aguy2

If one where to assume that the source of the inspiration of the 'Bible writers' was in the future, it could be seen that the future can't do our work for us; therefore it would be up to us to ascertain what God's motive might be.
aguy2

knotted paragon

What is this, remedial debate 101? Why do you expect others to 'summarize' for you? Why do you have so much trouble picking up the basics rhutchin?

My position is simple: Correct deliberation on the wager can result in non-belief in god(s).

It makes no difference what a person's initial position is on eternal torment. The importance lies in the fact that after having deliberated rationally, a position of non-belief can be reached. All questions of merit are none of your concern, especially since you admit you believe in magic and superstition.

If you are now reversing your position, and wish to assert that (contrary to your earlier statement) non-belief cannot be held after deliberation on the wager, then please present your evidence. Then Pascal was making the same mistake you seem unable to stop making since the bible is not evidence. It would be foolish to believe in superstition without evidence. See, now, here you go again spouting this garbage without any evidence to support your assertion. Please stop making this statement unless and until you can produce such a person. Again, the bible is not evidence. No proof is required to prove the bible false since you have failed to provide evidence that it is anything other than the superstitions of ancient goatfuckersherders. Please stop making statements about what people might do if you can produce no person who has done so. (from message 1840) If it is certain that one of these is lying, why is it uncertain that both of them are not lying?

Johnny Skeptic

Why is that? Possibly out of emotional, illogical self-interest? How could the Bible writers have known that God’s motives were good simply by observing his actions? How would a good God act any differently than an evil, deceptive God? You believe that evil, deceptive, non-human beings exist. How do you propose that we tell the difference between good non-human beings and evil, deceptive non-human beings?

Please be advised that I am not trying to convince you of anything. Hardliners on both sides seldom change their minds. My main interest is trying to convince the undecided crowd and nominal Christians. I am confident that the vast majority of the undecided crowd and nomimal Christians will not be impressed with your reply "I only assume that which the writers of the Bible state," which is really the same thing as saying "the Bible says so is sufficient reason to believe that God is good."

Matthew 22:36-38 say "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." I couldn't possibly love a God who kills babies and creates natural disasters even if I tried to, and especially since he hasn't given one single reason for choosing such excessive punishments.

Where is God today? Does he still perform miracle healings? He supposedly did even after Jesus died, and even after the Holy Spirit had come to the church. In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." Shouldn't people have been to wager that God is good without additional confirmations? After all, hadn't Jesus performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, many of whom were still alive? In addition, didn't 500 people see Jesus after he rose from the dead, many of whom were still alive?

If heaven and hell are really at stake, nothing less than first hand evidence for everyone would be fair. If the God of the Bible exists, he couldn't possibly have anything whatsoever to lose by clearly revealing himself to everyone, and people who would accept him if he clearly revealed himself to everyone would have everything to gain. Those people haven't actually rejected God. All that they have rejected is evidence that they do not find to be appealing. You can't reject someone unless you know that they exist.

rhutchin

The Bible writers wrote that which they observed. It was Jesus, who claimed to be God, who gave us insight into the motives of God. The Bible writers recorded that which Jesus said. We can only assume that which is written. What else is there?

You misunderstand. When I say, "I only assume that which the writers of the Bible state," that is the same as saying, "the Bible says that God is good; I can assume that the Bible means that." Whether one believes is based on factors other than that which the Bible says.

OK. That is your decision. However, what if God were to allow a baby to die (which means that He kills the baby) because He requires that someone ask Him to intervene to save the baby? It seems to be one thing to not love a god who kills babies but another to not love a baby enough to ask God to save it. If a person does not love a baby enough to ask God to save it, is that person capable of loving anyone, including God?

That, apparently, is what faith is all about. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Do you have any doubt where you stand with God? Has not God made your situation very clear by acting as He does? If He had done otherwise, you might be confused.

The object, I think is for people to know what their situation is. I don't see any reason to think that God will save everyone although He is willing for all to be saved if all so desire.

Stephen T-B

"However, what if God were to allow a baby to die (which means that He kills the baby) because He requires that someone ask Him to intervene to save the baby? " (rhutchin).
If the Jewish god ever intervened to save a baby when asked to, it's news to me.

Doctors save babies, when they can. When they can't, does God step in?
No.

JPD

Hmmmm....or did they write that which they wished to believe they observed? Who could tell the difference? Not you clearly since

You "only" assume something which you have no actual knowledge of. Without realising it you may well just believe the beliefs of others.

