Pascal's Wager and the Annihilation View of Hell
Any attempted defense of Pascal's Wager has shown a complete and utter lack of knowledge about anthropological studies of the religious cultures around the world. There are literally a myriad number of gods and supernatural forces believed by the peoples of the world. This is called the "many gods" objection. But there are other things to consider.
When it comes to Pascal's Wager the evidence is simply below the threshold for it to be worth considering. The threat is more like someone crying out that the sky is failing. We've heard too many people make this claim too many times to take any of them seriously.
But in recent decades the "conditional immortality" annihilation view of hell seems to be the wave of future Christianity (ala, Clark Pinnock and Jonathan Kvanvig). With it the eternal threat has been significantly reduced and even completely neutralized. What would Pascal's Wager look like now, calculated with the annihilation view of hell in mind? Christians themselves are taking the bite out of the wager.
When it comes to Pascal's Wager the evidence is simply below the threshold for it to be worth considering. The threat is more like someone crying out that the sky is failing. We've heard too many people make this claim too many times to take any of them seriously.
But in recent decades the "conditional immortality" annihilation view of hell seems to be the wave of future Christianity (ala, Clark Pinnock and Jonathan Kvanvig). With it the eternal threat has been significantly reduced and even completely neutralized. What would Pascal's Wager look like now, calculated with the annihilation view of hell in mind? Christians themselves are taking the bite out of the wager.
59 comments:
John, I realized I was spending too much time on bibioblogs lately, so I'm going to take some time off. I was going to write you a nasty personal email to get myself blocked ;-) but this seemed saner.
Thanks for the interaction, even though I disagree with most of what you say.
I don't know the "Annihilation View of Hell", but I can look that up.
I once heard a man apologizing (in the classical sense) for Christianity who used the argument that Pascal's Wager is not actually convincing for any specific religion, but that it does show agnosticism and atheism to be faulty and automatically suspect.
My response was, of course, "That may or may not be the case, but that's not what we were talking about anyway." :)
Kyle P., see here.
I have never been much of a fan of Pascal's Wager myself, but the Annihilation View of Hell doesn't seem to weaken it to me. If one would rather cease to exist than to live eternally (assuming the existance of some eternal life), that seems short-sighteed. Even so, thinking Christians do not hold to that faith as "fire insurance," but to live out the Kingdom of Heaven as described in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
John,
Enjoy the post daily. 10-4 on the modern view of hell. Today, the Rick Warren, Joel Olsteen christianity is a combination of marketing and positive thinking (aka substantiality reducing the biblical dogmas to get a bigger following). But,a good baptist loves the smell of sulfer in the morning...smells like victory.
There is no such thing as Hell and there is no permanent annihilation. Here is what the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 15:22, "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ - ALL WILL BE MADE ALIVE."
1 Timothy 4:10 - "God who is the Savior of ALL MEN, especially those who believe"!
Not "ONLY" those who believe!
1 John 2:2 confirms - "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."
Romans 5:18 says - "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there RESULTED justification of life to all men."
Romans 11:32 - "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
2 Corinthians 5:19 - "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them."
Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men."
John 1:29 - "Behold the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the world"!
The sin issue, including the sin of rejecting Christ, was TAKEN AWAY at the cross! Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"! So even you atheist bums will be reconciled to God! LOL! That is the REAL Good News (gospel)! People going to Hell or being annihilated is NOT Good News!
I think Pascal's Wager is appropriate in certain contexts. For example, in conversation with an agnostic who attempts to "hold no position" on the topic at hand. It doesn't matter the issue; we cannot simply hold no position, but we must come to some conclusion (where atheists have and so it is an inappropriate argument in that sense).
I understand the sense of the Wager that people use it against atheists that isn't it better to take the cautious route and believe rather than chance punishment through disbelief. I don't think this is a very convincing argument as it appeals to emotions. It says in a sense, "Wouldn't you much rather chance going to heaven instead of that bad place called hell." Since most atheists I know are skeptical about heaven and hell in the first place it seems silly to try and argue from that angle.
So, I think the annihilation view of death doesn't bear upon Pascal's Wager (in my opinion).
So, basically, "annihilationist" Christians have come around to validating Epicurus' argument for oblivion at death, with the added wish that some miracle will spare them from it?
