Also, I would like to chime in on Pascal’s Hoary Old Rational Choice Gambit. I think the choice between the eternal consequences Christianity claims and materialist claims of no eternal life at all is a bit of a false dichotomy. What about Nirvana? Reincarnation?

Reincarnation has been very difficult for me to deal with at times. What if the soul is eternal, but Christianity is still wrong? What if I am running in circles trying to teach myself that belief in a heaven, a hell, and a god with a personality are vain notions that inflate my sense of self-importance to the point that I cannot achieve true wisdom or true peace? We can make all kinds of claims about an immortal soul that aren’t Christian at all, and some seem just as rational as Christianity.

I’ve struggled mightily with my Christian beliefs for a long time. Indoctrination from preschool-age is tough to overcome. At some point I realized that I was doing myself too much emotional and spiritual damage by trying to rip it out by the roots. I decided that I’d gotten to the point where continuing to struggle with myself was a form of narcissism and was standing in the way of things I want to do with my life. So I decided to embrace my Christianity, try my best to do what Jesus says, take his promise of divine power seriously, and use that power to do the jobs he told his followers to do in the way that I believe he told us to do them. If all that sounds like a form of mysticism, well, it is.

Also, a word about those Christian bigots who figured so prominently in some parts of the discussion on this thread. The New Testament is full of warnings against false teachers and false prophets. That’s what these people are, in my opinion. I don’t think it’s a good idea to use them to indict the entire spectrum of Christian worldviews, which has also produced some positive teachings like the Social Gospel and the Liberation Theology.

I’ll be writing about some things like how I interpret the Bible and why theocracy is dangerous a bit in the near future. I’m blogging against theocracy on Easter weekend.

: )

Look at it from this perspective-

Satan didn’t have a choice. In order for man to be tested, it was inevitable that he would end up as mankinds adversary labled as the absolute ‘evil’. Now im not really certain on the christian version but in Islam, Angels do not have the capabity to disobey Lord allmighty. Djinn’s however, are given free will like man- Djinns, being creatures born from fire, angels born from Holy light and Mankind born from clay.

Satan, also called ‘Iblis’ was a very pious being who worshipped God with all his being once, though the creation of Adam created pride within him, which eventually led to his downfall. When god cast satan out of paradise, he requested respite till the last day so that he could turn the children of Adam away from the righteous path of a believer in God.

Fate is an important thing in religion, pre-ordainment. And since God created all life, God also created and shaped Iblis to be the way he is- This dosen’t mean Iblis didn’t have a choice but more saying that it was his nature that he expressed when pride swelled in him.

Alot of this has much to do with what one believes in, be satan once an angel or Djinn it probabbly ties down to that, But one has to ask, how can an Angel rebel against there lord? The purest of beings created for the single purpose of gloryfying there maker and doing his commands- I don’t think angels were ever given free will, but that’s just what my version of the belief. Judaism/Christiniaty/Islam are connected, afterall.

Edit: Forgive me for crashing in on the discussion in advance as i realise this was for christians alone, however i couldn’t help myself as i was looking for such a discussion. I hope you all don’t mind, cheers.

otherwise,man would not have the privilege of choice….

animals don’t have it….

mammals don’t have it….

1) Satan/Lucifer was an angel and a pretty high ranking one at that. Angels can witness the full glory of God and are supposed to be forever loyal to God. Lucifer/Satan committed the sin of Vanity and literally tried to overthrow God and take his place as the most high. He even convinced a third of the angels to join him, so I would imagine that physically trying to usurp God from his throne would classify as doing something that is unforgivable.

2) Heaven, the realm where God resides, HAS to be devoid of Sin and Lucifer/Satan committed another foul act other than his own vanity and that was allow Sin to enter in to Heaven. So, for God to continue to have Heaven remain pure and untainted by Sin he had to permanently remove Satan and his minions from the eternal reward.

This argument and discussion also brings up a rather strange point for me. Being a Christian I have always wondered where Sin came from. Lucifer/Satan does not have the powers of creation so it isn’t conceivable that an angel created a sinister force and considering that Satan/Lucifer was, at one time, a good and loyal angel it almost makes sense to believe that Sin was an outside or sentient influence on Lucifer’s rebellion.

Kinda like it adds a bit more to the story of Good vs. Evil you know? I mean……God could theoretically just destroy Satan and if Satan is the origin of Sin then wouldn’t it remove Sin as well? Except what if Sin more substantial than that. Like…what if Sin is like an anti-thesis to God?

