Does anybody seriously believe the Pascal's Wager argument?

[Oscar_Kipling]

Hell

Pretty soon you are going to be down to posting individual characters. Anyway you ever going to get back to our morality discussion or are you done with that?

[RabbiKnife]

You can’t have morality apart from God

So  probably done

[Sojourner]

Ultimately, faith in God is a matter of the heart, not the brain. One can ponder it objectively and dissect it intellectually at length, but apart from applied personal experience and emotional involvement, one will never understand it beyond the cerebral and abstract. That I believe, is where the disconnect lies.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Ultimately, faith in God is a matter of the heart, not the brain. One can ponder it objectively and dissect it intellectually at length, but apart from applied personal experience and emotional involvement, one will never understand it beyond the cerebral and abstract. That I believe, is where the disconnect lies.

I could probably agree with that on some meaningful level. I do wonder how this strikes  folks that believe that the evidence is overwhelming or that non believers are blind to the undeniable truth. I also wonder how this works for people that are not very emotional or are medically emotionally limited.

[RabbiKnife]

Contrary to popular opinion, faith is not emotionally based.  Certainly many people respond to faith emotionally, but faith is a metaphysical spiritual issue.  As Dumbledore tells Harry after Harry dies, before Harry returns, “of course it’s all in your head, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real.”

Faith is not in your head, but in your spirit.  It is an absolute trust in a being that you cannot experience except spiritually, even when you can’t prove its existence scientifically or philosophically or emotionally.

Faith is an informed step into light believing that more light appears when needed for the next step.

Like Indians Jones walking across the chasm on the invisible stepping stones

It is in trusting that additional grace for the next step is revealed

[Oscar_Kipling]

Contrary to popular opinion, faith is not emotionally based.  Certainly many people respond to faith emotionally, but faith is a metaphysical spiritual issue.  As Dumbledore tells Harry after Harry dies, before Harry returns, “of course it’s all in your head, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real.”

Faith is not in your head, but in your spirit.  It is an absolute trust in a being that you cannot experience except spiritually, even when you can’t prove its existence scientifically or philosophically or emotionally.

Faith is an informed step into light believing that more light appears when needed for the next step.

Like Indians Jones walking across the chasm on the invisible stepping stones

It is in trusting that additional grace for the next step is revealed

My spirit, spiritual expirience? So what do you mean when you say that i'm blind...is my spirit blind or am I somehow using my spirit wrong?

[Fenris]

You can’t have morality apart from God

I mean in principle one can follow the bible's morals even while not believing on God.

Such people are rare, but they do exist.

[Sojourner]

I mean in principle one can follow the bible's morals even while not believing on God.

Such people are rare, but they do exist.

Where, according to Judaism, does such a person stand with God? Can following the Bible's morals earn an atheist eternal life, even if he denies God's existence?

I ask because Judaism is focused on obedience and morality--to which Christianity adds faith as fundamental.  As the writer of Hebrews puts it: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

[Fenris]

Where, according to Judaism, does such a person stand with God? Can following the Bible's morals earn an atheist eternal life, even if he denies God's existence?

This is going to sound strange, but no place in the bible is one commanded to believe in God. The bible also doesn't mention eternal life.

I ask because Judaism is focused on obedience and morality--to which Christianity adds faith as fundamental. 

Christianity doesn't so much "add faith" as make it more important than anything else. I know he's engaging in hyperbole here, but Martin Luther nonetheless is making a strong point on the subject:

"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day" 

[tango]

It's one thing to agree to see something implausible to find out whether the person making bold claims actually has anything to back them up. It's another thing entirely to come and see my unicorn, witness with your own eyes the magnificence of this glorious glowing white horse with a silver horn, to see and touch the unicorn for yourself, see for yourself that the horn is part of the animal and don't duck-taped in place or photoshopped into a crude picture, and then to walk away insisting that unicorns don't exist. You might reasonably shift your stance from "unicorns don't exist" to "it looks like they might exist, but I'd want to look more closely" even if you hadn't become convinced that what you had seen was actually a unicorn, but if you still refused to accept that you had seen what you had seen one might wonder why you bothered coming to see it.

okay can we take this out of the realm of analogy please? What is it that you could show me about God that you suspect that I might later go on to deny even though I definitely saw it? What is it exactly that is undeniable that I'd be denying? It is one thing to say I'll never be convinced no matter what, it is something else entirely to see and expirience any number of things and somehow maintain that. Denial is a thing, but i suggest that it is different from non-belief.

This whole thing started because I commented on an evangelist who met someone who asked lots of questions but made it very clear that even answering all the questions wouldn't result in them changing their mind. From there it's a small step to liken the situation to someone who refuses to believe unicorns exist and who makes it clear that even if they come and see my pet unicorn they still won't believe.