Talk about capitulating to a materialist world view. Christians who think this way should probably canonize Epicurus' extant writings and Lucretius' De rerum natura and add them to their scriptures.
DenCol, I think you're crazy to argue with us here about what the Bible says, as if you could convince us. Go do that with other Christians, okay? Go convince them, or better yet start a Blog titled: "I Know the Truth About the Bible" and invite someone from every Christian persuasion to debate those issues with you. If you come to a consensus, which you won't, only then come back and I'll debunk it.
Sheesh.
Are you this dense? Do you lack that much understanding to think that you and you alone represent Christianity?
If you think so go start that Blog and show me.
Hi John,
There are already 100's of websites and 1000's of articles about Christian Universism, Universal Redemption, Universal Salvation, Universal Reconciliation, etc. There are many of us John, not just a few.
Here is a small sample of some sites for you to look at if you so desire. They all say the same exact things that I am saying.
http://evangelicaluniversalist.blogspot.com/
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/culinks.html
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univart.html
http://www.christian-universalism.com/links.html
http://www.gospelogic.com/audio.htm
http://hopebeyondhell.net/index.php
http://www.scaredofhell.com/
Yeah, DenCol, as one insane person says to another insane person, "I'm okay and you are too.
Would you simply acknowledge my point? Your interpretation is in the minority. Are you not aware of this?
Yes John,
I am in the minority and I am glad to be in the minority! The majority of Christianity is an embarrasment. It's no wonder there are so many atheists and agnostics! We probably agree on more than we disagree. I would not set foot in most of todays churches with there SENIOR PASTOR nonsense! There was no PASTOR running the show in the NT churches! No associate pastors, youth pastors, choirs, pulpits, sermons, revivals, church buildings, denominations, titles, hierarchy, etc etc etc. All a bunch of man made bologna.
BTW - I would like to use some colorful 4 letter words from time to time. Is that acceptable?
Then why are you here wasting my time DenCol?
Answer the question!!!
Here is another link, Dencol.
www.tentmaker.org
Here is syntax that will make you URLs clickable links.
Please go easy on him, John. He is actually a voice of sanity among Christians, though I do agree that his efforts might be better spent debatting the Christian sadists.
My wife is a universalist, and lots of Christians come back to her with "Then what is the point of Christianity?" BINGO, there is no point. Just say thanks and move on with more pressing matters like living this life as best you can.
Here is another question for Christians of the traditional ilk to consider:
In the creation story (a myth in my opinion, but believed by many Christians as literal truth), why is it that the punishments meted out by God to Adam and Eve do not include hell/eternal torture in an afterlife? Did he just forget to mention it? OOPS! That is a big mistake for an alegedly infallible God!
BTW, If you are visited by Jehovah's Witnesses, you will find out that they are annihilationists.
John, I did answer your question. I said I was in the minority. I am very aware of that fact. Was there another question that I missed?
DenCol, if you want to discuss the merits of universalism then do so on Christian blogs or on universalist forums. That's my point. This Blog could not care less. There is no reason for you to try to converst us if you are a universalist and so I want to hear no more about your testimonies either. You are a pest, a troll.
This thread is about the annihilationist view of Hell, is it not? Are my comments not "on topic"? Do you disagree with me that there is no Hell? This is something that we agree on, so why are you getting all upset? You just do not like me, no matter what I say, is that it? Or are you trying to get me angry again so I will show my true colors and what hypocrit I am? Or are you just looking for another reason to ban me again? What's the beef?
Answer the question DenCol. If you're a universalist why are you here in the first place? We're all saved in the end.
Salvation is for THIS LIFE, not the next life. Salvation is from sin, Satan, and evil. Jesus came to set the captives free. You are now captive to your wrong ideas about God. I am here to tell you the truth so that the truth will set you free from your atheist delusion and deception.
You have been brainwashed into a false relgious system of atheism. I am here to deprogram you and the others who have been lied to and duped into this godless religion. Deprogramming people who are trapped in this atheist cult is not an easy chore. This is evident from your angry responses toward me. I am hitting a sensitive nerve that you do not like touched. That is why you are lashing out at me.
DenCol: Salvation is from sin, Satan, and evil.
Sin seems to require a deity, yet you've not mustered arguments for the existence of this very unlikely, incoherent and implausible being.
