Begging for response.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

If I were you, I wouldn't whine about any mistreatment of the Vatican in Rome in 1870. Someone might come along and ask you what catholicism was up to in Ireland that same decade.
.

I think Michael Collins and the IRA was a little later than the 1870s. But as far as Ireland is concerned, you should read up on Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." Ireland may be Catholic, but the underlying issue is a human one. Ireland and Britian have been at odds for a long period of time, and not just because of their religious differences. Otherwise you will have to expound more of what happened in 1870s. As far as I am concerned, the UK should give up Northern Ireland back to Ireland and find a way to reconcile the landowners and citizens. In fact, annexing Northern Ireland might have to pattern Hong Kong's reentry into China.

Oh, and ps. Catholicism is the teaching of the Church, not its political acts. Catholicism has taught a lot of good things, even under bad circumstances. In fact, IRA members of the Sinn Fein terrorists at odds with the Church, and the Pope for that matter. They are as rougue Catholic believers as Nanci Pelosi, John Kerry, and the recently deceased Ted Kennedy--because of their open support of abortion, they are at odds with Catholicism. You cannot lay blame to the Church for the laity's not listening to their priests and Church leaders.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I think Michael Collins and the IRA was a little later than the 1870s. But as far as Ireland is concerned, you should read up on Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." Ireland may be Catholic, but the underlying issue is a human one. Ireland and Britian have been at odds for a long period of time, and not just because of their religious differences. Otherwise you will have to expound more of what happened in 1870s. As far as I am concerned, the UK should give up Northern Ireland back to Ireland and find a way to reconcile the landowners and citizens. In fact, annexing Northern Ireland might have to pattern Hong Kong's reentry into China.

Oh, and ps. Catholicism is the teaching of the Church, not its political acts. Catholicism has taught a lot of good things, even under bad circumstances. In fact, IRA members of the Sinn Fein terrorists at odds with the Church, and the Pope for that matter. They are as rougue Catholic believers as Nanci Pelosi, John Kerry, and the recently deceased Ted Kennedy--because of their open support of abortion, they are at odds with Catholicism. You cannot lay blame to the Church for the laity's not listening to their priests and Church leaders.

Like I said, I'm just about done in.
Oh, and p.s. Catholicism should clean its own house. The atrocities I refered to are the innumerable abuses of children in reform schools and orphanges before, during, and after the 1870s. Its a little too convenient to say, 'but they aren't REAL catholics'. In fact, I often see people struggle to define their faith. Every denomination makes the same appology. There are as many definitions of christianity as there are christians. One would think you guys could get it together in 2000+ years.

[Columcille]

GiGi, you would have to annihilate the whole human race to prevent evil from reoccuring. The doctrinal stance of the Church recognizes the sinfulness of the human race, as such, even priests and Popes are subject to temptations and even gross error. And the Pope even goes to confession. If you want to lay the Church to blame for such bad things, you would also have to consistently apply it to every type of government. Marxism of Stalin, Fredrich Neitzche's philosophy in Hitler, and on and on. I am sure Karl Marx did not envision Stalin, or Nitzche envision Hitler, but you seem to be doing this very thing when it comes to the Church.

Just wanted to add, the Catholic Church has its own court system based on the Ancient Roman court system. It is different from English law from which the American system patterns. I am told the Catholic Court system is a little backwards from the English court system of which the American system is based. Perhaps Trinity can expound more on this, but if anyone was married before, and seeking to remarry in the Catholic Church, the process of annulment goes through canon lawyers. It is only binding within the Church, meaning it has no jurisdiction in telling the civilian courts that they should grant annulments rather than divorces. However, it is possible, so I believe, that the findings or research of which the canon lawyers use could be admissible evidence in the civilian courts and vice versa. I think the system in the Church is more methodical and is mainly interested gather as much facts before it deliberates. So what you may be thinking in regards to inactivity of the Church on the basis of the English/American court systems, is simply not true. The canon lawyers are probably also examining the same evidences that the civilian court system uses. Personally, because the systems are different, I think it an unfair ***essment to prejudge the Church's disciplinary action of its members while the accused is still presummed innocent in the American/English court of law. And as far as what happened in the 1870, I have no clue to what you are talking about. And to tell the truth, I am more concerned with what the Church actually teaches than bad Catholics doing bad things, you can go endlessly on evil acts by every religious follower and end up nowhere.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

