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]

There certainly are horribly evil people who never improve even after many great people reach out to them throughout their life.

That's irrelevant. In order for Christianity to be true this would need to apply to everyone, not just to some people.

When I was an Atheist, I didn't lust for sin or want to hurt anybody. I didn't have sex outside of marriage, take drugs, curse, or get drunk. I was a good-ole boy.

Well, there you go. They you could not have been one of those horrible evil people who deserve to be damned.

But thinking I was a mere hairless ape with just a few decades of life to enjoy, I didn't value people beyond what goodies they offered me. I was selfish to the core. My set of values was very weak, superficial, limited, animal-based.

But again. This is merely a description of yourself. It's not a reflection of what all humans are like.

The love of God displayed in 1Cor 13 is founded upon the oneness of 1Cor 12. God binds all willing souls into a single body, in which each member values fellow members as much as himself, for good reasons. God offers connections with and between all his family members. This plan of love is infinitely higher than man's religions of works (give to get). Those who refuse this plan choose a Godless existence.

But there are many atheists who do recognize the value of humans in general. We simply don't need to read something like Corinthians to understand this. In fact, many atheists could write their own views on life that would no doubt surpass the views expressed in Corinthians, and this would just be their own personal views not requiring any God.

It is pictured as a horrible place to make the point in the strongest terms. I could never be happy in heaven knowing that my loved ones were suffering in hell. That is a great mystery. I can think of many good options, so God certainly has a better plan.

God's plan does include sending a lot of people to hell. In fact, according to both the Old Testament as well as the New far more people will end up in hell than in heaven.

I shelf that concern for eternity. I don't think the possible pains of hell factored into my faith calculation. I resisted that strongly. Fear might have been a kick starter; the beginning of knowledge. But I wasn't going to follow Jesus out of fear/intimidation. I chose Jesus for many reason far above fear.

I came to realize that Jesus agrees with me on matters of humanity and morality, not the other way around.

When I read the Bible and come to the stories of Jesus the first thing I think to myself is, "Now there's someone who expresses my views on morality".

So there's no way I would need to "follow" Jesus since he is clearly in agreement with me. I have no desire to seek out adulterers and stone them to death. In fact, when Jesus rebuked that Old Testament commandment of God I thought to myself, "Good! According to Jesus I don't need to judge people and stone them to death".

Jesus would actually be letting me off the hook from something I would have never wanted to do in the first place.

In fact, if the original God would have commanded me to judge people and stone sinners to death I would said no. I would have told God that he's the only one who can know what's in the hearts and minds of men and women, and therefore he's the only one in a position to judge anyone. Why should God expect me to do his judging for him? And especially why should he expect me to do his killing for him? If he wants sinners to die let him kill them himself.

That's what I would say to any God who was demanding that I do his dirty work for him. Jesus rebuked the original God and took my side on that argument.

So I can only see Jesus as someone who agrees with me. Certainly not someone that I would need to follow, or change my ways in an effort to be like him.

In fact, the idea that Jesus would have needed to be brutally crucified to pay for my sins is utterly absurd. I have never done anything in my entire life that would justify brutally crucifying anyway.

So I can't see where this religion can have any meaning but for people who lust to do bad things. And I'm certainly not one of those, so this religion cannot be for me.

Finally, I can only say that anyone who is motivated to become a better person because of this religion can only do so if they believe that they were not such a good person to begin with.

And even if they do end up in heaven there's no guarantee that their loved ones won't end up in hell anyway.

So even if a believer goes to heaven they would be stuck for the rest of eternity knowing that there are countless more people suffering in hell than there are in the paradise of heaven.

So heaven cannot be all that great knowing that hell will continue to exist as well.

You spoke of being selfish, but wouldn't going to an eternal place of paradise whilst countless others are sent to eternal torture be the ultimate act of self interest?

[Complexity]

Divine Insight wrote:
[quote]Well, there you go. They you could not have been one of those horrible evil people who deserve to be damned. Very Happy


I was a good guy in the eyes of the world. But I got a glimpse of my own deep depravity. I had no foundation upon which to value others or myself. Thinking I was an animal, the only principles I had to guide me were (1) survival of the fittest, (2) getting pleasure for a few decades, (3) give to those who gave to me as long as that trade was profitable, (4) pretending that there was some magic in love and life even though Materialism/Darwin taught that it was all chemical synapse firing, and (5) believing that this was enough, valuable, and fulfilling. When I read the Bible I saw a far greater hope, and it was eternal. I saw a very high level of goodness. I realized I was not at the same level as Jesus. I was not heavenly material.

Divine Insight wrote:
[quote]That's what I would say to any God who was demanding that I do his dirty work for him. Jesus rebuked the original God and took my side on that argument. Very Happy


I don't know anyone (other than radial Islam) who would stone a criminal. I wouldn't do it. One of the problems we moderns have is putting ourselves in the shoes of the ancients. Just in the lifetime of my grandparents, there were public hanging of the worst of the worst. Those served as strong lessons, telling the public to behave or else their life could be cut short and they'd suffer great public shame. Mankind's justice has gotten softer and softer. Are we now too soft? Our jails are over-flowing. Correlation is not causation. There are many factors. But where law enforcement gets tough and fair, crime goes down.