Satan is another being whose existence is very doubtful, and relies upon the existence of the first.
And evil, in the manner I think you're using it, also requires the existence of your deity of choice.
Whatever you're selling, I'm not buying it :-)
DenCol: You are now captive to your wrong ideas about God.
How do you know your ideas are right?
Claims that you just KNOW don't cut it.
DenCol: I am here to tell you the truth so that the truth will set you free from your atheist delusion and deception.
Your "truth" amounts to a warm fuzzy feeling you get.
DenCol: You have been brainwashed into a false relgious system of atheism.
Since i) atheism is not a religious system and ii) many/most people come to be "atheists" from self study (which makes brain washing very unlikely), I'd say you're gravely mistaken on this :-)
DenCol: I am here to deprogram you and the others who have been lied to and duped into this godless religion.
Yet you give nothing more than subjective reasons. No evidence or argument, just fuzzy feelings and bible quotes :-)
DenCol: This is evident from your angry responses toward me. I am hitting a sensitive nerve that you do not like touched. That is why you are lashing out at me.
It seems to me that the responses you're garnering are because you seem unable to muster an argument, or stay close to the topic of the given post. But perhaps I'm mistaken in this :-)
On topic, while views of anihilation might make the wager seem less horrific in explanation, that it still amounts to "believing" something for gain as opposed to seeking what is real doesn't make it any more appealing, at least as far as I can tell :-)
I guess, if it was a 50-50 wager, it might shift things in favour of belief, but as far as I can tell, the odds are very very heavily against this Yahweh character :-)
Havok,
You said: "Whatever you're selling, I'm not buying it"
You do not have to buy it. Salvation is a free gift. TOTALLY FREE!
You said: "Your "truth" amounts to a warm fuzzy feeling you get.
I have never had any warm fuzzy feelings. My relationship with Jesus Christ is not based on feelings, especially warm fuzzy ones. You atheists have some very strange and ignorant responses such as this one! Total BS!
Knowing God is not about wagers or percentages. It is about what is the TRUTH - period!
DenCol: You do not have to buy it. Salvation is a free gift. TOTALLY FREE!
So why bother with Christianity?
DenCol: My relationship with Jesus Christ is not based on feelings, especially warm fuzzy ones.
You had some personal experience which convinced you of the existence of the deity of your culture. That amounts to nothing more than a "feeling" that you're right.
DenCol: You atheists have some very strange and ignorant responses such as this one! Total BS!
And John is the one who is being touchy? :-)
DenCol: Knowing God is not about wagers or percentages. It is about what is the TRUTH - period!
And so far your idea of truth is about subjective experience, and has nothing to do with reality or objectivity.
Why would I accept your personal experience of Yahweh, and not the experiences of a Buddhist, a Sikh, a Muslim, a Zoroastrian etc etc etc.
Your experiences aren't "special". You've given no reason to think they're veridical, or anything more than psychological phenomena - it's likely all in your head.
But please, continue to claim truth without supporting your claims :-)
Dencol said:
"You have been brainwashed into a false relgious system of atheism. I am here to deprogram you and the others who have been lied to and duped into this godless religion. Deprogramming people who are trapped in this atheist cult is not an easy chore."
Now I have to take issue with you here, Dencol. Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in a god or gods. There is nothing for us to be deprogrammed of. Atheism is certainly not a cult. Atheism says nothing about what we believe, only that we don't believe in gods. I'm sure we atheists disagree on a lot of other topics, therefore it's impossible to lump us together as you are attempting to do.
Hi Havok,
I have absolute proof that there is a God - not feelings and not beliefs - PROOF! John does not want me sharing my testimonies, so I will not. Go back and look at my previous posts if you want further details. Or we can talk via e-mail if you prefer.
@ Anarco
Athiests gather around their common agreement that no God exists. That is a cult and their "no god" is their god. This site is a gathering of atheists. And it is a religion.
As a case in point, Dencol:
As my handle indicates, I am also an anarchist, which simply mean I believe in rule by no one (including an alleged god), as opposed to monachy (rule by one person by divine right of an alleged god), oligarchy (rule by several people), or democracy (rule by a majority).
I believe the best and only moral way to organize society is as a laissez-faire, totally free market based society. I truly believe in freedom and self-government as opposed to just giving it lip service.
I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who would disagree with me on this issue.
