virgio

It is an arguable point because those certain Protestant sects are part of *one* religion, Christianity. Therefore, there are groups within Christianity that disagree on one point. You seem to be claiming that neither group are actually disagree, or having an argument. They do, however, therefore it IS arguable. You *can* argue that Christianity offers salvation based on rewards because people within Christianity *do* argue such a thing. Disagreement to this argument doesn't make it a non-argument. Heh

virgio

Ender

On faith in jesus/works: proof that Nietzsche leans closer to the catholic camp!

From Nietzsche's Antichrist, 39, Mencken translation:

39.
--I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.--The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding--at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "Gospels" died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the "Gospels" was the very reverse of what he had lived: "bad tidings," a Dysangelium.14It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in "faith," and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian. . . To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages. . . . Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being. . . . States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true--as every psychologist knows, the value of these things is perfectly indifferent and fifth-rate compared to that of the instincts: strictly speaking, the whole concept of intellectual causality is false. To reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance of truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the negation of Christianity. In fact, there are no Christians. The "Christian"--he who for two thousand years has passed as a Christian--is simply a psychological self-delusion. Closely examined, it appears that, despite all his "faith," he has been ruled only by his instincts--and what instincts!--In all ages--for example, in the case of Luther--"faith" has been no more than a cloak, a pretense, a curtain behind which the instincts have played their game--a shrewd blindness to the domination of certain of the instincts . . .I have already called "faith" the specially Christian form of shrewdness--people always talk of their "faith" and act according to their instincts. . . In the world of ideas of the Christian there is nothing that so much as touches reality: on the contrary, one recognizes an instinctive hatred of reality as the motive power, the only motive power at the bottom of Christianity. What follows therefrom? That even here, in psychologicis, there is a radical error, which is to say one conditioning fundamentals, which is to say, one in substance. Take away one idea and put a genuine reality in its place--and the whole of Christianity crumbles to nothingness !--Viewed calmly, this strangest of all phenomena, a religion not only depending on errors, but inventive and ingenious only in devising injurious errors, poisonous to life and to the heart--this remains a spectacle for the gods--for those gods who are also philosophers, and whom I have encountered, for example, in the celebrated dialogues at Naxos. At the moment when their disgust leaves them (--and us!) they will be thankful for the spectacle afforded by the Christians: perhaps because of this curious exhibition alone the wretched little planet called the earth deserves a glance from omnipotence, a show of divine interest. . . . Therefore, let us not underestimate the Christians: the Christian, false to the point of innocence, is far above the ape--in its application to the Christians a well--known theory of descent becomes a mere piece of politeness. . . .

John Page

How about heavan, god knows we live in an results driven society so what about chosing what type of heavan you want?

Actually, when I was 15 I got into trouble in English lessons. Usual homework stuff, write an essay on one of the following three topics. One of them was heavan and I got to thinking well what would it really be like. I came up with a relativistic notion that, by definition, there must be multiple heavans to keep everyone happy. Pleased with this I analogized the notion to be like Disneyland where you could choose the rides and they're all free. Of course, from there it was a short step to suggesting that we had our own personal gods etc. I think gods were standard though, not optional.

Atheist heavan? After first being introduced to the concept of god being a woman, worship became a lot more attractive.

Pomp

virgio,

It is an arguable point because those certain Protestant sects are part of *one* religion, Christianity. Therefore, there are groups within Christianity that disagree on one point.

Compare your statement to the assertion that, arguably, all Republicans are anti-abortionists. Now, grated, some Republican factions are pro-choice, but they are merely factions within one party called Republican, so it is arguable that all Republicans oppose abortion.

You *can* argue that Christianity offers salvation based on rewards because people within Christianity *do* argue such a thing.

Peopel within certain sects, yes. Christianity is not a monolithic belief system, and it is ridiculous to pretend that there is One True Christian stance on works vs. faith. Why don't we let each particular sect tell us what it believes instead of claiming that, arguably, they all believe the same thing?

Disagreement to this argument doesn't make it a non-argument.

No, but the fact that it is blatantly contradicted by the beliefs of many Christian sects, as stated by those sects themselves.

John Page

I agree with virgio that Protestantism is somewhat different than other branches of Christian religion.

How about this. "The urge to anarchy, to do one's own thing and rebel, is the atomic engine of change in society. This inbuilt challenge of accepted beliefs, desire to freedom and a better life brought about a wide acceptance of christianity. This same phenomenon created a backlash against catholic dogma in the form of protestantism. The latter espoused personal belief and cut down on the brainwashing. The result was a more succesful society because individuals' freedom was increased. The secular U.S. constitution, driven by religious persecution (ironically, of a strict form of Protestantism!) has better harnessed the atomic forces of anarchy - in turn this has made life more tolerable for atheism. Can atheism deliver the benefits, god knows!"

Boro Nut

I drew the same conclusion when I did a search before my posting.

Scotty

Back to the original question, I think it would be:

Pascal's Disposable Razor Wager

-Scott

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Scotty ]</p>

tronvillain

Boro Nut:
Ah, so you were just claiming that it wasn't necessarily "Occam", not that it was "Ocham."

Boro Nut

No, I was just using the spelling favoured by no lesser person than Alfred Einstein himself.

Boro Nut

Draygomb

Alfred Einstein <img src="confused.gif" border="0">