Jump to content

The right way to bet


Recommended Posts

It is off-topic, but I have similar views as Harkdawg. Millions believe in Islam too, and yet another million believe there are multiple gods. What is interesting, though, is that all of the religions share at least one common thing: the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Man, a thought of "god", who doesnt love some more than others, is unacceptable.

Man cant bear a thought, that "god" loves everyone just the same.

Soooo they make up images of "god", who loves certain people for certain reasons, a conditioned love, and thats what we call RELIGION.

While in truth, thats more like blasphemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nema i have said it over and over again... things like Pascal's wager are STEPPING STONES for those wanting to believe in God.... its obviously shouldnt be the ONLY reason you believe in a God."

I know.

You've said it again because you've not realised what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that it isn't a stepping stone. I'm saying that it's not a reason to cross the river. Which you insist on disputing with your stepping stone point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive read the link you gave me Guns. I understand youre viewpoint on the subject. I am sorry if i was too contrast about the image i wrote before, however i truly belive that god/heaven/hell/bible (or any form of rules to live by) do not go together and i do not belive that Bible is the word of god.

Maybe ill take a little time to write about my view on the weekend, but if you have happend to read "Conversations With God" by Neale Donald Walsh or just know what those books are about, then that resembels my view.

- Life is eternal. You are immortal. You never do die. You simply change form - :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Personally, I think that Spectral and Guns both have a point.  Though personally I think that that Gun's sig should have the natural disclaimer "After death".  Of course Pascal's argument was basically points to two conclusions: 1) Rationality requires you to wager for God and 2) You should wager for God.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

If you believe in God and the afterlife, you will absolutely live your life differently than if you don't believe in God and the afterlife.  So therefore saying "status quo" only refers to the afterlife.  AKA if there is no God, then if you did or didn't believe then your dead either way, hence status quo.  But if you didn't believe in God, I'd argue that you'd live a substantially different live than one who does; you'd make significantly different choices in your life.

So towards Spectral's point and to refute Guns a bit, if one doesn't wager for God, that doesn't mean that they are going to be a whore loving, crack smoking, piece of filth at the bottom of the human gene pool.  You could just make decisions that are correct for you at that time and move on.  I don't recall ever reading "Thou Shall Not do Anything That Someone Else May Consider Harmful to your Body".  Eating too much fast food, salt, fat, etc is bad.  Drinking too Much Water, Beer, Vodka is bad.  So the natural answer to this is "everything in moderation".  So then there must be, by definition, be a moderate amount of Marijuana, Crack, Coke, Fat, Red Meat, Vegetables, etc.  If one takes the absolute view point that some things are absolutely bad, Say cocaine, and that there is no moderate level - and that any level of cocaine harms the body, and that all body harm is bad.  Then that absolute person must also agree that there is no good amount of Smog, and no good amount of ingested Pesticides/poisons.  So therefore that absolute person only eats organic certified food, and only lives in a non-urban place where the air is its cleanest...  BTW: if that absolutist ever has gone to the dentist, and had a tooth worked on and had Novocain ..  then they have ingested a derivate of Cocaine.  So therefore I believe those who speak in absolutes; absolutely don't follow what they preach.  I've never seen it, doubt I ever will, but know many, many people that do speak in absolutes and live in hypocrisy of what they preach.

Personally, as stated before, I believe that religion is still the opiate of the masses.  I'm doubtful that my view point on this will ever change.  I view religion as comparable to the academy awards.  Those who watch and root, are in effect creating a false idol - oooo "Robert Redford won best actor" blah blah.  I see no reason why there should be awards for acting.  Where is the award for "most lives saved" or "most people sued in a year".  Though many people gear and live for all those award shows.  I find that stuff appalling, and sad that someone would waste hours of their lives watching those crap shows.

I think there is a direct inverse relationship between money and religion.  I personally believe that the lower the income the greater chance of being religions.  Consequently the higher the income the less likely.  Now I'm not speaking in absolutes, because there are exceptions.  But if you do look at those "religious extreme" (Muslims that do suicide bombs, branch dividian in Waco, etc)  These are people that have no income and no wealth.  So they feel empty and turn to a religion - and I submit - *any* religion will work for them.  Their lives are so empty and miserable that they turn to anyone who promises to make either this life or the next life better.  Why else promise 70 virgins (and honestly 70 porn stars would be a better award than 70 virgins IMHO - at least you'd know by default that she was experienced and that she'd be hot vs. some plane jane fat Amish chick that just laid there) or promise that you'll get back 10x what you give to the religion after death, or heck just read the beatitudes. 

I think that Ron White, on the blue collar comedy tour, that said it the best during his skit with the bean bag and cheetoes "Do you feel the need to give me $1000?"  That

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree with ps501 on several grounds.

     First of all i think that you neglected to admit that wagering for God doesnt always bring about a radically different life.  You can be a moral and nice person and reject God .... they are called opportunists.  These people did good deeds on earth but never tried to do anything spiritual so they stay spiritually dead.  Then when they are alienated from God in the afterlife they are full of misery. And if you dont figure out how to prepare that spirit for the afterlife then no matter how many good deeds you do it will all be in vain. Of course their misery will be less than that of a purely evil person... but they will still be separated from God nonetheless.  You must realize that that 100 years of flesh life is insignificant to an immortal spirit. Therefore i do not need to put a "after death" disclaimer in my sig.   

