Pascal's Wager

[2ndRateMind]

So, it seems that the mathematician Blaise Pascal thought it is more rational to believe in God, than not believe. But the reason he gave is, to say the least, a little controversial. Basically, he weighed up this mortal life with the promised (or threatened) immortal hereafter.

He thought it better to believe now, and suffer short-term privations to be rewarded with eternal bliss, than disbelieve now, for short-term abundance of sensual satiation, to be rewarded with either eternal torment or oblivion.

If you choose the former, and are right, and God exists in some form Christians might recognise, you lose a little satisfaction now, but stand to gain a lot later. If you are wrong, and God does not exist, you lose nothing more.

If you are right about the latter, and God does not exist, you may gain a little satisfaction now. But if you are wrong, you've messed up big time, and mortal satisfactions are soon forgotten, and will not compensate you in Hell.

So, either you stake a little, and stand to gain everything, or you stake nothing, and stand to lose everything. The rational choice, according to Pascal, is to stake a little, and believe, and act out that belief.

I have to say, this is not a line of argument I find entirely persuasive. I can find several criticisms, but for me, the central issue lies in choosing to believe what is expedient irrespective as to whether it is true. One can believe a true proposition for bad reasons, and a false proposition for good reasons. And which is closer to virtue is a debatable point. Pascal was no fool, and must have understood this, which makes me think his wager was meant humorous, rather than serious.

But I'm wondering if you all have opinions on this hoary old chestnut, and whether you would like to share them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

Christianity does have a different ethic, in some respects, than other worldviews, doesn't it?

There is no such thing as "Christianity" as a coherent unified ethical philosophy. Christianity is a collection of highly disagreeing religious sects and demoninations that seldom agree on much of anything beyond a few obvious moral principle that even secular atheists would support.

Yes, some actions that were seen as immoral would no longer be seen as immoral. Take sex outside of marriage. Christianity, traditionally, teaches against it. If God doesn't exist, a person who desires sex outside of marriage may now partake in it, seeing it as a good now.

Where there you go. Who's to say that there is anything wrong with sex outside of marriage if done responsibly and honestly? What about people who never marry? Are they supposed to be celibate their entire life just because they aren't interested in becoming tied down to a permanent monogamous relationship.

The problem here is that this assumes that there would be something wrong with having sex outside of marriage, even if there was no God. If that's not the case, then Pascal's Wager would be detrimental to a good life. Especially if there is no angry wrathful God who supposedly made up these absurd laws.

In short, it would be a bad bet. You could argue that it might be a good bet if the God actually existed, but that would be false as well. Don't you think this God would be fully aware that the person is only behaving the way they are because they are "betting" on something they don't truly believe in?

In fact, shouldn't Christians renounce Pascal's Wager as being totally antithetical to Christianity which requires sincere belief, and not just blind obedience based on a bet that a God that someone doesn't actually believe might exist. It would seem to me that this would fly in the very face of Christian theology anyway.

Pascal was actually proposing an extremely anti-Christian mindset. Christians should renounce Pascal's Wager as a matter of principle. They certainly shouldn't view it as a respectable Christian view. In fact, Pascal "belief" in the Christian God should be questioned. Apparently if he felt that betting that this God might exist would suffice. Is that what Christian belief or support?

So I don't even see why any Christian would even give Pascal's Wager any respect at all. They should be renouncing it as having totally missed the point. Pascal is basically asking people to bet on the existence of Jesus even if they don't actually believe that he was the Son of God.

Will betting on Jesus without belief get a person to heaven?

I don't think you are understanding (most of) them correctly, as I said earlier. They aren't saying they have this strong desire that they only hold back because God is saying no. They are saying that IF someone has such a desire, what's to stop them? Why not act on our desires, whatever they are?

My position on this is that if you have the desire then that's who you are. Pretending to be someone else would be insincere.

I'm pretty sure Jesus would agree with me as well. Did Jesus say that if a person has the thought (i.e. the desire) to sin then they have already committed the sin in their heart?

If any Christian basically disagrees with the moral values of God because they would prefer to behave differently then they are already in discord with the moral values of God. Refraining themselves to appease a God they disagree with would hardly be a pathway to salvation. Especially if it's done on a bet concerning a God that they don't even believe in as Pascal's Wager requires.

