I apologize in advance for the seemingly ‘Intellectual’ tone of this post. But, then again… I wouldn’t do it any other way. From previous experience I’ve found that I can communicate my ideas and meaning most accurately this way. Anyone still potentially offended at this point should
Click Here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard: (punctuation edited)
Chan, please clarify your last post a bit for me.
Are you saying that you: 1a. Believe in Christianity, but abandon those beliefs as soon as Christianity claims to be the one and only correct answer? 1b. Was: "I am a Christian until it becomes absolutism", just a pun?
|
-
1a. I mean that I sincerely believe Jesus would be ‘a Christian’ until he heard of others: A. fighting in his name, B. ‘Throwing First Stones’ in his name, C. Generally
Sinning in his name.
At that point, I believe he would:
A. Parable (-using it as a verb here) to the would-be-Christians, for them to know
His meaning of ‘Christianity’ and what it is to have a ‘Relationship With God’.
Or he would,
B. Parable to them what it is to have a ‘Relationship with God’.
1b. *Chuckle. I do think it can be pretty funny. But, I also think it would break Jesus’ heart too… if he wasn’t
~Love Incarnate.
-
-
Next Question: (I hate to divide this up like an
outline but you’ve asked such good questions, and I don’t want anyone to be confused on what my opinions are about them.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB:
2. Christianity has never been about pluaralism. As far as I know, Christians as a whole have never not been absolutists.
|
-
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) has been hailed as the
Age or Reason’s first Christian. Due to previous posts already on nubblies concerning Blaise Pascal, I can think of no better ‘person’ to ask of this question (tho, of course, I leave room for exception and argument as well).
Are Christian’s Absolutist?
Pascal’s Wager.
(unlike most historical theological arguments for God,) Pascal’s Wager is an
‘a posteriori argument. It’s based not on a ‘leap of faith’, but of what you can see of his possible existence out in the world.
A priori Vs. A posteriori
a pri•o•ri [Latin, literally, from the former]: 1a.
DEDUCTIVE; 2a. being
without examination or analysis;
PRESUMPTIVE
a pos•te•ri•o•ri [Latin, literally, from the latter]: 1. INDUCTIVE; 2. relating to or derived by
reasoning from observed {phenomena}.
God exists because
he is the best bet.
Bet A. Wager for God God exists = Gain All God does not exist = Status quo
Bet B. Wager against God God exists = misery God does not exist = Status quo
Pascal himself speaks of possibly
staking something when one wagers
for God.
What does he potentially put at stake? The Truth as one thing, a ‘worldly life’ as a second? Normally Bet A’s least good outcome is equal or greater than Bet B’s best good outcome. But, with the possibility of staking something, this evaluation of the original argument is disturbed. But still… couldn’t we say that concerning the benefit/sacrifice involved that:
Probability of God = 50/50
Bet against God = finite gains/infinite losses
Bet for God = finite losses/Infinite gains
Using this as the culmination of Pascal’s argument, why would anyone bet against God?
This is where UB’s second question comes into play.
“Are Christians Absolutist?”
Pascal himself assumes a ‘Christian’ God. Whatever the reason, He Wills himself to find an answer to this,
his Christian question. However, when the same question is asked of a different
Monotheistic religions, the answer is the same. Allah, Buddha, Tao, Brahman, Jehovah… They all yield the same result.
I’m not saying that “Blaise Pascal, the Age of Reason’s highly respected and First Christian says: Christians are not absolutist”. In fact I’m only trying to give a glimpse into how difficult a question this is to answer. One of the most highly lauded thinkers of the Age of Reason could not,
In His Argument show Christianity as an
Exclusive belief.
So, again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by: UB
3. What if all religions are "right" … Each religion has it's farfetched beliefs, each religion has it's querks, and each religion has it's closed-minded followers.
|
.
I’m going to edit this idea and instead say, ‘each religion has people who take their beliefs to the extreme, each religion has individuals that are querky, and that each religion has people who tend to be more ‘close minded’ than others’.
I ask you. Using
Pascal’s Wager
What answers do you have for UB’s question?
And I’ll leave you with another thing to think on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB:
4. What if the beliefs and promises of each and every religion around the world come true for it's believers?
|