John A. Broussard

So Homer's Odyssey is "historical?"

I can see now why you believe the bible is a historical document.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Following your own same line of reasoning, just to be safe, there should be no separation of church and state. In other words, just to be safe, divorce should be prohibited except in cases of adultery, and only creationism should be taught in public schools. The chief opponents of physician assisted suicide are fundamentalist Christians. Do you believe that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Oregon's law that legalized physician assisted suicide? Did you object when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned anti-sodomy laws in 13 states about 10 years ago? Believe it or not, the case started when a gay couple in Texas were arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own home. Such an atrocity could only have happened in a state with a large percentage of fundamentalist Christians. Most of the states were predictable Southern Bible Belt states. The two exceptions were Utah and Idaho, both of which have large Mormon populations. The couple sued the state of Texas, and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court overturned anti-sodomy laws in Texas and 12 other states. The other 38 states had already overturned their anti-sodomy laws by legislative and judicial actions. When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered busing decades ago, the state of Virginia closed down the public school system so that white children would not have to go to school with black children. Regarding the supposed Y2K computer crisis, it was to a great extent fundamentalist Christians who predicted dire consequences. If one chooses to become a Christian, one should definitely become a liberal Christian.

There is good reason not to trust the Bible. Matthew 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." The scripture has been fulfilled, but Jesus has not returned to earth.

rhutchin

The original question posed by Pascal was, “"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline?�? He then described a process to answer the question he had posed. To Pascal, the question was whether to believe in the God of the Bible, so the information that one was to consider was that found in the Bible. If a person considered only that information found in the Bible, then Pascal’s Wager would lead to the conclusion that one should believe in God.

More recently, people have objected to the Wager because there is much more information available than that found in the Bible. The question is whether this additional information would cause a person to reach a different conclusion than that he would reach if he only considered the Bible. So, what kind of information would lead a person to a different conclusion than that reached when considering only the Bible? The conclusion reached by Pascal depended on two major points: (1) the promise of eternal bliss and (2) the threat of eternal torment. Implicit in the equation is that the threat must be perceived as real and the promise must be attainable. Consequently, for new information to lead a person to a different conclusion, it would have to do the following:

1. Pose a threat not less than eternal torment;
2. Provide a promise not less than eternal bliss;
3. Give a reason for the person to fear the certainty of eternal torment; and
4. Describe a means for the person to achieve eternal bliss that made than outcome certain.

A person might determine the value of new information following some logical rules. This might include--

1. Written information would be more valuable than non-written.
2. Documented information would be more valuable than information without documentary support.
3. Information from several independent sources more valuable than information from one source.
4. Perceived validity of the sources of information.

I guess the question at this point is to look at the new information which you have identified and evaluate whether it should cause us to change the conclusion we reached when considering the Bible alone.

When we consider Allah, we find an entity that is identified as the God of the Bible except that this entity is not supposed to be Christ. Christ seems to be reduced to being a prophet. If one were to consider the Bible and the Koran, then Pascal’s Wager would lead one to the conclusion that they should believe in God; the same conclusion a person reaches when considering the Bible alone. The added difficulty here is to determine which God one is to believe. In this instance, Allah is attested by one person, the prophet Muhammad. In the case of Christ, we have at least two independent sources telling us that Christ was God. They are the apostles and Paul. Logically, it would seem that one should follow the many witnesses over the one witness. Even the Koran seems to accept the teachings of the Bible and the Bible includes the injunction not to accept the word of one person but to require 2-3 witnesses when deciding a matter.

In considering the other “possibilities�? for “potential�? gods that one might imagine to exist, the person is not really given any additional information that would cause him to change the conclusion he reached when considering the Bible alone.

rhutchin

Let's consider the consequences of a closer alliance between church and state.