The very fact that people were willing to stone criminals in the first century shows that they believed it was a just and effective punishment. Jesus didn't directly state that stoning shall be stopped, but appears to have (1) raised the standard thus reducing the frequency; (2) the sum of His teachings appears to have made stoning obsolete, as dietary laws and animal sacrifice became obsolete; as many elements of society had changed in 1000 years.

Like you, I too am struck by the fall of 1/3 of the angels and more than half of humanity. Also, why do so many people refuse to study and discuss these potentially all-important issues. I am very perplexed by the size of these rejections, apathy, and the mysteries of free will. Why didn't God look into the future, see who would reject Him, and merely never let them be born? Why start a project that is doomed to fail? Maybe they are allowed
to be born to teach valuable lessons the willing hearts. Maybe the faithful need to have evil burned into our brains to never backslide into it. We don't have that knowledge. We can't only work with what we have. This is one issue to be answered after death, if God is willing; and I think He is.

What about stoning prostitutes? Were they that destructive to society 3000 years ago? The newly formed Jewish nation was very weak, as seen by their history. Unless they cleaned up Vegas, I know from a couple experiences that the Vegas strip is an uncomfortable and dangerous place. Prostitution is very bad for a city.

[Divine Insight]

I don't know anyone (other than radial Islam) who would stone a criminal. I wouldn't do it.

So are you saying that you would have refused to obey God had you lived prior to Jesus?

One of the problems we moderns have is putting ourselves in the shoes of the ancients. Just in the lifetime of my grandparents, there were public hanging of the worst of the worst. Those served as strong lessons, telling the public to behave or else their life could be cut short and they'd suffer great public shame. Mankind's justice has gotten softer and softer. Are we now too soft? Our jails are over-flowing. Correlation is not causation. There are many factors. But where law enforcement gets tough and fair, crime goes down.

This sounds quite confusing to me. You just said that you would refuse to stone a criminal to death even though God had commanded you to do so.

Then you claim that Mankind's justice has gotten softer. But have you forgotten that Jesus is the one who preached forgiveness over condemnation? Jesus is the one who has become soft on crime.

The very fact that people were willing to stone criminals in the first century shows that they believed it was a just and effective punishment.

No, it shows that they were willing to obey their God. Keep in mind that stoning sinners to death was not mankind's idea. This was a direct commandment of the God of the Bible.

Jesus didn't directly state that stoning shall be stopped, but appears to have (1) raised the standard thus reducing the frequency;

According to Jesus only those who are without sin are to cast the first stone. According to Christianity Jesus is the only person who has ever been without sin. Therefore according to Christianity Jesus did indeed directly state that stoning shall be stopped. Unless you believe that there are mortal men who are also without sin.

Moreover, if we do as Jesus says, then anyone who is without sin is obligated to cast the first stone whether they want to or not. Because Jesus commanded that those who are without sin are to cast the first stone. That's a directive demanding that they do it.

(2) the sum of His teachings appears to have made stoning obsolete, as dietary laws and animal sacrifice became obsolete; as many elements of society had changed in 1000 years.

Well, these laws couldn't have changed due to Jesus because remember, Jesus proclaimed that he did not come to change the laws. Therefore you can't have Jesus changing any laws, including dietary laws.

Like you, I too am struck by the fall of 1/3 of the angels and more than half of humanity. Also, why do so many people refuse to study and discuss these potentially all-important issues. I am very perplexed by the size of these rejections, apathy, and the mysteries of free will. Why didn't God look into the future, see who would reject Him, and merely never let them be born? Why start a project that is doomed to fail?

Good questions.

However before it makes any sense to even try to answer these questions shouldn't we first settle the question of why we should believe any of these stories to begin with?

1/3 of God's angels turned against God? That's quite a few angels. Why would so many angels be upset with a supposedly all-wise and loving God?

Also, what would have happened if 2/3 of God's angels had sided with Satan? Would Satan of then won this heavenly war?

If so, then from whence does God obtain his power? Simply because he has more angels in his army than anyone else?

Yes, lots of questions to be sure.

Maybe they are allowed to be born to teach valuable lessons the willing hearts. Maybe the faithful need to have evil burned into our brains to never backslide into it. We don't have that knowledge. We can't only work with what we have. This is one issue to be answered after death, if God is willing; and I think He is.

There would be no reason why a trustworthy benevolent God couldn't make this clear to us. All you are going above is simply suggesting "better stories" that could have been made up about a God. Too bad they weren't. But the above guesses are not the Biblical story.

What about stoning prostitutes? Were they that destructive to society 3000 years ago? The newly formed Jewish nation was very weak, as seen by their history. Unless they cleaned up Vegas, I know from a couple experiences that the Vegas strip is an uncomfortable and dangerous place. Prostitution is very bad for a city.

So? That's no excuse for a God who commands people "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to then turn around and command men to start killing prostitutes. Not only this, but the Bible wasn't even talking about prostitutes, the Bible was talking about a woman cheating on her husband. Funny it doesn't have much to say about men being stoned for having cheated on their wives.

In fact, the Bible has God commanding that a bride should be stoned to death on her wedding night should it be discovered that she isn't a virgin. Again, funny how it doesn't even remotely mention anything about men not being a virgin when they marry.

Not only is the Bible immoral by our standards today, but it's highly skewed toward male-chauvinism.

And by the way, where did Jesus change any of these laws?