     Also the bible speaks of moderation but it also says that you should not practice sorcery.  Sorcery does not mean magic.  Back in biblical times it meant to render yourself under the influence of mind altering substances that made you lose your proper mind.  This was because you would most likely abuse your free will and commit a sin.  Same reason why driving drunk is illegal in the united states.  People realize that not being in your right mind is wrongful.

     Next i want to address the issue of hypocrisy you referred to.  First of all.... the bible speaks about God knowing your heart.  This means that if you are given drugs to put you to sleep during surgery then you obviously are taking the drugs with a pure heart and are under the supervision of a professional.  God looks at your heart.  Plain and simple.  God gave us all a conscience and common sense and we know when we are doing wrong.  God also gives us discernment.  Discernment means knowing when you are doing something in moderation and whether you are doing something appropriately....such as knowing sex is ok in your bedroom but it becomes wrong if you do it in front of kids at a daycare.  Morals are absolute ...this doesnt mean actions are absolute.  Obviously you can give a gift to someone with bad intentions or good intentions.  The condition of the heart is what matters... that is what is absolute.  Your heart is aligned with either evil or good when you perform an action. 

I really enjoyed how you pretended to be non-biased in your opening statement but then all out attacked my view and me personally.

     You are really smug and stuck up in how you blast people with your anti-religious propaganda.  oooh you found some corrupt people... grow up kid there's bad apples in every barrel  Using that as your main point will get you nowhere.  Also, i know you are referring to myself and many other veteran players on emperor when you refer to whores and satanists kicking noobs out of rooms.  You are a real idiot if you believe that.  Secondly, God doesnt command that i must play video games with any one person.  If i am walking down the street to go home to see my wife and kid... and then some kids nearby ask for me to play football with them..... i can politely decline and say no i wish to do something else with my time which in this case would be eating dinner and having fun with my wife and kids..... which would be equivalent to declining playing with a noob on emp in order to play with some old buddies of mine.  And yes people's time are valuable and no it doesnt compromise their values or make them whores. 

     I must say you are really one of the most ignorant people i have ever seen on these forums if you truly believe what you are writing...trying to use archaic semantics and weak webster definitions and corollaries to support a rather weak position to begin with.  Never have i seen someone say something so offensive or dense.  Not even navaros.  Playing or recreation is not a mandatory activity.... sure if i refused to feed someone or refused to clothe someone or refused give medical aid... then yes call me a hypocrite... but do not call me a hypocrite or a whore because i wont PLAY with someone.  OMG are you serious?

People can kick people out of games for various reasons... they may lagg... they may have computers unfit for online play... they may wish to play with their friends. Etc, etc.  This has nothing to do with moral absolutism at all.  Its simple logic.  I can be nice of course and offer to do training 1vs1 matches which i always do.... and if they decline then they can watch the game or leave.... and if they refuse to leave then you can boot them. I cant believe i am even explaining this to you .... in the PRP forums of all places.

And finally i want to close with one thought.  And that is PEOPLE ARENT PERFECT.  It is so unfair to call someone a hypocrite because they dont perfectly follow what they preach... even when they are making strides everyday to become closer to what it is they are preaching.  I am not the nicest person in the world but i am ten times better than what i was 5 years ago.  Becoming aligned with your particular faith TAKES TIME.  You dont magically poof into a ghandi or jesus christ.... OK PEOPLE? 

Someone might preach that 5 x 5 = 25 but they are poor at math and must practice in order to be able to computate it for themselves.  It doesnt mean what they are saying is any less true because they havent mastered multiplication.  You can speak the truth yet be unable to perfectly demonstrate it on the blackboard.  I can happen upon a book that tells me the derivative x squared is 2x.  But if i dont know calculus then i cannot demonstrate it for you on the blackboard.  And if i were trying to study calculus in order to be able to demonstrate it on the blackbooard and you constantly berated me for being a hypocrite, then that would make you a very poor individual indeed.

The only thing you even came remotely close to being correct on is that many rich people are not religious.  This is because money brings power and independance and thus you may never think much about God unless you truly are interested in spirituality.  Whereas poor people are more likely to ask for earthly blessings from God as they desperately need them.

TO be honest, it is people like you ps501 that make it so hard to align one with one's faith because you offer up such ignorance in an attempt to look clever that causes reasonable people to have stinging sensations in their foreheads.

*sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns - a) again not a personal attack; don't be so sensitive man.  Curious as to why you'd think this was a personal attack - vs just my own opinion.  Heck I even remeber a few times around 3am where you and Drnkmsta would show me a thing or two on how to defeat a mino hoard, or how to stop gas rushers, etc.  And no I'm not even attempting to equating your personal life with my response.  Please get over yourself.

So I am befuddled that you think that I'm refering to you and you alone. How either high you must place yourself in comparison to others, or why you grant me such control over your actions, I don't understand.

I at least attempt to back up my claims with facts, and references.  You distort my message for your own apparent personal gain.

...     First of all i think that you neglected to admit that wagering for God doesnt always bring about a radically different life...

First I never said that a "radically different life" was a result.  Thats you twisting my words. 

Scenario:

Two people make the exact same wage.  One gives 10% to the church because they follow the teachings of that church, and they want to make 10x that amount in the afterlife.  The other does not go to that church and does not contribute 10% to any church.  If God does exist, then the 1st dude is in pretty good shape for helping out someone in need.  The second dude has some problems.  If God does not exist, then the 1st person lost 10% of their income for nothing, and the 2nd person got to have the vacation home, 3rd car etc.  Different lives for the 1st 100 years.  So yes, "status quo" doesn't apply to the current life.  Both lives aren't equal.

