Begging for response.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

Nah, the stakes are highest with Cthulhu.

In any case, whose "hell" should I hedge my bets against? The Muslims'? The Mormons'? The Baptists'? The Catholics'?

Cthulhu. Mmm. Don't know him. Enlighten us. What requirements does Cthulhu have for a worse fate than hell, and what is Cthulhu's requirements for peace?

As far as Baptists and Catholics are concerned, Hell is the same. Mormons have different levels of heaven, and as far as the worst fate of Hell in mormonism, it is reserved for those Mormons that have left the faith. Not sure about the eternal fate as taught by Islam. It could be that they do not have a Hell, but like the athiests, people's souls just cease to exist. You would have to educate me more on that one. Ceasing to exist is not as bad as continuing to exist in a state of seperation from God, so pragmatically speaking, I still find Christianity, especially Catholicism, to be more safer. Besides, when comparing the religious idea of eternal ****ation, it should be compariable to the efforts by the same God to prevent it. In this case, Christ's crucifixion is accessible to all.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

As far as Baptists and Catholics are concerned, Hell is the same...

It is of no matter. When someone is seeking "truth", love nevertheless ministers and prevails.

I've seen it countless times; in the face of others-oriented love, religion is WEAK or often meaningless (by comparison).

No, it is not just about love, but love is the GREATEST thing (for me the foundation of any religion I pursue at all). When I lost "faith" in 'religion'... I reached out with hands from my heart, to find something that had meaning that I could connect to. And I'm not ashamed to tell anyone, that it was NOT "Christianity" (the 'religion'), but what I grasped more than ever at that point, was Jesus Christ, the essence of the love which I speak of and endeavor to live by accordingly.

THE most disconcerting thing I face daily, are religious people who by 'force' or social influence of their 'beliefs', think they MUST impose their beliefs in some way(s) upon other human beings. I so often wonder what would happen, if those many hundreds of thousands or millions of people would simply MEET A NEED in another person's life/heart... and then kept that up for a lifetime (within reason and to the best of their ability)... I am almost certain that life for many or most on (even this planet) earth, would improve.

But instead, what is truly "good", has to SLOG its way through the religion which so very often impedes it. I think that Jesus was trying to say that, with His very LIFE. And it was via LOVE, that we even have the opportunity to find religion... and mess that up in His name. Nevertheless, I personally, socially, morally and spiritually have found love to be the most REAL and POWERFUL thing in my life and the live of those I've been graced to touch.

Peace, grace and love to you all, in Christ.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

As far as Baptists and Catholics are concerned, Hell is the same.

Perhaps. But how to avoid it may be completely different.

Mormons have different levels of heaven, and as far as the worst fate of Hell in mormonism, it is reserved for those Mormons that have left the faith.

Again, the point is not so much what that version of hell is like, but what are the requirements for avoiding that version of hell.

Not sure about the eternal fate as taught by Islam. It could be that they do not have a Hell, but like the athiests, people's souls just cease to exist. You would have to educate me more on that one.

My understanding is that there is a postmortem state of torment for the wicked, just as in some Christianities. But I could be wrong. Again, though, the point is what must be done to avoid a negative state and gain a positive one. With so many mutually conflicting versions, choosing one based on the desirability of the positive outcome, or the un-desirability of the negative, is dishonest.

Ceasing to exist is not as bad as continuing to exist in a state of seperation from God, so pragmatically speaking, I still find Christianity, especially Catholicism, to be more safer.

It's not safer unless it's true. Pascal's wager falls infinitely flat. Manipulation via fear is not at what I see when I look at Jesus or his earliest followers.

Besides, when comparing the religious idea of eternal ****ation, it should be compariable to the efforts by the same God to prevent it. In this case, Christ's crucifixion is accessible to all.

Why would it take so much "efforts" for an all-powerful creator and sustainer of life and all existence to prevent eternal torture at his own hands?

If it were just a matter of what conception of deity I like better, I certainly wouldn't choose one that could conceive of unending torture for those [he] doesn't like.

Cthulhu. Mmm. Don't know him. Enlighten us. What requirements does Cthulhu have for a worse fate than hell, and what is Cthulhu's requirements for peace?

Cthulhu is a fictional cosmic en***y created by horror author H. P. Lovecraft in 1926, first appearing in the short story "The Call of Cthulhu" when it was published in Weird Tales in 1928.


Cthulhu is one of the central Great Old Ones of the Lovecraft Mythos. It is often cited for the extreme descriptions given of its hideous appearance, its gargantuan size, and the abject terror that it evokes.

--

Cthulhu is depicted as having a worldwide doomsday cult centered in Arabia, with followers in regions as far-flung as Greenland and Louisiana. (...)The cult is noted for chanting its horrid phrase or ritual: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn," which translates as "In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."

