Pascal's Wager Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jonfawkes said:
Your original point was
The moral basis of Christianity is not the Jewish decalogue but the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity implicit in the teaching of Jesus and in his attitude to women, children and Gentiles.
Exceeding the O.T. doesn’t mean discounting it. On a ladder you have to use the lower rungs to get to the higher. They’re both important.

Matt 19:16-17 (Douay Rheims)

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?
17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Click to expand...
The OT is not discounted but perfected by the Son of God. The analogy with a ladder is appropriate because we are not expected to revert to the moral level of the OT and commence all over again! The Decalogue provides a basis for living according to God’s Will but it has been supplemented by Jesus with His sublime example and teaching of love, not just for our neighbour but even for our enemies!

It is certainly not true that “the New Testament frequently references and recommends the Old Testament in its entirety.” Jesus quoted Hosea’s words “I want mercy not sacrifice” and put that truth into practice with His response to those who were going to stone to death the woman taken in adultery. He constantly denounced the Scribes and Pharisees for their self-righteousness and self-deception as a result of blind obedience to the letter of the Law.
 
tonyrey said:
The OT is not discounted but perfected by the Son of God. The analogy with a ladder is appropriate because we are not expected to revert to the moral level of the OT and commence all over again! The Decalogue provides a basis for living according to God’s Will but it has been supplemented by Jesus with His sublime example and teaching of love, not just for our neighbour but even for our enemies!

It is certainly not true that “the New Testament frequently references and recommends the Old Testament in its entirety.” Jesus quoted Hosea’s words “I want mercy not sacrifice” and put that truth into practice with His response to those who were going to stone to death the woman taken in adultery. He constantly denounced the Scribes and Pharisees for their self-righteousness and self-deception as a result of blind obedience to the letter of the Law.
Click to expand...
Whether it the spirit or the letter it is the Law that is the underpinning.
 
jonfawkes said:
Whether it the spirit or the letter it is the Law that is the underpinning.
Click to expand...
I agree but the issue is whether “the New Testament frequently references and recommends the Old Testament in its entirety” - which is obviously false.
 
tonyrey said:
I agree but the issue is whether “the New Testament frequently references and recommends the Old Testament in its entirety” - which is obviously false.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about frequently, but Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid.
Click to expand...
is pretty clear.
 
jonfawkes said:
I don’t know about frequently, but Luke 16:17 is pretty clear.“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Click to expand...
Jesus had the Ten Commandments in mind, not all the minutiae of Judaic Law. He used the phrase " But I say unto you" six times in the Sermon on the Mount to contrast His teaching - based on love - with that of Moses - based on law. We cannot have it both ways: either we follow the New Covenant or the Old. There is a stark difference between the two - as the woman caught in adultery and her judges discovered…
 
I believe it was St. Augustine who expressed that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and that the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.
 
jonfawkes

**Exceeding the O.T. doesn’t mean discounting it. On a ladder you have to use the lower rungs to get to the higher. They’re both important. **

This is why Pascal argues the wager argument. You start with the lower rung of fear, as in the OT. then surface to the upper rung of love, as in the NT. “They’re both important.” Your own words. 😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
jonfawkes

**Exceeding the O.T. doesn’t mean discounting it. On a ladder you have to use the lower rungs to get to the higher. They’re both important. **

This is why Pascal argues the wager argument. You start with the lower rung of fear, as in the OT. then surface to the upper rung of love, as in the NT. “They’re both important.” Your own words. 😉
Click to expand...
Fear of Yahweh! That was my sin of omission. :o Thank you for pointing it out. 🙂
 
jonfawkes said:
Char II was talking about Pascal’s wager.
Click to expand...
He was also supporting my claim:

“Jesus used the phrase " But I say unto you” six times in the Sermon on the Mount to contrast His teaching - based on love - with that of Moses - based on law. We cannot have it both ways: either we follow the New Covenant or the Old. There is a stark difference between the two - as the woman caught in adultery and her judges discovered…-
  • which disproves the notion that “the New Testament frequently references and recommends the Old Testament in its entirety”.
 
jonfawkes

**Why would they fear something, they don’t think exists? **

They fear that God might exist. After all, they can’t be absolutely certain. Then they fear the fate of their immortal soul if He does.

