 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Pascal's Wager and Agnostic Considerations | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/10/2002 1:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | I don’t want anybody to take this wrong or think I'm being functionalistic, but…
It’s as HOT AS HELL here in Beirut! 
Yesterday: 100 degrees.
Today: 102 degrees.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 06/10/2002 06:58:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 6/10/2002 7:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Crud. I HAVE to get more time.
Just have time for these quick inserts. And I'll do a more comprehensive deal to Tom, Doc, E, and BJS later.
Miss E:
quote:
First, I think part of what Mephi is getting across is that Pascal's wager is supposed to be accepted on the basis of it's rationality, but clearly the case can be made for an even greater rationality to remaining an agnostic. Therefore the wager itself is flawed.
THANK YOU! This is part of what I'm saying. 
____________________________________
quote:
Meph: Isn't it reasonable to believe that MAYBE it would be a lot easier to perceive the reality of God, POST MORTEM...WITHOUT the constraints and liabilities of THIS EARTHLY body?
Doc: I don’t think so. Whatever metaphysical conditions must be satisfied to have spirit beings relate to God, themselves and one another in this world must apply to the post-mortem world. Moreover, whatever metaphysical conditions must be satisfied to allow choice to be free and morally significant in this world (e.g. epistemic distance) apply to the post-mortem world.
Hmmmm. The only METAPHYSICAL condition needed is provided by the "dispositions" idea that we've already assumed in the worldview. And it's assumed that this idea remains in post-mortem existence. HOWEVER...I find it hard to see how conscious post-mortem existence WITHOUT the limitations of our CURRENTLY EMBODIED SELVES (with all the frailties within) would not POSSIBLY make perception of God more pronounced. Think about it. Some people, like David Ray Griffin, posit some type of non-sensory perception that we possess as a MEANS of how we can perceive God and certain things from God. If anything, it is mentioned that SOMETIMES our senses and EMBODIED understandings can actually get in the way at times. If this be the case, then why would it not be possible the post-mortem existence would make it EASIER to perceive God? Remember. The METAPHYSICAL conditions you mention are still there. 
****************************************
Doc:
quote:
: I read the wager different. I think its function is to get "non-journeying people" to embark on the journey. Pascal is saying, what have you got to loose by starting?
I think that we keep missing the point here. My point is this. Pascal's Wager ASSUMES a theological framework and worldview. It has to. Now, if we exchange Pascal's worldview for a WARFARE/OPEN VIEW worldview (which is what I posit), then things CHANGE. Moreover, if we look at the end of that article I cited on page one...it says...(all underlined emphases mine)
_____________________________
What Does It Mean to "Wager for God"?
Let us now grant Pascal that, all things considered (rationality and morality included), you should wager for God. What exactly does this involve?
A number of authors read Pascal as arguing that you should believe in God---see e.g. Quinn 1994, and Jordan 1994a. But perhaps one cannot simply believe in God at will; and rationality cannot require the impossible. Pascal is well aware of this objection: " am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?", says his imaginary interlocutor. However, he contends that one can take steps to cultivate such belief:
quote:
You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc...
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
We find two main pieces of advice to the non-believer here: act like a believer, and suppress those passions that are obstacles to becoming a believer. And these are actions that one can perform at will.
Believing in God is presumably one way to wager for God. This passage suggests that even the non-believer can wager for God, by striving to become a believer. Critics may question the psychology of belief formation that Pascal presupposes, pointing out that one could strive to believe (perhaps by following exactly Pascal’s prescription), yet fail. To this, a follower of Pascal might reply that the act of genuine striving already displays a pureness of heart that God would fully reward; or even that genuine striving in this case is itself a form of believing.
