Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to Pascal's Wager revisited
Kooka, I don't agree with your beliefs, that's for sure. But I do like the way you present them. I, for one, don't think that you are banging some kind of anti-god gong. As a Christian, I am challenged to further examine my beliefs, and to look for the deeper meanings behind what I've been taught by my "organized religion." Reading materials by individuals, like you, that doubt (and I daresay deny) the existence of God are necessary to my faith. (can't speak for anyone else, though)
That being said, I, too, struggled with the concept of hell. The whole "fire and brimstone" idea seemed just a tad naive. I have come to believe that Hell is a state of existing in the absence of God. Satan and "the damned" face eternity outside the presence of God. Now, if you don't believe that God exists, then it follows that you don't believe that hell exists, hence I understand your objections to proselytizers and their cries of "eternal damnation!"
posted by
Gheeghee
on April 15, 2004 at 2:44 PM
| link to this | reply
okay
What I wrote was what I understood the basic idea of what has become known as Pascal's Wager to be by talking about the idea with others, and of course in such situations it would be simplified. Most likely changed around as time goes by. Although even if he did not mention hell, that still does not mean it was not part of why someone should believe. Without the idea of Hell there is even less of a reason for non-believers to try to believe. But that is unimportant. It is the idea behind the wager that matters. Saying that non-believers should just believe and play it safe because they have nothing to loose. With farther study, I learned that Pascal did for the most part agree with the ideas I gave. It is better to be true to yourself than lie about believing just to play it safe.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 15, 2004 at 2:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Pascal's Wager says nothing about going to hell. Pascal was an existentialist thinker, meaning that life has no meaning when left to itself. But in the context of a greater reality, our lives suddenly have meaning. Pascal was one of the first Christians to advocate believers to foster more personal relationships with their God. His wager was directed at doubters of not just his theory, but of the existence of God. He "bet" non-believers that if they would live as a believing Christian for one year, that by the end of that year they would have faith. He felt that this was win-win, because he believed that everyone that took the wager would in the end be a believer. This is where the "what have you got to lose" part of the wager comes from. His stipulations on this were to approach it whole-heartedly in a personal manner, holding aside the greater "church" as irrelevent to the exercise. He said nothing of going to hell.
posted by
Gheeghee
on April 15, 2004 at 1:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
I did not come up with the term Pascel's Wager and I am not at all fmailier with his teachings. I do however know of the 'Wager' and the idea of what it says. What I wrote here was my take on it, nothing more.
Go here to learn about it, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 15, 2004 at 1:20 PM
| link to this | reply
shawn
I do follow the good path, but as I have tried to explain to you before it has nothing to do with God. I so wish you could have understood a word of what this post was about. You obviously didn't, but that's fine. No matter what I will not let you turn me into a liar just because you think I need to play it safe. I can not believe in God because I can not lie to myself. It is that simple. So please stop trying to get me and other to lie just to make you happy.
My post are much more likely to get people to get out here and follow the good path because they see it is the best thing to do rather than the post that say everyone who does not believe is going to hell. I always promote the good aspects of life through free will and living life to the fullest. My posts are not negative, you are just too blind to see that.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 15, 2004 at 1:16 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm not too sure where you're getting your info...
...but I'd read Pensees before attempting to use Pascal's teachings again.
posted by
Gheeghee
on April 15, 2004 at 10:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Let’s put it all on the carpet right now!
We’ve been through all this a thousand times and it is interesting that when you speak of God now you use the term the “God of the Bible”. I still think that your concept of a higher being is a God in your subconscious but let’s not beat that to death anymore. The more important point is: Why not simply embrace the good path? Why will you not join with me in celebrating a mutual agreement to promote good characteristics, (like compassion, empathy, love, caring, truthfulness, peacefulness, beauty, humbleness, kindness, calmness, and being philanthropic) as worthwhile pursuits that should be sought after in daily life? Can you do that? If so, let us see a positive post in your blog that encourages people to these attributes, as opposed to your typical descent into universal nothingness, which only serves to hinder others who may be attempting to ascend to the good life. If you are indeed as good as you say, you should be able to muster a post in this regard. I'll be looking for it.
posted by
telemachus
on April 15, 2004 at 7:22 AM
| link to this | reply