Wow! What do you have to do in this blink to get that?!
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” - Ephesians 2:8-9
There isn’t anything that you can do to get it. You simply accept the gift, secured for you at great cost.
Or what? . . .
Is this a different question than what was asked before? If so, would you clarify?
Are we drifting off of the original question about Pascal’s Wager? Is this a topic that we should bounce to its own thread?
I’m monist. There’s only ever one thing going on. Pascal was damnationist as are all else here, unless they say otherwise.
How many things had to be going on and beginning when to accomplish the >50 sigma lottery win? That God is omnitemporal in his providential sovereignty fits quite nicely, although it is not something that we can get our time-bound heads around.
There are a number who are annihilationist, and less supportably universalist when giving the Bible more credence, but per dictum, that needs to be discussed in PM.
The flaw in Pascal’s wager (modified or not) is the assumption that one can choose to believe something that one does not actually believe. IMO that is epistemologically impossible. In an actual wager I can bet on the Jacksonville Jaguars because of a favorable expected value, even if I don’t believe they can win. But with salvation I must (for the sake of argument) truly believe the gospel, not just claim to in order to avoid disaster if I’m wrong.
4 Likes
I like that–and–that would ordinarily make sense, but I’d be interested in your reaction to this. Religion seems to be, in large part, a mindset. The greatest extent of growth seems to come not from conversion, but from fertility. Children absorb what they’re taught–and also a community tends to follow its leaders, whether they’ve intellectually assented or not. There are always some outliers, but they seem to be a minority of independent thinkers, don’t they? So, with the mass conversions of Charlemagne and conversions and re-conversions of people groups (like in the back-and-forth of Asia Minor between the Muslims and Christians, and the reconquista of Spain), it seems that we make a conscious decision to place our faith in something, frequently. I’d be interested in what you think of that–I’m still wrapping my mind around our frailty in deciding what to believe or not believe. Thanks.
1 Like
Interesting point. But I’m inclined to think the choice of what one decides to place their trust in isn’t arbitrary. I doubt that reason plays the biggest part in what we come to believe deserves our faith. Reason and language can present us with a menu of options but then what clicks for an individual will only align with one or some of those. There is something that isn’t arrived at by reason which reads as hotter or colder with each possibility. Maybe?
2 Likes
I think that’s well put. I probably put it badly–I meant that, really–that the reasons for which we believe are not logical, and that our choice doesn’t follow ultimately logically and abstractly, but more from how we feel about something. So, I think my life can reflect a choice which doesn’t involve logic as much as (at least I) would like to say it does! Thanks.
2 Likes
I think a good bit of that faith might just be faith in the idiocy and corruption of the current people with guns to make my family’s life miserable (or nonexistent) if I don’t say the words they want to hear. So many around the world are just wanting to be left alone and so just keep their heads downa and “adopt” whatever the current powermongers are pushing. It isn’t just Afghanistan right now but many many countries around the world where instability seems to be the only “norm”. One militia comes through, and then later another to “liberate” the village from the prior one. The beleaguered father is forced to walk the tightrope of trying to convince the present tyrants that he was really opposed to the last ones. But attempt that tightrope he does! And so would most of us when our family’s existence depends on it. That may be the real faith that you see in play: a bid for survival. Covering it all with the veneer of “Christ” or “freedom” or “Muhammad” or whatever is just the chocolate coating to conceal the real medicine (or toxin) underneath.
4 Likes
Absolutely! And shame on me for not emphasizing that. Yet, it’s amazing how we all fall in with the leaders in that way–and many in a very sincere manner. If I were born in a country that had accepted a given religion by force, it’s entirely possible that I would have grown up very devout in that kind. The Children’s Crusade and Balkan Ottoman wars wound up with many European Christian children being sold into slavery, and presumably their descendants are now part of a devout group belonging to the religion of their adopted countries. The same is true of African Americans and American Indians, many of whom are Christian–indirectly by force in many cases. It kind of throws me back to remembering that maybe God doesn’t really care too much how we believe the nuances if this happens–or at least, that He looks at the heart. Thanks.