You continue to talk in absolutes.  Since you talk about absolutes in the context of God, religion, etc I call that Religious Extremism.  You call me ignorant.  I don't take your view points as an attack on me.  Its sad that you take an opinion or an analogy of mine and believe that its a personal attack on yourself.  If there is no room for debate in your heart because of your absoluteness, then feel free to strap on a bomb and make a statement.  I see no difference in one persons absolute inflexibility and anothers absolute inflexibily - especally if both are absolutely correct in their own minds. 

Its sad man, you could call me a white-trash redneck, nigger, whore, spook, gook, or an axe-murdering porn star.  And do you know what? I don't take any offence to that, because I'm none of those.  You can only truely take offence if the label fits and it sticks.  You apparently have taken offence to some of my words, and for that I'm truely sorry you have mis-interpreted my words.  I can only presume your offence is because you felt those words in your heart.  Its great that your trying to better yourself, and I've never called on a person to be perfect, nor have I faulted someone for failing.  However I do believe in striving to better one's self

Beliefs, Faith, and Religions are three separate things.

I have a BELIEF that you should not play an american football game reliant on "hail-Mary" passes.

I have FAITH that if Trent Green throws a "hail-Mary" pass then Tony Gonzales can catch it

I am not a member of a KC Chiefs RELIGION.

If you actually knew me, then you'd know I never shy away from a debate where horizions could be expanded.  I'll take either side regardless of that side.  I believe that through debate of ideas you can gain more wisdom than you had before the debate.  You may be surprised at the times I've been proven wrong in my heart and changed my views.  Its generally painful, but a good learning experience

If I cause one person to question their the morality in their heart, and to search for what will make them truely whole, then I think I can do no better service to that person.

As a whole, yes I'm against the western religions I've seen first hand.  Catholics preach teachings from the bible, and helping cloth the naked man.  Please tell me how exactly spending $1,000,000 on a Monet helps cloth the naked man?  It does make for the worlds most extensive private art collection, yes.  Feed the hungry, no; just don't see that.  Now I challenge you to find a place or a point where I say God is bad, or belief in God is bad.  Don't get those two points confused.

If you can point to a religion that is rooted in the teachings God, and actually practices what they preach, then please do.  I've yet to find such a place where I could believe.  (Yes, I do know that there are some religions that do practice what they preach, but I don't believe in some of their wacked out beliefs)

You say that moderation is ok, so long as your pure in your heart.  So if someone gets high off of marajuana but is pure in their heart, then its ok in your book.  Presumably you cannot know what is in everyone's heart, so you have to presume that they are either sinning, or not, but only that person could know for sure.  So if you see someone who has been mind-altered, you don't just assume they are or have sinned, you leave it to God to decide, yes?

Scenario:  I go to a bar in Amsterdam.  I order water and a hamburger.  The guy next to me smokes a joint, and as a result I get a high off his second hand smoke.  Did I just commit a sin?

Scenario: Marajuana has been proven to ease nausia associated with chemotherapy and problems related to Glocoma.  Is it a sin to use Marajuana to ease suffering?

Scenario: I go to the dentist and they give me Nitrox Oxide to ease my pain, but I drive home.  I'm mind altered, did I just sin?

Scenario: I drink one ounce of wine in church as the 'blood of christ' did I just sin for drinking Alcohol?

Scenario: I run marathons, and as a result get an endorphine high.  I run a marathon for charity every week, and consequently get that high every week.  Did I just sin?

Scenario: I work my regular job, but during Christmas season, I volunteer to sort toys for children.  I work so much sorting toys that I begin to hallucinate from sleep deprivation.  Did I just sin?

Scenario: After getting some sleep, I drink a bunch of caffeine to wake up, I'm now mind altered - did I just Sin?

Scenario: I see you walk into a bar in Boston.  I assume you must be drinking.  AS a result I suddenly think that Gunswounds is a sinner and consequently turn away from God and become an alcoholic.  Did you just sin?

I mean really, none of these things are necesarily excess, and depending on the persons heart, any could be or couldn't be a sin.  Now, I guarantee that I can find at least one person to believe deep down that God would dam those actions as a sin.  I also guarantee that I can find at least one person to believe that deep down God wouldn't condem those actions as a sin.  However you keep talking about absolutes.  Would love to hear your absolute opinion.

So one final question for the masses:

Your at a retail store.  You purchase a $4.80 item, and pay for it with $10.00 in cash.  When you get home you realize that you have $5.25 in your pocket.  (assuming your pockets were empty beforehand except for the $10.00; that no other transactions occurred before or after the one transaction in question; and assuming you only had $10.00 to start with; so the only conclusion is that the retailer gave you back incorrect change in your favor)

Did you commit a sin here?  If so where was the Sin Committed? Was the sin not double checking the cashier before you left, or is the sin in not returning the $.05 or is this not a sin at all because you entered the retailer pure of heart, and through no fault of your own you ended up $.05 ahead?  Or because $.05 is such a small amount it doesn't matter? 

What if this wasn't a retail store but a vending machine.  You put in $1.00 for a $.50 item, but get $.75 back in change.  Is it a sin to keep the $.25?  If it is how do you rectify it?

