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]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

I have only been on this site for a couple weeks and I see a lot of hostility toward God, especially the Judeo-Christian God. It's like the Atheists don't just disagree with the idea that there is (or could be) a God, you are down-right hostile to the idea (or reality) your very lives depend on defeating Christians and Jews intellectually and otherwise.

Now DI, Piscal's waiver is quite easy to understand. Take the syllogism:

The afterlife (good or bad) depends on the potential of God existing.
God exists
Therefore, the afterlife exists

or

The afterlife (good or bad) depends on the potential of God existing.
God does not exist
Therefore, the afterlife does not exist.

Kind of messy because I had to accommodate two propositions but you get the idea. The problem is Atheism and intellectuals like to make religious topics too complex. They like to say they don't understand what somebody said what they did trying to make religious people out to be kooks. This what you just did. Calm down and take things at face value. That's all for now.

I hope that it's obvious to you that I can and have understood the extremely simple explanation that you have given. However, this is extremely problematic for Pascal.

To begin with this is no different from arguing that we should believe in a fairy Godmother because it's claimed that she will give us eternal life and candy to boot!

If we refuse to believe in the fairy Godmother, then no candy for us!!!

Is this truly a sound and rational argument?

Surely I hope you can see that it's utterly absurd.

We can't just go around believing in things because they offer attractive rewards.

That is not an intelligent proposition.

Also, have you even stopped to consider the following:

Christianity says that if you believe in Jesus you MIGHT be "saved" from damnation and offered eternal life in paradise. But this isn't even guaranteed! Jesus himself said that he would not acknowledge or recognize people just because they claim to know him or believe in him.

Now, look at Islam.

If you believe in Islam and go out and kill heathens in Allah's name you will be GUARANTEED Allah's approval and a place in his eternal heaven. PLUS you'll also be given your own harem of 10 Beautiful Virgins to boot!

Therefore according the logic you are arguing for we should all place our wager on Islam and rush out to kill as many heathens as we can in Allah's Name!

Because this is the bet that offers the greatest GUARANTEED reward!!!

You won't even need to gamble on whether or not Jesus might accept you.

Do you really want to argue for that?

[The Tanager]

My Position:

The Bible cannot be true AS WRITTEN.

What you are arguing for are anti-Biblical so-called "Christian theologies" that have, by the way, already confessed to my position (i.e. the Bible cannot be true AS WRITTEN)

So you are no longer even arguing against my position. To the contrary you are conceding it and supporting it.

I never argued against this position. I granted it from the very beginning for the sake of analyzing your views on Pascal's wager philosophically.

I've argued that Pascal's not advising you to actually answer the God question through the wager. The wager is meant only to show that even if you took the wager to believe, you would still say that you can't believe. Your heart is not in it. Pascal isn't using the wager to say "this is why you should be a Christian." Pascal uses the wager as one part of his actual argument that says the way we answer the God question (whether you are theist or atheist) is not by reason, but by the heart.

If your response to this has simply been "the Bible cannot be true AS WRITTEN," then how does this address Pascal's argument? Are you equating the heart with the Bible?

Pascal says Christian theism cannot be proven 100% true through reason alone. Pascal also says Christian theism cannot be proven 100% false through reason alone. Have you not also been arguing that you actually think Christian theism can be proven 100% false through reason alone? Your posts make it seem like you also hold this position. But here's a chance for you to clarify your stance on this question.

If your only position is that the Bible isn't true as written, then what is your problem with Pascal's argument?

[Divine Insight]

I've argued that Pascal's not advising you to actually answer the God question through the wager. The wager is meant only to show that even if you took the wager to believe, you would still say that you can't believe. Your heart is not in it. Pascal isn't using the wager to say "this is why you should be a Christian." Pascal uses the wager as one part of his actual argument that says the way we answer the God question (whether you are theist or atheist) is not by reason, but by the heart.

Are you then suggesting that Pascal is actually saying that only a fool would place Pascal's Wager? That he has proposed this wager as an example of a futile exercise that everyone should avoid?

If so, then I agree with him. But I don't see this as being the commonly accepted understanding of Pascal's Wager. Even the OP of this thread seems to be suggestion that Pascal is saying that to place our belief in God is the better "bet".