__________________________________________
Ok. Now, follow me. Basically, Pascal is saying this:
"Look, because of the HUGE amount that's at stake here, you'd BETTER put yourself in the best position to become a believer. Meaning ACT LIKE a believer (ie go to church, pray, etc) and all the things that are OBSTACLES to belief, get rid of them (ie any doubts or things that can make you doubt)"
It would be one thing if this was kind of a "don't knock it until you've tried it" type thing that would apply to religious faith in general. But THAT'S not what it is. It's a wager that assumes a view of God and, in the end analysis, says "You'd BETTER believe!" Why? Because just as the article states, it doesn't take into account that some HONEST AGNOSTIC can do exactly what Pascal says...and STILL find Christianity wanting. Even if we looked at the "follower of Pascal" mentioned by the article, wouldn't this be some type of apostasy whenever the "genuine striving" began to subside or even cease?? Bottom line: Unless the agnostic were to, for all intents and purposes, to BE a Christian in action and pseudo-thought, then things are terribly at risk. But don't we see what this is doing? It's creating INAUTHENTIC, "fake-it-till-you-make-it" FAITH. If this isn't faking it till you make it, I don't know what is! Actually, when I think about it, how does this not become some type of brainwashing?? Ask yourself this. Wouldn't there be TREMENDOUS psychological impetus to hold a belief if one were to COMPLETELY immerse oneself in said belief while, at the same time, laying aside all things that would CONTRADICT said belief? It's just like telling a person to walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and swim like a duck, (even try to THINK like a duck) until you are convinced you are a duck. Oh, and anything that could possibly try to persuade you AGAINST your thinking you are a duck, get rid of it or ignore it. Seems like a type of brainwashing to me. Maybe that's just me. Again, Pascal is NOT advocating embracing A faith tradition rather than remaining undecided. Pascal is NOT saying this:
Doc:
A safer bet (and this is the point of Pascal’s wager) is to take seriously religious truth claims, investigate them thoroughly, and then embrace what seems most viable to you.
Pascal is advocating BELIEF in the Christian God of HIS worldview based on the rational concerns of not losing out eternally in hell.
This is what I'm trying to get us to see. With Pascalian thinking here, there is NO alternative to believing (or striving to believe...which some would consider a FORM of believing) In other words, the person thinking this way WOULD NOT REST until the agnostic were to look, talk, and walk LIKE A CHRISTIAN on Christian terms. Pascal, and others like him, would say that coming to a tentatively agnostic conclusion on Christianity after trying it is NOT BEING OPEN. Being open would be REMAINING a "Christian" by an "as-if" way of thinking (ala Philip Yancey) until full belief actually came. That's friggin' baloney. Do we not see this?
More to Come,
Edited by - Mephi2K on 06/10/2002 12:25:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 6/11/2002 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | I think that we need to get something straight. I think people keep forgetting my ULTIMATE context: the warfare/open view worldview. Particularly, as Doc has formulated it. So here's something
Let's look at what's the worse that can happen to a person in this system.
As I see it, a person has, either in this life or the next, so self-solidified their character AGAINST God that they will not accept God's love and acceptance. In so doing, they unwittingly create their own "hellish existence" or "destruction". All this would take place during the "probationary period." Now, I believe that another concern is that the "probationary period" itself could elapse WHILE a person is in a state of either agnosticism or straight up anti-God thinking. It looks like what's being assumed is that there is a "test time" idea here where, when the time elapses, it will depend upon one's state of belief AT THAT TIME whether or not that person goes to heaven or "hell". And the ONLY STATE that someone would be accepted is if their state of one of BELIEF.
Now, what can we see from this? Basically, that the MAIN threat to continually open agnostics exists NOT in the probationary period, but at the eventual (yet unknown) point of it's ELAPSE. This is because, by definition, my person B wouldn't solidify to the extent that Doc's talking about, during the probationary period.
