07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipActually I don't think I have discussed the word 'atheism' in this thread at all.
I do not feel I am being insistent on anything except what "Atheism" classically and commonly is understood to mean.
I think new atheists are insistent of updating the definition with a revision.
We were discussing 'rejection'
Yes you do I think.
You reject them as false promises.
So, to you, an imaginary pigeon is a false promise, or did the imaginary pigeon make a false promise, or are you saying something else?
1.) I see no substantial distinction. I see an attempt to update the definition of Atheism to reinforce its denial of God (among other things).
Who said anything about atheism? Why do you always try to read peoples minds when you so often get it wrong?
2.) Your rejection of the Bible's claims or your insistence that you have some kind of neutral yet negative reaction to them makes no difference to my faith and experience of God.
So why are you so insistent on phrasing my rejection in a way that is incorrect?
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipNo, you've just categorised every member of a non-Christian religion as atheist, which really won't do.
That's what I always understood.
It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ.
I just echo those claims mostly by quotation.
Which was in reply to:
Originally posted by FMF
Atheism, in this instance, is a rejection of the claims you make about Christ.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadThree people joined the exchanges concerning "rejection," atheism's definition, etc. googlefudge, FMF, twhitehead, at least.
Actually I don't think I have discussed the word 'atheism' in this thread at all.
We were discussing 'rejection'
[b]Yes you do I think.
You reject them as false promises.
So, to you, an imaginary pigeon is a false promise, or did the imaginary pigeon make a false promise, or are you saying something else?
1.) I see no substantial distinc ...[text shortened]... e of God.
So why are you so insistent on phrasing my rejection in a way that is incorrect?[/b]
If you feel that my replies were not dedicated solely to your views, yours alone, that may be possible.
Anyway, I regard the carrier pigeon analogy represents "rejection" in spite of any of the ways you feel to re-analyze the word.
If you had NEVER heard me make the bogus offer and were entirely ignorant of the proposition, then I would not say that it was "rejected."
But you did hear. And I think you accepted or rejected its realism and/or validity.
I would not regard your reaction as neutral in this case.
And I do not consider your regular participation in this Forum to be a statement of neutrality concerning Spirituality as it relates to the claims of the Bible.
I consider your regular participation to be upholding the rejection of those claims. That is not neutrality but a positive statement that you reject the Bible, its claims, its God, its Son of God, its offer, its offers.
The reasons for your rejection are versatile, varied, and prolific.
In my opinion, your effort to portray your reaction to the Bible as neutral is to make your rejection take on a characteristic of [EDITED] being morally benign rather than as morally unrighteous.
Now you can accuse my of failed clairvoyance or faulty mind reading if you wish. That's how I see it.
IE. - You REJECT the claims of the Bible concerning God and Christ and the Gospel of Christ. You choose to dress up this rejection as neutrality.
Perhaps you want the definite negation belonging to Atheism while enjoying the indecisive and somewhat neutral reaction of Agnosticism, to God.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by DeepThought
No, you've just categorised every member of a non-Christian religion as atheist, which really won't do.
No, you've just categorised every member of a non-Christian religion as atheist, which really won't do.
I do not think I am doing this.
In my reading of the New Testament those who accused Jesus of blasphemy, and condemned Him to death, definitely were not all atheists.
They believed in God.
They did not believe that God had become a man.
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipBut your insistence on an certain phrasing of my rejection came prior to that exchange. So either you anticipated that the definition of atheism would be discussed, or it is an excuse you made up after the fact, and not the real reason for your insistence.
Three people joined the exchanges concerning "rejection," atheism's definition, etc. googlefudge, FMF, twhitehead, at least.
Anyway, I regard the carrier pigeon analogy represents "rejection" in spite of any of the ways you feel to re-analyze the word.
If you had NEVER heard me make the bogus offer and were entirely ignorant of the proposition, then I would not say that it was "rejected."
But what exactly has been rejected? Did I hear the pigeon make any bogus offers? Did I reject the pigeons offer? Or did I reject your offer?
And I do not consider your regular participation in this Forum to be a statement of neutrality concerning Spirituality as it relates to the claims of the Bible.
Nor have I claimed neutrality. I have in fact stated in clear English in this thread that I reject the claims made by the Bible as being false. The problem is that you can't see past you desperate desire to portray me as being non-neutral that you are not reading what people are actually saying.
In my opinion, your effort to portray your reaction to the Bible as neutral is to make your rejection take on a characteristic of [EDITED] being morally benign rather than as morally not a righteous thing to do.
Well I have to inform you that your opinion is wrong. I have made no efforts whatsoever to portray my reaction as neutral - that is all in your imagination, and my reason for starting this discussion was because Grampy made a clearly false statement which displayed either his misunderstanding of most atheists position, or his deliberate mischaracterization of that position.
IE. - You REJECT the claims of the Bible concerning God and Christ and the Gospel of Christ. You choose to dress up this rejection as neutrality.