After all, I also know many atheists who do not believe in any gods yet even they would object to cheating, stealing, raping and murdering, and they don't do those things.

I absolutely agree.

Where there you go. Betting on the existence of a God is not required for a person to be a good moral person. So Pascal's Wager would be meaningless to these people, and that's precisely the point I'm making.

Pascal's Wager can only be meaningful to people who desire to do nasty things. That's my whole point. And even then it requires betting on the existence of a God they don't even believe in anyway. Seems to me the wager itself is a form of living a lie. Betting that God you don't believe exists might actually exist.

Pascal's Wager is asking people to live their lives based on an outright lie. And he thinks this would end in their "salvation"? Isn't Pascal's Wager an insult to the Christian God. Pascal is basically suggesting that a person could fool God into granting them salvation and eternal life by simply gambling on a bet.

I question Pascal's comprehension of this entire religion if he thinks this would actually work even if the God did exist. Apparently Pascal was actually an atheist himself and obviously a gambler to boot. He's "Christian status" was based on his wager.

So Pascal's Wager can only apply to people who would change their behavior. Otherwise what would be the point in making the wager in the first place?

And I think people would change their behavior. Our worldview affects our actions. What we foundationally believe about reality will affect what we do.

So what?

Are you suggesting that Christianity is all about what we actually do and not at all about our true character?

Accepting Pascal's Wager won't change who a person is in their heart.

And keep mind that Jesus is the "Mind Police". Jesus doesn't care what you actually do, or don't do. Jesus says you're guilty if you merely think about doing it in your mind. If you have desired in your mind to have sex with another man's wife then you may as well have done it according to Jesus.

So Pascal's Wager is hardly going to cause a person to change who they are. It might cause them not to act on who they are, but it won't change who they are. And apparently Jesus is more interested in who the person actually is, rather than what they actually do.

So Pascal's Wager flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus anyway.

It's who you are that is important to Jesus, not what you do.

[Divine Insight]

Which is to say - place aside every organised religions dogma regarding afterlife and simply believe there is no GOD or afterlife to experience, and thus no accounting for personal actions to experience - and the wager is the same - one is willing to take the risk - not based on a belief in any religious ideas of hell or punishment or rectifying etc - but based on the non belief itself.

I agree. And what I'm saying is that this wager would only be appealing to people who have no interest in accounting for their own actions.

And this is what I object to in the case of some many Christians who make this argument. They basically even say that if there is no God then there's no reason to be accountable for anything.

If that's the case, then clearly they have no accountability of their own in any case.

This is why Pascal's Wager would only appear to have some sort of value to people who have no sense of personal responsibility or accountability.

And Christians should renounce Pascal's Wager in any case because Pascal's Wager is basically saying that if non-believers refrain from acting on who they truly are on a bet that a God they don't actually believe in might exist, then they could have a chance at salvation and eternal life too. But this is suggesting that betting on the existence of this God is good enough.

Christians should renounce Pascal's Wager as being totally anti-Christ.

Did Jesus teach that the requirements are that a person love God with all their heart, mind and soul? And that they believe on Jesus?

Placing a bet that Jesus might exist hardly satisfies that criteria anyway. So Christians should renounce Pascal as being a person who didn't even remotely understand Jesus. But instead they seem to support Pascal's Wager as somehow being meaningful.

[ttruscott]

... one is willing to take the risk - not based on a belief in any religious ideas of hell or punishment or rectifying etc - but based on the non belief itself.

This is actually how I conceive at this time how Satan thought about rejecting YHWH as a false god. He knew that some of the elect chose (or planned to choose) to accept YHWH as their GOD just to come under HIS promise of salvation from their sins (only necessary IF HE proved HE was GOD) and be free of hell whether HE was GOD or not. He saw this as unnecessary as he put all his faith (an unproven belief, hope or trust) in the idea that there could be no God above him so YHWH was a liar (and, as the first liar, the most evil person in all of reality) and a false god.

Satan did not so much engage in Pascal's Wager as bypass it with a certitude of his correct understanding but it is analogous.

[The Tanager]

I haven't responded to everything, because I'm trying to stay more on target of the OP. Please forgive me and let me know if you really think I should have responded to something I didn't.