And if he did then doesn't this make him a liar when he claims that he did not come to change the law?

Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. They attribute Jesus with changing the laws, whilst pretending that he didn't.

It's a self-contradicting theology.

[Complexity]

I and all the Christians I know have no desire to return to stoning. But I have no idea what I'd do 3000 years ago in an extremely brutal culture. If you lived in that time, your enemies might cut your eyes out, cut your thumbs off, and make a court joker out of you, or your family. I probably would have stoned those guys, after they were convicted by the elder judges at the gate (courtroom of the day).

Jesus did taught the Old Testament law of love for ones neighbor & alien and not seeking revenge: Lev 19:18, 33. And He added some insights and solved misunderstandings. But Jesus is returning with a sword to pass judgement. Jesus is a balance of full justice and remarkable forgiveness for those who desire to and do follow him.

It is true that Jesus didn't come to change the Old Testament law but to fulfill it, making some part obsolete. Animal sacrifices that foreshadowed Jesus's death were no longer needed. While the core essentials of God's law will never change, some rules are temporary and do expire. Several expired when Jesus came. Jesus didn't give us a list of what became obsolete. The Holy Spirit revealed to Peter, after Jesus's death, that the dietary laws had ended.

https://Also, what would have happened if 2/3 of God's angels had sided with Satan? Would Satan of then won this heavenly war? Think

If all the angels turned on God, I bet God would win a battle against them. What kind of silly God would give 50%+ of His God powers to puny creatures who might rebel?

In fact, the Bible has God commanding that a bride should be stoned to death on her wedding night should it be discovered that she isn't a virgin. Again, funny how it doesn't even remotely mention anything about men not being a virgin when they marry. Rolling Eyes

Lev 20 tells of several type of sexual sin for which men were to be punished.
It was an ancient Near-Eastern complaint for a man, who wasn't pleased by his bride to claim that his bride was not a virgin. The Old Testament gave the bride the right to defend herself. Pagan cultures gave no equal rights to women. Even in the first century, Roman men could kill their wife or child without giving anybody a reason. It is God who changed male-dominance inequalities, and lifted high the value of women.

[Divine Insight]

I and all the Christians I know have no desire to return to stoning.

So then you, and all the Christians you know, agree that Jesus changed the law?

But I have no idea what I'd do 3000 years ago in an extremely brutal culture. If you lived in that time, your enemies might cut your eyes out, cut your thumbs off, and make a court joker out of you, or your family. I probably would have stoned those guys, after they were convicted by the elder judges at the gate (courtroom of the day).

And you wouldn't question the idea that some sentient God who knows all of this is going on actually instructed you to do this?

You wouldn't question why this God placed you in such a dangerous situation and expect you to have to defend yourself from such horrors while you, without the aid of omniscience are to judge and kill people for him?

I thought this God was supposed to protect the people who believe in him?

Sounds to me like you expect that you would need to fend for yourself. What good is this God if he's not going to protect you from injustice?

Jesus did taught the Old Testament law of love for ones neighbor & alien and not seeking revenge: Lev 19:18, 33. And He added some insights and solved misunderstandings. But Jesus is returning with a sword to pass judgement. Jesus is a balance of full justice and remarkable forgiveness for those who desire to and do follow him.

Too bad Yahweh wasn't like Jesus, eh?

It is true that Jesus didn't come to change the Old Testament law but to fulfill it, making some part obsolete.

Making a law obsolete is to change. It would have been changed from being a relevant law to not being a law at all. So this is a failed apology.

Animal sacrifices that foreshadowed Jesus's death were no longer needed. While the core essentials of God's law will never change, some rules are temporary and do expire. Several expired when Jesus came. Jesus didn't give us a list of what became obsolete. The Holy Spirit revealed to Peter, after Jesus's death, that the dietary laws had ended.

Laws that have become obsolete have changed. If they were once in effect and are now obsolete, that's a change.

Also, if it was no longer the law that we are to stone sinners to death, then why didn't Jesus just say so? Saying that those who are without sin are to do it hardly makes the law obsolete. All this does is change who is to carry it out.

https://Also, what would have happened if 2/3 of God's angels had sided with Satan? Would Satan of then won this heavenly war? Think

If all the angels turned on God, I bet God would win a battle against them. What kind of silly God would give 50%+ of His God powers to puny creatures who might rebel?

Exactly. And so the very idea that a mere fallen angel like Satan could have ever overtaken God is ridiculous. Just one more reason why this religious paradigm makes absolutely no sense.

In fact, the Bible has God commanding that a bride should be stoned to death on her wedding night should it be discovered that she isn't a virgin. Again, funny how it doesn't even remotely mention anything about men not being a virgin when they marry. Rolling Eyes

Lev 20 tells of several type of sexual sin for which men were to be punished.
It was an ancient Near-Eastern complaint for a man, who wasn't pleased by his bride to claim that his bride was not a virgin. The Old Testament gave the bride the right to defend herself. Pagan cultures gave no equal rights to women. Even in the first century, Roman men could kill their wife or child without giving anybody a reason. It is God who changed male-dominance inequalities, and lifted high the value of women.

It's a pretty low bar when you have to argue that the Biblical God seems to be slightly better in comparison with the barbaric mortals of the period.

And again. Why did this God toss good people like you and I into these barbaric cultures? What did we do to deserve that?