If your response to this has simply been "the Bible cannot be true AS WRITTEN," then how does this address Pascal's argument? Are you equating the heart with the Bible?

No. At that point I'm simply asking, "What exactly are we supposed to be believing?"

If we take the Bible out of the picture, then what are we supposed to believe in? Zeus? Allah? The Wicca Moon Goddess? What?

Pascal says Christian theism cannot be proven 100% true through reason alone.

Agreed

Pascal also says Christian theism cannot be proven 100% false through reason alone.

With this I disagree. Again what is even meant by "Christian Theism"? That term seems to be tossed around without any coherent definition. If by "Christian Theism" we mean the Biblical story of Yahweh leading up to Jesus and the New Testament, then the "theism" is that canon of stories.

I do not claim that 100% of those stories can be proven false. However I do claim that many of those stories can be proven to be 100% false.

So then the question becomes "Which parts of this theism are we supposed to believe? And why?"

According to Pascal the reason we should believe them is because of his "wager". In other words we are betting on the promises of the story being true when we choose to "believe" in a theology that clearly contains many stories that can be shown to be 100% false. Or at the very least, they contain such obvious immoral principles, absurdities and/or logical contradictions that their validity should definitely be suspect.

So Pascal is asking us to believe in highly suspect unbelievable stories for why? Because they promise eternal life if we believe them?

I argue that this is a very weak proposal. And it would then necessarily need to apply to all other religions and theology. I don't know about you, but I have found far better theologies out there that are far more inviting than the Bible. So according to Pascal's reasoning, I would be far better off believing in them. I might add that they are not only more attractive, but they are also more believable too!

Have you not also been arguing that you actually think Christian theism can be proven 100% false through reason alone? Your posts make it seem like you also hold this position. But here's a chance for you to clarify your stance on this question.

I believe that parts of Christian theism (i.e. the Bible) can be shown to be 100% false.

This doesn't mean that every single claim within a story can be shown to be false. What it means is that 'some' of claims that are extremely important to the story line can be shown to be false. And as far as I'm concerned this is sufficient for recognize the fallacy of the overall claims being made.

In fact, this logical reasoning is very well-accepted in mathematics. To prove that a proposition is true you need to prove that every single proposition within it being made is true. However, to prove that a proposition is false, you only need to show one counter-example.

I see this same logical reasoning be applicable to the Biblical stories. The Canaanites where supposed to have knowingly and willingly rejected their creator God and refuse to obey him or appease him in any way. Yet the story then has these same people sacrificing their own children to what they believe to be their creator God to appease him and obey him.

So the story contains it's own falsifying counter-example. It's not necessarily for any other parts of the story to be shown to be false. In fact, everything else told in the story could potentially be true. Only one counter-example is required to show that the entire proposition is false. One counter-example = 100% falsification. Especially when the counter example is central to the entire plot of the story.

If your only position is that the Bible isn't true as written, then what is your problem with Pascal's argument?

What then is Pascal asking us to "believe in"?

Islam?
Buddhism?
Wicca?
Zeus?

What?

[The Tanager]

Are you then suggesting that Pascal is actually saying that only a fool would place Pascal's Wager? That he has proposed this wager as an example of a futile exercise that everyone should avoid?

If so, then I agree with him. But I don't see this as being the commonly accepted understanding of Pascal's Wager. Even the OP of this thread seems to be suggestion that Pascal is saying that to place our belief in God is the better "bet".

It has been known to happen. Many people don't come close to understanding Aquinas' five ways correctly, for instance. People can be very bad at looking at the context of a passage, if they even read the original author at all.

With Pascal, if my understanding is true, the misunderstanding even seems to be in a lot of the scholarship. That should give us pause, but I'm reading the text itself and reading the context around it (and there are some scholars who also seem to hold this view). I'm open to being shown my interpretation is off, but it's going to take more than "it's not the common understanding." And note that I don't mean that you are trying to do that, it's just a general comment.

If we take the Bible out of the picture, then what are we supposed to believe in? Zeus? Allah? The Wicca Moon Goddess? What?

It doesn't matter for the logic of Pascal's argument here. The argument says we don't settle the God question through reason alone, but through the heart. Then, of course, the question will come in as to what God the heart will find. Pascal believes the Christian God is still a viable option. You don't, obviously.