I mean this is the principal problem I see with speaking in absolute morality.  Who's Morality?  You cannot leglislate or dictate morality because people's absolute morality differs, how do you choose who's abosolute morality is correct?

If you call this anti-religous propaganda, then so be it.  I call this a debate or an exchange of opinions.

I do close with two final quotes

sure if i refused to feed someone or refused to clothe someone or refused give medical aid... then yes call me a hypocrite...

Did you know there is someone hungry right now in your very town? (or if by chance in the larger city near your town)  Since you know this is happening and haven't done enough to stop it, I consider that a refusal to help.  What are you waiting on a personal phone call from the local soup kitchen begging for your help? I recall seeing a cool picutre you uploaded of some really cool computer technology....  I bet I can find someone who has died from lack of food in the past week (or in the past 10 minutes).  How do you feel about your really cool computer technology now?

Now its been a bit since I've read the King James version of the bible, and I'm sure that someone could exactly quote what I'm referring to here, but There was a man that approached Jesus, and asked what more he could do.  Jesus responded, sell all your possessions give it to the needy, and follow me.  (Yes this a real paraphrase here, but meaning basically left intact)  Now I'm not saying I'm a man of God, nor am I saying I follow all the teachings in the bible to the absolute letter.  But if one was talking in absolutes, then why hasn't that person sold all their earthly possessions, and spend their remaining days teaching the word of God? 

To be honest, it is people like you ps501 that make it so hard to align one with one's faith because you offer up such ignorance in an attempt to look clever that causes reasonable people to have stinging sensations in their foreheads.

Dude, if its such ignorance then it would be easy to align one with one's faith, because you'd view this as complete gibberish.  If listening to a different point of view gives you a headache, then either take a painkiller unless you think its a sin, or don't listen.  If one person things I'm waaay of my rocker and is now convinced that Gunwounds is correct, and as a result upon their death is welcomed into the kingdom of heaven... I think I've done a good thing.  If one person reads this debate and then picks up the bible/koran and becomes a devout follower of Allah, Budda, God and as a result has an outstanding afterlife, then I think I've done a good thing.  If one person decides to do self introspection to determine their moral compass and center, then I think I've done a good thing.  You ranting about some perceived personal attack... not a good thing in my book.

Lastly Merry Christmas Eve, Unless you take offence to that phrase; in which case I hope you have a nice evening nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I had no idea what you, ps501, were trying to do in your first post, because you did seem to take a neutral stand at first before going in-depth into criticising Gunwounds' point. But perhaps I could have missed something. Whatever. Anyway, just my 2 cents:

Scenario:

Two people make the exact same wage.  One gives 10% to the church because they follow the teachings of that church, and they want to make 10x that amount in the afterlife.  The other does not go to that church and does not contribute 10% to any church.  If God does exist, then the 1st dude is in pretty good shape for helping out someone in need.  The second dude has some problems.   If God does not exist, then the 1st person lost 10% of their income for nothing, and the 2nd person got to have the vacation home, 3rd car etc.  Different lives for the 1st 100 years.  So yes, "status quo" doesn't apply to the current life.  Both lives aren't equal.

Of course both lives aren't equal. But what drastic change has occurred in your life? Well, one of them gets to save a bit more money, and perhaps the other "wasted" his money. Of course, I won't dare say the person who did charity was wasting his money, since charity can be in the name of religion or not - either way, the same result works for the recipient. However, IN GENERAL, it's mainly the status quo. To be going into these little details would be over-analysing the situation. Nobody said Pascal's Wager was perfect (at least not me, or even if I did, I change my stand now ;)). It depends on how big the picture you are looking at. From a certain vantage, it is correct, like most viewpoints, in any case.

Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!! ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I had no idea what you, ps501, were trying to do in your first post, because you did seem to take a neutral stand at first before going in-depth into criticising Gunwounds' point. But perhaps I could have missed something. Whatever. Anyway, just my 2 cents:

Of course both lives aren't equal. But what drastic change has occurred in your life? Well, one of them gets to save a bit more money, and perhaps the other "wasted" his money. Of course, I won't dare say the person who did charity was wasting his money, since charity can be in the name of religion or not - either way, the same result works for the recipient. However, IN GENERAL, it's mainly the status quo. To be going into these little details would be over-analysing the situation. Nobody said Pascal's Wager was perfect (at least not me, or even if I did, I change my stand now ;)). It depends on how big the picture you are looking at. From a certain vantage, it is correct, like most viewpoints, in any case.

Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!! ;D

Exactly Gunner....  glad i wasnt the only one who saw that ps501 pretending to be neutral.  Oh and yes i totally agree that 10% is not enough to refute Pascal's Wager... the lives will be status quo in the big picture.  Also as TMA-1 has pointed out SEVERAL TIMES... that we christians are not bound by the old jewish covenant of giving 10% of our income.  Today we live in Jesus's grace.... not some legalistic covenant.  You give what you are able to.  There is no defined percentage. Also you dont have to go to a church to be a person of faith. Also charity is not a waste of cash in my opinion.  So many fallacies here in the above example.

p.s.  btw ps501 you know that if you ask anyone on the forums who boots the most people out of their games... 99% will say gunwounds.  So dont play the innocent/stupid card. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a whole, yes I'm against the western religions I've seen first hand.  Catholics preach teachings from the bible, and helping cloth the naked man.  Please tell me how exactly spending $1,000,000 on a Monet helps cloth the naked man?  It does make for the worlds most extensive private art collection, yes.  Feed the hungry, no; just don't see that.  Now I challenge you to find a place or a point where I say God is bad, or belief in God is bad.  Don't get those two points confused.