Where there you go. Betting on the existence of a God is not required for a person to be a good moral person. So Pascal's Wager would be meaningless to these people, and that's precisely the point I'm making.

Oh, then, I don't think you understand Pascal's wager. I explain what I think the popular understanding of the wager is below...

The problem here is that this assumes that there would be something wrong with having sex outside of marriage, even if there was no God. If that's not the case, then Pascal's Wager would be detrimental to a good life. Especially if there is no angry wrathful God who supposedly made up these absurd laws.

I don't think it does assume that. My point was that a Christian (typically) would say it is wrong, but if that person is an atheist, they could (NOTE: I didn't say have to) think the action is perfectly moral.

The point of the wager, using the above as an example, is that you have two options before you:

a) Believe in God. If you are right you have gained eternity. If you are wrong, you have missed out on a pleasure that was not wrong/harmful like you believed (among other finite pleasures you may have missed out on).

b) Not believe in God. If you are right, you have gained some finite pleasures that Christianity said you should not partake in. If you are wrong, those pleasures actually were damaging in various ways and you lose everything in the end.

If you bet on (a) you will either gain infinite bliss or possibly lose some finite goods (and may not even do that because you can be happy as a Christian). If you bet on (b) you may gain some finite goods or lose an infinite amount of bliss. Pascal says the safer bet is (a).

In fact, shouldn't Christians renounce Pascal's Wager as being totally antithetical to Christianity which requires sincere belief, and not just blind obedience based on a bet that a God that someone doesn't actually believe might exist. It would seem to me that this would fly in the very face of Christian theology anyway.

Pascal was actually proposing an extremely anti-Christian mindset. Christians should renounce Pascal's Wager as a matter of principle. They certainly shouldn't view it as a respectable Christian view. In fact, Pascal "belief" in the Christian God should be questioned. Apparently if he felt that betting that this God might exist would suffice. Is that what Christian belief or support?

I wasn't trying to defend the wager, just talk about it and, hopefully, get to understand it better. I'm not sure any of us are talking from a deep reading and understanding of Pascal and his views. I've wanted to read Pascal (I've got the Pensees on my shelf from a friend) to gain a better grasp on what Pascal really was saying, but I haven't had the time to look deeply into it. I've thought about the popular understanding of it a little and simply have shared my thoughts on it as an outsider, not a believer in the wager being a good thing. I'm agnostic about what I think Pascal thought he was saying.

If any Christian basically disagrees with the moral values of God because they would prefer to behave differently then they are already in discord with the moral values of God. Refraining themselves to appease a God they disagree with would hardly be a pathway to salvation. Especially if it's done on a bet concerning a God that they don't even believe in as Pascal's Wager requires.

The Christian will be in discord, but the Christian life is about transformation. This shouldn't be about just appeasing God, but trusting God and that God knows what is best for you. I've had my desires transformed in this way and I find that I'm happier and more fulfilled now than I ever was when I was in discord with God.

But this isn't a pathway to salvation; it's a pathway from salvation. My understanding of Christianity is that the good, moral life comes after salvation and because of it...we aren't trying to be good in order to deserve or earn or gain salvation.

Are you suggesting that Christianity is all about what we actually do and not at all about our true character?

No, I'm not suggesting that. Christianity says what we do reflects our true character.

[William]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

I agree. And what I'm saying is that this wager would only be appealing to people who have no interest in accounting for their own actions.

That is an interesting point of view. I wonder how many people have no interest in accounting for their own actions?
Obviously it is more than just that though. It has to do with taking a risk that there is no afterlife to experience in which accounting for ones actions happens.

That was the thrust of my comments. How Christians use Pascal's Wager or why they should regard Pascal as an anti-Christ, isn't a concern of mine, as my opinion of Christendom isn't relative to my opinion of Pascal's Wager and its wider implications outside of Christian belief systems.

He thought it better to believe now, and suffer short-term privations to be rewarded with eternal bliss, than disbelieve now, for short-term abundance of sensual satiation, to be rewarded with either eternal torment or oblivion.

Obviously Pascal was focused upon the dominant idea of GOD as presented through one of the branches of Christianity, and there were only two options in relation to afterlife.
From my perspective in relation to my understanding of afterlife, how one lives ones life and what beliefs one develops through that, significantly determines what one will experience in the next.

