The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager

[Moral Orel]

Pascal's wager is not an ethical or moral argument, nor is it particularly wise. It's an argument based on pragmatism and the erroneous assertion that belief can be conjured up out of nothing by an act of will. If I don't believe then the loss of 'eternal salvation' is not a threat - it's a meaningless statement.
OB

I'm going to take the theists' side on this one. You can't just switch beliefs on and off like a light switch, no. But, if you were to immerse yourself in a religion, going to services a few times a week, studying the holy texts at every opportunity, only associating with members of that religion and excluding non-believers from your life, you will almost certainly end up believing in that religion. That doesn't make it true, and it works for any religion, even nonsense like Scientology. But it isn't impossible to cause yourself to believe something different. It's just brainwashing.

 

[com7fy8]

What if we're both wrong and God does exist, but you worship the wrong one; and this real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and worship your fake one? I think it would be better to not worship at all!

And what if atoms and molecules are the highest beings, greater than humans who are globs of nonmaterial spirit and held prisoner in bodies of atoms and molecules which love to play games by capturing humans and playing them around to try to get pleasure to make them feel good, but humans can't, since humans can't be satisfied? After all, we can see how atoms and molecules have formed into stars and planets and the bodies of various living beings, yet humans with such highly developed brains can't take care of themselves right. And yet atoms and molecules can produce such highly developed physical brains, but the humans can't make them work right to stay away from self-destructive things like smoking, among many other things. So, may be humans are spiritual globs in slavery to atoms and molecules playing with them. This is a fairly logical idea, isn't it? So, how come I don't know anyone promoting this???? Ones claim to want logic, but ones can pick and choose what they dictate to be logic, it seems to me.

Pascal’s wager

I have known people to say that if you are not sure about Jesus, still it is best to believe the Gospel . . . because in case it is right, you will get eternal life. But if it is right but you don't believe, you lose so much. If this is what Pascal gave, this seems different than how you have represented him.

In any case, yes there are a lot of people who have other ideas and ways. And ones say, how can we tell for sure?

Jesus Himself says God draws a person to Jesus >

"'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.'" (John 6:44)

Next, Jesus says,

"'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.'" (John 6:45)

From this, I see that God's word says God proves Himself to a person, and has the person learn so the person comes to trust in Jesus. So, I don't see any guessing or logic, here.

And, by the way, we have Romans 5:5 >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

So, to me this confirms that God proves Himself to His children. This verse shows that God shares His own love with every one of us who has trusted in Jesus. And this love in us effects us, proving how God is able to change our nature to be like Jesus and have us loving the way His word says for us to love. In us, God does His word, how He means His word > proving how all is possible >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

"'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
. It shall not return to Me void,
. But it shall accomplish what I please,
. And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Isaiah 55:11)

For me, it is logical that if "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16), then He is personally interested in every one of us, and He personally proves Himself to every child of His.

And, if Adam and Eve fell and lost their freedom, we were born in sin and not with wills truly free; so only God is able to change us so we do all He means by His word. We of ourselves can not do as well with God's word, as He in us can have us living His love meaning.

So, I personally don't think we humans can get ourselves somewhere with our own logic. We keep seeing how humans have reformed culture, but then humans keep on showing ourselves to not really have changed. For just one example > look at how so many humans, with all the advances we have been capable of, have not had the sense to not smoke and not become alcoholics and abusers, on we could go. Very highly capable and logical people can not take care of their own selves!!!!

So, I find it considerable that only the real God can get through to a human and get someone right. And this appears to me to be what the Bible says God does through Jesus. He does not depend on any second-best, second-rate being. But God has sent His very own best > Jesus. And now the Holy Spirit of God's own love "in our hearts" (Romans 5:5) is proving Himself in us.

But ones argue that we could be fooling ourselves, self-producing some invisible "best friend" in ourselves. Well > humans are capable of fooling our own selves and not even knowing this. Even obvious things like smoking have a way of continuing because we can just ignore evidence, right? Plus, God's word warns how people can trust a false Jesus > 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. So, the Bible itself says we can fool our own selves.

So, how much, then, can we trust ourselves in our own human nature?