I’ve seen it happen twice on their deathbeds with two members of my family who were atheists.

Death gets the mind wonderfullly concentrated on what really matters when we die.

And it ain’t the price of gasoline! 👍
 
jonfawkes said:
Rejecting religion is different then Rejecting God.
Click to expand...
This was discussed during Lent when I was incognito in the CAFs.

Now I can respond! 😃

Religion comes from the Latin *religare, *which means relationship.

One cannot have a relationship with God without religion. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
This was discussed during Lent when I was incognito in the CAFs.

Now I can respond! 😃

Religion comes from the Latin *religare, *which means relationship.

One cannot have a relationship with God without religion. 🤷
Click to expand...
Actually that’s not correct -
Religion (from O.Fr. religion “religious community,” from L. religionem (nom. religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,”[3] “obligation, the bond between man and the gods”[4]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare, an interpretation traced to Cicero connecting lego “read”, i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of “choose”, “go over again” or “consider carefully”. Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare “bind, connect”, probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or “to reconnect,” which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[5][6] The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: “we hear of the ‘religion’ of the Golden Fleece, of a knight ‘of the religion of Avys’”.[7]
Click to expand...
According to the philologist Max Müller, the root of the English word “religion”, the Latin religio, was originally used to mean only “reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety” (which Cicero further derived to mean “diligence”).[8][9] Max Müller characterized many other cultures around the world, including Egypt, Persia, and India, as having a similar power structure at this point in history. What is called ancient religion today, they would have only called “law”.[10]
Click to expand...
Many languages have words that can be translated as “religion”, but they may use them in a very different way, and some have no word for religion at all. For example, the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as “religion”, also means law. Throughout classical South Asia, the study of law consisted of concepts such as penance through piety and ceremonial as well as practical traditions. Medieval Japan at first had a similar union between “imperial law” and universal or “Buddha law”, but these later became independent sources of power.[11][12]
Click to expand...
There is no precise equivalent of “religion” in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.[13] One of its central concepts is “halakha”, sometimes translated as “law”", which guides religious practice and belief and many aspects of daily life.
Click to expand...
The use of other terms, such as obedience to God or Islam are likewise grounded in particular histories and vocabularies.
Click to expand...
even so the Church is not the only relationship one can have with God. Atheism is a negative relationship with God. 🤷 So one can reject belief and rituals and still have a relationship.
 
jonfawkes said:
Actually that’s not correct -
Click to expand...
Firstly, could you please cite your source?

Secondly, here’s mine.

And well as this.

And this one, too.
even so the Church is not the only relationship one can have with God.
Click to expand...
Right. Any religion (religare) can present an opportunity for a relationship with God.

One just cannot have a relationship with God without religion. It’s nonsensical.
Atheism is a negative relationship with God. 🤷 So one can reject belief and rituals and still have a relationship.
Click to expand...
Seriously? This is just plain :whacky:
 
PRmerger said:
Firstly, could you please cite your source?

Secondly, here’s mine.

And well as this.

And this one, too.

Right. Any religion (religare) can present an opportunity for a relationship with God.

One just cannot have a relationship with God without religion. It’s nonsensical.

Seriously? This is just plain :whacky:
Click to expand...
Sorry,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology

Your sources seem to agree - to tie or bind.

A relationship is a relationship, it can be a good relationship or a bad one. It doesn’t have to be through the Church nor any other system of worship. Atheism is a negative relationship. You can relate to something or some one in many ways.
 
jonfawkes said:
Sorry,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology

Your sources seem to agree - to tie or bind.
Click to expand...
Yes! A relationship. 👍

One cannot have a relationship/be tied or bound with God without religion.
A relationship is a relationship, it can be a good relationship or a bad one.
Click to expand...
This is true enough. A nonsequitor to be sure, but true nonetheless. 🤷
It doesn’t have to be through the Church nor any other system of worship.
Click to expand...
One cannot have a relationship with God without religion. It’s nonsensical.

It’s like saying I want to be tied to you without being tied to you.
Atheism is a negative relationship. You can relate to something or some one in many ways.
Click to expand...
LOL! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top