By the way, we don't even need to refer back to ancient cultures for this sort of behavior. It's actually occurring right now in 2017 in places that actually believe in this God and are doing precisely as this God had commanded men to do.

If this God sent Jesus to change his message, then Jesus failed miserably. Not only did Jesus fail to convince the Jews and Muslims, but he failed to convinced all the other world religions too.

In fact, Jesus wasn't even successful in convincing those who claim to believe in him. There are powerful Christian evangelicals who support the execution of gays, precisely because the Bible commands that we are to do this, and Jesus did not come to change the laws.

So Jesus wasn't even successful in communicating clearly to Christians, unless the Christians who retain the Old Testament laws are the correct Christians and the liberal Christians who believe that Jesus came to change the laws are the heathens who aren't paying attention.

How do you account for such great ambiguity surrounding what Jesus taught?

He claims that he did not come to change the laws.
It was the law that homosexuals are to be killed.
It was the law that a witch should not be suffered to live.
It was the law that a bride who is discovered to not be a virgin is to be killed.

When did these laws change?

By the way, it makes no sense to say that Jesus "Fulfilled" these laws.

In order for Jesus to fulfill the law that homosexuals are to be killed Jesus himself would have needed to kill all homosexuals. That's the only way that law could be fulfilled.

In order for Jesus to fulfill the law that a witch should not be suffered to live Jesus himself would have needed to kill all witches. That's the only way that law could be fulfilled.

In order for Jesus to fulfill the law that a bride who is discovered to not be a virgin should be killed Jesus himself would have needed to kill non-virgin brides. That's the only way that law could be fulfilled.

So claiming that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament laws makes no sense because Jesus didn't go around fulfilling these laws. In fact, he refused to stone the adulteress to death, yet he himself said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. If he was sin free, then this would obligate him to throw the first stone. But he wouildn't even do that. So Jesus didn't even fulfill his own laws.

[Complexity]

Divine Insight Wrote:

So then you, and all the Christians you know, agree that Jesus changed the law?

Jesus/God changed some laws. I don’t sacrifice animals in my backyard. The dietary laws broke the prevailing superstition of animal spirits, worship of powerful predators like eagles, and connections to Pagan gods. The laws that had an expiration date were those needed to create a nation suited for God’s plan.

You have raised good questions, a couple I’ve never heard.

Divine Insight Wrote:

I thought this God was supposed to protect the people who believe in him?

Sounds to me like you expect that you would need to fend for yourself. What good is this God if he's not going to protect you from injustice?


God doesn’t protect believers from everything. Christians get cancer and get shot by mass murders just like everyone else. I don’t know the statistics on prayer. I doubt that God would expose Himself within such scientific tests. I’m ready to die when God wills it. In fact, I’ve often thought how horrible it is that young lives are cut short and yet I am nearly 70. I have a good life, want to do a lot more, see my grandkids grow up, etc; but I’d take their place in a wink. I believe God has a grand plan.
You and I must judge society’s bad guys and decide what to do with them. I’ve been on jury duty, had to call the police on a friend, etc. I’ve never heard a voice from heaven or in my head telling me what to do. But during times of intense prayer over a matter that had to be decided, I’ve sometimes felt a strong pull in one direction that turns out to be the right way. Is that God’s help?


Divine Insight Wrote:

Also, if it was no longer the law that we are to stone sinners to death, then why didn\'t Jesus just say so?

It would seem to be wonderful if Jesus gave us a laundry list of updated do’s and don’t for the modern situation. He did answer 50 of the hottest questions of His day, and ended a lot of garbage laws created by Pharisees (613 rules). But he left us hanging with hot topics like capital punishment, homosexuality, women’s right, war, etc. It seems He wants us to struggle with them, based on the Biblical principles.

Divine Insight Wrote:

Exactly. And so the very idea that a mere fallen angel like Satan could have ever overtaken God is ridiculous. Just one more reason why this religious paradigm makes absolutely no sense.

Divine Insight Wrote:

It\'s a pretty low bar when you have to argue that the Biblical God seems to be slightly better in comparison with the barbaric mortals of the period.