Jesus says, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." (in Luke 9:23)

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.'" (Matthew 11:28-30)

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

Jesus gives us rest, and we are told how God is pleased with "the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit". I see how His love is gentle and quiet, and has almighty power so His love can not be corrupted by dominating and dictatorial drives for pleasure and adrenaline rushes. And His love shares with us God's own almighty immunity against fear and worry and arguing and complaining and frustration and hate and bitterness and unforgiveness and ill temper and nasty raging anger. So, yes Jesus gives us rest with almighty immunity and safety against how our human nature can give in to such cruel and dominating and dictatorial things.

We let unquiet things, including of boredom and loneliness, keep us from sharing with God. But the real beauty and almighty safety against being corrupted, is in the "gentle and quiet spirit" of God's love. And we discover how this love has us loving any and all people; and this Creator's love makes us creative for how to love each and every person. I can have all God pleases to share with us > "in the presence of my enemies" (Psalm 23:5); so we do not need to hide in a monastery or temple or some other hiding place!

Now, if you, whoever you are, think we are fooling ourselves into doing this . . . my opinion is this is not what humans in history have had a track record of getting our own selves to do. And this goes quite beyond just believing; if we get into this with Jesus, we won't be just guessing if the Gospel is true, as an idea.

Therefore, @Pooja Sadhu > if Pascal just used logic as a reason to believe, but did not say the result of faith would be personally sharing with God in His own love . . . in this life - - I would say he did not go far enough.

 

[holo]

Most non-believers, especially of the atheist variety, are so spiritually hardened and resistant to faith that trying to enlighten them with the truth seems futile.

Hey, two can play this game:
Most believers, especially of the Christian variety, are so intellectually hardened and resistant to reason that trying to enlighten them with the truth seems futile.

I guess my point in making this post was to see why non-believers would want to take a gamble with their afterlife instead of choosing to believe anyway (despite their skepticism) and be assured of everlasting life in heaven.

I don't see how I could choose to believe something. Could you choose to believe Islam is true?

 

[Paulos23]

I am not going to "fake it until I make it". Been there, done that, didn't work.

I would rather interact with my fellow humans and judge them on their behaviors and try to improve the life of those around me. Forcing belief and behavior to imitate those in the neighborhood church does none of that for me.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

Pascal’s wager is a wise, astute argument which states that non-believers ought to believe in Christ despite their skepticism of God’s existence and recalcitrance towards faith. If God doesn’t exist and Jesus is merely a myth (which actually isn’t the case), then the non-believer will die and fade away into non-existence. If, however, God does exist and Jesus is truly humanity’s savior (which is the case), then the non-believer won’t achieve eternal salvation in heaven—and the alternative to heaven is perdition, which is extreme.

There are hardened skeptics who view Pascal’s wager with cynicism. They would reply to it by saying, “Why the Judeo-Christian god? How is your argument any different than asking why not believe in Thor, Wotan, and Odin so that you can inherit salvation in Valhalla in case the Vikings were right and everyone else wrong?” The problem with this argument, though, is that practically no one believes in Thor, Wotan, and Odin anymore, but billions of people rightfully believe in Christ. Can billions of people really be delusional?

Indeed, Pascal’s wager is an ethical and moral argument, and non-believers ought to heed its wisdom and come to believe that Jesus is savior, in case they are wrong about God not existing—because if they don’t believe, then they will not achieve eternal salvation in heaven when their time comes. What say you?

Your refutation in the first paragraph is a bit of a strawman; people dont ask about thor etc., they ask about contemporary Faiths as many have done in this thread. You also ask, can billions of Christian's be wrong? Well a decent portion of that number (catholics) think all the rest are heretics and vice versa so yes they can be. Also there were a large number of Jews who were apparently around when Jesus was alive and didnt think he was the real deal, so you, who turn up 2000 years after the fact could very easily be wrong about the whole situation.

Also I'm not sure how you can call it moral or ethical. It essentially entails embracing God as a response to perceived odds and personal gain, not by opening your heart to God's love. Also leads me to ask: why is your God so easily tricked?

 

[Rajni]

God doesn’t punish non-believers with hell. Hell is the default state where all souls go who aren’t saved.

