Fair cop, I didn't bother to check the context of my particular quote and so it may well not support my point. Lazy of me.

(March 24, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(March 23, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Won2blv Wrote: So the first thing is that you would have to be a christian that accepts Pascals Wager as a valid reason to believe in god.

Correct.  I'm classifying this as a response to the wager.

Quote:I never really have been one. But regardless, its not necessarily faith that gains you salvation (I use that word instead of heaven because JW's don't believe we go to heaven) and its not necessarily works. And you can't buy your way to salvation either. I could give all my money to poor people, but if I'm absolutely immoral in every aspect of life, it wouldn't help me much

You are dodging the point entirely.  I'm saying that giving all you have to the poor will not lower your chances of salvation but can possibly help them, therefore by the logic of the wager it is compulsory.

Quote:As to the 2nd point, Jesus was a teacher not a rule maker. He was teaching his apostles constantly. There aren't underwriters in heaven that have a check list and stipulations like its a mortgage loan. There isn't always an absolute right way and an absolute wrong way in every situation. I personally don't think Jesus was saying, "hey, I'm awesome so its ok for her to splurge on me" I believe that he was appreciative of the fact that she went to great lengths to show her respect for Jesus.

I cannot discern the point you are trying to make.

Quote:Your 3rd point, I'm sure if i get what you're saying 100% but again, I don't believe Jesus left us a checklist and said if we don't do these specific things then we're screwed. Jesus own words were that he set an example and Peter himself later wrote that Jesus an example for us. This shows that we should learn from Jesus discernment and conduct.

I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.  Again, if a certain action does not lower your chances of winning but might increase them, then performing the action is a required part of any optimal strategy.

Quote:And finally, it still has major logical implications. If I have a tv, then according to you, I have an ability to help a poor person.

According to me?  Do you contest that point?

Quote:But if i give everything I have, to either a single poor person, or spread out among many, then they have more than I do.

Correct.

Quote:Unless they were not christian, I am hindering their salvation if I have this singular thinking.

No you aren't.  If they're Christian, they can give it away to other people.

Quote:Jesus did say that we shouldn't be anxious over what we will eat, drink, wear, etc. However, this is an issue I take with atheist. You read a scripture and draw absolute rules from them. This just isn't an accurate or reasonable way to read the scriptures.

So what should I do then, just ignore the parts I don't like and impose the parts that I do like on other people?

Sorry for the late response... So basically, I have never bought Pascals Wager as I have understood it as a valid argument for the belief in God. I definitely fell more into the argument from ignorance camp.

That being said, I still think that my point is valid that many atheist's draw lines and say, "you cannot act outside of these lines without causing a contradiction" when in reality Jesus taught in a way that helped people understand principles rather than rules. That was my point about Jesus not being a Judge that ticks off requirements from a list. Think of any law, there is an underlying principle behind it. And sometimes the principle isn't a punishable offense. Like the whole committing adultery in your heart if you look at a woman with lust. So did Jesus mean that every time I look at a woman with passion, I have committed adultery? No. The principle is that if you start thinking those things and dwelling on them, it'll lead to you breaking the rule. I am very guilty of this principle sadly... Or not depending on where you come from.

Think of it even this way, when you drive there might be a law in effect like a speed limit. But maybe we believe in the principle to drive safe. So if the weather was really bad, then the principle to drive safe would affect us in a way that we possibly drive under the speed limit.

Whats my point? Basically, Jesus didn't teach us to make hard defined rules in our lives. He made that request to that specific man, but in no way did he ever make it a requirement for his disciples. If he did, then it would just be an endless game of passing around stuff.

You're right that I have a lot more than poor people in a lot of other countries. But Jesus himself said that we could even just have those poor and needy ones over for a meal and rejoice that they could not repay us because god would repay us. I can't speak for every professed christian, but those words did inspire me to help out needy ones. I have gone to developing countries in central and south america spending months doing the preaching work. I would also do my best to invite the locals over for dinner and host them as much as possible. So maybe this isn't selling all of my belongings and living like "The Brethren" but I felt good about it. And maybe the JW preaching is looked upon negatively in this forum, but I saw a lot of joy from people being taught for the first time that they could understand the bible themselves. (as the JW's see it)

Sorry, I am not trying to get preachy. But sometimes I wish that I didn't go down the rabbit hole. I genuinely love being a witness. I personally witness a lot of positive effects in mine and other people lives. So this stuff is personal for me, but I digress...

Sure, good can come out of religion. But it comes from the people, doing good things. They should get the credit.

