Do we roll the dice with salvation?

[Freddy]

It is threads such as this one that help to confirm my belief that all religion is nonsense!

[Mercedes Benzene]

It is threads such as this one that help to confirm my belief that all religion is nonsense!

 

Why is that?

[stanleyg]

:doh: Thank you CraigD. :Alien: Good catch! Keep me honest.

 

Is it possible to have a "not" without there being an "is" to be not to? Not is a negative transition of the positive infinitive "to be". If both the positive and negative transition didn't exist, then the state of existence for anything would always remain constant.

 

For example: Before we were born we existed in the state of "not to be". Then, after we were born we transitioned to the state of "to be". To communicate our existence we have developed in the English language the term "I am". When we transition back to our original state of "not to be", then our language permits one to communicate the information by referring to us as "he or she was".

 

One would have to be an academic idiot to say that it is possible to have a "not" without there being an "is" to be not to. The latter doesn't conform to the rules of any written or spoken language.

 

If you wish for me to take it a step further applying math or physics, then I will be happy to oblige you!

[ughaibu]

Pascal's wager implies that belief is a necessary condition for the reward, and that the reward sought is ultimate. As belief in things that obviously exist, for example your computer screen, is a given of the human condition, belief at this level is insufficient to partition believers and non-believers for reward or otherwise, Pascal's wager therefore moots a belief in god, as something not known to exist, for the qualifying belief. However, as the wager concerns the ultimate reward, a belief in the existence of that which is thought by the believer to exist is vulnerable to the stronger belief in that which is thought by the believer not to exist. So, for the ultimate reward the believer needs to believe in a non-existent god and is thus disqualified from receiving the reward.

[Pyrotex]

...God didn't create a hell; man did. ...

I see. So, who were these humans who invented hell? Can you show me any engineering drawings? Was it intended to be a theme park?

[IDMclean]

Can you prove that man did not?

 

I figure that so far God has not been proven conclusively, but man has been.

 

So I figure that there is plenty of evidence that points to man as the creator of the concept of hell...

 

And yah, I got the blueprints right here. Fifth Circle. For the violent types. That is my version of hell, one in which violence is the only solution.

[InfiniteNow]

Keeping in mind that this is a science forum, there is clearly no emperical evidence that hell and heaven are anything other than the creations of human minds through out the ages.

Yes, this is a good point. I don't have any evidence to offer, but I've always like those statements which indicate that the ONLY reality or the ONLY truth is that which is in our minds.

 

The world is what you make of it, eh? ;)

 

What a person has written, in my opinion, does not qualify as emperical evidence, expecially as most accounts are second hand at best.

This is especially so with the vast majority of religious accounts. Another good point Clown.

 

 

:cup:

[Boerseun]

"Salvation" isn't something to be betted "for" or "against".

 

If you believe in God, because you're hedging your bets for your soul's eternal destiny, there is absolutely zip, zero, nada morality in it. Then you're not believing in God as the "God of Love" as set forth in the New Testament. Then the whole message of the New Testament have gone over your head. The message encapsulated in the New Testament is that we are already saved, that Jesus died for all our sins, and we are supposed to live our lives in gratitude of that fact. The New and Old Testaments are 180 degrees opposed.

 

Bottom line: No religion or sect has any claim to morality and/or goodness. Good people will always do good, bad people will always do bad. Salvation is a device invented to relieve you of your pocket change on Sundays.

 

God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and a God of Love all at the same time. It is logically impossible. And seeing the need for belief in such a God in terms of the first post in this thread, is trying to pass the buck on your own weaknesses and shortcomings, and exposing your basic fear of death.

[Pyrotex]

"Salvation" isn't something to be betted "for" or "against". ....God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and a God of Love all at the same time. It is logically impossible. ....

YES. There IS intelligence on Earth. The experiment has been a success.

[stanleyg]

"Salvation" isn't something to be betted "for" or "against".

 

If you believe in God, because you're hedging your bets for your soul's eternal destiny, there is absolutely zip, zero, nada morality in it. Then you're not believing in God as the "God of Love" as set forth in the New Testament. Then the whole message of the New Testament have gone over your head. The message encapsulated in the New Testament is that we are already saved, that Jesus died for all our sins, and we are supposed to live our lives in gratitude of that fact. The New and Old Testaments are 180 degrees opposed.

 

Bottom line: No religion or sect has any claim to morality and/or goodness. Good people will always do good, bad people will always do bad. Salvation is a device invented to relieve you of your pocket change on Sundays.

