spamandham

Let me rephrase the question then so there is no ambiguity, and please just answer it truthfully and directly rather than trying to avoid it like you just did.

At this exact moment in time, knowing what you know about the FSM, with no additional revelations from the FSM or any other hypothetical scenarios, *could* you choose to believe in the FSM. I'm not asking if you want to do that, I assume you don't, but rather, is it even realistically possible for you to do so?

Well, you're just flat wrong, and really you know it's true or you would have simply answered 'yes' to the FSM question. You just don't want to admit it because it topples your theology to do so.

Petergdi

That makes about as much sense as saying "The idea that the speed of light is fixed is being used to hide from the logical consequence of Special Relativity." Compatibilism is an essential part of Calvinism. It is not strange for a Calvinist to use Pascal's Wager any more than it was strange for Pascal to do so. Pascal was a Jansenist, and in this respect Jansenism and Calvinism are pretty much the same.

Peter.

Deus Ex

Peter


With a deterministic worldview we as individuals are not completely responsible for our choices. Moderate calvinists seem uncomfortable with the fact that ultimately God is choosing people for hell--it is the reverse side of limited atonement and election.

Calvinists try to use compatibilism to shield God from the blame of reprobation by claiming that we are predestined yet somehow still able to 'choose' salvation or reject it. If a person is not predestined for election, then how did that person 'choose' to reject God? Somehow we are to be held morally culpable for the fact that we cannot go against our sin nature--a nature that we did not ask to be born with. An individual would only have a free choice in salvation if arminian Christianity is true, ie that Jesus died for everyone and we have libertarian free will to accept or reject the gift. Pascal's wager is typically used by "free will" Christians and does not seem consistent with a belief that everyone has a predetermined final destination.

I consider Westboro Baptist Church to be a group that takes calvinism to its logical consequence, ie that God hates certain groups of people. Here is their response to the question of whether God forgives everyone:

When asked why they preach hate:

You may consider these people to be extremists, but I consider them to be 'consistent' calvinists.

Petergdi

Pascal's wager was invented by a Jansenist who is widely regarded as an important philosopher and mathematician. Jansenism has the same doctrine of reprobation as Calvinism. I don't think you could possibly have read either Pascal or Calvin and have the opinions you do. Your opinions seem to come from anti-Calvinist polemic. For the record, I am not particularly Calvinist, though I am a compatabilist. I do object to people insisting that straw-man versions of ideas are somehow the real thing.

Compatibilism is not a way out of logical consequences, it is an essential part of the doctrine. If you have ever read Augustine or Aquinas, they are also pretty much the same in this respect as Calvin and Jansen.

Peter.

Deus Ex

I won't argue further, Peter, because as I told Rhutchen, it does not much matter to me as I disbelieve all forms of Christianity because I feel they are built on false assumptions. However, if you would like to start a new thread in the FWD forum dedicated to compatibilism, then I will discuss it further with you.

Let's get back to the topic of Jesus' inauthentic sayings.

Johnny Skeptic

If we may get back on topic, the title of this thread is "Inauthentic sayings of Jesus." How should historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

There are not any originals of what Jesus said. How old is the oldest copy of anything that Jesus said? If there aren't any copies from the first and second centuries, does that help to discredit Christianity?

show_no_mercy

That depends on what you mean by "copy". There are manuscript fragments from the 2nd century. Nothing from the 1st.

Johnny Skeptic

By "copies," I mean alleged copies of what the Gospel writers originally wrote.

Regarding the manuscript fragments from the 2nd century that you mentioned, do any of them quote Jesus?

avi

The Ryland's fragment, P52, is supposed by some, to be the oldest extant, confirmed, fragment of the new Testament, in this case, the Gospel of John. The dating ranges from 125-150 CE, though, I am unaware of the method employed to achieve this reputed date of birth.

I do not know if the text found on this ancient papyrus includes ideas attributed to Jesus, or simply narrative.

avi

Deus Ex

I believe Paleography was used to determine the date range of the P52 fragment.