GiGi, you would have to annihilate the whole human race to prevent evil from reoccuring. The doctrinal stance of the Church recognizes the sinfulness of the human race, as such, even priests and Popes are subject to temptations and even gross error. And the Pope even goes to confession. If you want to lay the Church to blame for such bad things, you would also have to consistently apply it to every type of government. Marxism of Stalin, Fredrich Neitzche's philosophy in Hitler, and on and on. I am sure Karl Marx did not envision Stalin, or Nitzche envision Hitler, but you seem to be doing this very thing when it comes to the Church.

Just wanted to add, the Catholic Church has its own court system based on the Ancient Roman court system. It is different from English law from which the American system patterns. I am told the Catholic Court system is a little backwards from the English court system of which the American system is based. Perhaps Trinity can expound more on this, but if anyone was married before, and seeking to remarry in the Catholic Church, the process of annulment goes through canon lawyers. It is only binding within the Church, meaning it has no jurisdiction in telling the civilian courts that they should grant annulments rather than divorces. However, it is possible, so I believe, that the findings or research of which the canon lawyers use could be admissible evidence in the civilian courts and vice versa. I think the system in the Church is more methodical and is mainly interested gather as much facts before it deliberates. So what you may be thinking in regards to inactivity of the Church on the basis of the English/American court systems, is simply not true. The canon lawyers are probably also examining the same evidences that the civilian court system uses. Personally, because the systems are different, I think it an unfair ***essment to prejudge the Church's disciplinary action of its members while the accused is still presummed innocent in the American/English court of law. And as far as what happened in the 1870, I have no clue to what you are talking about. And to tell the truth, I am more concerned with what the Church actually teaches than bad Catholics doing bad things, you can go endlessly on evil acts by every religious follower and end up nowhere.

Did I blame the church, or anyone else for evil? The fact is 'evil' is just another religious term I try to avoid. I stated, as simply as possible, that the church should clean its own house. Beyond that, I've not criticized the church much at all.
It is supers***ion that I find most bewildering.
To think, in the 21st century, there are still a very large number of people who believe that an unknowable deity, that reads minds and intentions, waits in some other dimension of reality to judge every individual human being that has ever lived, or will ever be born, is just absurd.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Did I blame the church, or anyone else for evil? The fact is 'evil' is just another religious term I try to avoid. I stated, as simply as possible, that the church should clean its own house. Beyond that, I've not criticized the church much at all.
It is supers***ion that I find most bewildering.
To think, in the 21st century, there are still a very large number of people who believe that an unknowable deity, that reads minds and intentions, waits in some other dimension of reality to judge every individual human being that has ever lived, or will ever be born, is just absurd.

Fine by me. I have no problem being Christ's fool. I think Blaise Pascal's wager in his letters (Pensees) is the most pragmatic solution. You think something supers***utious makes it unworthy for consideration, but your a finite mind like the rest of us and I see no place to put your judgement above anyone elses. With the exception that there does seem to be a consistent judgement by a collective body with the same experiences with the divine, so much so that they were killed for their convictions at the hands of the pagan Roman empire. Most people would just buckle in fear of the threat of death and recant their supers***ion in favor of the pagan authority's view. Really, I do not see much good of your position to denounce religion, when it produces people like St. Theresa to help the poor in Calcutta, or missionaries that in face of certain death attempt to help others that the governments would not lift a finger. It is a matter of developing character.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Fine by me. I have no problem being Christ's fool. I think Blaise Pascal's wager in his letters (Pensees) is the most pragmatic solution. You think something supers***utious makes it unworthy for consideration, but your a finite mind like the rest of us and I see no place to put your judgement above anyone elses. With the exception that there does seem to be a consistent judgement by a collective body with the same experiences with the divine, so much so that they were killed for their convictions at the hands of the pagan Roman empire. Most people would just buckle in fear of the threat of death and recant their supers***ion in favor of the pagan authority's view. Really, I do not see much good of your position to denounce religion, when it produces people like St. Theresa to help the poor in Calcutta, or missionaries that in face of certain death attempt to help others that the governments would not lift a finger. It is a matter of developing character.