 

God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and a God of Love all at the same time. It is logically impossible. And seeing the need for belief in such a God in terms of the first post in this thread, is trying to pass the buck on your own weaknesses and shortcomings, and exposing your basic fear of death.

 

Jesus has never sought to relieve any of us of our pocket change. Money has no value in heaven. Rather, Christ is our hope of glory. We are saved by our hope of his salvation. If we become complacent thinking or imagining that we have already been saved, then we give up our hope and lose faith in Christ.

 

Rom8 [20] For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

[24] For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

[25] But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

[Boerseun]

Great, Stanley. Then how do you reconcile this last post of yours with the first one, of 'playing it safe'?

 

I put it to you that if you 'believe' in order to 'play it safe', then your basic premise is flawed and your belief is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and has no moral basis to speak of.

 

Yea, verily.

[Pyrotex]

...For we are saved by hope...

Stanley,

this is NOT a religion website.

It IS a Science website.

Part of the rules of being a member here, and enjoying the privileges of posting and debating, is that there is to be NO preaching, NO scripture quoting for the purposes of conversion, saving, or theological exhortation. Your post is in clear violation of the rules.

 

If you wish to preach to the heathen, there are hundreds of websites out there for that very purpose.

[stanleyg]

This is just DeCarte's Wager. It's been around for at least 300 years.

 

And the conclusion that it is critically flawed has been around nearly as long.

 

The wager only offers two selections. This is an arbitrary and unwarranted limitation of the problem. What if salvation is by Buddha or Vishnu or Siva or Isis? DeCarte ignored those possibilities. What if it IS by Christ--whose interpretation of Christ are you going to use? The Catholic Church? Methodists? Baptists? Christian Scientists? Mormons? Holy Rollers?

 

The wager is flawed in that it assumes there is NO cost to siding with Christ. Not true. Being in any religion costs plenty in time and money. And in integrity--believing many dogmas requires that you engage in play-pretend, or that you even damage your ability to think and use logic. Some churches carry this so far that its members can reasonably said to be mentally damaged or even irrational.

 

And what if salvation winds up being an eternal slave in somebody else's paradise? What if the gods lie? What if the gods play hideous jokes on humans for their own amusement?

 

What if you could have become a great statesman, businessman or scientiest, and done something to save humanity--but you threw it all away to become a groveling, bowing, tithing, syncophant to a pulpit master?

I understand the theory, but faith in Christ just because you're playing it safe is a pretty weak form of faith.

You put your faith in Christ because you realize that you are a sinner in need of a savior and know that he is the only way.... not that you're just playing the odds.

Right, wrong or indifferent we play it safe everyday with things we treasure. When we buy a new home or vehicle the first thing we do is go buy an insurance policy. The reason is we don't want to take any chances of something going wrong or losing what we own.

 

Christ has purchased our salvation with a price. The price tag was his life. We own it same as we own our home or vehicle. The question is do we treasure our salvation more, less or as much as we do our worldly treasures? It cost more. It last longer. It has greater value. No insurance policy needed.

 

Making a choice about our after-life is a shot in the dark. We have to blindly choose who we need to trust. We can trust our own opinion, another person's opinion or God's word.

 

Which is the safest choice? Our opinion is no good, because we aren't certain. The next person has the same amount of uncertainty. This leaves us with the final choice. We can take God's word and let it go at that.

 

If we were to discover that an after-life is a true phenomenon, then how do you think God would view our choice to play it safe and take His word for our salvation?

 

I think that God would be very pleased that we chose to take His word over our own opinion or another person's opinion. Maybe He may say "oh ye of little faith". At least I could have a reply that Mathew, John, Mark, Luke, Peter and John had little faith as well.

 

Right, wrong or indifferent, I think God will say that I made the right choice which is more than He can say about either Adam or Eve.

 

He may even look around and point out all the hypocrites going to hell, who said thay had faith, but didn't play it safe with their own salvation.

 

On the other hand, if salvation is an untrue phenomenon, then it really won't matter anyway. Wouldn't have cost me anything except a wasted hope.

 

Sir3 [1] Hear me your father, O children, and do thereafter, that ye may be safe.

[InfiniteNow]

To even begin with the percept that we require salvation instills immediate bias when framing the issue. If believing in something makes you feel safer, happier, and a makes you a better neighbor to other beings and the planet, then please continue that path. However, to claim that others are doomed and need to be saved if they do not is self-righteious arrogance and is not in line with the stated mindset of their followed leader Jesus.

 

If I drive a Lexus and you drive an Infinity, is one of us better? No, we just drive two different cars.