Let's assume that's actually the case. In that scenario, He still punishes non-believers. By default (and by design). The supposed creation of 'hell' would be, itself, a petty action. He could easily have omitted hell from the landscape entirely.

 

[Rajni]

I addressed your first point in my second paragraph in my original post.

Here is the second paragraph of your original post:

There are hardened skeptics who view Pascal’s wager with cynicism. They would reply to it by saying, “Why the Judeo-Christian god? How is your argument any different than asking why not believe in Thor, Wotan, and Odin so that you can inherit salvation in Valhalla in case the Vikings were right and everyone else wrong?” The problem with this argument, though, is that practically no one believes in Thor, Wotan, and Odin anymore, but billions of people rightfully believe in Christ. Can billions of people really be delusional?

This doesn't address what I said, which was that Christianity isn't the only religion that comes with the loss of eternal salvation for having not subscribed to its belief-system. I didn't have Thor, Wotan, and Odin in mind when I said that. I was thinking of Christianity's close cousin, Islam. I wouldn't say that "practically no one" believes in the doctrines of Islam.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Pascal’s wager is a wise, astute argument which states that non-believers ought to believe in Christ despite their skepticism of God’s existence and recalcitrance towards faith.

We can stop right here. No one can choose to believe something that they are not convinced of. Or can we just say we believe and god will save us? Can you choose to believe that Allah is the true God?

It remains the burden of the believer to convince others of gods existence. Many like myself are not recalcitrant towards faith. We are waiting for sufficient evidence to have a Justified belief.

 

[Strathos]

I reject Pascal's Wager because:

- It assumes the existence of eternal, conscious torment in Hell (and there is scriptural evidence against this)
- It assumes that God would be happy with cynical people hedging their bets rather than truly having faith

 

[zephcom]

Pascal’s wager is a wise, astute argument which states that non-believers ought to believe in Christ despite their skepticism of God’s existence and recalcitrance towards faith. If God doesn’t exist and Jesus is merely a myth (which actually isn’t the case), then the non-believer will die and fade away into non-existence. If, however, God does exist and Jesus is truly humanity’s savior (which is the case), then the non-believer won’t achieve eternal salvation in heaven—and the alternative to heaven is perdition, which is extreme.

There are hardened skeptics who view Pascal’s wager with cynicism. They would reply to it by saying, “Why the Judeo-Christian god? How is your argument any different than asking why not believe in Thor, Wotan, and Odin so that you can inherit salvation in Valhalla in case the Vikings were right and everyone else wrong?” The problem with this argument, though, is that practically no one believes in Thor, Wotan, and Odin anymore, but billions of people rightfully believe in Christ. Can billions of people really be delusional?

Indeed, Pascal’s wager is an ethical and moral argument, and non-believers ought to heed its wisdom and come to believe that Jesus is savior, in case they are wrong about God not existing—because if they don’t believe, then they will not achieve eternal salvation in heaven when their time comes. What say you?

Ah, a fire insurance salesman.

Pascal's Wager begs the issue of sincerity. Jesus Himself taught that just saying 'Lord, Lord' is not sufficient. Looking around, I can already see that there are likely many, if not most, Christians who are in danger of being cast out with those who say, "Lord, Lord".

I would really be disappointed if I cast my lot with Pascal and pretended to be Christian and find out that God knew all along that I was just pretending.

The reality is that Pascal's Wager is pretty much useless when it comes to theology. No one knows what lies on the other side of death. Those who do try to tell us what lies there...whether they know it or not...are lying.

 

[gaara4158]

Pascal’s wager is a wise, astute argument which states that non-believers ought to believe in Christ despite their skepticism of God’s existence and recalcitrance towards faith. If God doesn’t exist and Jesus is merely a myth (which actually isn’t the case), then the non-believer will die and fade away into non-existence. If, however, God does exist and Jesus is truly humanity’s savior (which is the case), then the non-believer won’t achieve eternal salvation in heaven—and the alternative to heaven is perdition, which is extreme.