Dencol,
Here are the definitions of cult:
–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
As far as I know, atheists do not engage in worship, rites, or ceremonies.
A lack of a belief is not a person, ideal, or thing.
A lack of a belief is not an object that can be held in devotion.
A lack of a belief is not a person, ideal, or thing that can be venerated.
A lack of a belief is not a sacred ideology nor is it a sacred symbol with a set of rites.
A lack of a belief is not a religion or sect.
A lack of a belief can neither be true nor false (as a belief can be), nor unorthodox (as a belief can be), nor extreme (as a belief can be).
I (and I suspect most atheists) do not live outside of conventional society.
I (and I suspect most atheists) do not have a charismatic leader.
I've not heard of any atheists engaging in "faith healings".
Now Dencol, I suspect that you probably lack a belief in Santa Clause. Does that make you part of a religion or cult?
No, it does not.
Atheism is a set of beliefs, althogh they be in the negative. This site is a magnet for atheists and agnostics, especially former Christians. Bart Ehrman is definitly a leader of this group. Even John admits that Bart is his hero. There are spokesmen for the cause. They support and affirm one another. They worship thier non god views and write with passion about it.
So some of the cult definitions definitly fit atheism.
Wow this has been interesting
DenCol: I have absolute proof that there is a God - not feelings and not beliefs - PROOF!
No you don't. You claim to have been healed of anxiety, yet it does happen without any intervention. You claim to have been given prophecies, specificakky that you'd marry a person you were interested in, yet these things also happen. You've given no evidence that either of these events was anything out of the ordinary, let alone an act of a specific deity.
You've got subjective feelings and beliefs, not proof :-)
DenCol: Atheism is a set of beliefs, althogh they be in the negative.
No, it's simply a lack of belief. Not a set of beliefs, and not negative beliefs.
DenCol: So some of the cult definitions definitly fit atheism.
And I dare say Christianity fits most of them, especially your own version of it, which you admit is in the minority :-)
To Dencol, Quoting of bible passages to prove that hell does not exist and that there is no such thing as eternal torment was very amusing. As usual Christians pick and choose. What about the loads of passages that say that it does. such as:
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Revelation 14:10-11
Revelation 20:14-15
Matthew 3:12
Matthew 25:41
Luke 16:23-24
Matthew 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33
Mark 9:43-47
Luke 12:6; 16:23
2 Corinthians 5:21
Christian Mythology seems to think there is a hell
Here is my absolute proof that God exists using empirical evidence you can repeat on your own. You need no special equipment to complete this experiment, but a video camera is helpful. All you have to do is ask the true God of all to reveal his love for you by writing a personalized message to you. Make sure that you request the message to be written on paper that materializes right in front of you. Also, you should have a witness with you, just to make sure you're not hallucinating. I requested gold tablets from God, but apparently God doesn't do that--but don't worry, requesting a note hand written by God on paper works every time.
After all this is the God of the Universe that made everything materialize out of nothing. He loves us so much that what is materializing on small note of love from him. "What father, if his child asks for bread, gives him a stone?" Don't you realize God loves you more than anything. Did not Jesus also say, "You have not because you ask not." And, "What ever you ask in my name shall be given." You may want to use Jesus' real name when asking.
You know I've been reading this blog for over a year now and can't believe that no one has ever put forth any empirical evidence like this.
FAQ's:
1. Why didn't this work for me?
There are a few possibilities, but the most likely possibility is that God doesn't love you. After all, this works for the vast majority of other people. It is also possible, albeit unlikely, that God gets poor reception from people is certain areas. The psychic network has thoroughly explained this phenomenon.
2. This seems to work the same no matter which God I pray to. Are there many gods or is it the same God answering to many names?
This is a good question, you should have God write the answer to that on your note.
3. Why don't other theists offer straight forward empirical evidence that is easily replicated like this?
I often wonder this too, but now that I've offered this empirical test, I'm sure it'll be the new fad of apologetics! Come on fellow Christians, get us your replicatable empirical evidence that proves God's existence!
"God is willing that none should parish!"
Jason,
None of those verse are about Hell. Not one. Gehenna is not Hell, Hades is not Hell, and the Lake of Fire is not Hell. You REALLY need to research the Greek and learn Biblical hermeneutics.