I don't expect you to conclusively prove that God doesn't exist - you can't prove that any more than I can conclusively prove that God does exist. I was looking to find out whether you hold an active belief that God does not exist, or a more passive lack of belief that God does exist. An active belief in the non-existence of God is arguably a more decisive stance than a more passive lack of belef.

Fine, put me in the more decisive category, what comes of that?

Nothing specifically, I was wondering whether your stance is more active or more passive.

[Sojourner]

This is going to sound strange, but no place in the bible is one commanded to believe in God.

You're absolutely right. However, I don't believe Abraham, the father of Judaism, would have abandoned his land and people for a promised inheritance unless he had faith in the God who called him forth. Also, I doubt Judaism would be embraced so devoutly by millions of Jews unless they believed in the God of the Bible. Judaism is rooted in faith, which is why it's called a "faith".

The bible also doesn't mention eternal life.

Not specifically. But it would be hard for David to "dwell in the house of the Lord forever" without it, right? Also, what is the benefit of having one's name written in the book of life if they only get the same threescore and ten as  those whose names are not written therein?

Christianity doesn't so much "add faith" as make it more important than anything else.

Faith is indeed critical to Christianity, but not to the exclusion of obedience to God or morality.

[Fenris]

You're absolutely right. However, I don't believe Abraham, the father of Judaism, would have abandoned his land and people for a promised inheritance unless he had faith in the God who called him forth.

Well, Abraham lived before the bible was given. So he's not an ideal example. Secondarily, God Himself spoke to Abraham. If Abraham didn't believe in God, then who was he speaking to?

Also, I doubt Judaism would be embraced so devoutly by millions of Jews unless they believed in the God of the Bible. Judaism is rooted in faith

Judaism is rooted in faith, and yet Judaism is a religion of rules, not faith.

Not specifically. But it would be hard for David to "dwell in the house of the Lord forever" without it, right?

Psalm 23 says "long days", not "forever".

Also, what is the benefit of having one's name written in the book of life if they only get the same threescore and ten as  those whose names are not written therein?

This is in fact an excellent question, however, it does not change the fact that the Jewish bible does not promise the afterlife as a reward for obedience.

Faith is indeed critical to Christianity, but not to the exclusion of obedience to God or morality.

So what's up with the Luther quote?

[Sojourner]

Faith is indeed critical to Christianity, but not to the exclusion of obedience to God or morality.

So what's up with the Luther quote?

Jesus Himself said, "For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot or a tittle will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." He therefore makes it clear that obedience to God is critical. And James said, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." Talking the talk is not enough. We must also walk the walk. Luther is a fallible human being, and is merely conveying his take on sin and grace.

Certainly, no sin is so egregious that it cannot be forgiven through faith in the shed blood of Jesus. But that doesn't mean we use grace as an excuse to sin (Romans 6:1-18). Repentance is an often-overlooked prerequisite to receiving forgiveness. Following Peter's preaching about Jesus in Acts 2, the Jews who believed him asked what was expected of them. The first word out of his mouth was "Repent".

The Greek for repent means to 'change one's perspective', and refers to seeing sin as God sees it rather than our own flawed perception. Recognizing that sin is unacceptable to God, and not to be practiced. We are not perfect, so sin will find its way into our daily existence. But when we do sin, we are expected to repent of it, and seek forgiveness. Sin that is not repented of, separates us from God, as a cloud separates us from the sun. So, the point is, faith notwithstanding, obedience to God and a moral lifestyle are no more optional for the Christian than they are for the Jew.

[Fenris]

Jesus Himself said, "For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot or a tittle will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." He therefore makes it clear that obedience to God is critical.

This sounds like something that you should bring up with your fellow Christians. Having been here a long time, I consider myself a fairly good student of Christianity, particularly Protestantism. And saying "obedience to God is critical" does not mesh with my understanding of your faith. I could be completely wrong, of course.

[Sojourner]

Jesus Himself said, "For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot or a tittle will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." He therefore makes it clear that obedience to God is critical.

This sounds like something that you should bring up with your fellow Christians. Having been here a long time, I consider myself a fairly good student of Christianity, particularly Protestantism. And saying "obedience to God is critical" does not mesh with my understanding of your faith. I could be completely wrong, of course.

You think Christian theology precludes obedience to God? Christians do not keep the law of Moses, but by means of the new birth, keep the spirit of the law through our faith in Jesus, who fulfilled the law and the prophets. Your Luther quote essentially represents the idea that practicing sin is a way of proliferating grace. Paul contradicted that line of thinking:

1 "What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer? 3 Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life."

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law, but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you once were slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were committed. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." 

Paul taught that the law is a constant reminder of our inability to live up to God's standard of holiness and our susceptibility to sin, but that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus paid the sin price. Until our feeble, mortal bodies are transformed into immortal, incorruptible bodies at Christ's return, we will struggle with sin in our daily lives. Until then we repent of our sins and look to Jesus as the mediator and high priest who makes atonement for us.