There are hardened skeptics who view Pascal’s wager with cynicism. They would reply to it by saying, “Why the Judeo-Christian god? How is your argument any different than asking why not believe in Thor, Wotan, and Odin so that you can inherit salvation in Valhalla in case the Vikings were right and everyone else wrong?” The problem with this argument, though, is that practically no one believes in Thor, Wotan, and Odin anymore, but billions of people rightfully believe in Christ. Can billions of people really be delusional?

Indeed, Pascal’s wager is an ethical and moral argument, and non-believers ought to heed its wisdom and come to believe that Jesus is savior, in case they are wrong about God not existing—because if they don’t believe, then they will not achieve eternal salvation in heaven when their time comes. What say you?

I am not impressed by Pascal's wager because the number of people who believe something is not necessarily an indication of its likelihood to be true. There are more people who do not believe in your version of God than who do; does this persuade you that Christ is likely not real? There is no reason to take the threat of Hell or promise of Heaven seriously until such time as they are shown to be likely to exist. Without that, there is absolutely no reason to will oneself to believe.

 

[Ken-1122]

And what if atoms and molecules are the highest beings, greater than humans who are globs of nonmaterial spirit and held prisoner in bodies of atoms and molecules which love to play games by capturing humans and playing them around to try to get pleasure to make them feel good,

If that were the case, nobody would ever know. Care to respond to what I said?

 

[com7fy8]

Care to respond to what I said?

There are billions of Hindu who believe their God is real and yours is not. There are also Billions of muslims who believe their God is real and yours is not so you tell me, can billions of people really be delusional?

I don't assume billions of Christians can not be delusional. I can fool my own self and not even know it. So, I have trusted God to do what He wants with me. And I have developed to trust in Jesus and I keep finding that God keeps me with Jesus and more and more experiencing how the Bible says He lives in people.

I have not done major study of religions non-Christian or of all "Christian" denominations, but my general impression is that non-Biblical groups tend to have people depending on their own ability to do what they believe in. Only the Bible, to me, obviously makes it clear how we need to fully depend on God for belief and how to trust in Jesus and how to love and live practically. And this means personally submitting to how God in us rules us in His peace . . . better and better all the time. No other group has God being so personal with His children, like I read in the Bible and experience. And I will offer He is . . . better than I have been for myself.

I am not sure humans have delusions self-produced of being lived-in by someone who is beyond human measure better than they are, and He makes us gentle and quiet and caring about any and all people, with hope for anyone evil, at all, and we have almighty immunity in quiet rest against fear and dominating and dictatorial drives for pleasure, and against bitterness and unforgiveness and arguing and complaining. And these can attack our quiet but can not overcome us from being quiet and sweetly caring with one another who are into this.

I'm writing my experience which is a match with what I find in the Bible. And, of course, this is through Jesus who is personal with us, in us, sharing this with us. So, we don't claim to produce this, ourselves. I don't know of any other group which has official writing which reports this. Of course, I have been busy enough with seeking God for Himself and sharing with others who are into this; so I have not spent much time looking elsewhere after God started doing this in me.

What if we're both wrong and God does exist, but you worship the wrong one; and this real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and worship your fake one? I think it would be better to not worship at all!

Well, I've just described my experience with God. If you consider this to be fake and a fantasy . . . it is better than how I used to do things with myself. And, yes, God is the Judge.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't assume billions of Christians can not be delusional. I can fool my own self and not even know it. So, I have trusted God to do what He wants with me. And I have developed to trust in Jesus and I keep finding that God keeps me with Jesus and more and more experiencing how the Bible says He lives in people.

I have not done major study of religions non-Christian or of all "Christian" denominations, but my general impression is that non-Biblical groups tend to have people depending on their own ability to do what they believe in. Only the Bible, to me, obviously makes it clear how we need to fully depend on God for belief and how to trust in Jesus and how to love and live practically. And this means personally submitting to how God in us rules us in His peace . . . better and better all the time. No other group has God being so personal with His children, like I read in the Bible and experience. And I will offer He is . . . better than I have been for myself.

I am not sure humans have delusions self-produced of being lived-in by someone who is beyond human measure better than they are, and He makes us gentle and quiet and caring about any and all people, with hope for anyone evil, at all, and we have almighty immunity in quiet rest against fear and dominating and dictatorial drives for pleasure, and against bitterness and unforgiveness and arguing and complaining. And these can attack our quiet but can not overcome us from being quiet and sweetly caring with one another who are into this.

