A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Under the old rules Jews were supposed to forgive debts at set times, such as every seven years and the Jubilee year every 50 years.  Jesus tossed those aside and said that if a person follows him then the believer has no debt claims against anyone.  That's because the believer is expected to freely give whatever someone asks of him and he is not to expect repayment.
http://www.bricktestament.com/the_teachi...05_41.html

I am familiar with the jubilee year provision. Could you give me the specific verses where Jesus says what you said? Thanks

It's spread out in a lot of the Jesus dialogue.  If you have access to a red letter Bible you can read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

[Won2blv]

Read the 8th post on your thread.

That was referring to conversations I have with people.  It is different from the argument.

You don't even make pascals wager as a qualifier for your argument.

Because it is a different topic.

You say "christians" multiple times. You are absolutely an idiot or just completely dishonest.

Normally I am talking to Christians, not JW wackos like you.

Probably a little bit of both. You make the statement that they don't even try. Clearly you don't understand the point you're trying to make, or simple logic 101.

Here's the problem.  You said REPEATEDLY said that I said this was an absolute requirement.  I asked for you to show where I said that.  I DO NOT SAY THAT HERE.  Here I am only saying that they are not trying their hardest as Christians.  Get your facts straight, dipshit.

Clearly you're just dishonest then. And again with the ad hominem attack. Your posts were on your thread, discussing your point made on the atheist experience. So yes you did say that here!

[Won2blv]

I am familiar with the jubilee year provision. Could you give me the specific verses where Jesus says what you said? Thanks

It's spread out in a lot of the Jesus dialogue.  If you have access to a red letter Bible you can read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

I have read it for myself, I am just not familiar with that admonishment to cancel debt. I can think of his illustration of the king forgiving a huge debt to a man only for that man to demand a small debt be repaid by his fellow man. But that was an illustration on forgiving others for small issues since god has forgiven us in a huge way

[Divinity]

I think the idea is that if Christians REALLY believed in the bible, they'd follow it to every letter. Not that the Bible is a good standard to live by. Cherry Picking the laws written by the fucking psychopath who drowned everyone for not acting the way he wanted them to doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Mister Agenda]

Pascal's Wager doesn't really work for ANYTHING. If I stand on the sidewalk in front of a very nice house and tell passerby that if they wash the car in the driveway, the lady who lives there will give them a million dollars when she gets home; but if they don't she'll hire a hit man to take out everyone you love; who is going to wash that car? And these rewards and punishments are known to be physically possible, no miracles required.

The key thing that Pascal's Wager misses is credibility. You can't take it seriously unless you already believe the things it is trying to convince you of are real.

[Nihilist Virus]

That was referring to conversations I have with people.  It is different from the argument.


Because it is a different topic.


Normally I am talking to Christians, not JW wackos like you.


Here's the problem.  You said REPEATEDLY said that I said this was an absolute requirement.  I asked for you to show where I said that.  I DO NOT SAY THAT HERE.  Here I am only saying that they are not trying their hardest as Christians.  Get your facts straight, dipshit.

Clearly you're just dishonest then. And again with the ad hominem attack. Your posts were on your thread, discussing your point made on the atheist experience. So yes you did say that here!

It was a tangential remark, not an expounding of the argument. Clearly you didn't even listen to the radio call

[Won2blv]

Clearly you're just dishonest then. And again with the ad hominem attack. Your posts were on your thread, discussing your point made on the atheist experience. So yes you did say that here!

It was a tangential remark, not an expounding of the argument.  Clearly you didn't even listen to the radio call

You are clearly trying to make an intellectually dishonest back tracking of your posts that were on your thread. But you're a liar now and it only goes to show the weakness of your argument.