And why are you quoting 2 Cor 5:21???? That is des nor speak about anything even close to Hell! and FYI - Paul did not write 2 Thess. That is a forgery and is not Biblical.
DenCol: Paul did not write 2 Thess. That is a forgery and is not Biblical.
It also seems John (the aspostle) didn't write the Gospel of John, nor did Matthew (the apostle) write the Gospel of Matthew.
Can we say they're forgeries and not biblical as well?
Just which parts of the bible are reliable, and how can you tell? :-)
@Dencol: FYI - Paul did not write 2 Thess. That is a forgery and is not Biblical.
Whoa, steady on now. A fundamentalist christian who doesn't believe in the inerrant word of god? How does that work?
Ok now folks, cut Dencol a little slack on the gahenna vs. hell deal. I've looked into it. He is correct about it being a dump yard outside of Jerusalem.
But I only ask in return that you, Dencol, stop insulting me by calling me part of a cult.
I don't know who Bart Ehrman is. He is certainly not my leader or spokesman. Those words are not a part of my vocabulary.
OK thanks to wikipedia I now know who Bart Ehrman is. Interesting guy. But still, nobody leads or speaks for me.
Anarcho-Capitalist writes:
As my handle indicates, I am also an anarchist, which simply mean I believe in rule by no one (including an alleged god), as opposed to monachy (rule by one person by divine right of an alleged god), oligarchy (rule by several people), or democracy (rule by a majority).
Talk about beliefs disconnected from reality. Not only do all social primates, including humans, form dominance hierarchies where the higher status males have more access to reproductive opportunities and resources than the lower status males; but also every society we know of with both metallurgy and agriculture generates some kind of state. Anarchists who think they can wish away the existence of rulers deny human nature.
Kyle,
"I once heard a man apologizing (in the classical sense) for Christianity who used the argument that Pascal's Wager is not actually convincing for any specific religion, but that it does show agnosticism and atheism to be faulty and automatically suspect."
It is an interesting argument, but if you scratch the surface...
So, there is this supreme being, she controlled the laws of nature in such a way that two things were assured; intelligence would develop and there would be no tangible evidence of her existence.
She also decides after death who will hang out with her for fascinating conversation about all the secrets of the universe and who will watch reruns of "My Mother the Car" for eternity. Her criteria for judgment? Through the course of your life you must have reached the conclusion that Atheism or Agnosticism are the only rational world views.
So, what if who's wrong?
Anarcho,
You are right. I should not have included you. Please accept my apologies.
Taken in it's context, Pascal did not really mean to argue for all gods with his wager, but merely for Christianity. I covered this and other related ideas in my short Pascal's Wager (Series).
A simplistic view of PW views it as merely a threat veiled in some sophistic statistics (that was fun to coin).
However, I think that it can be viewed as a somewhat more sophisticated tool in the epistemologic toolbox of the thinking person. It may not be entirely conclusive on its own, but the point it is making and the questions it poses are important to consider.
I think summarily dismissing it as superficial and flawed is a mistake, and as I tried to explain in my series, it can be seen as more than a veiled threat.
Mark Plus said:
"Talk about beliefs disconnected from reality. Not only do all social primates, including humans, form dominance hierarchies where the higher status males have more access to reproductive opportunities and resources than the lower status males; but also every society we know of with both metallurgy and agriculture generates some kind of state. Anarchists who think they can wish away the existence of rulers deny human nature."
If you are an atheist, then you have made my point which was that there are plenty of atheists who will disagree with some of my other views.
Interestingly, many theists and atheists alike have a god called the state. It is considered next to omnipotent if not completely so, it is worshipped with reverence, ceremony, solemn hynms, oaths of loyalty, and other rites that make some of the religious nonsense pale by comparison. In fact, I would classify it as a religion.
Based on your response, you obviously believe in the state. I lack a belief in the state. You are mistaken about human nature, which requires freedom rather than a ruler to operate optimally. In this particular case, your belief is the superstitious, irrational, or "disconnected from reality" one as you put it. Theists have their god, you have yours.
I don't think I can wish anything away, but I do believe I can attempt to educate the ignorant. And I suppose that "we have always done it this way" is a good reason to continue. There was a time when "the world was flat" and that was the way it had always been, but humanity progressed as it always does.