I'm writing my experience which is a match with what I find in the Bible. And, of course, this is through Jesus who is personal with us, in us, sharing this with us. So, we don't claim to produce this, ourselves. I don't know of any other group which has official writing which reports this. Of course, I have been busy enough with seeking God for Himself and sharing with others who are into this; so I have not spent much time looking elsewhere after God started doing this in me.

I noticed your response began with;
I have not done major study of religions non-Christian or of all "Christian" denominations,
Then you go on to make claims about some of these other religions that you have not done any studying of like
Only the Bible, to me, obviously makes it clear how we need to fully depend on God for belief
Or
No other group has God being so personal with His children,
Kinda makes me wonder how do know other religions don’t do those things for their believers as well if you never studied them.

Well, I've just described my experience with God. If you consider this to be fake and a fantasy . . . it is better than how I used to do things with myself. And, yes, God is the Judge.

I think some people need religion in their lives, and I suspect you are one of those people. I remember discussing with another religious person and he said that his faith in God is the only thing preventing him from committing every atrocity imaginable! And I had a feeling his faith was barely holding him back. I asked him to please hold on to his faith; I would hate to see what he is capable of had he lost it.

But hopefully you can see why religious belief is not necessary for me.

 

[com7fy8]

No other group has God being so personal with His children,
Kinda makes me wonder how do know other religions don’t do those things for their believers as well if you never studied them.

Thank you for making yourself clear. I assume I understand, anyway, what you mean.

summaries > I may not have done extensive research, but I have ready summaries of groups speaking for themselves, plus how ones claiming to be Christians have represented groups. I take with a grain of salt, though, what groups say about themselves and what Christians claim about non-Christians.

Also, I take note of what is emphasized.

What stands out to me, from God's word and my experience is how God is personal, not distant. God sent His very own Son, not some second-best being. And various scriptures show how God personally shares with and corrects His children. I have not seen this emphasized in any other group's writing, in summary or the more that I have read. And, of course, a number of Bible claiming ones also have a way of talking about God like He is distant and theoretical and impersonal.

I remember discussing with another religious person and he said that his faith in God is the only thing preventing him from committing every atrocity imaginable!

Faith is a good defense, but also faith works through love. Faith does not only stop me from doing evil, but Jesus faith gets me more and more into Jesus love. And this has done the best to stop me from doing evil.

During junior high school, I was told my dog friend couldn't go to heaven; and so I had to leave the doggie outside church, and doggie would take off. I decided I would get revenge by becoming a fake priest and derailing trains. Yes, I was that love-dead. To keep it short, later I got terrified of dying and going to hell; so I changed from being evil for the sake of it.

But I was a total misfit. I stopped a lot of bad stuff, but I was clueless about how to love. So, I was a religious screwball conceited jerk. And I'll spare details. But I guess I changed so much that people thought I had become a good person. I actually became a teacher! But I had no personality for being a role model for children. And that lasted a year. But then I worked with special needs children, and that was the best social development thing I could do, I would say. Then I did other things.

But, I still needed to get started with Jesus, so I could have deep strength against unforgiveness, and so I could love anyone and not be looking down on anyone. And this correction is to be continued

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pascal’s wager is a wise, astute argument which states that non-believers ought to believe in Christ despite their skepticism of God’s existence and recalcitrance towards faith. If God doesn’t exist and Jesus is merely a myth (which actually isn’t the case), then the non-believer will die and fade away into non-existence. If, however, God does exist and Jesus is truly humanity’s savior (which is the case), then the non-believer won’t achieve eternal salvation in heaven—and the alternative to heaven is perdition, which is extreme.

There are hardened skeptics who view Pascal’s wager with cynicism. They would reply to it by saying, “Why the Judeo-Christian god? How is your argument any different than asking why not believe in Thor, Wotan, and Odin so that you can inherit salvation in Valhalla in case the Vikings were right and everyone else wrong?” The problem with this argument, though, is that practically no one believes in Thor, Wotan, and Odin anymore, but billions of people rightfully believe in Christ. Can billions of people really be delusional?