The validity and virtue of Jesus turns on the Old Testament; but not on a wooden comparison. But they are inseparably linked. I wish some of the verses were not there, and some were written slightly differently. But most of what is considered difficult is rather easily explained with a little knowledge. Like every belief we humans have, we weigh the apparent pro’s against the con’s, add in the other factors of decision-making, consider alternatives, and make the step of belief or disbelief (enemy of X, skeptical of X, or consider X trivial and not worthy of consideration). I have flow charts on decision making. It get very complex.
Liberal Christians tend to scrap the Old Testament. I accept it and even am fond of it for the following reasons.
1. Vast different in modern culture and ancient culture. The more I get into the ancient mind, the more I understand how differently God had to deal with these people.
2. The Old Testament is generally and largely a bright shining star of morality compared to ancient beliefs. And the majority of it is great compared to anything. It is high on love, long before love was cool. It is very anti-slavery (Ex 21:16; Deut 24:7), while allowing bond slavery (work-loan agreement) and criminal work programs. My dirt-poor Irish grandmother came to America in 1905 by a legal arrangement of trading passage and expenses for future work.
3. The special needs of a new nation which would be foundation for the Savior and history preservation (Bible). The Jews needed to break the bonds of Pagan Animism especially Egyptian hyper-worship of animals. These animals were considered unclean for the Jews. But the need to distance oneself from these animals ended about the time Jesus came. It worked. Today this is not problems other than in India.
4. Baby steps. There is too much cultural inertia to expect God to change everything overnight. The core fundamentals laid down through Moses were a big enough pill to swallow without micro-managing every behavior.
It is a strong argument for the Old Testament, that the surrounding best beliefs were very barbaric. The high contrast, created in short time span, indicated a great mind at work. Could the rather clueless, Egyptian/Midianite-taught Moses have invented it? The Pagan laws were written by top thinkers of the day, trying to be fair. I have a long list of barbaric items. I didn’t list the good side of Pagan codes. Obviously, most societies outlaw stealing and murder. The Bible has none of the barbaric items below, and outright defies many of them. There is no death sentence in the Bible for stealing.
Hammurabi Code: Law 2,32,143: Water test justice (superstitious way to judge). The Bible requires 2 virtuous witnesses to convict. Law 194: A wet-nurse who tries to moonlight by nursing a second child shall have her breasts cut off. Law 218: A doctor who operates and loses his patient, shall have his hands cut off. Law 209, 210: A man who strikes a woman and she dies, shall see his daughter killed for his crime. (Bible often says each person is responsible for his own sin; meaning God and society shall not punish family members).
Ur-Nammu Law: Law 13, 14, Water test justice. Law 8: The man who rapes a virgin slave of slave owner X, shall pay 5 shekels of silver to the offended slave owner X.
Code of Manu (500 BC revised up to 200 AD): Any man who insults a Bramin priest shall have a red-hot iron 10 fingers long thrust down his mouth. A Bramin priest can never be convicted of any crime no matter what he does. Except for Bramin priests, he who explains the Law to a lower class caste will go to hell with his student. A woman who speaks unkindly to her husband may be immediately divorced.
Bhavishya Purana: Women with crow-like thighs are talkative with will suffer widowhood. Those who build a temple or sweeps a temple, even with evil intentions, will attain objects of his desires and go to heaven.
Rig Vedas: 10.107.2 Those who give gold to the priests will partake in immortality.
Sati: Widows forced to commit suicide at their husband's funeral.

Divine Insight Wrote:

And again. Why did this God toss good people like you and I into these barbaric cultures? What did we do to deserve that?

There are no good people on earth. None of us are heavenly-material; Rom 3:23. The depths of human depravity and seriousness of sins can be hard to see and accept. The realization seems to be given by revelation after a person opens his heart to the possibility of maybe following a good God. Paul tells us about his sin struggles and he was one of the best of men: Rom 7:15-25. The realization of one’s true nature is a freeing experience,
The second point is that we must be surrounded by cruelty and disease to learn from it. I learned a great deal by growing up in a dysfunctional family and suffering that. Suffering evil opened my eyes to the suffering I caused others. This world of thorns is a reflection of our sin nature; a symbol of sin; a fit spiritual boot camp (unless we are doomed hairless apes). Also, God helps us endure the barbarisms of this world. Also, self-inflicted pain to purify oneself is Pagan, plays to pride, and is opposed by God.



Divine Insight Wrote:

In order for Jesus to fulfill the law that homosexuals are to be killed Jesus himself would have needed to kill all homosexuals. That\'s the only way that law could be fulfilled.

So claiming that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament laws makes no sense because Jesus didn\'t go around fulfilling these laws. In fact, he refused to stone the adulteress to death, yet he himself said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. If he was sin free, then this would obligate him to throw the first stone. But he wouildn\'t even do that. So Jesus didn\'t even fulfill his own laws.



Homosexuality is a big topic, I can only touch on here. I don’t recall any recorded incident of homosexuals being convicted and killed in the Old Testament. Nobody past Moses appears to have promoted harsh punishments (OT prophets, Jesus, Apostles, early church fathers, etc). Only a few modern wacko preachers promote killing gays. Vigilantism is forbidden in the Biblical. Cities of Refuge were established to prevent that. Crimes had to be taken before judges and witnesses questioned. Even in the isolated nation of Israel and apparently the limited time of Moses & shortly after, what was the threshold gay behavior that would result in stoning. We don’t know. There is no indication that Moses had bedroom spies, peaking into tents. It appears that law served to stop public flaunting and promotion of gay behavior. History tells that the Jews were easily seduced by deviant sexual practices, orgies, etc; that were common in their day. Those practices were highly toxic, personally and socially. I think the strong sex laws of Moses were part of a strong corrective to barbarism of many types. I leave it to another thread to debate rather practicing homosexuality openly is deviant & unhealthy today, etc.

[Complexity]

Sorry. My last reply is a mess. I need to learn how to do quotes. Hope you can determine who said what.