This is what irritates me this is what causes the stinging sensation in my forehead.... the ignorant stereotyping..... you know... black people dont appreciate it when you steroetype them as stupid n***ers... so dont you think christians get frustrated when they all get stereotyped as greedy corrupt bastards? ... yea we all know that many mega-corp religions are corrupt.. why keep pointing it out?  All it does is confuse potential believers into thinking that christianity itself is corrupt.  Which is a great disservice.  Christianity at its core is a beautiful thing and when you ignore that and simply rant and rant about this corrupted mega-corp church and this one and this one... all it does is sow seeds of hatred.  We all know that the greedy money grubbing hypocrites should be avoided... but to stereotype the entire western christian religion as corrupt is a real asinine thing to do.  Just pick a faith and practice it on your own if you are so paranoid about corruption.  To be a wishy washy spineless person who cannot choose anything just because he is afraid of corruption is just silly.  Its like having a girl break your heart and then say you will never date a woman again because they are all bitches.  Just plain dumb.

Scenario:  I go to a bar in Amsterdam.  I order water and a hamburger.  The guy next to me smokes a joint, and as a result I get a high off his second hand smoke.  Did I just commit a sin?

Scenario: Marajuana has been proven to ease nausia associated with chemotherapy and problems related to Glocoma.  Is it a sin to use Marajuana to ease suffering?

Scenario: I go to the dentist and they give me Nitrox Oxide to ease my pain, but I drive home.  I'm mind altered, did I just sin?

Scenario: I drink one ounce of wine in church as the 'blood of christ' did I just sin for drinking Alcohol?

Scenario: I run marathons, and as a result get an endorphine high.  I run a marathon for charity every week, and consequently get that high every week.  Did I just sin?

Scenario: I work my regular job, but during Christmas season, I volunteer to sort toys for children.  I work so much sorting toys that I begin to hallucinate from sleep deprivation.  Did I just sin?

Scenario: After getting some sleep, I drink a bunch of caffeine to wake up, I'm now mind altered - did I just Sin?

Scenario: I see you walk into a bar in Boston.  I assume you must be drinking.  AS a result I suddenly think that Gunswounds is a sinner and consequently turn away from God and become an alcoholic.  Did you just sin?

I mean really, none of these things are necesarily excess, and depending on the persons heart, any could be or couldn't be a sin.  Now, I guarantee that I can find at least one person to believe deep down that God would dam those actions as a sin.  I also guarantee that I can find at least one person to believe that deep down God wouldn't condem those actions as a sin.  However you keep talking about absolutes.  Would love to hear your absolute opinion.

This is real easy... only legalistic people would consider those actions to be a sin.  Legalism only looks at the actions and not the heart......legalists think putting on lipstick is a sin... of course its not... me disagreeing with religious legalism does not contradict with my moral absolutism....moral absolutism means i tihnk God is capable of determining at any given moment whether someone is doing something wrong or right... but it doesnt mean that every single action regardless of heart is pre-categorized.  Thats what you call religious legalism.... ok next?

Your at a retail store.  You purchase a $4.80 item, and pay for it with $10.00 in cash.  When you get home you realize that you have $5.25 in your pocket.  (assuming your pockets were empty beforehand except for the $10.00; that no other transactions occurred before or after the one transaction in question; and assuming you only had $10.00 to start with; so the only conclusion is that the retailer gave you back incorrect change in your favor)

Did you commit a sin here?  If so where was the Sin Committed? Was the sin not double checking the cashier before you left, or is the sin in not returning the $.05 or is this not a sin at all because you entered the retailer pure of heart, and through no fault of your own you ended up $.05 ahead?  Or because $.05 is such a small amount it doesn't matter? 

What if this wasn't a retail store but a vending machine.  You put in $1.00 for a $.50 item, but get $.75 back in change.  Is it a sin to keep the $.25?  If it is how do you rectify it?

I mean this is the principal problem I see with speaking in absolute morality.  Who's Morality?  You cannot leglislate or dictate morality because people's absolute morality differs, how do you choose who's abosolute morality is correct?

quite simple.... yes return the money... doesnt have to be exactly at that moment...as you would be wasting gas to go to the store just to return a nickel.  If the vending machine gives you a quarter... then go inside the store and give it to the cashier.. if it is a desolate area, then leave the quarter there in the machine.

These examples you are offering up do not refute absolute morality... they just show how far we are from being aligned with morality.  Every example here we should return the money... yet we most likely wont.  It doesnt refute absolute morality it just shows that we have a long way to go before we are truly aligned with our absolute morality.  Truth is we will never be 100% aligned... thats what we need grace for.  And the only religion with such a thing is christianity with Jesus. We must have our hearts as pure and open as possible and submit to Him.  And ask for grace and mercy.  There is nothing more we can do.

I do close with two final quotes

Did you know there is someone hungry right now in your very town? (or if by chance in the larger city near your town)  Since you know this is happening and haven't done enough to stop it, I consider that a refusal to help.  What are you waiting on a personal phone call from the local soup kitchen begging for your help? I recall seeing a cool picutre you uploaded of some really cool computer technology....  I bet I can find someone who has died from lack of food in the past week (or in the past 10 minutes).  How do you feel about your really cool computer technology now?