Only oblivion is off the list.

So that is - if you like - what I stake things on in regard to afterlife.

As per the OP:

If you choose the former, and are right, and God exists in some form Christians might recognise, you lose a little satisfaction now, but stand to gain a lot later. If you are wrong, and God does not exist, you lose nothing more.

This itself may or may not be the case. Afterlife may not present to you any GOD. This in itself would not mean that GOD does not exist. But it will mean that afterlife does. So in that, there would be something - which may still be a gain, but also perhaps a loss.

If you are right about the latter, and God does not exist, you may gain a little satisfaction now. But if you are wrong, you've messed up big time, and mortal satisfactions are soon forgotten, and will not compensate you in Hell.

So, either you stake a little, and stand to gain everything, or you stake nothing, and stand to lose everything. The rational choice, according to Pascal, is to stake a little, and believe, and act out that belief.

Again - this is entirely built around common Christian beliefs about afterlife, but the folly therein might be that those beliefs are incorrect. Afterlife might still be something we all will experience, but it might consist of unfolding according to ones personal beliefs - with the addition of anomalies to those beliefs, depending on what those beliefs are. Certainly from the data which is available (largely from Astral Projection sources) this is the nature of afterlife experience.
So in that, either way - you stake something in relation to that question - which isn't 'is there a GOD?' but rather 'is there an afterlife?'
If you believe there is no afterlife you are going to experience, then that is where you place your stake as it were. Not only in how such might affect your choices in this experience of life, but how those choices play out for you in the next.

So how it goes for me is this:

IF
Consciousness is GOD and GOD is eternal,

THEN
All consciousness is eternal.

IF
One experiences the afterlife according to what one believes in

THEN
If what one believes in isn't the truth, one will experiences accompanying anomalies, the purpose of which is to encourage you to change your beliefs.

IF
One believes there is no afterlife

THEN
One will still experience the afterlife (which will be the anomaly) but what ones beliefs create for one, will be subject to the new reality being experienced, and will vary considerably.

You speak about Buddhists beliefs, for example, re the afterlife.

For Buddhists, the "Real You" is the very thing that is having this experience in life. And when this life is over the experiences you are currently having will indeed come to an end, INCLUDING your entire illusion and memory of being a specific "ego" (or separate individual).

So will DrNoGods and Divine Insight cease to exist and all memory of them be wiped out when their bodies die? Yes. Does this mean that this is the end of them and they will never have another experience again? Not according to Buddhism, Taoism, and many other pantheistic worldviews.

IF
Someone believes in the above re afterlife

THEN
Your memory is wiped and you are recycled, and perhaps in the next experience you will not believe those things.

THEN
When your body dies, your beliefs will create what your experiences will be for you as an EGO in the afterlife.

There is no escaping the inevitable. The ego is going to account.

But the ego is fine as such. It is not wrong to be an ego - a single personality developed through this particular experience of life on earth. It is one of the major reason why the universe exists - particularly the Earth.

It is a gift - not a curse, and all that is required is that the EGO allows the voice of GOD access to its experience as an individual personality and that the personality remains true to its self - its true nature - as an aspect of GOD consciousness.

So anyway - my comments are taking Pascal's Wager and applying that to other beliefs and non beliefs in afterlife, rather than retaining it within the boundaries of his specific thoughts on the matter.

♦ My thoughts on death.

[The Tanager]

The Christian will be in discord, but the Christian life is about transformation. This shouldn't be about just appeasing God, but trusting God and that God knows what is best for you. I've had my desires transformed in this way and I find that I'm happier and more fulfilled now than I ever was when I was in discord with God.

But this isn't a pathway to salvation; it's a pathway from salvation. My understanding of Christianity is that the good, moral life comes after salvation and because of it...we aren't trying to be good in order to deserve or earn or gain salvation.

It's weird quoting myself, but I wanted to clarify what I was saying above because I didn't say it as clearly as I should and this could cause misunderstanding. When I said "than I ever was when I was in discord with God" I do not mean that I am now no longer in any discord with God. I see Christianity as a process. I feel I am in less discord with God than before my conversion, but I'm not perfect.

And when I talk about the good, moral life coming after salvation, I'm not saying that non-Christians cannot be moral and lead good lives. I think they can. I do mean that after salvation, with God, (if Christianity is true) we set about working on becoming more moral and leading a better life, however good or bad it was before that point.