I'm sure you realize that Pascal's wager is an effective argument for other supers***ions, other religions. I once stirred a pot with a knife because it was close at hand. My mother-in-law screeched at me, 'Don't do that, its bad luck'. She never thought to question the truth of it. Why not believe its really bad luck? Nothing to lose, right?
Even if I accept Christianity because of Pascal's argument, would that be good enough for god?
There are good and bad products of religion. For every "saint" or "martyr" for the faith, I'll give you 10 victims OF the faith.

I'm willing to bet that you have not taken a moment to find any sacrifice or contribution by an atheist.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

I'm sure you realize that Pascal's wager is an effective argument for other supers***ions, other religions. I once stirred a pot with a knife because it was close at hand. My mother-in-law screeched at me, 'Don't do that, its bad luck'. She never thought to question the truth of it. Why not believe its really bad luck? Nothing to lose, right?
Even if I accept Christianity because of Pascal's argument, would that be good enough for god?
There are good and bad products of religion. For every "saint" or "martyr" for the faith, I'll give you 10 victims OF the faith.

I'm willing to bet that you have not taken a moment to find any sacrifice or contribution by an atheist.

I am not saying that they do not sacrifice or even contribute to our society. I am only saying that their contribution is eternally meaningless.

As far as Pascal's Wager, if you can pick up the "Pensees" by Penguin Cl***ics, its entry is numbered 418. Section 2, Series 2. Page 121-125. Translated by A.J. Krailsheimer. My edition was printed in 1995.

You can find it online in another translation http://www.cl***icallibrary.org/pasc.../pensees03.htm
under #233.

Now, if you can apply it to other religions, that is fine and dandy. However, the stakes are highest in Pascal, for an eternity of Hell is a lot more riskier than say a reincarnation. I cannot really imagine any other supers***ion that would supercede the idea of Hell. As a matter of practibility, I would rather accept the God of Pascal to prevent an eternity of Hell over rejecting Buddha or other religions whose ideas of the afterlife are of a lesser punishment and of which lacks decernment on just how Karma or final justice is obtained. If there is a worse punishment explained by another religion, I would like to hear about it.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I am not saying that they do not sacrifice or even contribute to our society. I am only saying that their contribution is eternally meaningless.

As far as Pascal's Wager, if you can pick up the "Pensees" by Penguin Cl***ics, its entry is numbered 418. Section 2, Series 2. Page 121-125. Translated by A.J. Krailsheimer. My edition was printed in 1995.

You can find it online in another translation http://www.cl***icallibrary.org/pasc.../pensees03.htm
under #233.

Now, if you can apply it to other religions, that is fine and dandy. However, the stakes are highest in Pascal, for an eternity of Hell is a lot more riskier than say a reincarnation. I cannot really imagine any other supers***ion that would supercede the idea of Hell. As a matter of practibility, I would rather accept the God of Pascal to prevent an eternity of Hell over rejecting Buddha or other religions whose ideas of the afterlife are of a lesser punishment and of which lacks decernment on just how Karma or final justice is obtained. If there is a worse punishment explained by another religion, I would like to hear about it.

Now you're being silly. The contributions of any man to society is eternally meaningless for the christian.

Your explanation of Pascal's wager encourages god-shopping. You argue that I should pick your god because the myth includes the threat of hell-fire.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Now you're being silly. The contributions of any man to society is eternally meaningless for the christian.

Your explanation of Pascal's wager encourages god-shopping. You argue that I should pick your god because the myth includes the threat of hell-fire.

Sure, go god shopping by all means.

No, I am not being silly. There is no soul for the athiest, nor is there divine retribution or justice. A man who is abusive to slaves and lives to be 110 years and dies in peace is no different than a child who dies by accident at age 10. All contributions to human society are lost when the person dies, and we know eventually that the sun will burn out and the human race will eventually die off, maybe not in a billion years, maybe in only a few decades if you believe in global warming. It matters not how much time you place on it, the living reality of an athiest is only in the present. Any contributions he makes is temporal and not of eternal consequence.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Sure, go god shopping by all means.