I've never read Lovecraft - have only read a bit about him and Cthulhu, but my impression is that he's an utterly malevolent being who, when he "wakes", will wreak utter havoc on the planet. Those "fortunate" ones, the ones who are part of the cult, have the honor of being killed first, to avoid the fate infinitely worse than death. As for requirements for peace, there is no peace. Only doom, destruction, despair...

--

Of course it's all just a bit of fun. It just goes to show, though, the absurdity of claiming that the horrors described for non-prac***ioners nor the blessings for followers are somehow arguments in favor of following a religious schema.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

Perhaps. But how to avoid it may be completely different.

Of course it's all just a bit of fun. It just goes to show, though, the absurdity of claiming that the horrors described for non-prac***ioners nor the blessings for followers are somehow arguments in favor of following a religious schema.

Well, Cthulhu is not a very well defined religion at this stage. So as far as pragmatic is concerned, I'd dismiss it for lack of a genuine religious development.

As far as other doctrinal stances of Hell, like the Mormon one, it is better not to become Mormon to avoid their version of Hell. Hence, I gamble no real loss if I do accept their premise.

I am beginning to read St. Bonaventura's "The Mind's Road to God." The introduction talks about three hierarchies of the Neo-Platonism consisting of "logical cl***es," "values," and "reality." In general, this philosophy I think serves a better purpose in our discussion. The reason I am beginning to discuss this here is that the idea of three fusions of heirarchies demonstrates the cl***ification of a being to be greater when it reaches the more ideal or general cl***ification I think can be applied to Pascal's Wager in a modified sense.

Pascal states, "Unity added to infinity does not increase it at all, any more than a foot added to an infinite measurement: The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite and becomes pure nothingness. So it is with our mind before God, with our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and God's as between unity and infinity."

Now, in looking through the nonrational observations of the Franciscan Bonaventura, I would state that in our "god-shopping" that it is best to consider both the gamble of the wager in light of that particular god's revealed plan. This type of natural theology is easily accessible to the simple man as much as to the most learned scholar. If it is too complicated for even the simple, than its only real worth is for the elite and does not retain its usefulness. So I think in consideration that it is best not to discuss the particulars of any one cult within the larger cl***ifications. Islam has enough general characteristics within itself that we have no need to distinguish Sunni from Shia; or in Christianity from all the various Protestant sects in its "mere" or "base" form. So Hell and Heaven in Christianity is the same in for both Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. Mormonism is a relatively new religion on the scene of events and its impact in the last 150 years, while impressive to some degree, is not a major religion from which I would consider necessary for the wager that Pascal is talking about.

[GiGi]

Bottom line; choose the god-myth that promises the best reward and/or the worst punishment.
So far I've seen no evidence that any of them actually exist.
If a person requires a threat (hell) to behave well, if he believes he is 'nothing' unless he identifies with one god or another, if his best argument for his faith is 'what-if'; its time to step back and re-evaluate. Surely you can see that.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Bottom line; choose the god-myth that promises the best reward and/or the worst punishment.
So far I've seen no evidence that any of them actually exist.
If a person requires a threat (hell) to behave well, if he believes he is 'nothing' unless he identifies with one god or another, if his best argument for his faith is 'what-if'; its time to step back and re-evaluate. Surely you can see that.

The point of the wager is not to establish its existence, only a matter of looking at the problem from a practical standpoint. He even says so...

"Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your p***ions."

You have stated

personal responsibility, human kindness, long term consequences in the real world, without personal, post-mortem reward or punishment

There is no real justice in the real world, only the might makes right concept of social darwinism, with occasionally sprinkling philanthropy while still attempting to monopolize gain, station, or other p***ions. Carnagie might have been a philanthropist, but he was still a person who owned and operated a monopoly. St. Francis of ***isi, Mother Teresa, and other such people are much more noble, and much more closer to everyday people. At any rate, the moral athiest's ideals of personal responsibility, human kindness, or long-term consequences may be socially in-tune with the world religions that espouse the same thing, but it cannot change the real world in bringing about justice. As such, it is only a temporary ideal in the life of that individual athiest, he benefits nothing from it from the grave. All his work is lost and eventually forgotten. And when our race becomes exstinct from a dying world, everyone's contributions would be utterly meaningless. The awe of life suggests to my mind, not in a rational way, but a nonrational one, of a divine imprint. When I reduce my p***ions as Pascal says, and follow the mind's road to God by natural theology of St. Bonaventura, it leads to a fuller purposefulness. If you don't accept it, it is not my skin on line. I've placed my wager already.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The point of the wager is not to establish its existence, only a matter of looking at the problem from a practical standpoint. He even says so...

"Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your p***ions."

You have stated

There is no real justice in the real world, only the might makes right concept of social darwinism, with occasionally sprinkling philanthropy while still attempting to monopolize gain, station, or other p***ions. Carnagie might have been a philanthropist, but he was still a person who owned and operated a monopoly. St. Francis of ***isi, Mother Teresa, and other such people are much more noble, and much more closer to everyday people. At any rate, the moral athiest's ideals of personal responsibility, human kindness, or long-term consequences may be socially in-tune with the world religions that espouse the same thing, but it cannot change the real world in bringing about justice. As such, it is only a temporary ideal in the life of that individual athiest, he benefits nothing from it from the grave. All his work is lost and eventually forgotten. And when our race becomes exstinct from a dying world, everyone's contributions would be utterly meaningless. The awe of life suggests to my mind, not in a rational way, but a nonrational one, of a divine imprint. When I reduce my p***ions as Pascal says, and follow the mind's road to God by natural theology of St. Bonaventura, it leads to a fuller purposefulness. If you don't accept it, it is not my skin on line. I've placed my wager already.

Clearly Pascal doesn't attempt to prove god. The 'problem' it addresses is, as I said before, god shopping. Its a foolish occupation, and a foolish wager.

I've noticed a common thread among believers. They tend to have a very shallow and negative view of humanity.
In my lifetime (54 years and counting), I've seen the first man on the moon, enormous progress toward racial equality, advances in technology: communication, medicine; the list goes on!
I don't over or under value my potential for good (or ill). I know I'm one person, here for a little while, and then gone. I don't understand why religious people can't accept that fact. If anything, that knowledge motivates me to do my part, small as it may be, while I'm here. If I do the right thing, its because I believe its right, and not because I expect reward or fear punishment.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Clearly Pascal doesn't attempt to prove god. The 'problem' it addresses is, as I said before, god shopping. Its a foolish occupation, and a foolish wager.

I've noticed a common thread among believers. They tend to have a very shallow and negative view of humanity.
In my lifetime (54 years and counting), I've seen the first man on the moon, enormous progress toward racial equality, advances in technology: communication, medicine; the list goes on!
I don't over or under value my potential for good (or ill). I know I'm one person, here for a little while, and then gone. I don't understand why religious people can't accept that fact. If anything, that knowledge motivates me to do my part, small as it may be, while I'm here. If I do the right thing, its because I believe its right, and not because I expect reward or fear punishment.

Whether you consider it foolish or not, your gamble is to not participate in god shopping and in not-participating you gamble still. If you feel content in that, you feel content in it. I cannot say you do not. Your wager is what it is.

Yet you lack awe.

[Austin Canes]

If one is to be reached by the message of Jesus, it will take more than 'intellect'.

The heart is touched/affected primarily through love. In the case of many who wish to communicate the very message of Christ, love is the component they 'lack', and the affect they seek or expect is fleeting.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Austin Canes

If one is to be reached by the message of Jesus, it will take more than 'intellect'.

The heart is touched/affected primarily through love. In the case of many who wish to communicate the very message of Christ, love is the component they 'lack', and the affect they seek or expect is fleeting.

Love without hope, love with faith, love without awe, love without truth, love without a lot of things is not really love. I'll hold to 1 Cor. 13. I am not sure what message of Christ you espouse, but I prefer to ignore the sappiness of the mediocre. I do not doubt that you love, but I certainly cannot distinguish your parameters. Storge, philo, eros, agape. Is yours really agape, or is it a perversion of philo?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Love without hope, love with faith, love without awe, love without truth, love without a lot of things is not really love. I'll hold to 1 Cor. 13. I am not sure what message of Christ you espouse, but I prefer to ignore the sappiness of the mediocre. I do not doubt that you love, but I certainly cannot distinguish your parameters. Storge, philo, eros, agape. Is yours really agape, or is it a perversion of philo?

You have it backwards...Those things without love gain you nothing, not love without those things, as you wrote...


1 Corinthians 13
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Love without hope, love with faith, love without awe, love without truth, love without a lot of things is not really love. I'll hold to 1 Cor. 13. I am not sure what message of Christ you espouse, but I prefer to ignore the sappiness of the mediocre. I do not doubt that you love, but I certainly cannot distinguish your parameters. Storge, philo, eros, agape. Is yours really agape, or is it a perversion of philo?

Awediot has it correct; and yes, I'm talking about 'agape' (primarily).

And yes, you have reason to doubt me, but that is why I would point to Christ in ANY case; I'm not THE perfect example of love that Jesus surely was/is.

I'm so close to putting 'religion' behind me, the essence of Jesus is all that I can see, and make real sense of. Indeed, that was painful... it wasn't something I 'sought', it is mainly something that came about... where I believe I was led.