I've had a good say there on why I think your understanding of Christian theism being proven false is very weak, even assuming your view of the Bible is true (and I think that is very questionable itself), so I'm not really interested in pursuing that further.

You think you have been properly understanding things and showing logical conclusions and when I respond as to why I don't think that is the case, you drop that and then make another claim of a (related but) new supposed difficulty at the next level that has the same kind of mistakes (in my estimation). You don't respond back by saying, no, the contradiction still stands even though you probably would still say it clearly does. Instead of repeating that over and over, since we both have had a lot of experience with such matters, I'll let my thoughts stand as is unless someone else has a question or thought for me.

Regardless of whether I'm right or not, at least one of us just isn't reasoning well and we've had plenty of opportunities to try to change each other's views. I'm still opening to talking about Pascal's argument and wager itself, but not this stuff on Christian theism being proven 100% false.

If we don't discuss the earlier part either, then I do want to thank you for engaging me on this, for challenging my thoughts, for spurring me into reading Pascal's wager in the text itself instead of relying on popular interpretations, among other things I'm forgetting to mention as well.

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 81 by Divine Insight]

I hope that it's obvious to you that I can and have understood the extremely simple explanation that you have given. However, this is extremely problematic for Pascal.

If things are simple, they are simple. Pascal made a 50/50 wager – that is all I’m pointing out. Whether I recognize that it is “obvious� to you it is not the point. You seem to make everything a mountain out of a mow hill when it comes to anything Christian. Pascal made a sound point. Either there is a God or there is not and what would be the consequences for believing or not.

Straight forward logic. So what is exactly your point?

To begin with this is no different from arguing that we should believe in a fairy Godmother because it's claimed that she will give us eternal life and candy to boot!

If we refuse to believe in the fairy Godmother, then no candy for us!!!

Is this truly a sound and rational argument?

That is the Christian message – yes, but the reward is much more than any “candy� found on Earth. There will be many rewards in Heaven (James 1:12, Daniel 2:6, Revelation 22:12, Mathew 6:20) but the best reward is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Surely I hope you can see that it's utterly absurd.

No, I think it’s pretty clear in either case, but God or Yahweh is not the fairy Godmother. God, for the believer, is a living being. For others who believe in another God, that God is really being for them. For the Atheist, like you, you believe in concepts that you can see, hear touch but ultimately end up with nothing.

We can't just go around believing in things because they offer attractive rewards.

Why not, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. Isn’t that what you secularists always say.

That is not an intelligent proposition.

Also, have you even stopped to consider the following:

Christianity says that if you believe in Jesus you MIGHT be "saved" from damnation and offered eternal life in paradise. But this isn't even guaranteed! Jesus himself said that he would not acknowledge or recognize people just because they claim to know him or believe in him.

Ah, my favorite point. Let’s look at this. Now, I don’t know which part of the bible you’re referring to that says “MIGHT BE SAVED.� There may be a “MIGHT� in there somewhere and don’t forget different versions will have different wording. I’m always taught belief in Jesus Christ is enough to GUARANTEE SALVATION. Even if there is a “might� in there somewhere, I may be able to explain it, but first let’s take a look at what the King James Version (KJV) bible says about salvation:

First, how about John 3:3

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

One of the most popular verses in the bible you may be aware is John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Another one is John 14:2-3

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

As Christ hung on the Cross, two criminals, one on His right and another on His left had the following final conversation before death, and Jesus decided the dispute between them.

In Luke 23:39-43 it gives the following account:

39 …If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Another is cited above, Mathew 6:20, and the Bible says:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal;

Lastly, Mark 9:41 recalls the following that Jesus said:

41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

Now, about the word “might“ or perhaps “may� – yes some versions of the bible and some preachers possibly change words of verses such as “should not� in John 3:16 to “might� or “may� for example which makes it seem there is no guarantee. There is no guarantee before repentance of sin and full acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, but there is a guarantee of everlasting life after those two requirements have been fulfilled.

Now, look at Islam.

If you believe in Islam and go out and kill heathens in Allah's name you will be GUARANTEED Allah's approval and a place in his eternal heaven. PLUS you'll also be given your own harem of 10 Beautiful Virgins to boot!

