true" is present or not in everyone.
> 
> Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and   atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism.   On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without   claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.
> 
> In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isnt faced with the   necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the   contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for   people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist wont   claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label god exists or   that such cannot exist, but they also dont actively believe that such   an entity does indeed exist.


I am agnostic because I don't claim to know whether or not gods exist. I am an atheist because I lack belief in gods.





> That's silly.  That's like saying if you know a treasure map has been changed over the years, you would trust it over the authentic one.  If it's been changed to a large degree, then how do you even know where it's supposed to lead?  The problem with talking about "substantiated" claims about God is that you don't even know what would substantiate those claims for you.  The Bible has been substantiated and verified by history many times, including on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  It just so happens that the Bible is BOTH more authentic AND more substantiated than other texts, but you won't accept either one as evidence.  I wasn't talking about substantiation just to make the point that authenticity would be important because you want to know that you are getting the actual word of God and not just the modified word that has been greatly altered by groups of men.


The Bible isn't one thing which can only be all true or all false. The substantiation of ordinary historical claims in the Bible do not substantiate its claims about God. Are there any sources outside of the Bible which corroborate its extraordinary claims about Jesus's miracles and resurrection? Let me put it this way. Let's assume for a moment that you believe in God but you never heard of the Bible or Christianity. Somebody sends you a URL to a website which claims that there is some guy in the middle east, perhaps in the very real substantiated city of Jerusalem, who claims to be God and who has performed miracles this year in front of many witnesses. Let's say this guy even has a real following online. What would it take to substantiate those claims on that website for you to believe in them?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I agree that it should not be assumed. 
> Weak atheism doesn't make claims. If you have a claim in mind though that you want to ask about, I will tell you whether I buy into it or not.


If weak atheism doesn't make claims, then why don't you just call it agnosticism and leave it at that?




> The only ways for us to know anything about what happens after death would be if people were able to come back from the dead to tell us about it, or if God himself were to tell us about it. Either of those things might be totally valid. Unfortunately though, people don't come back from the dead, and there is no clear consensus from people who have had NDEs. Obviously you think that God told us about it in the Bible, but I don't think there is evidence that the Bible is God's word. If God wants to tell us, then tell us! And do it in a way that we can all understand, not in a way that most people who have ever lived will have never even heard about, and where the people who have heard it can't even agree on what it says or whether it even comes from God in the first place.


You're making all these demands of God while ignoring the clear messages He HAS given us.  Not clear enough, you say?  Well, if he made them clearer to you, that might actually be less clear to someone else.  It's God's decision how He reveals things to us.  He doesn't owe you an explanation on your own terms.  He has made it such that it would be reasonable for you to believe in Him.  What more do you want?  For your information, most people who have ever lived have heard about it.  It's called the Resurrection of Jesus and it has a historical basis, not just a Biblical one.  




> Did you read the quote? Read it again.
> 
> I am agnostic because I don't claim to know whether or not gods exist. I am an atheist because I lack belief in gods.


What does it mean to "lack" belief?  Do you apply the same lack of belief to atheism?  You keep jumping between agnosticism and atheism.  One minute you call yourself an atheist, next minute you're saying it's actually "weak atheism" and then you're throwing in agnosticism like it's all the same.  You may not make the claim that God does not exist, but what do you believe?




> The Bible isn't one thing which can only be all true or all false. The substantiation of ordinary historical claims in the Bible do not substantiate its claims about God. Are there any sources outside of the Bible which corroborate its extraordinary claims about Jesus's miracles and resurrection? Let me put it this way. Let's assume for a moment that you believe in God but you never heard of the Bible or Christianity. Somebody sends you a URL to a website which claims that there is some guy in the middle east, perhaps in the very real substantiated city of Jerusalem, who claims to be God and who has performed miracles this year in front of many witnesses. Let's say this guy even has a real following online. What would it take to substantiate those claims on that website for you to believe in them?


Historical evidence, which we have plenty of.  There are many factors that strengthen the facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection.  We have many eyewitness accounts that confirm He was dead and then alive again.  These accounts have been confirmed by historians and most atheists just explain it away by saying they were hallucinating or something like that.  That does not change the fact these claims are corroborated by multiple eyewitness accounts.

