Christianity: Obstacle to reason?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles

What if I posit the possible existence of an even more powerful God who will send you to eternal torment for believing in the God of the original Wager, but grant you eternal paradise for rejecting the God of the original Wager. Based on your acceptance of the soundness of Pascal's Wager, should you believe in this more powerful God?

It wouldn't change anything if there were even an infinite number of such gods who would condemn me to eternal torture for believing in the original God; the rewards for believing in the first God are still infinite.

But you are getting off track, aren't you? I'm not in the mood to debate about the soundness of Pascal's Wager.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It wouldn't change anything if there were evan an infinite number of such gods who would condemn me to eternal torture for believing in the original God; the rewards for believing in the first God are still infinite.

OK, so it sounds like you're saying that whichever God was posited in the very first formulation of the wager should be believed in provided his associated rewards/punishments are infinite, since no subsequently posited God's rewards/punishments could ever supercede their infinitude*.

But what if you came to discover that 100 years prior to Pascal, somebody else had posited a nearly identical wager, differing only in that the God in question was the Islamic god Allah. Would you then accept that wager and reject Pascal's? Would this be a sound argument for being a Muslim instead of a Christian?


*This is quite possibly the very worst rebuttal to this refutation of the argument that I've ever encountered.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
OK, so it sounds like you're saying that whichever God was posited in the very first formulation of the wager should be believed in provided his associated rewards/punishments are infinite, since no subsequently posited God's rewards/punishments could ever supercede their infinitude*.

But what if you came to discover that 100 years prior to Pasc ...[text shortened]... y the very worst rebuttal to this refutation of the argument that I've ever encountered.[/i]

Again, it doesn't matter. Pick the god most plausible or simplest and if they are equiprobable, pick at random. But it doesn't weaken Pascal's argument if there are possibly multiple gods. The expected value for believing in the Christian God or Allah or whoever else is still infinite.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, it doesn't matter. Pick the god most plausible or simplest and if they are equiprobable, pick at random. But it doesn't weaken Pascal's argument if there are possibly multiple gods. The expected value for believing in the Christian God or Allah or whoever else is still infinite.

I don't think you actually understand Pascal's argument, for these conclusions are not consistent with accepting it as sound.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't think you actually understand Pascal's argument, for these conclusions are not consistent with accepting it as sound.

I don't think you know Pascal's argument.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Many seem to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God despite that fact that the Bible is filled with contradictions.

"Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth." ~ Blaise Pascal

A truth may in fact ultimately be amenable to reason, just not always immediately coherent or obvious.

Thus ...[text shortened]... ntradictory statements in scripture alluding to a deeper truth, itself expressed only in part.[/b]

See my response to whodey above.

The Bible on the whole is incoherent. You can keep telling yourself that it may ultimately be amenable to reason, but the fact is that it isn't. For example, according to Jesus the Old Testament contains false teachings.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
See my response to whodey above.

The Bible on the whole is incoherent. You can keep telling yourself that it may ultimately be amenable to reason, but the fact is that it isn't. For example, according to Jesus the Old Testament contains false teachings.

=========================================
The Bible on the whole is incoherent.
==========================================

That is a rather strange statement for someone like yourself. Have you not spent considerable time trying to teach some of us the proper teaching of Jesus in the New Testament?

Was it not you who went on and on about the nature of the new birth, abiding in God, eternal life, etc.? If the Bible as a whole is incoherant why did you labor so much to convey coherently the correct (according to you) interpretations of the Gospel of Jesus?

=============================================
You can keep telling yourself that it may ultimately be amenable to reason, but the fact is that it isn't. For example, according to Jesus the Old Testament contains false teachings.
=============================================

There are things which are both mysterious and paradoxical in the Bible. That does not render it incoherant. It only means that in the life long experience of reading the Bible, there are sometimes some matters that you have to put "on the back burner" so to speak.

On the other hand there is quite a huge amount of things which are clearly understandable and in need of some response.

Of course some of these may be things which you or I dislike and want to avoid. That too does not make the Bible incoherant. It may make it inconvenient in places.

According to Jesus "Scripture cannot be broken". So Jesus would attest to the veracity of the Old Testament and not to its errors.