1. Any sexual activity outside that which occurs in the marriage of a man and a women would be declared wrong. People would still have sex outside of marriage as people always are rebellious.
2. Any man who marries would be required to stay married for life (but could be separated) and to provide financially for his wife.
3. Schools would include Bible classes.

Under the above, it would seem that we would have a society that evidenced higher moral values, greater respect for people, less crime, reduced welfare costs imposed on society, and fewer sexually related disease such as AIDS and STDs. I would have no problem with that. Would you?

John A. Broussard

How do we decide which church should be in "closer alliance" with the state?

Thanks.

Johnny Skeptic

You wouldn't get anywhere with items 1 and 2 even among most fundamentalist Christians. Regarding item 3, I would not be opposed to Bible classes in schools if other religions would be represented too.

Do you favor the prohibition of physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, same sex marriage, and divorce except in cases of adultery?

Johnny Skeptic

Yes indeed. That is an excellent question, John. The Episcopal Church ordained a gay bishop, some Christians are opposed to playing cards and wearing bikinis on public beaches, and many liberal Christians are pro-choice. Christian Scientists generally lead better lifestyles than the typical Christian does. I was raised as a Christian Scientist, and I never saw a Christian Scientist smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or use profanity. Will rhutchin actually start a movement to legislate the Bible using Pascal's Wager as the foundation for his arguments, in other words, "the mathematical odds favor legislating the Bible"? I sure hope so. The ensuing events would not doubt prove to be quite amusing.

It is interesting to note that a poll by the Barna Research Group, which is an evangelical Christian organization, showed that Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do. In addition, the divorce rate among heterosexual couples in Denmark is higher than the divorce rate among homosexual couples.

If fundamentalist Christians had had their way, creationism would have enjoyed exclusivity in public schools to this day, and homosexuality would still be against the law.

Rhutchin's reference to Pascal's Wager can also be called his (rhutchin's) JTBS argument (just to be safe), which in order to be consistent, must also be resonably proven to be a valid argument regarding the legislation of his fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Bible. We skeptics will no doubt have a lot of fun with this politically and legally incorrect argument. Of course, any attempts to legislate fundamentalist Christians' interpretations of the Bible would immediately create chaos in American society and would cause much greater resentment among fundametalist Christians and liberal Christians than there is now. In addition, most Chrisitains in other Western nations would become much more opposed to the United States than they already are. As far as I know, other than the U.S., fundamentalist Christianity is unpopular in advanced Western nations who enjoy a higher standard of living and higher educational standards. Prohibition didn't work, and neither would legislating the Bible. Rhutchin really missed the boat on this one. Social issues are definitely not his forte. As I showed in one of my previous posts, he embarrassed himself at the GRD forum in debates on homosexuality, and I am quite certain that will never go back and debate that topic again.

I don't want to be too hard on rhutchin. He is a nice guy, and he is not evasive like bfniii and Lee Merrill are.

It is not at all difficult to be seduced by religion, or to have "limitations" to finding "the truth" such as the major influences of geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. A considerably higher percentage of women are Christians than men, and once people become elderly they seldom change their minds no matter what their world views are. I wonder how rhutchin would suggest that skeptic women and skeptic elderly people can better understand Pascal's wager.

Celine

A good time for the quote about "the quickest way to produce atheists is to have people actually read the bible," but google isn't helping me today.
Robert Ingersol? Twain?

rhutchin

The presence of an infinite number of gods does not change the conclusion a person reaches applying Pascal's Wager. The additional information about these gods must change the risk analysis conducted using only that information found in the Bible. At the very least, the presence of many gods does not change the basic conclusion from Pascal's Wager that one should believe in God (even if one has trouble sorting out who God is).

rhutchin

I oppose physician assisted suicide (which can be distinguished from physician assisted life).

The Bible says that any sexual activity that occurs outside the marriage of a man and a woman is sin, so homosexuality is a sin. Same sex marriage is not legitimate either.

The Bible opposes divorce in all cases, including adultery, and I go with the Bible on this issue.