The problem that I have with this is that I don't believe this is been totally spelled out anywhere in dealing with HONEST OPENNESS, yet CURRENT DISBELIEF to God. The more biblical take (ie Paul's and Jesus') outlook, as I see it, was so black and white (either their of us or they are NOT) that anything LESS than full belief was seen as ANTI-GOD sentiment. In other words, it seems presupposed (especially by Paul) that there were no "good" reasons for not believing the Gospel. Therefore, either Satan or worldly thinking of the person were to blame...to their ultimate detriment. Looking at Doc's answer about Holy Spirit resistence, he is trying to maintain this view in some wise. Whereas Doc attempts to be much more tentative than Paul, he's still trying to hold to the main view...being that the chances are VERY GREAT that "unbelief" is a DIRECT SIGN of either Satanic, demonic, or human resistence to God's calling. Otherwise, they'd be believers. And we definitely see that, with this view, there IS no "honest agnosticism" There is only "belief" and "unbelief"
I think that it would be true to say that I are suggesting that perhaps this view is INADEQUATE to explain ALL forms of "unbelief". Hmmm...does this mean that I think that Paul's view was inadequate to explain why some people didn't believe? Hell, yeah. (Check THAT, guardians!) But all this aside, what I would think Doc would have to say is this:
When the probationary period ends, whenever that may be, any human being who is NOT at that time in a state of BELIEF will be "cast" from God and any human being who IS in a state of believe then will be accepted by God.
Looking at this, we, of course, see that this has the same PRACTICAL effect of any person who would preach a typical "fire and brimstone", highly eschatological message.
"You, dear unbeliever, don't know when our time's ultimately up. So, it would behoove you to believe in the Christian God...NOW."
Ok. The ONLY way that I see there is something ultimately to worry about for the honest, open agnostic in this system is IF it is indeed true that God does this. What I'm wondering is how Doc, in his system, can truly justify this? See, Paul never articulated all the creational nuances that Doc does in his system. And these nuances go a LONG WAY in concerns of theodicy. For the most part, Paul seemed to just assume that human hardness of heart against God's truth was the reason for unbelief in the Gospel...and that it was COMPLETELY the CONSCIOUS fault of the doubter. People were OPENLY opposing the "wisdom" of God via their own sinful, human concerns. Doc, on the other hand, acknowledges POSSIBLE subconscious and UNconscious creational variables that may contribute to not believing. Doc would consider that MAYBE the lifelong Middle Eastern Muslim is NOT JUST refusing the idea of Jesus as Son of God JUST BECAUSE they are sinful beings, but perhaps its because of the CONTEXT in which that person has lived. This is very important.
In the end, what Doc has to say is that God, upon the elapse of the "probational period" in his "judgement", factors in ALL POSSIBLE creational factors about WHY a person does or doesn't believe, and, based upon that, then resolves a person either one way or another. In other words, God would weigh all the factors in a person's life and, given that information, would "save" or "damn" that person. Now, if this is true, I'm trying to ascertain how a truly open and honest agnostic qua my Person B would be in any dire situation...especially with all the ambiguity that we've discussed so far. The only argument that I've heard is that we generally believe that one's LIFE may give some reasonable information about one's character or beliefs, and that we can be able to use faith or lack of faith to indicate the current state of a person. But this whole argument ultimately means nothing in the ambiguity itself. Doc conceded my point in principle, but I really want it applied. If God is genuinely going to take ALL factors into consideration of one's disbelief or belief, then we CANNOT really know exactly WHO God is going to accept or reject at the end of this thing...because we don't really FULLY KNOW our own motivations. This is taking the "deceitful heart" thing to it's logical conclusion (not to mention the "Lord, Lord" thought spoken by Jesus) A faith claim in Jesus is only an INDICATION that we ultimately have to TRUST is genuine. (JUST LIKE THE OPEN AGNOSTIC!) And even with that, it's possible that that "faith" is merely a product largely of ENVIRONMENTAL concerns (Surely, this is a possibility...just like Doc spoke of for the agnostic)
Bottom line: If we want to take the warfare/open view COMPLETELY CONSISTENTLY, I honestly don't see how the continually open, honest agnostic would be in ANY better or worse position then someone who "lives" for Jesus in this life...IF GOD EXISTS. During the probationary period, my person B would be inclined to accept the reality of God, once provided with more evidence (that arguably may be provided in post-mortem existence). On the other hand, we have to admit that just because someone has made a dedication claim for God in Christ in THIS life, there is no assurance that minds wouldn't change post-mortem, during the probationary period. So BOTH PARTIES are in danger of solidifying either for or against God. (Actually, it could be argued that Christians with "hardened" theologies may WELL resist God more that my open agnostic!) When the PP is expired, God would take ALL factors in consideration in his own solidification process...meaning he would examine the HEART of the "believers" and "unbelievers" in this quasi-purgatorial state, and on that basis, resolve them one way or another. But there is absolutely NO REAL REASON to say that God would resolve an open agnostic in the direction of anti-God sentiment rather than pro-God sentiment. This is overshooting our capacity to know.