And sure, there are many definitions of "love", but I know that the love which Jesus showed as an living-example, is so much more worth emulating than mere 'religion'. Even so, I respect that we are not ALL in the same place, nor are we the same person; we are individual human beings. Grace is required from one to the other, and I'm motivated to afford others that grace, because I've received it abundantly from Jesus Christ.

I cannot and would not say that God condones sin, but I know that we need to be about the qualities/character of the Spirit of God (Gal. 5). And humbly I contend, that much too often religion is inserted by many as a replacement or subs***ute for the effect of Jesus on The Cross; it has imprisoned and injured MANY people throughout history and is doing so in and about the Church even today.

Many want to come to Christ, but the rightly 'feel' that those who are religious have prohibited them from doing so. Still, I know for a fact, that NO HUMAN can keep one from the mercy, grace and love of God. Many will not meet sinners where/as they are, but Jesus surely can/will. That is the difference between many followers or the religious, and Christ Himself; and I always hope and pray that many realize it in their lifetime.

Yes, I'm talking about a love that religion cannot and never has matched.

[Columcille]

Now apply that to ****sexual "love." How does it mimic the creator's intent? The other loves in their proper natural state are images of the divine "agape" love, but they are not "agape." They can and have been perverted.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Whether you consider it foolish or not, your gamble is to not participate in god shopping and in not-participating you gamble still. If you feel content in that, you feel content in it. I cannot say you do not. Your wager is what it is.

Yet you lack awe.

If I am to believe in, worship, dedicate my life to, make sacrifices for, love, or fear someone, or something, I must know that it exists. God is not a philosophy, according to believers, but an en***y.
I am not from Missouri, but show me, anyway.

[Columcille]

GiGi, if you are postmodern, I cannot show you through Thomism. It is better for you to contemplate through St. Francis of ***isi. Awe is something that is not rationally expounded, it is lived.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

GiGi, if you are postmodern, I cannot show you through Thomism. It is better for you to contemplate through St. Francis of ***isi. Awe is something that is not rationally expounded, it is lived.

Rest ***ured, I will be appropriately awed when I see the evidence.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Rest ***ured, I will be appropriately awed when I see the evidence.

You certainly will, if you were to desire cleaning the mirror of your soul. But if want to be awed at the afterlife, it might not be a very desirable outcome. But like I said, its your gamble, not mine.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

You certainly will, if you were to desire cleaning the mirror of your soul. But if want to be awed at the afterlife, it might not be a very desirable outcome. But like I said, its your gamble, not mine.

This gamble you refer to is not a gamble at all, but it is a game.
You are quick to compare your religion with others, and you find that you prefer christianity. While you carefully examine the various afterlife scenerios, you never once ask yourself if any are, in fact, true. To do so would require that you expose christian mythology to the same scrutiny.
In a previous post, you liken christian denominations to clubs that only want to expand their membership. I will extend that statement to include all religions. Their methods may vary, and some are more exclusive than others, but they are basically the same.
The reality of god is not debated by christians, even amongst themselves. That is a question that would lead to reduced membership. So they point to the bible, Pascal, and other philosophers, popes, and bishops, ministers, preachers and the like, as evidence that the religion they were born into, or chose for themselves is the right one, even though none of the claims have been substantiated.
If your god is real, and if your bible is factual, these can surely be proven.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

You certainly will, if you were to desire cleaning the mirror of your soul. But if want to be awed at the afterlife, it might not be a very desirable outcome. But like I said, its your gamble, not mine.

One more thing. If real evidence were presented, I'd worship god. I'd do it without any expectation of reward or fear of punishment. Pascal can kiss my foot!

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Rest ***ured, I will be appropriately awed when I see the evidence.

Can't rep this (yet).

[asdf]

Originally Posted by asdf

Nah, the stakes are highest with Cthulhu.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by asdf

Nor this.

Must find other intelligent people to give rep points to.

TRiG.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by TRiG

Nor this.

Must find other intelligent people to give rep points to.

TRiG.

I haven't figured out how that works either.

[alanmolstad]

my parents saw this in the Anglican church first-hand.
The leadership of the church said that in order to increase membership many old fashion ideas would be updated...one of these ideas was to allow gays to be fully members of the church.

it did not happen all at once, but that was the plan from the beginning....

"You bring in gays, you allow gays to be fully part of the church, and the membership of the church goes up"


So now in many Anglican churches you can be openly gay and be in leadership.





and the result?.....the church is dieing....membership is dropping like a stone.....

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Everyone theorizes that if the orthodox churches would change that it would increase their membership, yet has it changed your mind to come into their fold?

No. The only thing that would change my mind would be evidence, any evidence, that god exists.