Now its been a bit since I've read the King James version of the bible, and I'm sure that someone could exactly quote what I'm referring to here, but There was a man that approached Jesus, and asked what more he could do.  Jesus responded, sell all your possessions give it to the needy, and follow me.  (Yes this a real paraphrase here, but meaning basically left intact)  Now I'm not saying I'm a man of God, nor am I saying I follow all the teachings in the bible to the absolute letter.  But if one was talking in absolutes, then why hasn't that person sold all their earthly possessions, and spend their remaining days teaching the word of God? 

This makes me laugh... cause it means you totally didnt read anything i wrote earlier.  Listen very carefully please.  ONE DOES NOT ALIGN WITH ONE's FAITH OVERNIGHT.  You do not magically poof into a ghandi or a jesus christ overnight.  Its a very tough process.  Its like peeling the layers off of an onion.... the layers are harder the further you go and the further you go the onion smell makes you cry.

Secondly the bible says God did not create a fool.  I cannot give away everything and make myself poor and dependant upon others and become a burden to society.  I obviously can do more for humanity by keeping my job, making money and consistently donating it to charity.  Also when Jesus said that to the rich man he was trying to see where his heart was.  IT did not mean Jesus was making a command to everyone to give away all their possessions and live a dirt poor existence. 

Its real easy to take things out of context when quoting the bible. In addition, even if jesus did truly intend for the rich man to abandon everything, it would have been worth it because Jesus was standing there in the flesh.  The rich man was well aware of who jesus was.  There was no doubt... it was God incarnate before him and yet he refused.  I can tell you that if i had been him and God incarnate was standing before me and said follow me i would have jumped at the chance.  Because then i wouldnt have been a burden to society as Jesus would have been able to sustain me physically and emotionally. 

However God probably does want us to live non-excessive lives and i would have to go back to my primary point that aligning with one's faith takes time.  However i think that owning a computer or a house is not exccessive and that having recreational time is not exccessive either.  The bible also talks about blessings and rewards in this earthly life and i think that God can bless you with a rewarding and joyous life if you use it to further His Will.  The bible also said that anything you give to Him...he will return in multitudes.  So obviously there is more to this issue than just giving everything away.  He obviously wants you to give freely as an act of your faith in Him and then you will be further rewarded in order that you will be able to give even more.  And perhaps the people who are willing to give their money to do His will will recieve more money rather than someone who wants to use it for strippers. And yes we are all sinners... if you were trying to get me to say that christians arent sinners then you have the wrong concept entirely.  All mankind is wretched and evil.  Even Mark ... one of the disciples ... progressively understood the wretchedness of mankind as he became closer and closer to god.  In the earlier chapters he would say " i see my flaws"... and near the end of the chapters he wrote he would say " i am the most wretched man alive".

So no ps501 i never said that anyone is perfect and i never said anyone will ever become perfect.  We sin every second of our lives... we are wretched beings... yes yes yes its all true... and if you read how i view God in this link ---->  http://dune2k.com/forum/index.php?topic=17868.msg288164#msg288164   

Note where i say we are making ourselves enemies to this goodness everyday.  Its good that you are able to perceive how we basically are sinning every second of our life... which is why we need to repent... which means to turn away from things we are able to perceive as evil.  Bascially eliminate the obvious things we are doing wrong.  Then we must ask for God's mercy and grace from Jesus.  We must have our hearts as pure and open as possible and submit to Him.  And ask for grace and mercy.  There is nothing more we can do.

You basically have just realized (unknowingly) that it is impossible to follow absolute moral law.  Thats why Jesus and his sacrifice are so necessary.  Thats why i have chosen Christianity.  Islam, Judaism, atheism.... none offer hope.  None offer mercy or grace.  Acriku thinks that God will reward him for being "reasonable"... but if we truly are "fallen" then ignoring God is useless as you wont be able to reverse the fallen state.  Islam and Judaism are hopeless because they demand that you follow absolute morality without any grace or mercy being available which is impossible.  Hence hopeless.  Without a go-between link for us and God as described in my above link.... your efforts on this world are futile.

Regards,

Gunwounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns - Here is where you and I must absolutely disgree.

You think I'm bashing Christians.  Show me where I'm attacking "Christians... as greedy corrupt bastards" as you suggest, becaues you cannot. This is because I'm not attacking Christians.  You'll not find a quote from me that says that Christians are absolute morons and deserve to be shot.  So please don't continue to twist my words around to suit yourself.

If you must say I'm attacking something then I attack corrupt Religions.  Religions are the perfect opiate for the masses.  And I'm not talking about the obvious Made for TV mega churches where you are saved by giving $1000.  I define a corrupt religion as one that doesn't practice the basic principles that it teaches.  I personally believe that the Catholic church does NOT practice what it preaches.  Period.  "If a man lies next to another man as he would lie next to a woman..."  Ever heard that quote.  So why does the Catholic Church allow a child molster to remain in its ranks?  Sure you can quote a bad apple in every barrel.  And if your believe the Catholic Church, priests as child molesters occur no more often than men in the general public.  But you know what?  If I see a bad apple, I throw it out.  I don't keep it!  What good does it serve the naked, starving man to own the worlds largest private art collection?  If you read history, the Catholics have caused more death and distruction in the name of God than any other religion I'm aware of.  Or take it to the basic, if your a Catholic, why must you receive the "Blood of Christ" from a golden challice?  A plastic cup would allow you to receive the offering just as well as a $1000 cup.  Total waste of money.  That $1000 would feed more than one thousand people.  (Of course if you define the Catholic Church as one of your mega churches, then I guess we are in agreement here)