All of this understood, I think NOW it should be clear why I say what I say. If the warfare/open view God is GENUINELY as is conceived, then a truly open, honest agnostic would not have ANY MORE to worry about than the honest Christian...IF GOD EXISTS. And it's my contention that if a person TRULY BELIEVES in this warfare/open view God, and they are trying to be consistent within the view, that this should be fully acknowledged. Ultimately, Pascal's wager truly IS turned on it's head as I've indicated.
So, I'm hoping this helps to answer BJS and Tom's questions about the "carrot and stick" The bottom line is that if one is truly consistent within the warfare/open view worldview...the carrot is MUCH MIGHTIER than the friggin stick. Point blank. Moreover, I would bring up the point that just because Jesus or Paul use a certain way of thinking or methodology does NOT make it sacrosanct...especially if we are considering the HUMAN aspects of what they were doing. (See how this implicitly deals with one's view of inspiration, Scripture, and all that?)
********************************************
Some other brief reflections:
Don't y'all think we are making FAR TOO MUCH out of a claim of belief? It seems that we place a high premium on someone's "living for Christ", starting with the willingness to believe. I know that this is because of much of the Scripture where Jesus and Paul talk about these things. But think about this. Is is POSSIBLE that maybe these conceptions they had were CULTURALLY CONDITIONED outlooks on the situation? It was simple. Claim Christ, and live the prescribed life...and it was ASSUMED that you were one of the elect. Otherwise, you wouldn't be a believer in the Body at that time. Your being a believer showed your "openness" to God. But what if you fell away? Well, that was just PROOF that you weren't really the elect...and you weren't so open after all. Does this not sound suspect in some way?
Look, I agree that basically one's LIFE is good evidence for what they believe. But once we factor in all the ambiguity, what we end up having to do is TRUST ourselves and our motivations. Kind of an innocent until proven guilty type thing. It seems very unfair to me that we do this thing ALL THE TIME for "Christians" but don't do this for honest agnostics (and possibly some atheists). Why do we assume that GENUINE Person A's (ie honest believers) can exist even AMONGST the ambiguity we note...but don't extend this very same logic to potential Person Bs (ie honest agnostics)?
Is it possible that we are using an ARCHAIC view of human cognition/will and psychology (that both Paul and Jesus possessed) that was culturally conditioned in the 1st century Jewish context and trying to apply it HERE...and it's screwin' us up?
Is it possible that unbelief could exist for legitimate reasons that God would consider?
Doesn't this give some INTERESTING implications for evangelism, like I've talked about?
*****************************
Hmm...this seems a little hodge-podge to me...but forget it. I'll answer any concerns later.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 6/11/2002 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Side stuff. I've mentioned this before but I just had to again. I will NEVER forget this. One time when I was working a couple of years ago, I was working with a really devout Christian. We were talking about different types of music, and at the moment, we were dealing with worship music. This guy said that basically ALL he listened to was Christian music, primarily worship. When I asked why, this is what he said...and I quote:
"I like listening to it all the time because it brainwashes me."
