There is NO risk to me if I am wrong about "certain" doctrinal positions.

[ozso]

Then you must keep All 10 commandments "perfectly"..Not just one command in order to fulfill the law...otherwise you are hypocrite claiming to keep one command ie 7th day Sabbath and yet fail to keep the other commandments..

So do you keep the other commandments ie, lying, coveting, stealing, adultery etc ?? Not just the 7th day Sabbath command..

If your response is "yes" then you're perfect and has fulfill the law...ie like Jesus!

If your response is "No" then you fail to keep all commandments including 7th day Sabbath and hasn't fulfill the law...

Keep a clear conscience and be truthful to yourself..

Actually you have to keep a whole lot more than just 10 of the 613 commandments of the law to qualify as a law keeper.

 

[Albion]

Then you must keep All 10 commandments "perfectly"

Agreed.

So do you keep the other commandments ie, lying, coveting, stealing, adultery etc ?? Not just the 7th day Sabbath command..

If your response is "yes" then you're perfect and has fulfill the law...ie like Jesus!

No person does. No person can. That's why we needed a Savior and why anyone who demands perfection in this life as a prerequisite for salvation or mistakenly thinks that it can be accomplished has missed out on the most basic tenet of the Christian religion.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

My quest has been to get as close as I can get in this lifetime to what is ontologically True. If my best assessment were that naturalistic atheism were True, then I'd be a naturalistic atheist. Or Buddhism or any other ism. "Risk assessment" really isn't part of the equation for me.

It has occurred to me from time to time that nothing is lost by holding certain positions. My rejection of Once Saved Always Saved theology is one - but I hold a non-OSAS position not on the basis of any risk assessment but because I believe it is biblically correct (ontologically True).

Pascal's Wager is seen by many as the ultimate "nothing to lose" gambit. But Pascal wasn't saying "Bet Christianity is correct because you have everything to gain and nothing to lose." He wasn't that shallow. He was saying "Try living as though Christianity were true and see if it doesn't blossom into a conviction that it is true."

 

[Carl Emerson]

you are not following the logic of the argument in the OP. you can't inject your own POV into the "other side" when weighing two options. Each side has to be consistent with its own view.

If the Christian is correct in option 1 - then your outcome is part of that "being correct". But the "other option" is that the atheist is correct in option 1. You can't weigh two options without first being willing to even admit what the second option is. That is not logical and does not work in discussions with Atheists. They see right through that.

Faith has never been about risk.

Your 'logic' is seriously flawed.

 

[Fervent]

My quest has been to get as close as I can get in this lifetime to what is ontologically True. If my best assessment were that naturalistic atheism were True, then I'd be a naturalistic atheist. Or Buddhism or any other ism. "Risk assessment" really isn't part of the equation for me.

It has occurred to me from time to time that nothing is lost by holding certain positions. My rejection of Once Saved Always Saved theology is one - but I hold a non-OSAS position not on the basis of any risk assessment but because I believe it is biblically correct (ontologically True).

Pascal's Wager is seen by many as the ultimate "nothing to lose" gambit. But Pascal wasn't saying "Bet Christianity is correct because you have everything to gain and nothing to lose." He wasn't that shallow. He was saying "Try living as though Christianity were true and see if it doesn't blossom into a conviction that it is true."

Yes, Pascal's wager is seriously misunderstood. Not only as you mention, but it's not as if he simply presented the two as equivalent but essentially whittled it down to the point where there was nothing to recommend one over the other and the only thing separating the two was the risk they carry. Of course, as others have noted self-preservation as the motive for "faith" renders it a bit...hollow so the practical usage of something like Pascal's wager is minimal.

 

[BobRyan]

A very poor argument are well known to "not work" so Christ and Paul not use lame arguments when speaking to non-believers

Christ gives a great example of making a strong logical argument with his hostile-audicence enemies in Matt 22 for the future resurrection and also in Mark 7:6-13 with his opposers regarding their bogus traditions that are in opposition to the Word of God. In Matt 22 Christ's stellar logic "silenced the Sadducees" as the Pharisees themselves admitted.

Your claim that we could be equally as successful making statements that don't make sense -- is one of the things you find on the internet where Atheists hold those things up for ridicule and use them as effective proof on their side that to be a Christian is to abandon reason. They gain many converts with the help of Christians.

A great many atheists have become Christian - including one reading this thread - and they did so because of issues like #1 in the OP. But I have yet to find even one that claimed they came to be a Christian while Atheist because of the force of the statement "I don't think my atheism is giving God glory".

===================

Peter says not to give lame arguments.

1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect

Paul agrees.

Titus 1:7 For the overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined, 9 holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

It does not say "able to contradict those who contradict" but rather "able to refute those who contradict". In some circles merely name-calling and contradicting is "enough" -- and is all that should be asked of them in their own POV. Scripture does not agree.