----------


## Crashland

> If weak atheism doesn't make claims, then why don't you just call it agnosticism and leave it at that?
> ...
> What does it mean to "lack" belief?  Do you apply the same lack of  belief to atheism?  You keep jumping between agnosticism and atheism.   One minute you call yourself an atheist, next minute you're saying it's  actually "weak atheism" and then you're throwing in agnosticism like  it's all the same.  You may not make the claim that God does not exist, but what do you believe?


It is agnosticism AND atheism. They are not mutually exclusive. Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are completely independent concepts. Maybe this will help



Lacking belief is not a claim. I lack belief in pink elephants. That is a very different thing from claiming that there are no pink elephants.





> You're making all these demands of God while ignoring the clear messages He HAS given us.  Not clear enough, you say?  Well, if he made them clearer to you, that might actually be less clear to someone else.  It's God's decision how He reveals things to us.  He doesn't owe you an explanation on your own terms.  He has made it such that it would be reasonable for you to believe in Him.  What more do you want?  For your information, most people who have ever lived have heard about it.  It's called the Resurrection of Jesus and it has a historical basis, not just a Biblical one.


I'm pretty sure very few people living in North or South America before the year 1600 ever heard about the Bible, as well as every person that ever lived on earth before the time of Jesus. And, obviously he has not made it such that it would be reasonable for me to believe in him because I don't. God is supposed to be all powerful. The whole "if he made it clearer to me then it might be less clear to someone else" is nonsense. If he is God then he can make it clear to everybody period.





> Historical evidence, which we have plenty of.  There are many factors that strengthen the facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection.  We have many eyewitness accounts that confirm He was dead and then alive again.  These accounts have been confirmed by historians and most atheists just explain it away by saying they were hallucinating or something like that.  That does not change the fact these claims are corroborated by multiple eyewitness accounts.


What other eyewitness sources are there? The only "eyewitness" accounts are in the Bible, in the gospels which were written years after the events supposedly took place. Every religion claims to have eyewitnesses to miracles and such. Why should I believe your stories just because yours might happen to be the most well preserved?

----------


## wizardwatson

> God is supposed to be all powerful. The whole "if he made it clearer to me then it might be less clear to someone else" is nonsense. If he is God then he can make it clear to everybody period.


He can but he doesn't.  Anyone who's telling you there's some formula to believe in God is lying or ignorant.  He reveals to whomever he wants.  

It's not nonsense at all.  It's biblical.  He made you, you.  He made a bird a bird.  He makes evil things and good things.  

To be "fair" in the minds of scientific atheists and nihilists God would have to refrain from creating or doing anything, and in essence not exist.  Life is a problem, a source of trouble for the systematizer.  Only nothingness seems fair.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It is agnosticism AND atheism. They are not mutually exclusive. Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are completely independent concepts. Maybe this will help
> 
> 
> 
> Lacking belief is not a claim. I lack belief in pink elephants. That is a very different thing from claiming that there are no pink elephants.


I asked you whether or not you believe God exists, 100% certainty or not.  You have not answered.  The chart you provide sets up a false dichotomy between "100% certainty" and "not 100%" certainty.  If you are 99% certain, that is still a knowledge claim because you are making a statement on the probability of your belief being correct.  

I am not questioning your certainty.  I am trying to assess whether your "lack of belief" is *reasonable* or not.  But before I can do that, I need a straight answer on what you believe.

You don't lack a belief in pink elephants because there is no evidence of them.  You lack belief in pink elephants because, if they did exist, then you would EXPECT to find evidence of them somewhere in the world, but no such evidence has ever been found.  Therefore, it is not because of a lack of evidence that you don't believe in pink elephants, but a presence of evidence that they do not exist.  




> I'm pretty sure very few people living in North or South America before the year 1600 ever heard about the Bible, as well as every person that ever lived on earth before the time of Jesus. And, *obviously he has not made it such that it would be reasonable for me to believe in him because I don't.* God is supposed to be all powerful. The whole "if he made it clearer to me then it might be less clear to someone else" is nonsense. If he is God then he can make it clear to everybody period.


Whoa, wait, what!?  Did you seriously just claim that *obviously* it is not reasonable to believe in God *because you don't believe in Him?*  The hubris!  

If He is God, then yes, He can make it clear to everybody, but it does not necessarily follow that He would or should.  You keep making this claim, but you are failing to give logical reasons for why it is true. 