[Complexity]

Credit for One’s Nature: Does God get credit for being good by nature? The tall person doesn’t get credit for the tall gene he was born with. He can’t be otherwise. So why should we glorify God for something He has no control over (his nature)? God can’t do anything other than goodness; He is forced like a robot with no choice.� A person is many thing: his abilities, desires, personality, genes, history, virtues, vices, etc. Justice credits a person for his choices in light of his circumstances. Goodness is both an abstract principle (with many categories), plus it is the important core part of every person. If I ever lost the love I have for my family, I’d be a totally other person. That is how core deep love is to me, you, and God. We can say a person is his goodness (high or low), plus many other features. Who knows the depth of God’s goodness, or rather He both always had goodness and also chose it (in part or fully), or made minor alterations. An Atheist said, “If God is self-created and chose to be good, then God is the mere messenger of something greater than himself. So cut out the middle-man and go straight to goodness.� Of course, man has proven incapable of finding goodness himself. Great minds have debated forever about it. Man can’t even agree which bathroom guys and girls should to go into. And God is not self-created. He always was and exists in all times (the beginning and the end). There is no timing issue here. There was no day 1 of God’s life. God didn’t wake up one day and decide to love his creatures, and stop being apathetic or a cruel brute. Finite minds can’t imagine what happened in “the beginning� or before creating the universe, when God created goodness from scratch, or discovered & chose goodness, or merely was goodness. For man the ultimate starting point, the first cause, is God with all His attributes, outside of time (period, period). Maybe in the afterlife we’ll have more understanding, but for now this will have to do. By definition and by all we know, the ultimate being is above all. And his attributes are above all others and outside of our boxed-in sense of time. We humans are so time oriented, we have to struggle mightily to imagine a timeless existence; or trans-time, multiple-lines of time. Nothing was ever separate or independent from God. We are so caught-up in the flow of time, that we can’t really grasp this. Man often asks God to do diametrically opposing things at the same time (be good, choose goodness, and invent & evolve goodness). Maybe there is not one answer. Maybe a timeless being both always was good and also chose goodness (He both chose it and was it). Or maybe there is a third paradoxical option. I’m betting on a third option. The numerous, unworldly, yet real paradoxes of infinities and those of quantum mechanics are enough to twist our human pea brains into knots. I believe these mysteries give us fresh insights into God’s nature; which is an appreciation of the depths of complexity of God’s complexity and God’s nature. See the Youtube videos on infinity and quantum mechanics for insights into the depths of our ignorance. If we had a Job-like experience today, God would probably say something like, “OK big boy, explain infinity and quantum mechanics. Are there any real infinities? Explain the seemingly nonsense of infinity math and the quantum 2 slit paradox, the observer effect, and instantaneous communication & action of entangled distant particles, and many more. If you can do that then you are ready to understand more about My nature.� We humans do not understand the relationship between God’s will, His choices, and His timeless nature. We can’t conceive of a timeless state. What is to keep God from both being good and also choosing goodness? It is best not to speculate. I am all about digging deeper. But the deeper I dig, the more I think we must stick to main and plain; yet strain for depth, seek for more; but not expect to see all (to have God-vision). We don’t even understand our own created free will, much less God’s. God’s self-defining statement “I am that I am� gives us a glimpse into the infinite; or at least shows the gapping chasm between God’s nature and man’s, and God’s knowledge and man’s. The Bible spends many words describing God’s loving-kindness, generosity, mercy, etc. That is the main and plain, which should fill our lives.
Praise the Principle: Worldly minds mix categories badly. There is the attribute of goodness within persons. And there is the abstract principle of goodness. The principle of goodness has no mind, no will. Goodness is not an actor; no more than is greed and hate. This is the personification fallacy. Goodness has no personhood. Those who praise the principle, might as well praise rocks. Also, nobody has a duty to follow an abstract principle. If so, why not follow hate or suicide? Goodness can’t supplant God. Instead of praising the principle, praise the Provider, who made it possible, support it, and commands it.
Middle Ground: It is uncomfortable for many believers to imagine that God is not in control of every atom in the universe, every microsecond. But there are numerous possible realities between a (1) deterministic, micro-managing, dictator God; and (2) a weak, disconnected God Who is at the mercy of abstract principles of goodness that are higher them Him. There are realities in which the all-powerful God allows his creatures to have free will, yet knows where they are headed and intervenes. God sets up the framework from which goodness arises.
Self-Limiting: God limits His sovereign total control when He gives man free will. God may even limits Himself by creating laws of nature and allowing them to play out to some degree. But only strong Deists believe that God is out to lunch, leaving a clockwork creation to wind down unattended. Christians believe God has foreknowledge, giving Him the ability to see the end of things. Middle-knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism) is God’s ability to see many possible endings if He intervened by doing X, or from original start points A, B, or C. God has this ability either with deadly precision or to a high degree of accuracy. God may or may fully, partially, or rarely use this ability. So, by knowing the possible endings, does God select the start conditions that will cause the least pain while doing the most good.
Definition of Goodness: It is deceptively difficult to define goodness. The Old Testament dietary laws and animal sacrifice were temporary rules. But what are the core eternal laws? I’ll try to define Biblical ultimate & absolute goodness:
1. Order: Without an orderly universe all is chaos, randomness, destruction, and irrationality outnumbering the rational. The foundation of all goodness is a universe run by orderly, stable laws. The physical laws are a model of eternal spiritual laws.
2. High value of human life (also the value of God, angels, and their property)
3. God’s plan of oneness connectedness (1 Cor 12) and resulting love for all (1 Cor 13)
4. Maximum eternal happiness for all those willing to follow God’s plan. Minimum pain & ample pleasures.
5. Fair and rational rules for behavior (10 commandments)
6. Justice: How best to punish bad behavior, educate, redeem, etc.
7. Critical importance of our thought life over heartless acts of works rituals (Matt 5,6,7).
Modified Command Theory: The raw command theory (goodness = whatever God commands) is shallow, arbitrary, and open to abuse by bad gods and priests. A good & rational God would not command anything bad or irrational. That makes sense, but is a tautology (saying good = good). Our job is to preach the many great reasons to believe that God is good and rational. Getting hung up on the mind-twisting philosophy issues is best left to the few who are called to that task. Let’s not minimize the difficulty with platitudes, or say, “I just have faith.� That doesn’t win souls.
Man Judging God: It seems arrogant for man to judge the existence and goodness of God. But we must do so. We are faced with millions of different gods. We must sort them out. Even if we let a minister do it, we must choose our ministers to follow by the rationality of what they believe, or by blind, fickle feelings. We must have a method to distinguish. Ironically, we get our true notions of goodness from God, which is circular. Atheists seldom realize they also are bias, getting their notions from the world, which is circular. But we must start somewhere, check our assumptions, our biases, our motives, where we get our ideas, find best harmony and potential goodness (value, hope, purpose), and make best conclusions. We use reason in the physical realm, revelation measured by reason, and/or feelings.
The Deep Unknown: This dilemma hinges on several deep issues (1) free will verses fixed nature (deterministic & clockwork); (2) God outside of time and chains of cause-effects; (3) God without a beginning; (4) Principles, laws, and virtues outside of God or a result of the orderly creation of God; (5) can God break His own rules or rules outside of Himself (if such exist). We’ll never get to the bottom of these issues in this life, and maybe not in the next. It is great to ponder and search for answers. The Bible is certainty pro-seeking. But we non-gods must admit out limitations. Humility is the order of the day. If we had access to all this understanding and could see the inner workings of God than we’d be on God’s level or even be above god. So let us see what is available, accessible, or at least make the most sense. We don’t understand our own free-will verse God’s sovereignty much less God’s free will & its relationship to His nature and His divine commands.
God’s Free Will: We often discuss man’s free will but I can’t remember a church or secular lesson on God’s free will. If God’s nature is good; is He free to choose evil? The Bible tells us that God is not tempted and the thought of asking for human sacrifice has never enter His mind. Obviously, the thought of human sacrifice enters God’s mind when He condemns the Pagans for doing that. But God has never and would never considered asking for that horrible acts. He knows about sin, but surely, He puts up a shield to prevent entry of most horrible thoughts, as we are taught to do.

