Pascal's Wager

[politas]

Yes they did and still do.

A good starting point to gain a better understanding of what has been (and still is) the dominate form of Christianity is to start reading up on the First Council of Nicaea^WP.

I think the Catholic Church, in the form of the Catechism I posted a link to and quoted earlier, is a much better source for what the RCC claims than Wikipedia.

THe CCC quite clearly claims that scripture and "Sacred Tradition" are the "Revealed Word of God". "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God". Neither trumps the other, they work as a unity.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

(bolding mine)

The RCC claim that scripture is inerrant. This is indisputable. It says so, right there, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(edited for spelling)

 

[Darat]

I think the Catholic Church, in the form of the Catechism I posted a link to and quoted earlier, is a much better source for what the RCC claims than Wikipedia.

I was pointing you to that link since it demonstrates that historically it is the Church that has determined what Christianity is and quite often that is not done with reference to scripture but to the doctrines the Church wishes to have as the foundation of the Church.

THe CCC quite clearly claims that scripture and "Sacred Tradition" are the "Revealed Word of God". "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God". Neither trumps the other, they work as a unity.

Which is not what you originally was saying - originally your point was that the Bible is the authority for Christians, you are now agreeing that it it isn't.

(bolding mine)

The RCC claim that scripture is inerrant. This is indisputable. It says so, right there, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(edited for spelling)

Yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church can't be found in the Bible, yet without agreeing to that Catechism you are not a "true" Christian (according to the Roman Catholic Church). Just believing in the Bible according to the Roman Catholics is not enough, the way to God can only be found through the Roman Catholic Church - again you will not find that anywhere in the Bible.

 

[politas]

I was pointing you to that link since it demonstrates that historically it is the Church that has determined what Christianity is and quite often that is not done with reference to scripture but to the doctrines the Church wishes to have as the foundation of the Church.

Yes, but what has factually happened has little relevence to their justification and claims to authority, and that is what my argument is based on.

Which is not what you originally was saying - originally your point was that the Bible is the authority for Christians, you are now agreeing that it it isn't.

Yes, I am, because I have discovered I was mistaken. (Isn't that the point of having these discussions?) The conclusion of my original argument is the same, though. To Protestant churches, the Bible is the authority. To the Catholic church, the bible is an inerrant authority. In either case, ignoring parts of the bible in favour of the parts you like is, in my opinion, a form of hypocrisy.

Yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church can't be found in the Bible, yet without agreeing to that Catechism you are not a "true" Christian (according to the Roman Catholic Church). Just believing in the Bible according to the Roman Catholics is not enough, the way to God can only be found through the Roman Catholic Church - again you will not find that anywhere in the Bible.

No, but they still claim the bible as an inerrant authority, which means that you cannot ignore parts of it willy-nilly, and they claim that they do not. Rather, they interpret each part of the bible in relation to the entire bible, since they claim the bible to be a single united message from god.

I call that hypocrisy. I call their entire stance on an inerrant bible, "Sacred Tradition" and the authority of interpretion to be rank hypocrisy.

Other people can disagree. Clearly, they do.

 

[valis]

What a brilliant, reasoned, logical, compelling counter-argument.

But of course - trying to defend your position logically wouldn't make you feel good, so why would you even think about doing it?

I'll tell you what: we'll agree to disagree. And when that KKK wizard starts stomping on your face, I'll just walk away and forget about the whole thing, with my fingers in my ears so I can't hear your screams.

Because, after all, thinking about you being beaten up doesn't make me feel good. So why would I think about it?

I have demonstrated that your position is selfish to the point of immorality. Your response is to ignore any evidence or conclusion you don't like. Well, doh!

My response is to read your post and say this:

This person seems to have some serious anger towards religion, look at the imagery you use above; stomping of faces and fingers in ears to block my screams? There is something more than quiet reason going on there. In my opinion.

This person is able to equate all beliefe in religion with the beliefe that all African Americans should be enslaved by whites. Will me and this person ever be able to have a rational discussion or reach any common ground on this subject? I would guess not. We are starting from world views that are so opposed I think trying to discuss this would be hopeless.