> What other eyewitness sources are there? The only "eyewitness" accounts are in the Bible, in the gospels which were written years after the events supposedly took place. Every religion claims to have eyewitnesses to miracles and such. Why should I believe your stories just because yours might happen to be the most well preserved?





> Paul not only uses the typical rabbinical terms “received” and “delivered” with regard to the information he is passing on to the Corinthians, but vv. 3-5 are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received after becoming a Christian. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem around AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Cephas and James (Gal. 1.18). It thus dates to within five years after Jesus’ death. So short a time span and such personal contact make it idle to talk of legend in this case.





> 2. The burial story is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The gospels tend to consist of brief snapshots of Jesus’ life which are loosely connected and not always chronologically arranged. But when we come to the passion story we do have one, smooth, continuously-running narrative. This suggests that the passion story was one of Mark’s sources of information in writing his gospel. Now most scholars think Mark is already the earliest gospel, and Mark’s source for Jesus’ passion is, of course, even older. Comparison of the narratives of the four gospels shows that their accounts do not diverge from one another until after the burial. This implies that the burial account was part of the passion story. Again, its great age militates against its being legendary.





> 4. No other competing burial story exists. If the burial by Joseph were fictitious, then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus’ corpse or at least some competing legends. But all our sources are unanimous on Jesus’ honorable interment by Joseph.
> 
> For these and other reasons, the majority of New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.”1
> 
> Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-r...#ixzz3YT36jKZe

----------


## Crashland

> I asked you whether or not you believe God exists, 100% certainty or not.  You have not answered.  The chart you provide sets up a false dichotomy between "100% certainty" and "not 100%" certainty.  If you are 99% certain, that is still a knowledge claim because you are making a statement on the probability of your belief being correct.  
> 
> I am not questioning your certainty.  I am trying to assess whether your "lack of belief" is *reasonable* or not.  But before I can do that, I need a straight answer on what you believe.


I do not believe that God exists.





> You don't lack a belief in pink elephants because there is no evidence of them.  You lack belief in pink elephants because, if they did exist, then you would EXPECT to find evidence of them somewhere in the world, but no such evidence has ever been found.  Therefore, it is not because of a lack of evidence that you don't believe in pink elephants, but a presence of evidence that they do not exist.


I would still lack belief in pink elephants regardless of whether I expect to find evidence of them or not. Pick a random star in the SXDF-NB1006-2 galaxy. I lack belief that there is alien life in that solar system, and it isn't because I would expect to see evidence of it.





> Whoa, wait, what!?  Did you seriously just claim that *obviously* it is not reasonable to believe in God *because you don't believe in Him?*  The hubris!
> 
> If He is God, then yes, He can make it clear to everybody, but it does not necessarily follow that He would or should.  You keep making this claim, but you are failing to give logical reasons for why it is true.


lol I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying, I was taking it to mean whether God would make it such that a person would find it to be reasonable.

It doesn't logically follow that we would or should (although this raises moral issues). I am merely pointing out that he doesn't.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I do not believe that God exists.


That's the crux of the issue.  Despite all this jumping around labels and saying that you're technically a "weak atheist", you say you are not making the claim that God does not exist, and yet you, yourself, believe it.  If you are really any kind of agnostic, you should be just as skeptical of the belief that God does not exist as you are of the belief that He does.




> I would still lack belief in pink elephants regardless of whether I expect to find evidence of them or not. Pick a random star in the SXDF-NB1006-2 galaxy. I lack belief that there is alien life in that solar system, and it isn't because I would expect to see evidence of it.


But you acknowledge that it could be there, and you attach no probability to the truth or falsity of that claim.  That's the point.  When you say you "lack belief" in God, you have already stated that you do not believe that God exists, so are you willing to say the same about aliens in that particular galaxy?




> lol I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying, I was taking it to mean whether God would make it such that a person would find it to be reasonable.
> 
> It doesn't logically follow that we would or should (although this raises moral issues). I am merely pointing out that he doesn't.


I've showed you how belief is just as reasonable as non-belief, so I fail to see how you can claim that "He doesn't" make it such that a person would find it to be reasonable.  I find it to be reasonable.  Am I deluded?  There is tons of evidence in the very nature of the universe for God's existence, so I think it's quite an extraordinary claim to say that He absolutely doesn't make it reasonable to believe in Him.