Look at the differences:

God = Love, compassion, forgiveness, truth, creation, salvation, healing, and safety.
Sin = Hate, apathy, begrudging, lies, destruction, damnation, suffering, and despair.

But I digress….There are many reasons why Satan/Lucifer is undeserving of being redeemed and it is God’s will that he not be. However, we, as imperfect as we are, are in God’s favor and he wishes to save us despite our own transgressions. So, I think it is in our best interests that we seek our own salvation and try and bring our friends and family with us to our eternal reward.

“But…that being said…if you have two options A and not-A, and the weight of the evidence is greater for option one than the weight of the evidence for the second option, you’re going to go with the former. Likewise, if A is one that deals with eternity and salvation and not-A is one that presupposes nothing eternal – that we’re materialistic and simply die and remain dead when we die a physical death, then, logically speaking, what is the more safe bet to wage? The one that has eternal consequences.”

This is the key for me. Your statement pre-supposes that the majority of the evidence supports the existence of option A, which includes eternal life – the Christian God. I don’t ascribe to that, indeed I believe strongly that the overwhelming evidence shows that is not the case and that is why I called it mythical hogwash. Sorry for the term. It just jumped into my head on the first comment. Perhaps I should have said, ancient beliefs and spiritualism against which there is now overwhelming evidence.
Yikes. My apologies. (I work two jobs and juggle a lot of things and respond quickly due to time constraints so I’m afraid I’ve not been as clear as I should/could be.) So clarification is needed. My first statement if you have two options A and not-A, and the weight of the evidence is greater for option one than the weight of the evidence for the second option, you’re going to go with the former was just a simple logical proof that had nothing to do with Pascal’s wager. =) The second part of the above paragraph was explaining the reasoning behind Pascal’s wager.

My first statement doesn’t pre-suppose that the majority of the evidence supports the existence of option A which includes eternal life, the Christian God. My statement pre-supposed that if there are two options, and I, personally, as I examine the evidence (if you think of A and not-A as being two sides of a scale) see the evidence tipping the scale to one side, am going to go with the side that has the greater weight of evidence. I am morally, logically and intellectually required to do that. For me, by using that explanation, I was trying to illustrate that I’ve come to the conclusion that Jesus is who He says He is. It wasn’t a “leap of faith” and one of my biggest contentions with Western Christianity is that too many “Christians” check their head at the door and don’t know what they believe, why they believe it or if it’s even worth believing; furthermore, they have no answers for anyone who might question them about their belief; we have become intellectually lazy, and I cringe often when I hear other Christians (people whom I love dearly) speak sometimes, giving reasons for their faith. So I just wanted to point out that I understand the disdain that some have for Christianity the faith based upon interactions with some Western Christians and I wanted to proffer that I do disagree with you, respectfully. I do not believe I am ascribing to mythical hogwash simply to satiate a need for a crutch because I’m not emotionally or intellectually capable of facing my own mortality. (But I respect that that’s the conclusion you’ve drawn and passionately believe.)

Anyway, so I knew you “believe strongly that the overwhelming evidence shows that is not the case” (ahem, I think it was the reference to “mythical hogwash” that might have given you away . And I respect that – I may disagree with it but I respect that’s your belief/worldview. To ask you to believe something other than where the examination of the evidence has led you would be foolhardy on my part or the part of anyone who might desire that. We must be intellectually honest with ourselves and others. The facts are the facts – it’s our interpretations of the facts that lead us to differ in our conclusions, and I respect that you passionately disagree with my world view and beliefs. The whole reason I started the discussion, though, was to suggest that it might be possible for someone to not have checked his/her brain at the door and ascribe to Christianity – you may think the arguments against are stronger, or perhaps that I have not seen all the evidence that might tip the scale for me, but maybe you can agree that there are some who care deeply about intellectual honesty and believe that there are good arguments out there on both sides and that thoughtful individuals have disagreed – that it’s not just the power-hungry, hypocritical people (though I readily admit there are many!) who ascribe to Christianity. That’s all I wanted to initially suggest. =)

You do bring up an excellent point. Certainly, Christianity as a behavioral guideline to follow is a wonderful philosophy. But along came “holy men” to interpret the teachings and tell folks how to follow it “properly”.

Yep. So just because men screw things up doesn’t necessarily mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater, if I may use a familiar cliche. =)

It seems they were, for the most part, greedy and corrupt and responsible for the ‘bloody history’ I mentioned.
I agree that many such men were in fact responsible for the “bloody history” you mentioned. Wouldn’t deny that for a nano-second. It’s something that not only grieves me but angers me greatly, and for the wrongs that have been committed, I would argue we need to stand up, acknowledge that crap that has been done, and own up to our mistakes and sin.