The Bible takes the goodness of God as far as it can and then dumps it and disappears into the cave called "God's mysterious ways" where slaughter is justified "because we cannot always know God's reasoning". When it looks good then God is good and we can see that God is good. When it looks bad then God is good and we can't see that God is bad since we cannot have knowledge during those moments where the goodness of God is called into question. The knowledge is there while the message sounds nice and pleasant and then whoosh......its God's mysterious ways. Can you see how inconsistent this might appear? When the going is good we understand and when it isn't we understand that we don't understand. Now reverse and apply.


Why would he behave like such a moron? He’s basically bribing someone to believe. What sort of berk worships that?


There is – as usual – absolutely no evidence at all that faith pleases God. But if you are going to use faith then you should have no interest in Pascals’ nonsense.


Speaking on behalf of God again? Its almost like, its almost like……God was a human…….its just a feeling I have I think. You clearly understand God here but it won’t be long before the mysterious ways of God emerge once more – usually to fill the gaping holes in your “arguments.”

Johnny Skeptic

Well, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” If there is an evil and deceptive Satan who “is transformed into an angel of light,” why can’t there be an evil God who is transformed into an angel of light as well? Mark 13:22 says “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.” Why do you believe that the elect cannot be deceived?

How did the Bible writers know that Jesus was telling the truth? How would a good God act any differently than an evil, deceptive God? You believe that evil, deceptive, non-human beings exist. How do you propose that we tell the difference between good non-human beings and evil, deceptive non-human beings? Please do not delete any of this paragraph when you reply to this post.

That is exactly the point. If God were to show up and clearly reveal himself to everyone, even if we could not confirm his identity, we would know that at least one being in the universe had abilities that are far beyond the abilities of humans.

“If all so desire”? Now please, rhutchin. Since everyone desires to eat a good meal, how much more so would everyone desire to enjoy a comfortable eternal life if they believed that a comfortable eternal life was available? If the God of the Bible exists, he cannot possibly be willing for all to be saved if all so desired. If he were willing for all to be saved, he wouldn’t require faith. He would produce first hand tangible evidence for everyone, thereby greatly increasing the number of people who will go to heaven, and forcing all skeptics who refused to accept him after that to admit that they had made fully informed decisions. Human nature being what it is, a good percentage of humans would be quite impressed if a powerful being showed up and demonstrated that he had abilities that were far beyond the abilities of humans. Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce impressed a lot of people, and they did not do anything near what the Bible attributes to God.

In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” Notice that subjective faith did not confirm objective tangible confirmations. Rather, objective tangible confirmations confirmed subjective faith. Also notice that confirmations were made available even though Jesus had supposedly performed many miracles in front of many thousands of people, many of whom were still alive, and even though there were supposedly still hundreds of people alive who had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead, and even though the Holy Spirit had supposedly come to the church. We do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence available today.

Simply stated, God would have nothing to lose if he were to tangibly reveal himself to everyone on a first hand basis, and people who would accept him if he did so would have much to gain. True love could never do anything less.

aa5874

The Christian Bible clearly shows that their Gods are fabricated. Some persons have decided, without any evidence, to believe in a non-existing diety.
The Christian Bible when read in totality and reseached carefully, confirms in itself that there are numerous chronological discrepancies, numerous erroneous statements, genealogical errors, unknown geographical locations, scientific errors and , without exhausting the list, incoherent revelations.

All this culminates to fabrication. The Christian Bible clearly states nothing.

rhutchin

When you figure out what your position is on nonbelief, then we can apply it to the Wager and proceed from there. Until then, I don’t see that this discussion is productive. I think I you don’t want to commit to a position because it would make the Wager’s conclusion obvious even to you.

Again, you don’t believe the Bible is evidence, so you don’t believe that eternal torment is real. The Wager does not apply in your situation. For others, the Wager applies.

We can model a situation without having to produce the situation. That is what math can do. In this case, the Wager says that anyone who does not believe in eternal torment must be able to prove that there is no eternal torment. If that person is unable to do so, then nonbelief is an irrational action. The Wager describes the situation that people can try on to see if it fits.

Again, to you, it is not evidence. To others, it is.

There is probably a law of logic that says that with two contradicting positions at least one must be wrong. I am not aware of a law or principle that allow one to conclude that both were wrong if that is all the information one has.

rhutchin

OK. There are evil beings because the Bible tell us so. The Bible calls one of them Satan. The Bible tells that that you will know a person by his works, so I guess we can use that standard to tell the difference between good non-human beings and evil deceptive non-human beings.

That seems to be the basic argument that Universalists use. As far as I know, God can, and may, save everyone. Then again, He may not.