I can understand it must be hard coming to terms with questioning long held beliefs. I had to do the same with myself. Not to do with religion, but about what I'd been programmed to believe about myself as a child. I'm still not completely over it, at 39. I have to fight back against irrational thoughts that plague me which would sabotage my life if I let them. I can't imagine how much weirder it must be when it's to do with the whole fabric of reality.

(March 27, 2016 at 6:32 am)Won2blv Wrote:

(March 24, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Correct.  I'm classifying this as a response to the wager.


You are dodging the point entirely.  I'm saying that giving all you have to the poor will not lower your chances of salvation but can possibly help them, therefore by the logic of the wager it is compulsory.


I cannot discern the point you are trying to make.


I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.  Again, if a certain action does not lower your chances of winning but might increase them, then performing the action is a required part of any optimal strategy.



According to me?  Do you contest that point?


Correct.


No you aren't.  If they're Christian, they can give it away to other people.


So what should I do then, just ignore the parts I don't like and impose the parts that I do like on other people?

Sorry for the late response... So basically, I have never bought Pascals Wager as I have understood it as a valid argument for the belief in God. I definitely fell more into the argument from ignorance camp.

That being said, I still think that my point is valid that many atheist's draw lines and say, "you cannot act outside of these lines without causing a contradiction" when in reality Jesus taught in a way that helped people understand principles rather than rules. That was my point about Jesus not being a Judge that ticks off requirements from a list. Think of any law, there is an underlying principle behind it. And sometimes the principle isn't a punishable offense. Like the whole committing adultery in your heart if you look at a woman with lust. So did Jesus mean that every time I look at a woman with passion, I have committed adultery? No. The principle is that if you start thinking those things and dwelling on them, it'll lead to you breaking the rule. I am very guilty of this principle sadly... Or not depending on where you come from.

Think of it even this way, when you drive there might be a law in effect like a speed limit. But maybe we believe in the principle to drive safe. So if the weather was really bad, then the principle to drive safe would affect us in a way that we possibly drive under the speed limit.

Whats my point? Basically, Jesus didn't teach us to make hard defined rules in our lives. He made that request to that specific man, but in no way did he ever make it a requirement for his disciples. If he did, then it would just be an endless game of passing around stuff.

You're right that I have a lot more than poor people in a lot of other countries. But Jesus himself said that we could even just have those poor and needy ones over for a meal and rejoice that they could not repay us because god would repay us. I can't speak for every professed christian, but those words did inspire me to help out needy ones. I have gone to developing countries in central and south america spending months doing the preaching work. I would also do my best to invite the locals over for dinner and host them as much as possible. So maybe this isn't selling all of my belongings and living like "The Brethren" but I felt good about it. And maybe the JW preaching is looked upon negatively in this forum, but I saw a lot of joy from people being taught for the first time that they could understand the bible themselves. (as the JW's see it)

Sorry, I am not trying to get preachy. But sometimes I wish that I didn't go down the rabbit hole. I genuinely love being a witness. I personally witness a lot of positive effects in mine and other people lives. So this stuff is personal for me, but I digress...

Translation:

There's not a single thing Jesus said which I actually live by.

[/quote]

Translation:

There's not a single thing Jesus said which I actually live by.
[/quote]

Can you explain that? I don't believe I said that at all. Your reasoning that you used on the AE is a straw man to everyone like myself that has never ascribed to Pascal wager. And I definitely don't believe that you've proven that it was a requirement for all disciples of Jesus. You said, "well it couldn't hurt" that could be true, but it doesn't prove your point as absolute

Translation:

There's not a single thing Jesus said which I actually live by.
[/quote]

Can you explain that? I don't believe I said that at all. Your reasoning that you used on the AE is a straw man to everyone like myself that has never ascribed to Pascal wager. And I definitely don't believe that you've proven that it was a requirement for all disciples of Jesus. You said, "well it couldn't hurt" that could be true, but it doesn't prove your point as absolute
[/quote]

AGAIN, I took the trouble of calling the argument "Upping the ante of Pascal's Wager." So assuming that the wager is a logically sound argument, certain actions are compulsory. You CANNOT refute my argument by rejecting Pascal's Wager because I am saying that IF you accept the WAGER then my argument follows. It is irrelevant if you don't believe that giving all your wealth away is required or not because it is 100% TRUE that if you do this then your chances of getting into heaven CANNOT DECREASE but MIGHT INCREASE.

Get it?

(March 28, 2016 at 5:14 pm)Won2blv Wrote: Can you explain that? I don't believe I said that at all. Your reasoning that you used on the AE is a straw man to everyone like myself that has never ascribed to Pascal wager. And I definitely don't believe that you've proven that it was a requirement for all disciples of Jesus. You said, "well it couldn't hurt" that could be true, but it doesn't prove your point as absolute

I am operating within a framework where Christianity is assumed to be true.

