Pascal's Wager-- for theistic evolutionists

[Crusadar]

Or it would mean that the Word of God was right and some guy named Crusader was wrong about what the Word of God was saying. Or it would mean that Jesus is the Word of God, that the Bible is one of the ways that we learn about the Word and that it has nothing to tell about science.

Or it could mean that you have no clue what I was talking about. The word of God entails all that God has revealed to us from the very first to the very last verse and not your distortions of what it does not say. By the way its C-R-U-S-A-D-A-R with an "A" and not an E. Attention to detail helps you know.

 

[wblastyn]

Or it could mean that you have no clue what I was talking about. The word of God entails all that God has revealed to us from the very first to the very last verse and not your distortions of what it does not say. By the way its C-R-U-S-A-D-A-R with an "A" and not an E. Attention to detail helps you know.

How do you know you are not distorting God's Word? Why do you believe some things in scripture are literal but not others, how do you know what is be literal and what isn't?

Why does your interpretation of scripture contradict creation?

 

[Crusadar]

I accepted Jesus into my life, confessing my sins and asking for forgiveness. I try to live as He commanded to show i love Him, but I often fall, as does everyone, but i am saved by grace, so no matter how much I fall God is still with me.

I see. So how does one know that one is truly saved - by what one accepts or by what one practices?

 

[wblastyn]

I see. So how does one know that one is truly saved - by what one accepts or by what one practices?

Well I just said I was saved by grace so obviously by accepting Christ. The practises are our way of obeying Christ, and showing our love for him, but it doesn't save us because we always fall.

 

[Philip]

Paschal's wager works both ways. Suppose orthodox Christians are right, and the literalists are wrong.

What do you mean "suppose" Orthodox Christians are right? Of course we are

 

[Crusadar]

wblastyn: How do you know you are not distorting God's Word? Why do you believe some things in scripture are literal but not others, how do you know what is be literal and what isn't?

Because it is what the word of God says. It is when we set our eyes on men and their theories that we are lead astray. All scripture is literal, because it is God's truth - it is what makes it as potent as it is and it is what gives me hope when all human effort fails. It is only through total surrender to God that He will reveal to us His purpose.

Why does your interpretation of scripture contradict creation?

It is not my interpretation at all but what the scriptures says - is that so hard to understand? It agrees with God's divine nature and pupose therefore why would it contradict His creation?

 

[wblastyn]

Because it is what the word of God says. It is when we set our eyes on men and their theories that we are lead astray. All scripture is literal, because it is God's truth - it is what makes it as potent as it is and it is what gives me hope when all human effort fails. It is only through total surrender to God that He will reveal to us His purpose.

So did God create animals first, then both men and women, or did He create man first, then animals, then woman? Does the earth stay still? Do fire breathing sea-serpents exist? Is there a vault in heaven for rain and snow? Are there doors in the ocean? Is the mustard seed the smallest seed? Was "all the world" taxed when "all the world" hadn't been discovered?

It is not my interpretation at all but what the scriptures says - is that so hard to understand? It agrees with God's divine nature and pupose therefore why would it contradict His creation?

Creation tells us life evolved over millions of years, it was zapped into exitance over 6 days, therefore Genesis cannot be literal.

So did I pass the "Am I a real Christian" test?

 

[Crusadar]

It is very sad state of affairs indeed for you seem to be deeper down in the belly of the beast than I suspect for you understand not the test of true followers in that it is not in agreeing with men but in trials and tribulations that come from upholding the word of God. But I see now that you are using the word of God to attack God Himself for you understand not scripture but continue to read it through your evolutionary world view.

 

[wblastyn]

It is very sad state of affairs indeed for you seem to be deeper down in the belly of the beast than I suspect for you understand not the test of true followers in that it is not in agreeing with men but in trials and tribulations that come from upholding the word of God. But I see now that you are using the word of God to attack God Himself for you understand not scripture but continue to read it through your evolutionary world view.

I was being sarcastic, see I was hoping you would say "Yes, you seem to be a Christian" or something and I would say "oh goodie, will you let me into heaven now Crusader/God" or "Oh no, please don't send me to hell Crusader/God" because it is not up to you to judge me, that is God's job.

I'm not using God's Word to attack God, I'm using it to attack your literal interpretation but you can't seem to separate yourself from it.

What exactly don't I understand about fire breathing sea serpents, the mustard seed is the smallest seed, etc? It's all in the Bible, yet I don't think you believe in fire breathing sea serpents? Explain it to me without avoiding.

Anyway, what was the point in asking me all that if you can't tell if someone is a true Christian or not by "not agreeing with men"?

See this is why lucaspa and some others don't like telling you if they are a Christian or not, because if they accept evolution then to you they are not Christian, so what's the point.

 

[Crusadar]

It would seem that you do have a glimmer of hope after all. Do realize however that it is not a matter of saracasm when I speak of faith for that is not how faith works. If it is in rebuke according to the word of God then I welcome it, but when you speak of things that are of man's imaginations then there is no spiritual value and you can always expect scrutiny on my part.

From experience fear of telling others they are Christian means that they are unsure of what they are to begin with - or that they are not one to begin with. I do not deny that some are at different levels of faith then I, and yet it is my level of faith in God that gives me the authority to rebuke that which does not coincide with the purpose of God. It is my total commitment to JC that allows me to stand on His word and stopped questioning His word even when I don't understand it for I know it is the only truth. For the theories of evolutionary thinking have come and gone but what still always remain is the word of God.