And this was the thing. He didn't mean in the USUAL pious way that some Christians use that term (ie "washing" one's mind from the filth of the world) He meant it JUST like it sounded. He figured that by constantly listening to Christian worship music, he would be completely closed off from any ANTI-Christian thought at least in the realm of music...thus keeping him "brainwashed" into his faith. I cannot help thinking that many people do this, in some way or another. Whether it's by only listening to "Christian" music, only reading Christian works, or even only really studying the Christian religion (for it's ON sake, not merely apologetic concerns) Brainwashing...on a subtle scale. Completely facilitating to the "as-if" mentality that happens in times of genuine doubt.
And for people like this, I wonder about what will happen in the end. Is this "authentic faith"? Faith that needs prison walls to be held together? Is this the "faith" that God will honor? And would he honor that rather than honest, open agnosticism? I suppose it's better to be a functionally lobotomized, yet "rock-solid" believer than a thinking, yet open doubter
The whole thing is so sad... 
"Think, damn you!" --Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 6/11/2002 9:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi said:
quote:
Bottom line: Unless the agnostic were to, for all intents and purposes, to BE a Christian in action and pseudo-thought, then things are terribly at risk. But don't we see what this is doing? It's creating INAUTHENTIC, "fake-it-till-you-make-it" FAITH. If this isn't faking it till you make it, I don't know what is! Actually, when I think about it, how does this not become some type of brainwashing??
I agree that this does create inauthentic faith...it seems to be exactly what Jesus seems to be referring to in the parable of the sower.
I see two other HUGE problem with this in addition to what you mentioned. One is that eventually this inauthentic faith will fall apart for the individual who clings to it (if it is not replaced with authentic faith). And when it does, the effects are going to be devastating. It would be very difficult for such an individual to ever participate in any aspect of Christian life and community after such an event.
Secondly, this inauthentic faith is roughly the equivalent to encouraging hypocrisy. If we have to "fake belief," such faking is akin to faking all else in our lives. This is the mentality that leads to Christian communities where people hide their doubts, their sins, their true feelings, etc. It breeds psychological sickness and inauthenticity in every realm of a person's life. And once again, eventually it will come crashing down in some devastating way.
YIKES.
People need to be encouraged to be honest intellectually and otherwise. It seems it is much "safer" to encourage independent thought or honest agnosticism in that sense. And would not God honor honesty?
Mephi said:
quote:
So BOTH PARTIES are in danger of solidifying either for or against God. (Actually, it could be argued that Christians with "hardened" theologies may WELL resist God more that my open agnostic!)
When I agree with something excitedly, I sometimes fall into my Valley-Girl upbringing from childhood. I just felt like writing, "Like, YEAH, tooooootally!"
Mephi said:quote:
Don't y'all think we are making FAR TOO MUCH out of a claim of belief?
Ummm, yes. And essentially it makes "right belief" a work necessary for salvation.
I'm wondering why no Calvinist has responded to you yet by saying: "Faith is a gift. If a person lacks faith, it is because they are not one of the elect and are predestined for damnation." Calvinism is nice and simple that way...a neat package tied with a bow on top. (Just teasing a bit...my daddy's a Calvinist and Presbyterian minister!)
TGB said:
quote:
You’re enticing them from a forward position with the carrot and the stick—“God will bless you, forgive your sin, fulfill your deepest longing, so come to God!”—while another may prod them from behind—“A day of reckoning will come when God will require of you an account of yourself, and you don’t want to come up in the red!” Are these REALLY that different?
Clever!
But...
Yes, they really are very different. Because the BASIS of God's relationship towards us is one of love. Again, look at any healthy relationship: parent to child, husband to wife, etc. These are the models God has given us.
TGB said:
quote:
a weakness of the later approach is that it may create an “antagonistic relationship” by misleading the person to believe that God’s standing overhead with a stick ready to beat them, might a weakness of the former approach be that it may create a “complacent relationship” by misleading the person to believe that God is indifferent to our sin, that there really are no consequences to sin?