Jesus' disciples were often confused on what Jesus meant. It's anyone's guess what he meant really, so we find ourselves here:

Give all you have to the poor and your chances of entering heaven MIGHT INCREASE but CANNOT DECREASE.

It is IRRATIONAL to fully believe in heaven and hell and NOT do this.

(March 18, 2016 at 3:34 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 9:04 am)The_Empress Wrote: David, you're in Temecula? I'm in Carlsbad

Awesome

I sometimes forget Temecula is even noticeable to anyone else.  We started so small.

We act like it's in our county a lot (it's in Riv. Co.).

(March 28, 2016 at 5:45 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: [quote='Won2blv' pid='1234093' dateline='1459199645']

Can you explain that? I don't believe I said that at all. Your reasoning that you used on the AE is a straw man to everyone like myself that has never ascribed to Pascal wager. And I definitely don't believe that you've proven that it was a requirement for all disciples of Jesus. You said, "well it couldn't hurt" that could be true, but it doesn't prove your point as absolute

I am operating within a framework where Christianity is assumed to be true.

Jesus' disciples were often confused on what Jesus meant.  It's anyone's guess what he meant really, so we find ourselves here:

Give all you have to the poor and your chances of entering heaven MIGHT INCREASE but CANNOT DECREASE.

It is IRRATIONAL to fully believe in heaven and hell and NOT do this.


So I go back to this being a straw man. You're telling me that if I'm a christian, then all of your logic follows no matter what.

1. Even when I was a strong christian I never believed that when you died that your soul kept on and went to heaven or hell. I ALWAYS have believed that when we die we're conscious of nothing. In harmony with Ecclesiastes 9:5,6

2. You keep acting like a humans salvation by God and christ is like a bet. Where you have to raise your chances. I don't even know where you could find a single scripture that treats salvation in this manner.

3. Your arguments are pretty lame tbh. If god existed and had a checklist of what people need to do to obtain salvation then you could game the situation. This might make sense again if this is a bet that you seem to think it is. Even Jesus condemned the pharisees for giving a tenth of all their belongings but not practicing justice mercy and faithfulness. Which he called the weightier matters of the law, but things that you couldn't really quantify. Also, in Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus even mentions some that would claim they were doing great things in Jesus name, but Jesus would reject them and claim he doesn't even know them. Cleary, from Jesus words show that more is involved than just an action.

4. I am not denying that doing good things is something that could not hurt but your reasoning, as I understand it, is that a Christian should have an almost militant view towards material possessions. As your example states, if I have a tv then I have a way to help others. I agree with this. But what I'd like clarification on is if you're trying to say that, unless I sell my tv, and really all of my belongings, then I'm not truly doing all I can? You need to clarify what point your even making.

Your reasoning seems to be either using the Tu Quoque fallacy or the fallacy of composition. That latter is also known as "hasty generalization."

I am certainly not claiming victory, but in your case, I think you dropped the mic a little too early...

(March 28, 2016 at 5:43 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Translation:

There's not a single thing Jesus said which I actually live by.

Can you explain that? I don't believe I said that at all. Your reasoning that you used on the AE is a straw man to everyone like myself that has never ascribed to Pascal wager. And I definitely don't believe that you've proven that it was a requirement for all disciples of Jesus. You said, "well it couldn't hurt" that could be true, but it doesn't prove your point as absolute
[/quote]

AGAIN, I took the trouble of calling the argument "Upping the ante of Pascal's Wager."  So assuming that the wager is a logically sound argument, certain actions are compulsory.  You CANNOT refute my argument by rejecting Pascal's Wager because I am saying that IF you accept the WAGER then my argument follows.  It is irrelevant if you don't believe that giving all your wealth away is required or not because it is 100% TRUE that if you do this then your chances of getting into heaven CANNOT DECREASE but MIGHT INCREASE.

Get it?
[/quote]

I think you're viewing your argument a little too highly. How come I can't refute your argument by rejecting a premise? I have always rejected Pascals Wager. I don't believe that something is true because if you believe it to be true it'll be awesome if it is really true. Its not logically sound. Do you believe it is? So maybe, if a christian mentioned to you that Pascals Wager is a good reason to believe in god, then you could pass on your upping the ante and its a perfectly fine refutation to their specific argument.

So please explain why anyone who claims to be Christian must adhere to your upping the ante? If your point is just simply, "well, it'll increase your odds" Well so would not getting married, according to the apostle Paul. But he didn't make any rules about staying single. If that is your only point, then we're all just at square one. Does your point prove or disprove anything substantial?