Well, if Allah is the real God, I rather go to Hell, as I deserve. That is a sick twisted fantasy for male dominance and female oppression in the afterlife. There is no equivalence between Jesus and Muhammad or Allah. Jesus taught peace and love while Muhammad taught violence, murder, and conquest. Do Christians and true believers always follow Jesus’ example – no. Christians sometimes can be the worst violators of His teachings, but He is always there to forgive. Allah is not.

Comming back to Pascal, this whole line of argument proves his point. Either God exists or not. Either Jesus is God or Muhammad is God. How do we know or can't we know for sure? It is all a 50/50 proposition, as Pascal says. How should we behave until we know, if possible? This is the point of Pascal's Wager.

[Bust Nak]

If things are simple, they are simple. Pascal made a 50/50 wager – that is all I’m pointing out. Pascal made a sound point. Either there is a God or there is not and what would be the consequences for believing or not.

Straight forward logic. So what is exactly your point?

The point is, it's not 50/50. The odds are heavily stacked against Pascal, he is betting on the wrong horse.

[Divine Insight]

Either there is a God or there is not and what would be the consequences for believing or not.

Straight forward logic. So what is exactly your point?

But that makes no sense in terms of Pascal's wager. In fact, this idea just reveals the extreme arrogance of Christians who believe in Christianity. They believe that either their God exists, or there is no God.

See, the problem is that in order for Pascal's wager to have any meaning it must be known precisely what this "God" supposedly expects from people. Otherwise, how would people know what to change about their behavior, or how to live?

In fact, in terms of a generic idea of the existence of a "God" in general it would make absolutely no difference to me in how I would live my life at all whether such a God exists or not. Why should it? Why should I think that I'm currently doing anything that a "God" would disapprove of???

This is why I keep asking, "Exactly what is it that Pascal wants to do that he feels he would need to change if a God existed?"

Pascal's entire argument is based on the idea that a person wants to do things that a God would supposedly disapprove of. This is why I say that Pascal's wager would only work for people who already feel that they are doing bad things.

To begin with this is no different from arguing that we should believe in a fairy Godmother because it's claimed that she will give us eternal life and candy to boot!

If we refuse to believe in the fairy Godmother, then no candy for us!!!

Is this truly a sound and rational argument?

That is the Christian message – yes, but the reward is much more than any “candy� found on Earth. There will be many rewards in Heaven (James 1:12, Daniel 2:6, Revelation 22:12, Mathew 6:20) but the best reward is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ.

So my question for Pascal now appears to apply to all Christians, "What exactly is it that Christians want to do that a belief in a God would change their behavior?"

The reason I keep asking this question is because I see no reason to change my behavior at all whether a God exists or not. Unless you are specifically talking about the Biblical God not complying specifically to his demands (whatever those specific demands might be). Apparently even the Christians can't agree on what they God expects from them. So even betting on the existence of their God wouldn't help them much.

Surely I hope you can see that it's utterly absurd.

No, I think it’s pretty clear in either case, but God or Yahweh is not the fairy Godmother. God, for the believer, is a living being. For others who believe in another God, that God is really being for them. For the Atheist, like you, you believe in concepts that you can see, hear touch but ultimately end up with nothing.

I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. In other words, I simply confess to the TRUTH that I don't know whether there is an afterlife of not.

However, if there is a God I can't imagine why that God would be upset with me unless he was himself an evil jerk.

In short, the only God I would need to worry about would be an evil God. A decent benevolent God would not be a threat to my eternal existence, if such a thing exists. Therefore there is nothing for me to bet on. Either I'll continue to live after this life or I won't. Any attempt to change my behavior in an effort to win eternal life would be futile in any case.

In fact, if I had to change my behavior in order to qualify for eternal life that would only prove that I don't deserve it.

We can't just go around believing in things because they offer attractive rewards.

Why not, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. Isn’t that what you secularists always say.

Christianity hurts many people. And clearly this is what Pascal's wager is all about. It's about blindingly supporting Christianity on a bet no less.

That is not an intelligent proposition.