----------


## Crashland

> That's the crux of the issue.  Despite all this jumping around labels and saying that you're technically a "weak atheist", you say you are not making the claim that God does not exist, and yet you, yourself, believe it.  If you are really any kind of agnostic, you should be just as skeptical of the belief that God does not exist as you are of the belief that He does.


I said that "I do NOT believe that God exists". I did not say that "I DO believe that God does not exist." Because I don't believe that either. The only thing that is required to be an atheist is to lack belief in God or gods. It does not require belief that there are none.






> But you acknowledge that it could be there, and you attach no probability to the truth or falsity of that claim.  That's the point.  When you say you "lack belief" in God, you have already stated that you do not believe that God exists, so are you willing to say the same about aliens in that particular galaxy?


No I didn't state that. Just because I do not believe that there are aliens there, does not mean that I do believe that there aren't any. I don't see any good reason to believe either of those claims. Similarly I don't see any good reason to believe claims about the existence or nonexistence of God.






> I've showed you how belief is just as reasonable as non-belief, so I fail to see how you can claim that "He doesn't" make it such that a person would find it to be reasonable.  I find it to be reasonable.  Am I deluded?  There is tons of evidence in the very nature of the universe for God's existence, so I think it's quite an extraordinary claim to say that He absolutely doesn't make it reasonable to believe in Him.


I don't think you are necessarily deluded. But I understand that what is convincing evidence to one person may not be convincing evidence to another, and both people can honestly hold opposite positions. I understand a lot of the reasons why people believe in God, whether its the cosmological argument or the moral argument or whatever. But to me those reasons don't hold water, I don't find them to be convincing. Obviously other people do.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I said that "I do NOT believe that God exists". I did not say that "I DO believe that God does not exist." Because I don't believe that either. The only thing that is required to be an atheist is to lack belief in God or gods. It does not require belief that there are none.


So, do you attribute the same likelihood to God existing as you do to God not existing?  Think hard about your answer.  I have no problem with you believing that God does not exist, as long as you recognize that such a position requires just as much faith as a belief in God.  If, as you say, you just don't believe either one and place equal probability on either one being true, then congratulations, you're a true agnostic.  The fact that you feel the need to attach "atheistic" to that seems questionable, though.  




> No I didn't state that. Just because I do not believe that there are aliens there, does not mean that I do believe that there aren't any. I don't see any good reason to believe either of those claims. Similarly I don't see any good reason to believe claims about the existence or nonexistence of God.


Exactly.  Spoken like a true agnostic.  I've got no problem with your lack of belief as long as you realize the dilemma you're in.  You are caught in the middle of two truly dichotomous statements and your only two ways out of holding an irrational, unfounded belief are either by 1) studying the evidence and concluding that one is more logical than the other or 2) denying knowledge altogether and placing equal probability on either being true.  You seem to take the second route, but I'm confused as to why you referred to yourself as an "atheist" earlier if that is really the case.




> I don't think you are necessarily deluded. But I understand that what is convincing evidence to one person may not be convincing evidence to another, and both people can honestly hold opposite positions. I understand a lot of the reasons why people believe in God, whether its the cosmological argument or the moral argument or whatever. But to me those reasons don't hold water, I don't find them to be convincing. Obviously other people do.


I agree that neither of us are deluded, but I think your presuppositions are keeping you from understanding why they are good evidence.  I personally don't care which one you believe, but I do like to make sure people understand that, absent the aforementioned evidence, both positions require the same amount of faith.  Atheism gets no special treatment, even with its devotion to Almighty Science.

----------


## Crashland

> So, do you attribute the same likelihood to God existing as you do to God not existing?  Think hard about your answer.  I have no problem with you believing that God does not exist, as long as you recognize that such a position requires just as much faith as a belief in God.  If, as you say, you just don't believe either one and place equal probability on either one being true, then congratulations, you're a true agnostic.  The fact that you feel the need to attach "atheistic" to that seems questionable, though.
> 
> Exactly.  Spoken like a true agnostic.  I've got no problem with your  lack of belief as long as you realize the dilemma you're in.  You are  caught in the middle of two truly dichotomous statements and your only  two ways out of holding an irrational, unfounded belief are either by 1)  studying the evidence and concluding that one is more logical than the  other or 2) denying knowledge altogether and placing equal probability  on either being true.  You seem to take the second route, but I'm  confused as to why you referred to yourself as an "atheist" earlier if  that is really the case.