This is not to say I am saying I am too good to talk to you or something. This just doesn't seem like the best subject.

 

[valis]

With all due respect, but to sum it up: you chose christianity because you're lazy?

I like what Christianity has to say. I understand the basics of most of the other major religions and don't see any compelling reason to pick one of them and there are the drawbacks mentioned above. I also feel that for starters three of the major religions, Islam, Christianity and Judiasm are at least in part different interpratations of the same thing. Further if I had to guess I would say that at some point there may be some universal truth behind everthing that is larger than any single religon in use today.

A crappy analogy: I root for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers but not Manchester United; even though they are both owned by the same person and even though soccer may have some wonderful attributes that I am too biased to notice.

 

[valis]

valis,
or are you truly content to just have it be something that IS and doesn't need to be rational?

I would agree with this sentance with a but. I cannot grasp the idea of the universe either. Something that has always been or something that once was not but now is. And then that leaves the question of how something can 'always ' exist or if it did not what could possibly existed before it or set it in motion. Similar of course to the old questions 'who created God' or 'can God create a burrito so spicy he himself cannot eat it?'. I understand the concepts of cosmology well enough for a layman, I think. But there are issues where I do no feel invoking God lowers the level of information or understanding.

I only ask that, because I remember going through a period myself, where I attempted to explain God's hand in the world by simply saying "science is uncovering the mechanism by which HE works". So evolution, physics etc. all fit into my christian worldview quite nicely, since those were the "mysterious ways" that God got things done.

I have no answer. If I had answers I would be on TV with Benny Hinn. Sometimes I agree witht the way you put it. Other times I think that the entire thing was a clockwork system that also contains elements of chance and free will. If I had to guess I woul wager that something I cannot comprehend set the universe in motion within certain perametars and then at key times interceeded in its develpment.

But I'm just guessing.

 

[macgyver]

valis,

We might be getting closer to the kernel of my difficulty in understanding your (seemingly) tenuous philosophical position.

We'd have to go into a whole host of reasons why human beings invent Gods and religions, but this isn't the place for that.

In summary, I think it stems from our survival instinct, and our strongest most basic emotion: fear.

Fear of the unknown, and death would be paramount. Religion "helps" by providing answers to some of these scary questions, and that's maybe where the "feel better" aspect of religion comes from.

In your case it appears you like religion, christianity in particular, in part because it provides a reason for things to be how they are, and comfort in knowing that there's some kind of order. Also, it provides for a "beginning and end". In short, it neatly ties up the loose ends, and provides at least some kind of answer to some unknowns. It also provides some hope that after death, there's continuity. I realize that I'm not going to be completely accurate in the details of your belief, but I'm just offering these as reasons one might maintain their faith.

In my case, I've realized that there's no need to have answers to everything. That concepts such as infinity, and paradoxical questions like "what was there before the beginning?" are uncomfortable at times, but nothing to be afraid of, or even "solved". I've found atheism to be comforting in it's freedom from boundaries, and in allowing the statement "I don't know" to hang there if and until the the knowledge is forthcoming. I take comfort in knowing that I'm not being "watched over" and that when I die, I'm dead. However, should evidence arise to the contrary, I'm also happy knowing that my worldview can change quickly and easily without disappointment.

In short, the same comforts that many people say religion provides are perhaps the same comforts I find in atheism - but for the opposite reasons?

 

[farmermike]

I also feel that for starters three of the major religions, Islam, Christianity and Judiasm are at least in part different interpratations of the same thing.

Could it be that all religions are different interpretations of the same human emotional condition?

Further if I had to guess I would say that at some point there may be some universal truth behind everthing that is larger than any single religon in use today.

Maybe you're buddhist.

[/QUOTE]

 

[valis]

valis,
've found atheism to be comforting in it's freedom from boundaries, and in allowing the statement "I don't know" to hang there if and until the the knowledge is forthcoming.

I say that all the time as well. I just add that since I don't know I will go ahead and belive what I want until I find some reason not to.

