How did this thread deteriorate to debate over the existence of Jesus? I thought it was about Pascal’s wager. Is belief in Jesus as God a necessary aspect of the wager? If so, the wager denies Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus any right to opt for eternal life.
Here’s a different way to think about Hell:
The duration of the time it takes to commit the crime doesn’t match the punishment.
For example, it only takes a few seconds to murder someone. Does that mean the murderer should only receive a few seconds of jail time? Of course not.
One could shoot up a kindergarten class in 1 minute. Should they receive 1 minute of jail time as punishment
No.
This explains more:
catholic.com/video/is-etern … punishment
Lastly, the Bible had dozens of passages about rewards for Christians.
openbible.info/topics/reward[/quote}
You continue to confuse man’s sense of time and justice with what eternity can entail. Do you still believe an eye for an eye is justice?
On the wager, once again–“Do not put us to the test”–Jesus in what is called the Lord’s prayer.
You seem to have a reasonable grasp of the problem of the historical Jesus and are reading the texts metaphorically. Your point of view is secular whereas free spirit is looking at it from within the Roman Catholic tradition. Hence the impasse. I wonder what if anything can be gained from the dialogue? Do your positions somehow get clarified in your own minds?
Paul says somewhere that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. I know of no historical confirmation of that claim anywhere.
Free spirit.
How do you reconcile the proposition of eternal torture in hell with the proposition that God is love?
duplicate
Because Hell is a result of our free will. It has nothing to do with God forcing us there.
We choose it.
TS,
All of that is a lie. I’ve been to thousands of hell realms. Not one being chose it.
Technically, every being in existence is in a hell realm (having their consent violated), some MUCH worse than others.
The definition of hell is having your consent violated, and the definition of consent violation is what you don’t want and don’t choose.
That’s right, Paul said that, and there is no historical confirmation of that claim anywhere. Therefore it is an unsubstantiated assertion and cannot be evidence for anything.
There’s a “Pascal’s wager” for every religion which preaches eternal punishment for not believing their religion. So there’s a Christian Pascal’s wager, and there’s a Muslim Pascal’s wager, and if you bet for one then you inherently bet against the other. You cannot win all bets, you just have to hope your specific bet was the right one.
Eternal life eh?
The Bible never states that eternal life is good (heavenly), just that if you believe, you’ll live forever. This is in red print by the way.
Another thing in red print in the Bible is that heaven and earth shall someday pass, no mention of hell. I guess for all of us, that doesn’t pass! We all live forever and go to hell forever.
The Bible is so demonic, not even a demon would say it.
Surely you are aware of the infinite regress of responsibilities that argument implies. I hope you won’t ask me to spell it out for you. It’s so tedious and has been run through so many times on ILP.
Instead I will point you to the irreconcilable opposites that present themselves in the experience of human existence. These all find their resolution in the infinite eternal one we call God.
You do know that Pascal was a Jansenist and those were ruled heretics by your Catholic Church. Right?
Felix. I’m not going to read your mind and you’re a much older poster than me - even a mod.
Spell it out simply.
I have lived experience and I’ve read the red text in the Bible.
Not all religions are mutually exclusive, though. Muslims and Christians believe the others can go to Heaven.
Both believe dedicated atheists cannot.
God gave iambiguous free will.
Iambiguous struggled – really struggled – in grappling with the eixstence of God. He was pulled and tugged down through the years but eventually came to the conclusion – honestly, introspectively – that a God, the God, my God does not exist.
So, does God then struggle – really struggle – in determining whether iambiguous goes to Heaven or Hell?
Or does it all come down to the brute facticity of either/or?
Here I’m reminded of Bob Dylan’s take on it:
[i]God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe said, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God said, “No”
Abe said, “What?”
God said, “You can do what you want Abe, but the next time you see me comin’, you better run”[/i]
That kind of free will?
Then the parts about God and religion that are of most interest to me:
1] theodicy
2] omniscience and human volition
3] morality here and now/immortality there and then
4] the gap between faith in God and demonstrable evidence that He exists
5] the role that dasein plays in any particular individual’s beliefs
6] the fact that there have been, are now and will be hundreds and hundreds of Gods and religious paths from which to choose…and then the odds that your God, your path is the One True Path
Placing your bet given all of that.
Islam, Judaism and Christianity are the same God, though.
The big 3 religions.
And that’s just on this planet, right?
Still, how is your point relevant to all of the other points I raised above?
Omniscience and human volition are not in conflict, though, as I showed in another thread. iambiguous typically ignored the demonstration.
The Free Will argument is a response to the problem of evil based on the theistic conception of God. According to this picture God created everything including the devil, set up a situation in which the human fall into sin was inevitable and if we must go there, we have all been corrupted with original sin by which we have a sin nature.
At this point Free Will is introduced, a concept never explicitly stated in the Bible. According to strict Calvinism it’s an impossibility and only an act of God to which some are predestined will save them. But let’s say free will actually exists, and phenomenologically it does to some extent. What then? Does God wash his hands of the entire design based on the Free Will escape clause?
And how would a God of love exist blissfully for eternity in the presence of human primate souls writhing in the torments of hell, knowing that they are there because of his design flaw?
Especially if he loves the creatures he has created unconditionally? Surely an omniscient God could do better.