Common people have depended upon these holy men to interpret the teachings and tell them how to behave since this religion was born. And maybe that is the major problem with it. Because being the sheep that we are, we will follow anybody who even says they are a leader. And we will believe their crap and behave accordingly.

If the church, any church, expects to regain its respectability, and stop losing followers, it must get rid of these useless, greedy, racist, biased clergy. I’m not just talking about Catholics, its all of the Christian faiths. Blowhards like Dobson and the other jerks who manage to get air time ultimately do nothing for the reputation of the church. To anyone with half a brain, their self interest shines through like Jesus’ halo….:)
Which is why I am not a fan of “religion,” will rarely identify myself purposefully as a Christian (because of all the misconceptions that that entails) and instead align myself with Jesus. I agree – Christianity the religion has some good things (great philosophical ways to live, some nice history, some nice people) but it also has a lot of crap within it too, stuff that Jesus never would have anything to do with. So I could leave or take Christianity the religion (including organized “churches” and “holy men” and sheep following blindly other men). Give me Jesus. It’s a relationship. It’s something entirely different than what men have made “Christianity” to be or have tried to make Jesus to be to fit their ideas, their agendas, their pursuit of power/authority, etc. So not only do I understand your distaste, I happen to agree with you on much. But there are some of us who follow Jesus who look at who He is, what He said, etc. and choose to willingly follow Him, with our intellect in tact. You may disagree, but we aren’t simply sheep following blindly. We aren’t taking a blind leap of faith, and we passionately believe there is good evidence for our beliefs; if we didn’t but professed to believe, we’d be hypocrites and frankly, I couldn’t live with myself.

Anyway, I’m not trying to change your mind on who Jesus is – He can defend Himself – I don’t need to do that nor would I want to. I’m just hoping to let you know there are at least a few of us who do care about intellectual honesty and sincerely believe we have not simply ascribed to a faith system/religion out of a desperation in light of facing our own mortality – I could care less about religion – it’s about Jesus, Himself.

Thanks for a fabulous discussion. I really appreciate your candidness and thoughts. =)

This is the key for me. Your statement pre-supposes that the majority of the evidence supports the existence of option A, which includes eternal life – the Christian God. I don’t ascribe to that, indeed I believe strongly that the overwhelming evidence shows that is not the case and that is why I called it mythical hogwash. Sorry for the term. It just jumped into my head on the first comment. Perhaps I should have said, ancient beliefs and spiritualism against which there is now overwhelming evidence.

You do bring up an excellent point. Certainly, Christianity as a behavioral guideline to follow is a wonderful philosophy. But along came “holy men” to interpret the teachings and tell folks how to follow it “properly”.

It seems they were, for the most part, greedy and corrupt and responsible for the ‘bloody history’ I mentioned.

Common people have depended upon these holy men to interpret the teachings and tell them how to behave since this religion was born. And maybe that is the major problem with it. Because being the sheep that we are, we will follow anybody who even says they are a leader. And we will believe their crap and behave accordingly.

If the church, any church, expects to regain its respectability, and stop losing followers, it must get rid of these useless, greedy, racist, biased clergy. I’m not just talking about Catholics, its all of the Christian faiths. Blowhards like Dobson and the other jerks who manage to get air time ultimately do nothing for the reputation of the church. To anyone with half a brain, their self interest shines through like Jesus’ halo….:)

Anyway, nice discussion.

Thanks for the response. =)

Well, I certainly won’t argue for the inherent goodness of man because I think the evidence proves otherwise. And I see your point about separating Christianity from humans who don’t follow the teachings even when they profess to be Christians. I also concede that we would all be better off if everyone actually followed the guidelines of that faith, or Buddhism. But we don’t. And we won’t.

Agreed. (Which is kinda the whole point of Jesus. ;p)

As far as Pascal’s wager, it seems just too hypocritical for me.

I’m not sure how I see it as being hypocritical, but I must disclose that I’m coming at this from a philosopher’s point of view and we can get pretty theoretical at times. But…that being said…if you have two options A and not-A, and the weight of the evidence is greater for option one than the weight of the evidence for the second option, you’re going to go with the former. Likewise, if A is one that deals with eternity and salvation and not-A is one that presupposes nothing eternal – that we’re materialistic and simply die and remain dead when we die a physical death, then, logically speaking, what is the more safe bet to wage? The one that has eternal consequences.