[Divine Insight]

The point of the wager, using the above as an example, is that you have two options before you:

a) Believe in God. If you are right you have gained eternity. If you are wrong, you have missed out on a pleasure that was not wrong/harmful like you believed (among other finite pleasures you may have missed out on).

Pascal's Wager already fails right here. You either believe in the Biblical God or you don't. As a Christian do you really think that pretending to believe in a God when you actually don't would fool Jesus? If not, then why support something like Pascal's Wager? Pascal's Wager is asking people to basically live a lie on a bet that they can fool Jesus.

Keep in mind also that not all concepts of God say that it would be wrong to have sex outside of marriage. So you could place your bet on one of those religions too. Pascal apparently had a very limited mind as he was only considering Christianity. Let's not forget that if Pascal placed his bet on Christianity and Islam turned out to be true, then Pascal would burn in hell anyway. So his petty gambling wouldn't have done him any good.

b) Not believe in God. If you are right, you have gained some finite pleasures that Christianity said you should not partake in. If you are wrong, those pleasures actually were damaging in various ways and you lose everything in the end.

So what? Pascal and all Christians go to hell in Islam. So Pascal and the Christians are gambling just as much as anyone else.

In fact, if you are going to place a bet to avoid the most wrathful God shouldn't you be betting on Islam? I hear that the Islamic hell is far worse than the Christian hell.

If you bet on (a) you will either gain infinite bliss or possibly lose some finite goods (and may not even do that because you can be happy as a Christian). If you bet on (b) you may gain some finite goods or lose an infinite amount of bliss. Pascal says the safer bet is (a).

It's a cheap bet. And one that has Pascal spending eternity in Islamic Hell. Not only that, but I have to ask again, "Do you really think Pascal's bet would fool Jesus?" Pascal would most likely go to hell in Christianity as well just because he thought he could gamble his way into heaven.

I wasn't trying to defend the wager, just talk about it and, hopefully, get to understand it better. I'm not sure any of us are talking from a deep reading and understanding of Pascal and his views. I've wanted to read Pascal (I've got the Pensees on my shelf from a friend) to gain a better grasp on what Pascal really was saying, but I haven't had the time to look deeply into it. I've thought about the popular understanding of it a little and simply have shared my thoughts on it as an outsider, not a believer in the wager being a good thing. I'm agnostic about what I think Pascal thought he was saying.

Pascal was talking about making a bet that if you pretend to believe in Jesus when you really don't perhaps you could fool Jesus into saving you anyway. After all, why would anyone who truly believes in Jesus need to place a bet in the first place?

I do know what Pascal was attempting to do. He was attempting to recruit more people into Christianity no doubt even by using this utterly absurd wager proposal.

The Christian will be in discord, but the Christian life is about transformation. This shouldn't be about just appeasing God, but trusting God and that God knows what is best for you. I've had my desires transformed in this way and I find that I'm happier and more fulfilled now than I ever was when I was in discord with God.

And that wouldn't have anything to do with Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is betting that this God might exist which can only be an attempt to appease a God that might potentially exist. People who need to resort to Pascal's Wager aren't going to be trusting in a God that they don't truly believe exists. And if they truly believed in the God they wouldn't need to be making bets on it. So Pascal's Wager wouldn't come into play for them.

But this isn't a pathway to salvation; it's a pathway from salvation. My understanding of Christianity is that the good, moral life comes after salvation and because of it...we aren't trying to be good in order to deserve or earn or gain salvation.

That's your understanding of Christianity. That's meaningless to me. I've read the Bible too and I see something entirely different. I won't go into that here as that would indeed be off-topic to this thread. However, even Christians can't agree with each other on their understanding of Christianity. For if they did they wouldn't have so many disagreeing sects and demoninations.

Are you suggesting that Christianity is all about what we actually do and not at all about our true character?

No, I'm not suggesting that. Christianity says what we do reflects our true character.

Again I disagree with you. According to Jesus if a person so much as thinks of committing a sin in their mind they have done it in their heart. Therefore according to Jesus what we actually do does not reflect our true character. What we think and desire in our mind is what represents our true character.