I take comfort in knowing that I'm not being "watched over" and that when I die, I'm dead. However, should evidence arise to the contrary, I'm also happy knowing that my worldview can change quickly and easily without

Well I suppose if life after death does turn out to be real you will have no choice but to change your worldview

 

[macgyver]

Well I suppose if life after death does turn out to be real you will have no choice but to change your worldview

Well that'd certainly be true....unless I'm reincarnated as a tree or something.

 

[Rustle]

Well I suppose if life after death does turn out to be real you will have no choice but to change your worldview

...and if you find yourself in the chinese hell of being cut to pieces, you, too, will have to change your worldview.

Did I just scare you into becoming a buddhist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Man I was so hoping to discuss pascal's wager, when I first saw this thread

 

[Meffy]

Pardon a slight digression... A nearby surplus (junk) store has a big stock of a Catholic catechism teaching game. I think they're $10 each. Anybody want one? =^_^=

I regret not having bought all the Superhero Cthulhu and Shoggoth plush toys this store had back when I first saw 'em... someone else bought them all before I could return with money.

 

[valis]

...and if you find yourself in the chinese hell of being cut to pieces, you, too, will have to change your worldview.

Did I just scare you into becoming a buddhist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Man I was so hoping to discuss pascal's wager, when I first saw this thread

No but then again the idea of hell is something I think about very rarely if at all; Chinese or otherwise.

Is that true though? I must admit my ignorance I did not realise there is a Buddhist hell. I will have to read up on that out of curiosity.

 

[macgyver]

I must admit my ignorance I did not realise there is a Buddhist hell. I will have to read up on that out of curiosity.

Dinner with Steven Seagal

 

[Rustle]

No but then again the idea of hell is something I think about very rarely if at all; Chinese or otherwise.

Is that true though? I must admit my ignorance I did not realise there is a Buddhist hell. I will have to read up on that out of curiosity.

Why search when you can wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism)

Buddhism is easily as filled with crap as christianity. When confronted with this, most western buddhists will say, "yeah but not my Buddhism!"

Hrmm what is that like... I guess I'd have to say, that's like Randi saying "there is a cost associated with believing in religion", and then you coming here and saying "yeah, but not my religion".

We need to start talking about "Nominal Buddhists" and "Nominal Christians". As long as your religion has zero impact on anything you say or do, then you are right: Randi's statements do not apply to you.

 

[Rustle]

I'd also like to try to coin the term "Pascal's Double Loser", to refer to those that go to the trouble of believing, and yet do not sufficiently secure a passage to heaven in the event that god exists. An example would be someone that believes in god, but does not believe in jesus or does not accept jesus christ as their personal savior. That person is going to hell. http://robola.wordpress.com/2006/03/16/jerry-fallwell-jews-muslims-cant-go-to-heaven/ also, see John 3:16

Satan is clearly a P. Double Loser, in that he would clearly believe that god exists, and yet still has to go to hell for some reason. Pascal didn't include that category for some reason: inconvenienced by believing, AND still going to hell. Man, that sucks.

 

[Jackalgirl]

I regret not having bought all the Superhero Cthulhu and Shoggoth plush toys this store had back when I first saw 'em... someone else bought them all before I could return with money.

And pardon this further digression, but Meffy, the company that makes those plushies is called Toy Vault and you can find retailers on their website. They also have a Rigel plushie (from FarScape). Enjoy!

-- Kat

 

[StoatBringer]

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.

So you chose to believe that something exists, though you can never know if it exists or not? Why stop at God? Why not choose to believe in fairies, leprechauns and mermaids? I'm not trying to be a smartass, that's a serious question.

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in this case your opinion is simply wrong. Not believing in something can in no way be considered a religion.

To use your own reasoning, I assume you don't believe in unicorns? So, it follows that you are a member of the No-Unicorn religion, which is just as much a religion as Christianity or Scientology. In fact, all the things you don't believe in should be considered religions.

Again, not trying to be a smartass, just pointing out the huge flaws in your reasoning.

 

[macgyver]

Since I became involved in this thread, I started the Church of Bacontology. Everybody is free to join, but I'll tell you right now....it's expensive.

 

[valis]

Said some stuff as did another poster....

I think the answers to these quetsions, and much much more, can be found in the first five pages of this thread.