No, I am not being silly. There is no soul for the athiest, nor is there divine retribution or justice. A man who is abusive to slaves and lives to be 110 years and dies in peace is no different than a child who dies by accident at age 10. All contributions to human society are lost when the person dies, and we know eventually that the sun will burn out and the human race will eventually die off, maybe not in a billion years, maybe in only a few decades if you believe in global warming. It matters not how much time you place on it, the living reality of an athiest is only in the present. Any contributions he makes is temporal and not of eternal consequence.

No thanks. God-shopping is for people that are able to choose a religious belief. That is something I can't do, anymore than I can choose to believe that a black cat is bad luck, or that the 'evil-eye' can hurt me.
There is no soul for the atheist, or the theist. There is no divine retribution. What happens here stays here.
Every action has long reaching consequences. That defiant child that you are kind to today, may become tomorrows peacemaker as a result of your kindness. The drunk driver that takes the life of the 10 year old you mentioned may have delayed the discovery of a cure for AIDS by robbing us of the life of a man who would make that contribution. Perhaps the planet will explode, or drift away from the sun. In the meantime, we would do well to remember that our actions, our words, every breath we take will have a lasting effect.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by GiGi

No thanks. God-shopping is for people that are able to choose a religious belief. That is something I can't do, anymore than I can choose to believe that a black cat is bad luck, or that the 'evil-eye' can hurt me.
There is no soul for the atheist, or the theist. There is no divine retribution. What happens here stays here.
Every action has long reaching consequences. That defiant child that you are kind to today, may become tomorrows peacemaker as a result of your kindness. The drunk driver that takes the life of the 10 year old you mentioned may have delayed the discovery of a cure for AIDS by robbing us of the life of a man who would make that contribution. Perhaps the planet will explode, or drift away from the sun. In the meantime, we would do well to remember that our actions, our words, every breath we take will have a lasting effect.

LOL. Bet you don't see within your comments the contradictions.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

LOL. Bet you don't see within your comments the contradictions.

We SHOULD see something less than 'perfect' consistency in ANY human being (surely including ourselves). Why? Because we ARE HUMAN.

If I went back ANYWHERE and decided that I was here to find some inconsistency/conflict in what you've said or said you believed... I most likely could do it.

And not that you would not "defend" what you believe (as well as others), but that the value (in my belief/opinion) is found in how we handle others, where we see what is human.

You see, we only touch-upon or glance off of 'perfection' (outside of Christ's grace and mercy); we are SURELY NOT the source of any particular perfect thing(s), we are merely a conduit for such perfection. Love is the most perfect component of Christ's love... which we are capable of transmitting or conveying; but it is the most powerful eternal gift we've been afforded (despite religion itself). It's not always easy and it is not merely a feeling; living with it as a 'purpose' proves that to you, as well as motivates you in the same.

The problem with many and how they promote their beliefs, is that they believe and or think religious rules/law are "love". No, love is a VERB not sets of beliefs or words which we place beside 'religion', like some people place items on a shelf (often to collect dust and ultimately become meaningless.

Love is ALIVE and does not exist on a page in a book; and that is why actions speak consistently louder than mere words. You see, a lot of Christians (throughout time) have measure themselves and others using 'religion' (rules, regulations, words)... when all the while (in reality), God and other people have measure their actions and the "effects" of the words they use. That is how the world is affected and actualized overall.

The Bible and other religious books/writings are awesome; but in the hands/mind of various "humans"... they can either be very good or incredibly terrible. For many who are about 'religion'... "LOVE" (1Corintinans 13) certainly is lacking or missing altogether; and I for one, am not drawn to anything like that (it is so often fear, abuse and hatred just waiting to be unleashed).

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Columcille

LOL. Bet you don't see within your comments the contradictions.

If you've seen contradictions, I'm sure you would have pointed them out.
I spoke of personal responsibility, human kindness, long term consequences in the real world, without personal, post-mortem reward or punishment.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Now, if you can apply it to other religions, that is fine and dandy. However, the stakes are highest in Pascal, for an eternity of Hell is a lot more riskier than say a reincarnation.

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'?

O Lord!
If I worship You from fear of Hell, cast me into Hell
If I worship You from desire for Paradise, deny me Paradise
but if I worship You for Your own sake,
then withhold not from me Your Eternal Beauty
-Rabi'a al-Basri

[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.