As for your views on my senarios I provided of being legalistic in nature.  I know so many people that practice the Mormon Faith, and they would list every one of those scenarios as a sin.  A person shouldn't go to a bar.  There are other places to get sustance.  Knowingly going to a bar, especially where there is marajuana being smoked is not acceptable.  This is a very strict interpretation of what my mormon friend Jake calls "the line"  As soon as you can identify "the line" then you turn around and walk away.  If someone shows you "the line" walk away.  Always look for "the line" in your deeds, words, and actions.  Stay away from "the line"  That is a very simple way to look at each one of those senarios.  Now I'm not saying its correct.  But that is one view point; and I don't disagree with it.  It works for him well.

You seem to take the point of, in your heart, you didn't want to get stoned, but you saw nothing sinful about walking into a bar to order a hamburger.  Getting stoned was an unintended consequence, and therefore isn't a sin.  You know what?  I don't disagree with this either.  It seemingly works well for you. 

Now are you saying that Jake the Mormon is an idiot for thinking this way, because you think that God will look into the persons heart and make the determination of if its a sin or not... What if Jake is correct, and your wrong. So therefore you've been willingly and knowingly sinning all these years, even though your heart was clean and clear and your thought it wasn't a sin.  Isn't this a principal of Pascal's wager.  Align your self with God.  Knowingly sinning, to me, isn't doing a good job of alignment.  Yes?  Shouldn't you take the high ground and say "just in case its a sin, I won't do it"

Or do you have a scenario where both of your are correct?  or is the Sin somehow subjective?  AKA its a sin in God's eyes for Jake to do those things, but its not a sin for Gunwounds to do those things - under the premise that Jake does call those sins, and you do not?  I mean thats a dangerous road "I didn't think it was a sin, so therefore it isn't.  You however did think it was a sin so therefore it is to you, but not to me" 

Ok so next is where I really feel compelled to understand you further.  In your last reply you stated "

rich man was well aware of who jesus was.  There was no doubt... it was God incarnate before him and yet he refused.  I can tell you that if i had been him and God incarnate was standing before me and said follow me i would have jumped at the chance.  "

So are you telling me that if Jesus Christ was here and said that, you'd do it.  But because he isn't phyiscally here (that we are aware of) you won't?  Please tell me I'm reading this wrong or taking your words out of context.  You still do have that chance.  "Wherever two or three are gathered in My name I am in their midst"  (And I'd love someone to point me to the verse I'm speaking about here)  That was one of the guys problems with what Jesus told him to do.  He said something to the effect of "Where do I live, eat, etc"  Jesus provided him with the answer and the ability to damn an entire villiage if they rejected him.  If I believed that, I'd sell it all, preach the word, and I'm sure when that long haired stinky scary looking dude knocked on your door asking for a meal and a place to sleep for the night, you along with most people would tell him where he could go and refuse to feed and cloth him.

You basically have just realized (unknowingly) that it is impossible to follow absolute moral law.  Thats why Jesus and his sacrifice are so necessary.  Thats why i have chosen Christianity.  Islam, Judaism, atheism.... none offer hope.  None offer mercy or grace. 

No, I do know its impossible to *legislate* morality.  Too many years and beers in college over that topic.  Separation of Church and State is a very good thing.  It is, however, NOT impossible to follow absolute moral law.  Many Orthadox Jews do. Many Muslims do.  So do many others.  However each one of them follows their own moral law.  The Jews have different rules than Muslims who have different rules than Gunwounds does.  Do I declare a victor in the moral conflict.  No.  I don't believe that any one of them is more correct than another; Further if one of those moral absolutists cannot respect the others view point, than I believe something is inherently lost.  A state cannot legislate morality.  Doesn't work.  Never seen it work.  Invariably person "a"'s morality conflits with "b"'s and oops now you have a problem if its legislated.

You speak as if Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and died for our sins.  I bet I'd be hard pressed to find a devout Jew to go along with that.  I also bet I'd be hard pressed to find a devout Muslim to call JC more than a prophet, one of many.  So from a timeline perspective you are going on a 2005 year old believe and faith.  Which is fine.  Judism is older.  Many christians would say that Jesus came to us to show us the new path, the new way, the new religion.  Follow Christ.  So if you believe this, then great.  However the Prophet Mohammed came after the Prophet Jesus.  And now Mohammed is now showing is the new path the new way....  Further, the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr., came after Mohammed... So now the Mormons have the new way...  I think its great that you picked a path.  Many haven't.  Is it part of your belief system that you absoutely cannot be wrong in your faith, and that the path you picked is absolutely the correct one and that all Jews, Muslims, Hindou's, Mormons, Satanists are doomed to a lesser fate in the afterlife than those that have identically aligned with your path?  I don't buy it.