Awww, but you're misconstruing what I'm saying here a bit. (Hey logician...that's a Strawman fallacy! ) I'm not saying we ought to deceive or imply that God is indifferent to sin or that there is no consequence to sin. I'm simply saying that evangelism should focus on God's love and establish the love of God as the basis for one's relationship with God initially. Again, as with any good and loving parent, there are consequences to sin and this lesson must be taught eventually, but that is not the basis on which a good relationship is built initially. Punishment and the seriousness of sin can only have appropriate meaning in the context of a loving relationship...I think!
TGB said:
quote:
2. Why would talking to unbelievers (say, those complacent in their unbelief) of hell, or judgment, or the ultimate consequences of their sin be wrong but talking to believers (say, those complacent in their compromise and sin) about these things be OK? If such talk might mislead unbelievers to relate to God in fear, why wouldn’t it mislead believers to relate to God out of fear?
I think I answered this in the paragraph above. Again, think of a healthy parent-child relationship.
TGB said: quote:
3. If Jesus is the “Good News,” what’s the "Bad News"? If there IS no bad news, then how good IS the good news? I’m smiling as I write this. But I am interested!
The "Good News" originally was a response to the Jewish system of atonement through animal sacrifice and the keeping of the law. Unfortunately (or fortunately!) it had become quite clear to folks at that time that this was impossible to do. No one could ever attain righteousness before God through such means. It was an utter failure. Jesus' atoning death was the answer to this hopelessness because it provided a doorway to God that everyone could access!
The Good News was the overturning of the "bad news" of the failure of the sacrificial system and the attainment of righteousness through the law via human effort. So the "bad news" was: Humans cannot attain righteousness, or "right" relationship with God by their own efforts because they will always fail.
But let me reverse the question for you!: Why would anyone find the "bad news" bad if they didn't have a conception of a God who loves them, who they would want to have "right" relationship with in the first place??
Doc said:
quote:
A safer bet (and this is the point of Pascal’s wager) is to take seriously religious truth claims, investigate them thoroughly, and then embrace what seems most viable to you. The least safe bet (and this is also the point of Pascal’s wager) is to hold out forever till the evidence is absolutely conclusive one way or the other.
I don't think this is the point of Pascal's wager (as Mephi has pointed out). But, are you saying that the "safest" thing to do is examine all truth claims and embrace what seems most viable to you....EVEN if that ends up being something OTHER then Christianity? That sounds right in line with Mephi's argument here.
Doc said:
quote:
Your thesis sounds counter-intuitive, Empiress, but I can’t off the top of my head refute it. Maybe you’re right! Are you relying on a secondary source here? What is it. I’d like to look into this, but I certainly am not going to re-read all the early church fathers to do it. Thanks for the new perspective
You're welcome! I actually don't have a source other then three years of Church history classes! It's the conclusion we came to while discussing the topic with a friend as we tried to trace the beginning of this tactic from our own studies.
Peace to all,
Empiress
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 6/13/2002 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Miss E (emphasis mine):
quote:
Doc said:
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A safer bet (and this is the point of Pascal’s wager) is to take seriously religious truth claims, investigate them thoroughly, and then embrace what seems most viable to you. The least safe bet (and this is also the point of Pascal’s wager) is to hold out forever till the evidence is absolutely conclusive one way or the other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think this is the point of Pascal's wager (as Mephi has pointed out). But, are you saying that the "safest" thing to do is examine all truth claims and embrace what seems most viable to you....EVEN if that ends up being something OTHER then Christianity? That sounds right in line with Mephi's argument here.
B...I..NGO, B...I...NGO, B...I...NGO...and Bingo was her name-o. Not callin' you a female dog or anything, E.
Love ya,
PS: I'm ON that email, for real...
Edited by - Mephi2K on 06/13/2002 09:54:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/13/2002 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc’s Two Cents
Meph: Bottom line: If we want to take the warfare/open view COMPLETELY CONSISTENTLY, I honestly don't see how the continually open, honest agnostic would be in ANY better or worse position then someone who "lives" for Jesus in this life...IF GOD EXISTS…. If the warfare/open view God is GENUINELY as is conceived, then a truly open, honest agnostic would not have ANY MORE to worry about than the honest Christian...IF GOD EXISTS.