I challenge you to go back through the thread and see if you can actually find anything that I said that would indicate this to be the case. I think you will find it is nowhere to be found and that you imagined it.
To be absolutely clear, since you have a habit of claiming that I am secretive about my views:
I totally and utterly reject, in no uncertain terms (or neutrality), the claims of the Bible concerning God and Christ and the Gospel of Christ and I hereby take full moral responsibility for that rejection. I also reject your claims concerning the same.
I do not however reject anything that God has said or offered because I do not believe God exists or has made any offers to be rejected. I have equally not rejected any offers made by a pigeon.
If you still cannot see the distinction, then you are deliberately not wanting to see it.
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipIt was this sentence I was complaining about:No, you've just categorised every member of a non-Christian religion as atheist, which really won't do.
I do not think I am doing this.
In my reading of the New Testament those who accused Jesus of blasphemy, and condemned Him to death, definitely were not all atheists.
They believed in God.
They did not believe that God had become a man.
It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ.Which, at face value, leaves members of non-Christian religions as atheists.
I always liked Pascal's wager, it seems to me it sums the problem up quite neatly.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by DeepThought
No, you've just categorised every member of a non-Christian religion as atheist, which really won't do.
No, you've just categorised every member of a non-Christian religion as atheist, which really won't do.
ReplyReply &
I don't think Bahai's are atheists.
I don't think Moslems are atheists.
I don't think Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews are usually atheists.
In fact, to drive the point home a bit, toward the end of the present age something will be preached to the earth inhabitants called "the eternal gospel".
I do not believe that "eternal gospel" announced supernaturally from the air is the gospel of Christ preached by the Christians. I believe it is rather a gospel, an eternal good news about God as the Creator.
Now you know I like to quote the Bible, so indulge me. Here is where I see an "eternal gospel" being preached supernaturally from an angel/s in the air at the close of the great tribulation time.
"And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having an eternal gospel to announce to those dwelling on the earth, even to every nation and tribe and tongue and people,
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give Him glory because the hour of His judgment as come; and worship Him who has made heaven and earth and the sea and the springs of waters." (Rev. 14:6,7)
You can see that this gospel is not announced by men. This gospel is announced by an angel/s supernaturally from the air.
And its contents mention nothing of repentance towards the Son of God. Rather it mentions to fear God the Creator. For by that time is will be apparent that the calamities inflicting the planet could only be happening from the hand of the earth's Creator.
" .... Fear God and give Him glory because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who has made the heaven and earth ..."
It is through this door that I believe many non-Christians will be transferred from this church age into the next age of the millennial kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ from the Holy Land.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipLearn how to spell Muslims.No, you've just categorised every member of a non-Christian religion as atheist, which really won't do.
ReplyReply &
I don't think Bahai's are atheists.
I don't think Moslems are atheists.
I don't think Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews are usually atheists.
In fact, to drive the point home a bit, toward the end ...[text shortened]... church age into the next age of the millennial kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ from the Holy Land.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThought
It was this sentence I was complaining about:It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ.Which, at face value, leaves members of non-Christian religions as atheists.
I always liked Pascal's wager, it seems to me it sums the problem up quite neatly.
I always liked Pascal's wager, it seems to me it sums the problem up quite neatly.
Which problem?
Please elucidate.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by DeepThought
It was this sentence I was complaining about:It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ.Which, at face value, leaves members of non-Christian religions as atheists.
I always liked Pascal's wager, it seems to me it sums the problem up quite neatly.
It was this sentence I was complaining about:
It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ.
Okay. I think I see what sentence you are talking to.
Which, at face value, leaves members of non-Christian religions as atheists.
You misunderstand me.
The sentence does not mean all non-believers in Jesus are atheists.
Without scrolling back over all the exchanges, I think the sentence means that included in the negation of God's existence, is necessarily "also" the rejection of the Bible's claims concerning Jesus Christ.
But if my writing is not precise enough, I tell you now that of course I do not regard theists who do not believe the Bible's claims about Jesus Christ to be Atheists.
The scribes, the Pharisees, the chief priests who accused Jesus of making Himself equal with God were not atheists.
"Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." (John 5:18)
" ... many false witnesses came forward. But latter two came and said,
This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and build it up in three days.
And the high priest stood up and said to Him, Do You answer nothing? What is this that these testify against You?
But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to Him, I charge You to swear by the living God to tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus said to him, You have said rightly. Nevetheless I say to you, From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (See Matthew 26:60-64)
Objectively, the accusers certainly believed in God. They were no atheists.
The same is true of many theists today throughout the earth.
Some are ignorant of the claims concerning Christ.
Some are not ignorant.
Some people are in rejection of superstition.
IE. I do not regard the person who rejects the worship of a statue of Mary to be opposed necessarily to the claims concerning Christ.
I believe only God can sort this all out in infallible accuracy in the end. The Bible says that our hearts are completely naked and laid bear before the eyes of God. He makes no error.