I’m not promoting Pascal’s wager, necessarily; just used it to illustrate a previous point (to explain where my mind was going that night). I sincerely believe in the claims of Christianity, but sincerity of belief, if not in accordance with Truth, is still a false belief – so it doesn’t matter whether or not I’m sincere, really – it only matters if my beliefs correspond with Truth. No matter how sincerely I believe, I could still have believed in error (and this is why I’m always open to challenging, to studying the evidence, etc.)

“My point was only that supposing I am wrong – supposing that Jesus is not who he claimed to be and that in reality when I die, that’s it. There’s no eternal life, no matters of eternity to deal with, well, I lived a life believing in something that was in error, but that’s that. It’s done. I’m gone – there are no eternal consequences – you could say I was duped, you could say I was naive, etc. but the end is the same – I’m dead.”

It seems by saying that, you are admitting the possibility exists that you are wrong.

On an epistemological level, yes. Just as I cannot know whether or not gravity will be in place tomorrow, I “know” on an experiential, but the logical possibility exists that it may not be in place when I wake up tomorrow. Philosophically, I would claim that no one can ever claim to know anything 100%. But that’s in the philosophical realm and none of us live that way, I readily admit that. I’m just saying that one day, I could wake up and gravity could not be in place. I live my life assuming that gravity will be in place (or that the sun will rise) and say I know both will be so, but that’s outside the realm of epistemology. So. I was speaking philosophically, not practically. Sorry about that!

But that wasn’t my point. My point is: you seemed to have a problem with the idea of Christians ascribing to Christianity and asserted that you believe it’s mythical hogwash that people use as a crutch. I was responding to that point, saying that suppose, even, it is a crutch (I don’t believe it is, but just suppose). And I’m assuming you reject anything beyond this physical world, though that’s maybe not an assumption I should make. But supposing both of those premises are correct, then when I die, if the world is as your world view supposes it is, I’m just…dead. What is it to you if I believed in error? Is it because you’re reacting to the Christians in name who have abused the name of Christ to do their own bidding (i.e. the bloody history you mentioned) and you believe the religion itself duped these people into acting out evil? If so, I could see your concern but would suggest it’s not Christianity’s teaching but rather these people applying their own messed up psychology or evil desires to Christianity, not deriving them from Christianity. And then, that’s again when I would say, that for the Christians who ascribe to true Christianity, what Jesus teaches (love your neighbor, pray for your enemies, bless those who curse you, sell your possessions and give to the poor, love your neighbor as yourself, etc.) then how could you have a problem with the said actions of those who follow his teachings? It seems to me you might have more of a problem with the people who claim to be Christians but don’t live it out rather than what Christ actually taught His followers in terms of how to live? Or I could be totally off. Correct me where I’m wrong, please! I don’t want to misunderstand your points/arguments/concerns/objections.

That must cause you a serious dilemma. It seems to me, if there is even the slightest hint that my faith was unwarranted or in error, I would have to resolve that no matter what else.

I must clarify; I never meant to suggest there is the slightest hint that my faith is unwarranted or in error – I’m just open to the possibility and am always testing and pursuing truth, etc. (i.e. engaging with your objections and those of others and wrestling with them – there are many tough questions to be answered and it would be foolish of me to ascribe to something blindly without testing it, examining it and wrestling with it.) But I’m a born philosopher (and got my degree in it) so that’s partly part of my personality.

For me, I have no doubts at all that my beliefs or non-beliefs are correct and thus, I don’t worry about the alternative if I am wrong. And it seems that those who believe as I do is a rapidly growing population.

From a lot of articles and statistics I’ve seen, I’d agree. =)

And I don’t doubt in the every day realm; just open to the possibility in the philosophical. (Blah, I’m always parsing – my apologies. =)

Enjoy today!

“My point was only that supposing I am wrong – supposing that Jesus is not who he claimed to be and that in reality when I die, that’s it. There’s no eternal life, no matters of eternity to deal with, well, I lived a life believing in something that was in error, but that’s that. It’s done. I’m gone – there are no eternal consequences – you could say I was duped, you could say I was naive, etc. but the end is the same – I’m dead.”

It seems by saying that, you are admitting the possibility exists that you are wrong. That must cause you a serious dilemma. It seems to me, if there is even the slightest hint that my faith was unwarranted or in error, I would have to resolve that no matter what else.

For me, I have no doubts at all that my beliefs or non-beliefs are correct and thus, I don’t worry about the alternative if I am wrong. And it seems that those who believe as I do is a rapidly growing population.