Indeed, Pascal’s wager is an ethical and moral argument, and non-believers ought to heed its wisdom and come to believe that Jesus is savior, in case they are wrong about God not existing—because if they don’t believe, then they will not achieve eternal salvation in heaven when their time comes. What say you?

...I really, really hate to cut in here, but this isn't what Pascal's Wager states. What it actually asserts is that the "odds" being what they are within Pascal's thinking, it is wiser for those persons who struggle a lot to believe in the Christian faith, yet still find within themselves the interest and care to do so, to at least place themselves into a position by which faith might become possible in time. It isn't a stand-in for belief or for faith itself. Unfortunately, it seems so many folks here are under the mistaken impression that the Wager actually is a stand-in, and a self-centered one at that. No, it's not. It's simply not.

Anyway, welcome to CF, Pooja!

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm going to take the theists' side on this one. You can't just switch beliefs on and off like a light switch, no. But, if you were to immerse yourself in a religion, going to services a few times a week, studying the holy texts at every opportunity, only associating with members of that religion and excluding non-believers from your life, you will almost certainly end up believing in that religion.

I think you would have to be intellectually dishonest with yourself in order to accomplish this. I was raised a Christian, but it wasn't until I chose to take the religion seriously by studying, learning what the religion was really about and totally immersing myself in the religion that I was able to realize the flaws in the religion; and as painful as it was, I had to admit the flaws because even though I really wanted to believe, the truth was more important than believing.

 

[Ken-1122]

What stands out to me, from God's word and my experience is how God is personal, not distant. God sent His very own Son, not some second-best being. And various scriptures show how God personally shares with and corrects His children. I have not seen this emphasized in any other group's writing, in summary or the more that I have read. And, of course, a number of Bible claiming ones also have a way of talking about God like He is distant and theoretical and impersonal.

If some Christians talk about God like he is distant and theoretical and impersonal, suppose there are those of other religions who speak of their God the same way, and those people are where you get your information from

 

[com7fy8]

If some Christians talk about God like he is distant and theoretical and impersonal, suppose there are those of other religions who speak of their God the same way, and those people are where you get your information from

And, for all I know, ones might believe their god died for their sins and rose on the third day and now is Lord of all. And they might believe their god makes them more and more immune to fear, in the almighty power of their god's love . . . like the Bible says our God does >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:17)

But if there are ones who consider themselves to be "real" Buddhists or Hindus or others, and if they believe their god is personal with them . . . do their scriptures or summaries on the Net clearly say this, like our Bible does? >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

To me, this means God in us proves Himself to us; it is not only about belief, then. So, this could bring us to what

I guess my point in making this post was to see why non-believers would want to take a gamble with their afterlife instead of choosing to believe anyway (despite their skepticism) and be assured of everlasting life in heaven.

I think part of the answer is that God has not proven Himself to certain people. But, also, Jesus did prove Himself to people, and they wanted to kill Him, anyway. So, a person's set character can be a person's dictator.

And we have how disobedient people are effected by > "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2)

So, Pooja > it looks to me like God knows the reason is a person's character and the spirit working the person to not believe. So, someone might tell you his or her reason for not believing, but that is that person's opinion, and God might know differently.

Now I have had times when I was not sure. And I was not interested in believing, just in case it was right. I wanted to be sure, because I understood that whoever the real God is, if there is God, He knows, and doing something just in case might have me away from what He really wants. And, in my case, I got to where I decided that if God is real and wants to personally do things with me, He can get through to me and have me think and do what He wants.

And then I read Philippians 2:13 and understood this means God works in me what He wants me to will to believe. So, this is in sharing with Him, not only by my own ability to decide and think things out. Plus, I read Romans 9:21 and considered this means God is my personal Potter who even decides and works how I come out. So, this got my attention, and then I have been trusting for whatever God wants to do with me, even every moment.

And I keep discovering how God does His word with me so better than how I used to understand and do His word.

I guess you could say I was believing, just in case, but I did not have a clue what would become of me.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think you would have to be intellectually dishonest with yourself in order to accomplish this.

Sure, I never said it wasn't. I mean, I called it brainwashing.