"And there is no creature that is not manifest before HIm, but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we are to give our account." (Hebrews 4:13)
This is both wonderful and awesome. It is awesome because we can get away with exactly nothing.
It is wonderful because no one can do an inside healing and curing like God.
I always liked Pascal's wager, it seems to me it sums the problem up quite neatly.
I don't have too much feeling about Mr. Pascal's wager except that it is kind of negative sounding.
There are too many positive reasons that the worth, the preciousness of Jesus is desirable for a man to choose.
You see, I think the gift of eternal life, is not something most people ever thought about even asking for. It is a benefit beyond the human mind to usually conceive.
Most of us who know Jesus, did ask for God. Most of us asked for forgiveness or God's help. But the gift of eternal life ? I think fewer people thought in those terms.
That is unless they were presented the choice between eternal life and eternal punishment. Then they desired, rightly. I think, to be SAVED. And there is certainly an aspect of the Gospel message speaking to the matter of being saved.
But how many people just started out asking God to give to them eternal life? I don't think it is many. The gift by so much exceeds what most people would even consider to request, IMO.
I could be wrong about this.
I know that the night I surrendered to Jesus, endless life was not so much my concern. Practical help and rescue from a pressing turmoil of this life was a motivation to say "Take me Lord Jesus."
Best decision I ever made in my whole life.
And it need not be made only once.
I still need rescue, healing, salvation from many things daily.
If you made it down to read me this far, congratulations !
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipYes I read to the end. Bear in mind that the thread is over 100 posts long so that the chances of anyone late in joining the debate reading the lot are quite remote. Regarding Pascal's wager, possibly our difference in attitude to it is because you believe and I am an agnostic.It was this sentence I was complaining about:
It is also then the rejection of the claims that the Bible makes about Christ.
Okay. I think I see what sentence you are talking to.
Which, at face value, leaves members of non-Christian religions as atheists.
You misunderstand me.
The sentence does no ...[text shortened]... salvation from many things daily.
If you made it down to read me this far, congratulations !
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 5)
1) "Either God exists, or he does not exist," argued Pascal, "and since neither proposition can be proved, we must wager. If we wager that God exists and we are right, we win everything. If we wager that God exists and we are wrong, we lose nothing." "You would be impudent," Pascal said, "to wager that God does not exist." So Pascal infers that if you wager that God does not exist, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternally." Pascal http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mfacts/wager.html
2) “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way'" -C.S. Lewis. "Religion is the fashionable substitute for belief." -Oscar Wilde. 'There's a hole in the heart of man in the shape of God. If I believe in the Risen Christ and it's just an artful falsehood, there is nothing to lose. If true, then I have everything to gain.' -Pascal (1623-1662)
3) Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP) Pascal's Wager Simplified
Options: 1) Accept God's Grace Gift of eternal life with an uncoerced decision to believe [place your confidence] in Christ for your salvation; 2) Reject the Person and Work of Christ as flimsy fiction. Risk/Reward Question: What if you're wrong?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Note: 1) Provides a secular site's summary of Pascal's Wager; 2) Provides two verbatim quotations along with the italicized paraphrase of Pascal's Wager which have been gathering dust in my Red Hot Pawn Profile since 2007. 3) This thread's OP.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
With respect to "1)" Positive Response or Negative Reaction at God Consciousness rather than at Gospel Hearing appears to be in view. Yes, I obviously concur with Suzi and Freaky with reference to their qualifying comments. Whether Blasé Pascal ever believed in Christ for his eternal salvation is unclear to me. I am aware of the centuries of hotly contested academic debate and informal argument his wagering proposition has provoked; as well as a few of the principal rebuttals (one, the 'Limited Matrix/Other Gods', was employed here). "2)" Simply combines several quotes and a paraphrase about Christ. "3)" This thread's brief two sentence original post should, perhaps, have been titled: "Pascal's Wager Clarified" or "Revisited."
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Personal Comment: There are many contributors to this forum I pray for by nickname or first name frequently. The content of these prayers to God the Father remains unchanged: that each of these friends and acquaintances will receive accurate gospel information, give the issue of their eternal address serious thought and reconsider their stated rejection of Christ.
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't know about your math, but the main point was the necessity of a purchase to gain any chance at all.
If you buy two tickets a week every week* in a lottery with 14million to 1 odds
[The odds of the original main UK lottery... most big lotteries have longer odds]
Then you will have a ~1% chance of winning if you play for 1,400 years.
A ~10% chance after 14,000 years.
And a ~50% chance after 100,000 years....
Buying the odd random ticket here and ...[text shortened]... .. How long were you planning on playing?
*Assuming two draws a week as the UK main draw has.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Jun 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, but from a practical standpoint the overwhelmingly likely difference
I don't know about your math, but the main point was the necessity of a purchase to gain any chance at all.
between the world in which you have a ticket vs the world in which you don't...
Is that you're down the price of the ticket in the world where you have the ticket.