So I'm not even in agreement with you on what Christianity even represents. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've already made it clear that Christianity is meaningless in that regard because even the Christians can't agree on what Christianity means. Christianity is a meaningless ill-defined concept that even Christianity can't agree on.

[The Tanager]

Pascal's Wager already fails right here. You either believe in the Biblical God or you don't. As a Christian do you really think that pretending to believe in a God when you actually don't would fool Jesus? If not, then why support something like Pascal's Wager? Pascal's Wager is asking people to basically live a lie on a bet that they can fool Jesus.

I'm not sure if Pascal thought that or if that is a misunderstanding of his wager. Since I haven't directly read Pascal in depth, I start by giving him (and any philosopher, for that matter) the benefit of the doubt when it seems like he's making a ridiculous claim and think people have oversimplified and gotten something wrong about it. But if Pascal meant what you think he meant, then I agree with you.

So I'm not even in agreement with you on what Christianity even represents. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've already made it clear that Christianity is meaningless in that regard because even the Christians can't agree on what Christianity means. Christianity is a meaningless ill-defined concept that even Christianity can't agree on.

The same is true of every single worldview, religious or secular. Naturalists can't agree. So what? We see an umbrella term for what it is and we talk about specific forms that fit under those umbrella terms on their own terms.

That's your understanding of Christianity. That's meaningless to me. I've read the Bible too and I see something entirely different. I won't go into that here as that would indeed be off-topic to this thread. However, even Christians can't agree with each other on their understanding of Christianity. For if they did they wouldn't have so many disagreeing sects and demoninations.

I already said that if we want to be true to the wager that we'd have to talk about Pascal's Christian views and I don't think either of us are claiming to be knowledgeable about that.

You have been talking about a wider Christian audience and how they would look at the wager. That understanding of Christianity, apparently, says that Christians refrain from immoral acts to appease God in order to gain salvation. If that is the form of Christianity we are applying to the wager then I agree with your critiques.

I am offering an alternative Christian view that I think is closer to Biblical Christianity (but that's not the point) and saying let's look at this form of Christianity in regards to the wager, which would change things from how you have critiqued the other form of Christianity in regards to the wager. That understanding of the wager says we can't live on the fence and the safest bet is to get down on the theistic side. I wouldn't ask someone to take that wager, but I'm still not sure that is what Pascal is really saying anyway.

Again I disagree with you. According to Jesus if a person so much as thinks of committing a sin in their mind they have done it in their heart. Therefore according to Jesus what we actually do does not reflect our true character. What we think and desire in our mind is what represents our true character.

Here is what your argument there looks like to me:

A = sin in thought
B = done in heart/our true character (those being equal concepts)
not-A = sin in action

P1 - If a person thinks of committing a sin in their mind they have done it in their heart. (If A, then B).
P2 - B
C - Therefore not-A

This is an invalid argument (but I may have misunderstood what you were saying and I don't want to present a straw man argument of yours).

Now, I agree with you that our character is reflected in our thoughts, but this doesn't rule out that it also is reflected in our deeds. Sure, we can fake it sometimes and do something that different than our true beliefs/character but this is still acting out of our heart. We are being deceitful because we have a deceitful heart.

[Divine Insight]

Here is what your argument there looks like to me:

A = sin in thought
B = done in heart/our true character (those being equal concepts)
not-A = sin in action

P1 - If a person thinks of committing a sin in their mind they have done it in their heart. (If A, then B).
P2 - B
C - Therefore not-A

This is an invalid argument (but I may have misunderstood what you were saying and I don't want to present a straw man argument of yours).

You'll need to argue with Jesus on that one. He's the one who said that to think it is the same as having done it, not me. I just pointed out what Jesus said.

Matthew 5:
[27] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So you are complaining about Jesus' logic, not mine.

I don't personally claim that thinking about something is the same as doing it. In fact, I suggest that this idea is absurd.

So I'm not a supporter of Jesus' logic on this specific issue.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 29 by Divine Insight]

Can't help thinking that there is a significant difference between committing adultery in your heart, and committing adultery in reality.

But I do not think the adultery is necessarily as great a sin as the lust. Seems to me that lust is an entirely selfish drive, whereas adultery need not be entirely selfish. I do not recommend wholesale adultery, but it can be an expression of love, and where love is, I think God is.

Best wishes, 2RM.