Doc: Great line of reasoning Meph. Solid. And I agree with you. My only point is that, knowing that the Holy Spirit is working to bring this person to faith, and knowing how desperately wicked the heart is, and knowing the emphasis the New Testament places on a committed covenantal relationship with God as the decisive thing in bringing a person into a saving relationship with God, we believers are warranted, if not absolutely required, to warn a person. Consider seriously the truth claims of Chrsitianity NOW, while they still have any possible viability to you. For you may not have this ability later. You may as a matter of Pascallian exegesis be right that I’m stretching Pascal’s wager a bit to make it about this sentiment. But that aside, I think the position is justified.
Meph: Don't y'all think we are making FAR TOO MUCH out of a claim of belief? It seems that we place a high premium on someone's "living for Christ", starting with the willingness to believe. I know that this is because of much of the Scripture where Jesus and Paul talk about these things. But think about this. Is is POSSIBLE that maybe these conceptions they had were CULTURALLY CONDITIONED outlooks on the situation?
Doc: I’m not closed to the possibility. But this is a HUGE HUGE concession to cultural conditioning. Having said that, I agree that our knowledge about cultural and genetic and experiential factors in a person’s belief already does nuance the New Testaments perspective. But I still believe the NT perspective should form our modus operendi.
Meph: Look, I agree that basically one's LIFE is good evidence for what they believe. But once we factor in all the ambiguity, what we end up having to do is TRUST ourselves and our motivations. Kind of an innocent until proven guilty type thing. It seems very unfair to me that we do this thing ALL THE TIME for "Christians" but don't do this for honest agnostics (and possibly some atheists).
Doc: Why "possibly" some atheists? It seems the principle should apply to everyone. Only GOD knows the heart. And I totally agree with you Meph. I am not advocating that we try to know the heart. We can only be as honest as possible with ourselves, and encourage others to be the same. But on my reading of the NT, the lack of faith in a person should make me concerned for them. It is presented as the decisive variable.
Meph quoting a friend:" "I like listening to it all the time because it brainwashes me."
Doc: Paul tells us to take every thought captive to Christ (2 cor 10:3-5) and to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. I don’t see anything wrong with brainwashing ourselves. In my opinion, the option isn’t to be brainwashed or not to be brainwashed. The options are, be brainwashed by "the pattern of this world" or be brainwashed "by renewing your mind."
Empiress: If we have to "fake belief," such faking is akin to faking all else in our lives. This is the mentality that leads to Christian communities where people hide their doubts, their sins, their true feelings, etc…. People need to be encouraged to be honest intellectually and otherwise.
Doc: I understand your point Empiress. But brainwashing ourselves doesn’t have to look like this. Rather, I would argue that the result of brainwashing in Christ should lead us to know that our whole worth and identity and significance and lovability comes from God. Hence we can be astonishingly real and vulnerable to God and to others. We only are led to pretend we’re something we’re not when we are brainwashed into a religion rather than Christ.
Nor do I think self-imposed brainwashing is intellectually dishonest. It all depends on WHY a person decides to be brainwashed one way rather than another. Is it a groundless leap, or do they have reasons for their leap?
I believe I am intellectually warranted in believing Christ is the Son of God. I thus DECIDE to systematically condition myself to think of God, myself and the world as it is defined in Christ, and nowhere else. I tell myself what to think. I do it repeatedly, day in and day out. I listen to Christian tapes and Christian music (with some Zepplin, Yes, Tower of Power etc… thrown in for kick’n entertainment), to help me grow in my identity in Christ. This is what I mean by "brainwashing." Do you and Meph think it bad?
If I’m not being transformed by renewing my mind in this direction, I’ll be being transformed by renewing my mind in a different direction I DIDN’T choose.
Love the talk
In Him
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
| 57 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|