Your attributing a charge of error in the Old Testament to Jesus is at best a slanderous libel.

I suspect that you will point to some things He compared with what He taught " You have heard ... But I say to you ...."

These sayings are not sayings that the Old Testament was in error. These were teachings that what He now says transcends what was said before.


A mother tells her child "Eat with your fingers" when the child is one year old. Latter she says "Eat with a spoon!" when the child is two years old.

The second saying does not render the first saying false or incorrect. It is a matter of maturity and appropriateness to circumstances.

Christ's new teaching in the New Testament does not render the teaching of the Old Testament wrong teaching for its day anymore than the above example of the mother to a growing child.

Lastly, I think you are hypocritical to appear here as a accurate and true teacher of the Bible, on one hand, and then declare that it is incoherant as a whole on the other.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
See my response to whodey above.

The Bible on the whole is incoherent. You can keep telling yourself that it may ultimately be amenable to reason, but the fact is that it isn't. For example, according to Jesus the Old Testament contains false teachings.

What false teachings are you referring to?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
See my response to whodey above.

The Bible on the whole is incoherent. You can keep telling yourself that it may ultimately be amenable to reason, but the fact is that it isn't. For example, according to Jesus the Old Testament contains false teachings.

I would disagree that it is incoherent. In fact, the Bible continuously reinforces certain themes such as a holy God's struggle with a sinful world, the necessity of faith, the necessity of love for your fellow man etc. Now which of these themes do you have an argument with?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================
The Bible on the whole is incoherent.
==========================================

That is a rather strange statement for someone like yourself. Have you not spent considerable time trying to teach some of us the proper teaching of Jesus in the New Testament?

Was it not you who went on and on about th Bible, on one hand, and then declare that it is incoherant as a whole on the other.[/b]

"That is a rather strange statement for someone like yourself. Have you not spent considerable time trying to teach some of us the proper teaching of Jesus in the New Testament?

Was it not you who went on and on about the nature of the new birth, abiding in God, eternal life, etc.? If the Bible as a whole is incoherant why did you labor so much to convey coherently the correct (according to you) interpretations of the Gospel of Jesus?

I'm not sure what you find "strange". For the most part, I find the words of Jesus to be coherent. However, the Old Testament and many of the teachings of Paul do not cohere with the teachings of Jesus.

"Lastly, I think you are hypocritical to appear here as a accurate and true teacher of the Bible, on one hand, and then declare that it is incoherant as a whole on the other"

Where's the hypocisy in stating that many of the teachings of the Old Testament and Paul contradict the teachings of Jesus?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What false teachings are you referring to?

See Matthew 5

Originally posted by whodey
I would disagree that it is incoherent. In fact, the Bible continuously reinforces certain themes such as a holy God's struggle with a sinful world, the necessity of faith, the necessity of love for your fellow man etc. Now which of these themes do you have an argument with?

Here's one:
Jesus teaches that one cannot continue to sin and have "eterenal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

It seems that Paul taught otherwise.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here's one:
Jesus teaches that one cannot continue to sin and have "eterenal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

It seems that Paul taught otherwise.

======================================

Here's one:
Jesus teaches that one cannot continue to sin and have "eterenal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

It seems that Paul taught otherwise.
=======================================

"Paul verses Jesus" again ???

Why do I get the feeling that we have been through all of this before?


ThinkofOne, could you please expound what you think is Paul's meaning in the following passages from his epistles:

Ephesians 5:5,6;

Galatians 5:19-21;

I Corinthians 6:9,10

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================

Here's one:
Jesus teaches that one cannot continue to sin and have "eterenal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

It seems that Paul taught otherwise.
=======================================

"Paul verses Jesus" again ???

Why do I get the feeling that we have been through all of this before?


Th :

Ephesians 5:5,6;

Galatians 5:19-21;

I Corinthians 6:9,10 [/b]

Yes, you and I have been through all this before. My post was in response to whodey.

EDIT: The real question is what leads you to believe that one can continue to sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yes, you and I have been through all this before. My post was in response to whodey.

You mean you intend to dust off the old arguments and try again with someone else ?