If you really want to understand why your belief is irrational read this pdf book:
"The Market For Liberty"
Then get back to me and explain how I am the irrational one.
>> DENCOL: [scriptures supposedly supporting universalism]
The problem with your selection of scriptures and supposed support of Universalism is that
1. There are perfectly good, and in some cases MORE reasonable interpretations of those passages that support election and damnation.
2. Your interpretations are made while ignoring the clearly anti-universalist scriptures.
For example, 1 Corinthians 15:22. You contend that it means 'just as in adam all fell, all are saved in Christ.'
But in light of the rest of scripture, it is more probable that it means 'all who are in adam (which is everyone) fell, and all who are in Christ (those who have chosen him) are saved.'
The reason you are in the minority on this issue is not that orthodox christians are somehow cruel and heartless, but rather, they are being intellectually and spiritually consistent, which in this case is why it is the majority decision.
Just as homosexual theology can construe scriptures to be more 'forgiving' towards homosexuality, I think that universalism is the desired conclusion to make God more 'just and fair' in our eyes, and then you try to construe the scriptures to support that.
I think that plain, integrrated reading of the scriptures does NOT support Universalism.
>> kiwiatheist: Whoa, steady on now. A fundamentalist christian who doesn't believe in the inerrant word of god? How does that work?
Denco is hardly a fundamentalist - I am not surprised, based on his Universalism, that he has all types of doubts about the authorship of the scriptures, and who knows what other unorthodox, and in many ways liberal theological views.
>> havok: It also seems John (the aspostle) didn't write the Gospel of John, nor did Matthew (the apostle) write the Gospel of Matthew.
All debatable. The traditional authors could indeed have been the authors, despite the observations of higher criticism.
>> KYLE: "I once heard a man apologizing (in the classical sense) for Christianity who used the argument that Pascal's Wager is not actually convincing for any specific religion, but that it does show agnosticism and atheism to be faulty and automatically suspect."
Kyle, I agree largely (but not entirely) with that sentiment, but it does reveal some of the subtlety of Pascal's argument - it is not a simple binary decision cloaked in an infinite threat. Please comment on my discussion on this in Pascal's Wager (Series)
Ya know danielg and Dencon, as much as I disliked Dencon's categorization of me as a member of some so-called "atheist cult", I have to say that I think Dencon's interpretation of scripture is the more reasonable one.
Oh and by the way, your apology is accepted, Dencon. :)
I have absolute proof that there is a God - not feelings and not beliefs - PROOF! John does not want me sharing my testimonies, so I will not.
DenCol,
Using your criteria, would the testimonies of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens be PROOF that aliens exist?
DanielG,
Pascal's argument seems to be dependent not on God's existence but God's nature. Nor does it seem to account for the possibility that conscious beings might continue to exist without God's assistance or existence. While I think this is highly unlikely, this might be a brute fact, just like you think God having existed eternally is a brute fact.
For example, God's nature may be such that he gives everyone salvation regardless of what we do or what we believe. This is in contrast to God only giving us salvation if we believe he exists, or if we believe in particular religious doctrine, such as Jesus died for our sins, etc.
It is only when we see God as the only means to account for or ultimately resolve our current situation (suffering, making choices, consciousness, injustice, etc.) that we end up with the God presented in Pascal's wager.
When we step outside this assumption, one can view the wager as a false dilemma.
>>>"I think that universalism is the desired conclusion to make God more 'just and fair' in our eyes, and then you try to construe the scriptures to support that."
An admission that the Christian god is not just and fair.
Hi danielg,
1 Cor 15:22 says ....in Christ, all will be made alive." It does NOT says all who are in Christ will be made alive. The same that were in Adam will be made alive in Christ. Otherwise, you have made Adam's sin more powerful and more influential than Christ.
Do I need to believe in Adam to be in Adam? Do I need to accept Adam to be in him? You have made the first Adam more influential over the masses of humanity than the Last Adam - Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:18 says - "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there RESULTED justification of life to all men."
ALL MEN!
>> DEN: The same that were in Adam will be made alive in Christ. Otherwise, you have made Adam's sin more powerful and more influential than Christ.
Just because not ALL are saved by believing in Christ does not make Adam's sin 'more powerful.' The power and potential for ALL to be saved are in Christ, but not ALL men choose to be in Christ. See below.