3 Likes
I cited this the other day (as Christians we should more than hope for, but profoundly desire and seek confident knowing, if we don’t have it):
Do you question or doubt who your earthly father is? Equal or better confidence of your Heavenly Father is achievable, and it’s not just braggadocio.
Several decades ago and after been a Christian for decades before that, when reading through Psalm 18:1, “I love you, O Lord, my strength”, for the umpteenth time, I finally recognized that I had never owned it and said it for myself. So my prayer immediately was, “Do I love you, Lord? Help me to love you.” It wasn’t too long before I could confidently say (and still do), “I love you, Lord, not well enough – help me to love you more!”
(Almost daily, I sing a slightly edited Christmas carol verse, “I love you, Lord Jesus, look down from on high, and stay by my cradle 'til morning is nigh.”)
It had never occurred to me before, but a little ago and after I had posted above, I realized (duh) that this is addressed to believers as much or more than others, and certainly and explicitly more than atheists and agnostics:
That is not unlike Revelation 3:20 that is typically pictured (literally à la Sallman, and figuratively of course) as being addressed to non-Christians, but it is actually being addressed to a church whose members are Christians or who may be only ‘mere professors’ and identifying as Christians:
If I understand your question, I think it is impossible to answer (scientifically) without completing the (equally impossible) task of separating cultural Christians from true, converted believers, as it were. In a country such as the US, how many who claim Christianity are cultural Christians only (and in some ways are taking the Pascal’s wager)?
2 Likes
Yes, that’s a good way of putting it–but it’s also interesting to observe how, for example, some will convert to a faith to marry someone else. How does one intellectually assent to the abstracts of salvation to join a significantly different faith, in order to be with someone else in matrimony? It reminds me of Rich Mullins’ song, “We are not as strong as we think we are”!
From personal experience: you can agree to “be” that religion, in my case christian, and engage in all the expected ecclesiastical behaviors, look the part, claim the part, desire what others seem to have–all of these–without truly believing, even though you may sincerely want to believe. *
- While doing all this for my bride’s sake one day in church, which I found interesting in an academic sense, I found myself in tears listening to the account of the repentant thief on the cross, and I realized that actual belief had snuck up on me and taken hold.
3 Likes
It would seem to have been a better outcome for you than faking it. Some things are worth waiting for. It sounds like you probably don’t go in for overstating the case for belief through tricky arguments or force of personality. It is Christians like you and others here who are reasonably modest in your claims that have given me new respect for Christianity.
1 Like
Why couldn’t you say that it is truly immoral not to drink 2 liters of water? If it were truly immoral not to drink 2L of waters per day, would you then agree that every rational person should try their best to drink 2L of water per day, and that anyone who would not do this, would be irrational?
If you have any specific examples or scenarios in mind, please let me know.
I think that rational arguments are our best hope our attempt to understand the world and what is rational/irrational behaviour. What are the alternatives to rational arguments? Irrational arguments? Emotional arguments?
If this is correct , if there is no way to choose or influence what to believe, then I think that this implies at least 3 things for the context of this discussion:
a) Christian God will send billions of people to hell because they did not truly believe the gospel which is something that they couldn’t control at all, since no one can choose to truly believe or not to believe in the gospel, they ‘did not deserve’ to be in hell since it wasn’t their choice to not believe in the orthodox Christian theology (you are basically denying that they have any free will when it comes to their eternal destiny)
b) If someone cannot choose or influence their beliefs, can we blame anybody for anything that they believe? From flat-earth to most disgusting social policies, can we truly ‘blame’ them for what they believe since they do not have any free will in that regard.
c) If there is no option to bet on Christianity, then this argument (if it works) works against Christianity. Take the following scenario:
- Atheism 98%
- Christianity 1.5%
- Islam 0.49%
- Other God theories 0.01%
If betting on Christianity does not generate any rewards or punishments, under this scenario, every rational non-Christian should bet on Islam, despite the fact that it is 3x more likely that Christianity is correct.