[Divine Insight]

God doesn’t protect believers from everything.

Why not? Isn't he supposed to be omnipotent? If so, then he is without excuse for not protecting the innocent from all harm.

So then you, and all the Christians you know, agree that Jesus changed the law?

Jesus/God changed some laws. I don’t sacrifice animals in my backyard.

So there you go. Then Jesus lied when he said that he did not come to change the law.

This wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem if Jesus had said that he did come to change the laws. Then at least he would be telling the truth. But the Gospels have Jesus saying the he did not come to change the law.

Granted this comes from Matthew claiming to quote Jesus. And many scholars believe that Matthew most likely made this up to convince his audience who were orthodox Jews that Jesus does not represent a change of any law of the Jewish Old Testament. So Matthew has Jesus saying that till heaven and earth pass not one jot or tittle shall pass from law.

This was an effort by Matthew to convince orthodox Jews that Jesus isn't in conflict with the original religion.

So now we have a problem. Either Jesus hasn't changed any laws (which flies in the face of just about everything else that Jesus taught) , or Mathew was a liar and Jesus never make this claim. If that's the case then we need to chuck out everything Matthew claims since Mathew would then have proven himself to be an undependable source.

So, at the very best, we can't depend on anything attributed to Jesus.

At the very worst, Jesus himself was a liar.

Neither situation is good for Christianity.

You have raised good questions, a couple I’ve never heard.

That's quite amazing considering that you are 70.

But during times of intense prayer over a matter that had to be decided, I’ve sometimes felt a strong pull in one direction that turns out to be the right way. Is that God’s help?

Highly unlikely. A far more rational explanation is that when you expect to be swayed by an imaginary being you'll most likely convince yourself that you have been.

My screen name is a perfect example of this. When I first registered on this forum I tried several different screen names, but they were already in use and not available. After a while I was drawing a blank. I just couldn't think of a good screen name. In the meantime I had been studying Wicca and so I appealed to Wicca Goddess for inspiration for a screen name. The very moment that I did that "Divine Insight" came into my mind. So I typed it in and it took. No one else had used that screen name.

So what do we do now? Fall down and worship the Moon Goddess since she must be real? Probably not.

A secularist would point out that I was seeking divine insight so the idea that the words Divine Insight would pop into my mind is a perfectly rational explanation.

By golly they do have a point don't they? Those secularists are pretty darn smart. It takes a lot to fool them.

None the less, I could not think of the name "Divine Insight" until I first sought a magical entity to give me divine insight. Interesting huh?

But seriously, if you turn to a God in prayer asking for divine insight on how to deal with a situation, you are only going to accept what you believe to be "divine insight".

In other words, you're highly unlikely to come away believing that God just convinced you to go out and mass murder a bunch of innocent people. That's a "solution" that even you wouldn't believe came from a benevolent God (hopefully)

So anytime you pray to a God you are going to either come away from that experience believing that God gave you the wise answer that you expect to get, or you'll come away empty handed expecting that God may reveal the answer over time. Then later when you finally realize the best action to take, you attribute it back to having prayed to God.