>> DEN: Do I need to believe in Adam to be in Adam? Do I need to accept Adam to be in him?
No, but you DO need to choose Christ to be in Him, hence
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
When you try to force such sriptures to be Universalist, you create all kind of other problems with the teachings of scripture like the passage above. It becomes an exercise in the absurd to try to harmonize such a view of the Bible. It is more reasonable that scripture is consistent on this issue.
The scriptures you pointed out might be interpreted as Universalist if these other ones that flatly contradict it didn't exist. In light of them, I would say that the more commonly held interpretations, like the one I make of those being "in Christ" make more logical sense, even if it offends the Universalist's sense of what they think is just and kind and fair.
And regarding your interpretation of Romans 5:18, perhaps you missed the verse directly preceding it, which again invokes the need for an act of RECEIVING Christ in order to avail one's self of salvation. While judgment came to all of us without our choice, a gift MUST BE RECEIVED in order for us to partake in it.
Romans 5:17 (emphasis mine)
For if by the one man�s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
And while I grant you that this entire passage of Romans could be interpreted in a Universalist light, in light of the other scriptures that deny universal salvation (don't make me list them), the more straightforward interpretation is not Universalism.
Assuming universalism causes too many logical inconsistencies with scripture. I am sure that my short response won't convert you, but I do think that it is a less reasonable approach. But I also think we are getting off topic!
>> ANDRE: An admission that the Christian god is not just and fair.
No, an admission that some erroneously *think* that the biblical view is unfair, but wanting to continue to claim Christ, they look for a way to make God more 'fair' in man's view.
However, I would argue that what is fair and just is that we all remain separated from God by our sins and guilt.
If anything is not fair, it is that anyone actually can use the merit of Christ to be forgiven. But because he willingly suffered for us, it is love, not injustice.
danielg,
You spoke of the necessity of receiving Christ to be in Christ. Did we need to accept Adam to be born in Adam????? Why do we need to accept Christ to be in Him, but we did not need to accept Adam to be in Adam?????
1 John speaks of becoming CHILDREN, not being in Christ nor anything about going to Heaven. Plus, everyone WILL receive Jesus one day! Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father!
So now matter how you want to interpretr Rom 5:17 and John 1:12, the bible is clear that every knee will bow. So everyone will be saved!
danielg,
"However, I think that it can be viewed as a somewhat more sophisticated tool in the epistemologic toolbox of the thinking person. It may not be entirely conclusive on its own, but the point it is making and the questions it poses are important to consider."
That statement is even beyond using "some sophistic statistics." It's using sophism WITHOUT statistics.
How could any rational person look at Pascal's late life and say that he was not crazy?
If you think he was rational, why haven't you adopted his lifestyle? If I see you wearing heavy chains, I'll know who you are.
"Anarchists who think they can wish away the existence of rulers deny human nature."
The United States has managed to function fairly well without regarding the concept of "rulers." (Sadly, that may be changing before our eyes.)
Also, "human nature" includes the tendency to rise above our purely animal programming. For example, no sane person objects to bathrooms on the grounds that all other animals defecate in public.
Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, all you fucked up atheists need to stop worying and be happy!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Robin, Robin, Robin, whatever will your mother say using words like that? Now go back to your sandbox and play nicely with your brothers and sisters.
We should remember that Pascal's wager is not really an argument, but a decision matrix. Pascal tries to set up the odds, and then show the implications of the choices. Obvious, but some take it for a deductive argument when it's not.
Pascal's Wager
The argument, or matrix is just mental masturbation and doesn't even take into account all the choices one has.
The dilemma also assumes the idea of a heaven is an universal one has a slight chance of happening. Listen, I wouldn't give it even a 1% chance of happening. It's a scenario fabricated by man, just like religion. Again, the scenario could've just been the opposite: What if heaven was only accessible to agnostics? What if heaven was accessible to people who ate Cheese Doodles for lunch every Saturday? What if heaven was only accessible to people who drink 10 cups of water every single day?
If there was a God, and an afterlife, he'll probably say this to you:
"Hahaha.. what you guys made up with Christianity was sorta amusing. I gotta hand it to you.. only ppl who believed in me could go heaven.. Haha, that's really Oscar-material right there. Even I couldn't have made that one up in my wildest dreams!"
Post a Comment