Also, have you even stopped to consider the following:

Christianity says that if you believe in Jesus you MIGHT be "saved" from damnation and offered eternal life in paradise. But this isn't even guaranteed! Jesus himself said that he would not acknowledge or recognize people just because they claim to know him or believe in him.

Ah, my favorite point. Let’s look at this. Now, I don’t know which part of the bible you’re referring to that says “MIGHT BE SAVED.� There may be a “MIGHT� in there somewhere and don’t forget different versions will have different wording. I’m always taught belief in Jesus Christ is enough to GUARANTEE SALVATION. Even if there is a “might� in there somewhere, I may be able to explain it, but first let’s take a look at what the King James Version (KJV) bible says about salvation:

First, how about John 3:3

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

One of the most popular verses in the bible you may be aware is John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Another one is John 14:2-3

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

As Christ hung on the Cross, two criminals, one on His right and another on His left had the following final conversation before death, and Jesus decided the dispute between them.

In Luke 23:39-43 it gives the following account:

39 …If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Another is cited above, Mathew 6:20, and the Bible says:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal;

Lastly, Mark 9:41 recalls the following that Jesus said:

41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

Now, about the word “might“ or perhaps “may� – yes some versions of the bible and some preachers possibly change words of verses such as “should not� in John 3:16 to “might� or “may� for example which makes it seem there is no guarantee. There is no guarantee before repentance of sin and full acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, but there is a guarantee of everlasting life after those two requirements have been fulfilled.

In that case then to be saved you must "Believe in Jesus".

Can you believe something on a bet?

I don't see how. Thus Pascal's wager fails.

You can't just decide to believe something on a bet. You either believe it or you don't. To "bet" on it when you don't truly believe would be fraudulent.

This is why I had asked before whether Christians believe Jesus could be fooled by those who accept Pascal's Wager?

Can you fool Jesus into believing that you believe in him, when in fact all you are doing is placing a bet that if he turns out to be real you'll win a prize of eternal life?

This is why I say that Christians should be the first ones in line to renounce Pascal's Wager.

Now, look at Islam.

If you believe in Islam and go out and kill heathens in Allah's name you will be GUARANTEED Allah's approval and a place in his eternal heaven. PLUS you'll also be given your own harem of 10 Beautiful Virgins to boot!

Well, if Allah is the real God, I rather go to Hell, as I deserve.

That's how I feel about Yahweh. So we see eye to eye on this rational reasoning.

Of course I feel the same way about Allah too, but I don't see where Yahweh is any different from Allah. They are both hateful untrustworthy barbarians as far as I can see.

That is a sick twisted fantasy for male dominance and female oppression in the afterlife.

Why should you think that things should be any different in Christianity? Doesn't the Christian God also command that a man should rule over his wife and that the wife is to serve the desire of the husband?

The entire Abrahamic paradigm is based on male dominance.

There is no equivalence between Jesus and Muhammad or Allah.

So? Jesus isn't God in Christianity. Yahweh is God. And there are many equivalencies between Yahweh and Allah. In fact, both of these Gods are based on precisely the same original myths. So they are indeed the same God.

Jesus taught peace and love while Muhammad taught violence, murder, and conquest.

Sorry, Jesus also taught violence and hatred:

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus clearly preached hatred.

Matthew 10:
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Jesus preached violence and promised to pit families and loved ones against each other. Clearly not a peaceful man.

Do Christians and true believers always follow Jesus’ example – no. Christians sometimes can be the worst violators of His teachings, but He is always there to forgive. Allah is not.

Where does it say in the Qur'an that Allah cannot forgive anyone?

Comming back to Pascal, this whole line of argument proves his point. Either God exists or not. Either Jesus is God or Muhammad is God. How do we know or can't we know for sure? It is all a 50/50 proposition, as Pascal says. How should we behave until we know, if possible? This is the point of Pascal's Wager.

What? Either Jesus is God or Muhammad is God?

When did the concept of God come down to these two religions? And besides, isn't Yahweh God in Christianity, and Allah God in Islam? Neither Jesus nor Muhammad are God.

And besides, what about other world religions? There are plenty of other stories of God that we can place our "bet" on. And many of them are far superior to both Yahweh and Allah.