 

[platzapS]

I accept evolution, and I believe those who do not tend to be misguided. However, I do have to admire the strong faith of those who interpret Genesis literally, regardless of scientific discovery.

Everyone here's a Christian, whether we accept evolutionary theory or not. I just hope that many will find scientific truth of evolution and harmonize it with the truth of God's word. They will "fit".

 

[Crusadar]

troodon: Should I make myself believe that the mustard seed is the smallest seed as well?

It would seem that you have taken the verse out of context troodon. Putting the verse into context as most people often do not do when reading the scriptures, it was a parable refering to the smallest seed that a Jewish farmer would sow in his field. When referring to the mustard seed as proof of not taking the Bible literally you have forgotten the latter verse, which says that it would grow into the greatest of all herbs (KJV) or garden plants (NIV, NASB), and not all plants. You have missed the main point that Jesus was teaching that out of something tiny, something huge can grow, and says nothing about the relevance to modern scientific discoveries of smaller seeds but merely a reference to what was common knowledge at the time - since you should know microscopes weren't invented until 1590.

 

[lucaspa]

This can be shown as follows:
1. God created the world as outlined in Genesis and Person X believed it: all is fine.
2. God created the world through evolution and Person X believed the word of God, Person X is still ok because he/she trusted God over man.
3. God created the world through evolution, and Person X was a theistic evolutionist, Person X is still ok for being correct.
4. God created the world as outlined in Genesis and Person X believed in evolution: Person X may be in serious trouble here for trusting man's word over God's word.

So theistic evolutionists, why are you taking a chance? Why do you trust men over God? Why not just trust God's word, and be safe either way?

This whole wager depends on two premises:

1. The Bible is the ONLY book of God. To believe this you must deny that God created. After all, if God created, then Creation is God's book just as much as the Bible.

2. That a human interpretation of the Bible (the creationist one) is "God's word".

I dispute both premises as accurate. #2 is either worship of a false idol or apostasy, or both.

Now, as to each step, #1 ignores God's Creation.

#2 doesn't work because Person X is trusting man over God. A man-made interpretation of the word of God instead of what God directly says in His Creation.

#4 can't be true, because it would mean God didn't create.

So, the ONLY safe bet is to read BOTH the Bible AND God's Creation.

When we do that, we find, as earlier Christians did:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

I don't know about you, but my human pride isn't great enough for me to set myself up and tell God how He had to create! I would rather listen to what God tells me from His Creation on how He actually created. Then I can read Genesis 1 and 2 as the theological documents they are and not as the historical documents some people would have us believe.

 

[strubenuff]

Pascals's wager is inherently flawed, and based of limiting one's freedoms and thoughts for fear of hellfire. I might as well tell you my God will punish you (if you don't worship him) for all eternity in far worse ways than you could possibly imagine, a place so horrible it couldn't even be compared to hell. We'll call the religion Jankenism. Are you ready to convert?

What's a matter? Lack of evidence? Erroneous logic? Both?

 

[Jet Black]

This can be shown as follows:
1. God created the world as outlined in Genesis and Person X believed it: all is fine.
2. God created the world through evolution and Person X believed the word of God, Person X is still ok because he/she trusted God over man.
3. God created the world through evolution, and Person X was a theistic evolutionist, Person X is still ok for being correct.
4. God created the world as outlined in Genesis and Person X believed in evolution: Person X may be in serious trouble here for trusting man's word over God's word.

pascal's wager was flawed because ot falsely assumed that there were only 4 options, the same goes for yours:

5. God created the world through science (please don't use evolution, as evolution does not encompass cosmology and big bang theory) and person x believes in creationism despite the overwhelming evidence both in and out of the bible, god does not like this and accuses you of idolatry and wrecking his religion, guess who is the disbeliever now.

and so on. naturally the extra choices are more limited than pascals original wager.

 

[Jet Black]

troodon: Should I make myself believe that the mustard seed is the smallest seed as well?

It would seem that you have taken the verse out of context troodon. Putting the verse into context as most people often do not do when reading the scriptures, it was a parable refering to the smallest seed that a Jewish farmer would sow in his field. When referring to the mustard seed as proof of not taking the Bible literally you have forgotten the latter verse, which says that it would grow into the greatest of all herbs (KJV) or garden plants (NIV, NASB), and not all plants. You have missed the main point that Jesus was teaching that out of something tiny, something huge can grow, and says nothing about the relevance to modern scientific discoveries of smaller seeds but merely a reference to what was common knowledge at the time - since you should know microscopes weren't invented until 1590.

perhaps creationists have taken genesis out of context, after all, science wasn't what it is now. the people of the time had neither the mathematics or the tools to understand such concepts, so why tell them how the universe really is, just give them a poetic description andlet later people look for the religios rather than the scientific significance of the book.

 

[JohnR7]

Since when is it a suprise that one needs to believe in the word of God to be saved?

James 2:19-20
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! [20] But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[94SupraTT]

James 2:19-20
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! [20] But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should.

In the beginning of James 2. The author uses the illustration of a man with a gold ring and a man that is poor. His ring justifies his position. Much like works justify our faith OUTWARDLY. Do not mistake this for salvation. MAN can only see outwardness. When the average person sees someone doing good works its a justification it is not however salvation. We do works because we are saved, not we are saved because we do works.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

[Plan 9]

I am sure that Pascal would be horrified by this comment.

I think so, too. Someone should take the poor man's name out of the title of this thread; it seems to have nothing to do with Pascal.