What if suddenly, apparently, the Daughter of God comes to be on earth.  oops the Bible doesn't mention the Daughter of God.  What if this is now we have the "old", "new" and "current" testiment.  What if She performs miracles, clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, cures cancer for all humankind.  Preaches the "current" word of God.  Then She gets killed by the anti-Daughter of God movement.  Would you believe that God could have had a Daughter? and what if a new budding religion comes out of Her teachings?  Would you change to the "current" or stay with the 2005 year old version?  Suddenly in the year 3000 people are debating why some are only following the teachings on the Son, and not the Daughter.  Just as we are debating that you believe the JC has the *only* path to salvation; and I disagree.

p.s.  btw ps501 you know that if you ask anyone on the forums who boots the most people out of their games... 99% will say gunwounds.  So dont play the innocent/stupid card. ;)

P.P.S. Actually from when I really played the game, I can think of many more prolific "kickers" than you. (Heck if I had $1 for every time I saw Youko kicked...)  And I can think of many that were less polite about it than you too.  (and I'm not saying your polite ;) ) So don't read something into what I'm saying, especially when I say it wasn't written with you in mind.  While your statement could be true in today's game; its not from my perspective of yesterday's game true to me.

Now as a 'better late than never' attempt to clarify my earlier remarks, I stopped referencing Spectral vs Guns after my 3rd paragraph, Where I started, "Personally, as stated before," I should have made it clear that my intent of writing was to the general and not the specific.  Though in re-reading it, I can see how one could see it as a long Gunwounds rant.

[off topic]

One final thought, and I know that racism is high on Guns hit list.  I was recently sitting next to a very polite gentleman of African Decent.  He was working on a power point presentation, and I read one the headings of his slides.  In typical confrontational fashion I stopped doing my e-mail, and launched powerpoint, and made one minor search/replace changes to his topic and asked him if my sentence was, in his opinion racist.  My sentence read "White Leaders of our Communities must enable, empower the White man to ensure he achieves gains"  I asked him if he thought that was a racist comment.  He emphatically said yes... Talked a bit about how he was working to eliminate racism in the world, etc, blah, blah, etc, etc...  then I pointed back to his slide "Black Leaders of our Communities must enable, empower the Black man to ensure he achieves gains".  I asked him if he thought his sentence was racist....  Needless to say he didn't change his slide, nor continue to work on it, nor did he speak to me for the rest of the flight.  He just sat there in silence.    Me, I got a refill on my vodka tonic and went back to e-mail.

My point?  (well I often have no point, its part of my charm) but even those that are working to end a thing, may be in fact fostering the very thing they oppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh btw it will probably be a few days before i post that rebuttal on your Daughter of God scenario. Its will be a little beefy in length as i will describe step by step in chrono order the different religions and people you brought up and perhaps shed some light on why some believers of certain faiths believe what it is they believe. I will explain why i believe they can be eliminated and what some fatal flaws are and why a daughter of God (or any other religious figure) is not necessary.  I have to go visit some family members... so dont expect a response till wednesday or thursday as i wont be writing/viewing the forums till then.  IF anyone else (Edrico, TMA, anybody?) wants to give it a try before i get back feel free to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one underlying assumption of Pascal's wager is that we assume either God exists, or God does not exist, and ignore other possible beliefs like your mormon thing. Status quo wouldn't apply anymore if nobody gives a damn about your heart, thus ps501 is right about that. However, if you assume God doesn't exist, heck, then what on earth is a sin then? Perhaps that would mean "the God who looks at your heart and your action" vs "the God who looks solely at your actions." It wouldn't be too accurate to bring in "the line" if you're discussing Pascal's wager, since we're now talking about 2 different comparisons.

Regarding the chalice, it's just there for ceremonial purposes. I seriously wouldn't mind having a plastic cup instead. Once again, this also means to say a place of worship shouldn't have good facilities because you need to direct funds to charities would be stupid, as Gunwounds has already mentioned regarding taking the bible out of context. On top of that, the church is a place of worship, and it's where Christ resides, so surely we should have some respect for God and look after his house?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So before you go and dissuade the fact that God couldn't have a Daughter.  And perhaps it was a bad analogy.  My point here was

Jews, who have been around longer than Christians, are still waiting for the Son of God.

Christians, who have been around for some 2000 years, believe the Son of Man was sent

Muslims, that have been around for some 500 years, believe JC was just one of many profits.

Mormons, who have been around for some 200 years, ... Get the picture

You have chosen to jump on the 2000 year old belief, and believe all others are flawed.  I hate to tell ya, that Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindous, Budda's, Witnesses... They out number Christians...  Could a minority be right? sure.  Could it be wrong, sure.  There is only one true way to know.  Die and see what happens.  Otherwise its one Faith against another.  One Opinion/intrepretation vs another.

So lets say that the Jews were correct, and the Son of God hasn't come yet, but he really arrives tomorrow.  Does your belief system allow for that possibility?  Could you possibly change? 

Your basing your belief system on Faith, and a belief that this 2000 year old Christian book is the only correct true source.  What if its not?

To take this one step further.  There are many baptists, who are christians, who believe in the rapture.  There are many Catholics, who are christians, who don't believe in the rapture.  Two different sets of Christians, Same Holy Book, different opinion. 

So you talk about Discernment vs The Line.  So what if two people read the exact same King James Bible (or pick your favorite version)  Both pray, and believe that Jesus Christ will save them.  Both have Faith in JC and work daily to strengthen their faith.  After years of intense introspection, one believes that going into a bar is a sin, the other doesn't.  Whos right?  Are sin's in your book subjective to the person's own action? 

Though it would seemingly appear we've strayed way off the origional topic.  I'm still of the opinion that Pascal's wager is only refers to the afterlife, not this life.  If God doesn't exist, I'm dead when I'm dead, might as well go as hedo as I want.  That is a far cry from "status quo" side of Pascal's equasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...