Atheists have similar experiences. Without the prayer of course. In other words, they might just sit down and try to come up with a best solution. Maybe they will maybe they won't. If they don't they move on. Then later a really great solution will just pop into their mind from nowhere and they say, "Eurkea! I just realized a great solution to this problem".

This is just how human brains work naturally.

In fact, great scientists and mathematicians have been doing this for centuries. When they are trying hard to solve a problem they often come to a roadblock where they just can't see any way to make any progress. So they take a break and go for a walk or something just soaking in nature and not thinking about the problem at all. Then suddenly the solution to their original problem pops into their mind crystal clear.

No Gods are harmed in the process.

Divine Insight Wrote:

Also, if it was no longer the law that we are to stone sinners to death, then why didn't Jesus just say so?

It would seem to be wonderful if Jesus gave us a laundry list of updated do’s and don’t for the modern situation. He did answer 50 of the hottest questions of His day, and ended a lot of garbage laws created by Pharisees (613 rules). But he left us hanging with hot topics like capital punishment, homosexuality, women’s right, war, etc. It seems He wants us to struggle with them, based on the Biblical principles.

But is this truly compatible with a God who condemns to eternal damnation those who don't get the right answers?

What's the "right" answer on capital punishment. The God of the Old Testament clearly authorized capital punishment and even commanded that we must do it without pity. So why should a Christian think that capital punishment is even open to be questioned?

And how about homosexuality? If Jesus had nothing to say on the matter, and Jesus proclaimed that he did not come to change the law and that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass until heaven and earth pass. Then why is there a question about homosexuality? Anyone engaging in it is to be killed according to the God of the Bible. Capital punishment is the answer. And even you agree that Jesus had nothing to say on the matter. So why would you think the original law should be in question?

I don't see where Jesus should have left you struggling with anything. If you aren't killing witches you are disobeying God. It's crystal clear:

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Better have capital punishment on the books if you're going to obey God.

~~~~

I have to go do things. I might come back later and take a look at the rests of your posts.

[Complexity]

Thank you for you response.

Divine Insight Wrote:

So there you go. Then Jesus lied when he said that he did not come to change the law.

The Changing Laws of God?: When my older son was 4, my wife and I set the law down that our boys could not ride his tricycle in the street. He proceeded to break the law and was swiftly punished. Our street has the occasional speeder, zipping down it. Now that he is 40 we have eased up on that law. But we have never changed the rule that he is not allowed to take his brother’s things or smack him in the face (they are good guys & I don’t have to remind them of this). Point is that some laws change and some are eternal.
The 1st century Pharisees had the same problem with Jesus that you do. They thought Jesus was trying to re-write the Torah. Jesus argued that He was interpreting it correctly. Some of the law were shadows of the reality of the Savior and eternal life; Colo 2:16-17, Heb10:1. So there was:
1. Messiah and eternal life foreshadowing and sin redemption rituals
2. Dietary for a variety of ancient reasons (health, breaking Egyptian bonds, etc)
3. Eternal, unchanging laws
The first century was a transition period. Jesus and the Apostles spent many words describing which laws were obsolete. Paul explained that the feast and ritual which were symbols of the coming Messiah were no longer required and the new rituals of Baptism, Communion, Sunday, and Easter were instituted: Colossians 2: 14-22. This was easy for the Gentiles but difficult for Jewish Christians to swallow; naturally.

Divine Insight Wrote:

Highly unlikely. A far more rational explanation is that when you expect to be swayed by an imaginary being you'll most likely convince yourself that you have been.

We both have the problem of being swayed by our biases; by a great many strong previous beliefs (Atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc). Our task is to examine ours hearts, arguments, and beliefs honestly (a very difficult thing). Jesus said to judge yourself first and hardest; Matt 7:1-5. I might be over-swayed by a desire for a good God and eternal plan and you might be over-swayed by a dislike of any kind of god messing around in your life. We are swayed to the point of being significantly blinded when our character is low; our ego is high; we let the desire to be right dim our reasoning judgement and sense of fair analysis. I was a hard atheist from at 15 to 21, and there are power Atheists like Dan Barker were famous former ministers. So worldviews can and do fully flip. We are not doomed to our indoctrinations. We are all heavily indoctrinated and few realize the depth of it.

Divine Insight Wrote:

In other words, you're highly unlikely to come away believing that God just convinced you to go out and mass murder a bunch of innocent people. That's a "solution" that even you wouldn't believe came from a benevolent God (hopefully)

Nonbelievers often fear a believers will go mad and start killing because he thought God told him to in prayer or a dream. I argue that if I were your neighbor, you'd much more like me now then when I was 20, unbelieving, shoplifting, feeling deep hatred over little aggressions. My faith (true or myth) has calmed the beast in me for 50 years. It was such a large and fast change that it sure appears to me to be supernatural. If I did hear a voice telling me to kill, my first reaction would be to think it was demonic. I'd see that it was not Biblical. Yes, there are "religious" nut-cakes who hate and murder the innocent. They killed Jesus. But who's philosophy forbids murder and who's philosophy does not? How do you get around survival of the fittest and animalistic, deterministic anything-goes? Do you hope for something better and real?