If I were going to "bet" on a religion I would bet on Buddhism. But would it make any difference? According to Pascal it must make a difference, otherwise what would be the point in making the bet in the first place?

And again, I don't see where I would need to change my behavior in most cases. I think if I were to bet on Islam I probably would need to change my behavior in ways that I would not even approve of. In other words I would need to be a far worse person than I currently am in order to please Allah.

The same is true of Yahweh in Christianity. If I were to change my behavior in an attempt to please Yahweh I would need to become a far worse person than I currently am.

Could I follow some of the teachings of Jesus without becoming a worse person than I already am? I suppose so as long as I don't need to follow his hateful instructions I had already posted above.

However, the thing is that I wouldn't need to change my behavior at all to satisfy the good things attributed to Jesus. In fact, when I read the Christian Bible, Jesus is the first character in the whole shebang that actually has moral values similar to mine. Even Yahweh didn't fill that bill.

All I can say is that Jesus seems to be a lot like me. There's no need for me to change anything to be like Jesus (unless I'm supposed to hate my family as Jesus commanded above).

I don't hate my family so I guess I can't appease Jesus anyway.

[Complexity]

Divine Insight wrote:

I don't hate my family so I guess I can't appease Jesus anyway.

For many years I had a deep hated my mother. During college I avoided going home at all costs. My mother was a difficult drunk. One holiday, the campus was a ghost town except for me. When became a Christian, with virtually zero Bible knowledge, one of my first desires was to go home and love on my mother; and other family members. I could handle the family drama and even feel love because of a new super-power in me. That remarkable transformation hasn't changed since that fateful night Nov 20, 1970.

Luke 14:26 does seem harsh and is provocative. It does seem like an attention getter Jesus would use. It is explained by the context, amplified Bible, Matthew 10:37 (sister verse), and the entire Bible testimony of a loving God teaching us to love each other. We simply are to love Jesus more than all else; since Jesus is superior to and the source of all else, including my own life. If God isn't number one, there is no foundation of value or truth.

Pascal's wager is at its best a last ditch argument to believe or a kick in the pants to get a person to seek truth honestly. Obviously if Pascal's Wager is used as a cold-hearted faith calculation, the resulting bargain basement faith is loveless and foolish. God isn't a dumb-dumb who accepts such faith. There are numerous verses that stand sharply against heartless work's religion starting in the Old Testament (Jer 7:21-28, Is 29:13, Hosea 8:12-14, Amos 4, Micah 6:6-8).

Millions play the lottery risking a small lose for an unlikely great gain. But faith in God is far more than such a calculation. I see 12 key factors and numerous issues and questions. It is very complex and can't be reduced to a simple benefit to risk ratio. Yes, baby faith is simple but should mature and be tested as one ability increases. Blind faith is simple but totally non-biblical.[/quote]

[Divine Insight]

But faith in God is far more than such a calculation.

Before a person can place their faith in a God they must first believe that the God exists. And that can't be done on a bet.

Also, before a person can have faith that trusting in Jesus will save them from being condemned by Yahweh they must first place their faith in the idea that Yahweh is out to condemn them and that they deserve condemnation.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to believe, on pure faith, that they deserve to be condemned. Yet this is precisely what a person must believe if they are to believe in Christianity. You must believe that you are such as despicable person that you deserve to be damned, otherwise it makes no sense to believe that you need to be saved.

I see absolutely no reason to believe, on pure faith, that I'm a despicable person who deserves to be damned. In fact, the idea that I lust for evil and reject all that is good is clearly as false as an idea can be. Therefore this religion cannot be true.

This religion can only be true for people who lust for evil and despise all that is good. Those are the only people that Christianity can make any sense to. Christianity cannot make sense to any truly decent person, because decent people don't deserve to be damned, and therefore they would have no need to be saved from damnation.

[Complexity]

Divine Insight Wrote:

Also, before a person can have faith that trusting in Jesus will save them from being condemned by Yahweh they must first place their faith in the idea that Yahweh is out to condemn them and that they deserve condemnation.

There certainly are horribly evil people who never improve even after many great people reach out to them throughout their life. 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. 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. 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. 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. I shelf that concern for eternity. I don't think the possible pains of hell factored into my faith calculation. I resisted that strongly. Feat 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.[/quote]