I don't even place a probability on it at all. I could say 50/50 because of the two possible options, but having no information either way does not lend itself to even placing a probability. Let's not even use the term 'probability', since I know you are really referring to reasonableness. I do not think it is reasonable to assume either of the propositions that a god exists or that a god does not exist. In my opinion the most reasonable position is to not accept either of those two claims. You might call this agnosticism, but it is also atheism.

I think you more or less understand what I believe, but we are just not agreeing on what to call it. Your definition of atheism is narrower than mine is. I think if you go to the atheist community, most self-identified atheists will not claim that you need to think that one claim is more likely than the other in order to still be considered an atheist. All you have to do to be an atheist is to not accept the claim that there is a god. Whether or not you happen to accept the opposite claim is not really relevant, it just makes you one kind of atheist versus another kind of atheist. I have been saying that I am an atheist, and it seems to me that the main problem that you have with this is related to something other than what I mean when I say athest.





> I agree that neither of us are deluded, but I think your presuppositions are keeping you from understanding why they are good evidence.  I personally don't care which one you believe, but I do like to make sure people understand that, absent the aforementioned evidence, both positions require the same amount of faith.  Atheism gets no special treatment, even with its devotion to Almighty Science.


I would agree that any claims made by atheists should not get special treatment with regard to the burden of proof. However, not all atheists make claims about God, which gets back to my previous point.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't even place a probability on it at all. I could say 50/50 because of the two possible options, but having no information either way does not lend itself to even placing a probability. Let's not even use the term 'probability', since I know you are really referring to reasonableness. I do not think it is reasonable to assume either of the propositions that a god exists or that a god does not exist. In my opinion the most reasonable position is to not accept either of those two claims. You might call this agnosticism, but it is also atheism.


I agree completely with what you said there, except for the "it is also atheism" part.  I think that's a confusion of terms.  Atheism has always meant the positive belief in no God, and agnosticism is exactly what you've just described.  It's not a mere proposition of less than 100% certainty about anything.  It's a complete lack of awareness of how certain you should be about anything.  Historically, you are using the term agnosticism correctly, and I commend you for that, but why, then must we even mix the term atheism with it at all?  Theism and atheism are a dichotomous pair.  They are the exact opposite of one another, so why do we lump in agnostics with atheists?




> I think you more or less understand what I believe, but we are just not agreeing on what to call it. Your definition of atheism is narrower than mine is. I think if you go to the atheist community, most self-identified atheists will not claim that you need to think that one claim is more likely than the other in order to still be considered an atheist. All you have to do to be an atheist is to not accept the claim that there is a god. Whether or not you happen to accept the opposite claim is not really relevant, it just makes you one kind of atheist versus another kind of atheist. I have been saying that I am an atheist, and it seems to me that the main problem that you have with this is related to something other than what I mean when I say athest.


Well, I'm glad we cleared that up, but if atheists are equally opposed to "strong atheism" as they are to "theism," then why even call it atheism?  That doesn't seem very equal to me.  




> I would agree that any claims made by atheists should not get special treatment with regard to the burden of proof. However, not all atheists make claims about God, which gets back to my previous point.


Not all theists make claims, either.  We seem to be lacking a neutral agnosticism where people are neither theistic agnostics nor atheistic agnostics but just regular ol' agnostics.

----------


## otherone

> I agree completely with what you said there, except for the "it is also atheism" part.  I think that's a confusion of terms.  Atheism has always meant the positive belief in no God, and agnosticism is exactly what you've just described.  It's not a mere proposition of less than 100% certainty about anything.  It's a complete lack of awareness of how certain you should be about anything.  Historically, you are using the term agnosticism correctly, and I commend you for that, but why, then must we even mix the term atheism with it at all?  Theism and atheism are a dichotomous pair.  They are the exact opposite of one another, so why do we lump in agnostics with atheists?


the confusion is on your end.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism




> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> the confusion is on your end.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


That's deism, not theism.  Theists don't claim that "at least one deity" exists.  They claim that there is one supreme Creator and ruler of the universe.  Atheism includes deism because it posits that there is no Creator and that any deities that do exist are more like Superman than the singular reason that the universe exists.

An atheist definitely wrong that Wikipedia entry.

----------