One can ignore the details in those texts if one "wishes" - but I don't

Faith has never been about risk.

Your 'logic' is seriously flawed.

I'm going with Christ, Peter and Paul on this one - you have free will and can choose to join them or not on the topic of using logic and sound reasoning with non-believers.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Pascal's wager is seriously misunderstood. Not only as you mention, but it's not as if he simply presented the two as equivalent but essentially whittled it down to the point where there was nothing to recommend one over the other and the only thing separating the two was the risk they carry.

The OP does not say "there is nothing but risk to be taken into account". Rather it simply gives that one data point and notes that as Christians we should be "at least as awake" to the subject of sound reasoning as we expect atheists to be.

 

[BobRyan]

My quest has been to get as close as I can get in this lifetime to what is ontologically True. If my best assessment were that naturalistic atheism were True, then I'd be a naturalistic atheist. Or Buddhism or any other ism. "Risk assessment" really isn't part of the equation for me.

"knowing" something is or is not "true" (however you wish to know it). Is fine and we all claim to "know" that something is true - where that something in many cases "is the exact opposite" between two people that claim to "know something".

In option we ask that the atheist be "awake enough" to admit to the difference risk. But we don't claim that "that difference is the only point in favor of God". It is just an irrefutable data point to take into consideration.

It has occurred to me from time to time that nothing is lost by holding certain positions. My rejection of Once Saved Always Saved theology is one - but I hold a non-OSAS position not on the basis of any risk assessment but because I believe it is biblically correct (ontologically True).

Which is fine. But the "risk element" is there to help the person stuck on rejecting that Bible evidence you are referencing - to see that maybe they should "take a second look".

It is there to "prompt" someone to have a more open mind and more objective review of the evidence - in this case the Bible texts.

Pascal's Wager is seen by many as the ultimate "nothing to lose" gambit.

True but it does not prove there is a god - rather it prompts to take a second look , to try and be as objective as possible.

 

[BobRyan]

Actually you have to keep a whole lot more than just 10 of the 613 commandments of the law to qualify as a law keeper.

True - you can't just keep the command to "not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 and to "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5. There is much more in the Law of God than that for "mankind".

Thankfully under the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 the Law of God is written on the heart and mind.

So then this is an example of "Bible details" to look into. The OP merely sets the context for the one "looking" as they know that in one direction "there is no risk" --- nice to start out with a clue as to where to find the gold.

 

[BobRyan]

Then you must keep All 10 commandments "perfectly"..Not just one command in order to fulfill the law.. .

Are you talking about Rom 8?

Rom 8:
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,...."

In any case - the OP is not taking those additional steps that look into the evidence for one side or the other - just noting that at the start - there is a contrast between what view "has risk" and which one "has no risk". Noticing that detail - one still has to look into these various Bible texts to find the right answer.

 

[Fervent]

The OP does not say "there is nothing but risk to be taken into account". Rather it simply gives that one data point and notes that as Christians we should be "at least as awake" to the subject of sound reasoning as we expect atheists to be.

Sure, but there's no reason to consider the comparative risk until it is established that all other things are equal(and it truly is limited to those issues.) As far as sound reasoning goes, risk is more of a "tie breaker" than a compelling point. And given that there are positions regarding each of the ones you mention that put your particular position at risk(for example, if OSAS is true and those who are saved have assurance of their salvation(i.e. they will agree with OSAS by default) your position of non-OSAS implies that you are outside of those saved.)

 

[BobRyan]

Sure, but there's no reason to consider the comparative risk until it is established that all other things are equal

Most people do not start with "thorough investigation" ... A lot of people (including the atheist in example #1 of the OP) assume whatever they have found to date already confirms their bias at some level.

The "has risk" vs "does not have risk" addresses the point that even though no one has infinite knowledge of what is right and why - we still need to challenge our bias especially if we keep making only those choices that "only have risk" and avoiding the ones with no risk.

A "confirmation bias" is difficult to escape. So it is nice to have the objective data points in the OP list.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I'm going with Christ, Peter and Paul on this one - you have free will and can choose to join them or not on the topic of using logic and sound reasoning with non-believers.

That is not the issue...

You want to mount argument that postulates 'less risk - more truth'

When you personally encounter Jesus and faith is born, there is no risk, there is 'epignosis'.

Religion is not like going to the races.

To argue like that raises the question of whether 'faith' is mental or on the Rock of Christ - perfectly dependable - NO RISK...

 

[Fervent]

Most people do not start with "thorough investigation" ... A lot of people (including the atheist in example #1 of the OP) assume whatever they have found to date already confirms their bias at some level.

The "has risk" vs "does not have risk" addresses the point that even though no one has infinite knowledge of what is right and why - we still need to challenge our bias especially if we keep making only those choices that "only have risk" and avoiding the ones with no risk.

A "confirmation bias" is difficult to escape. So it is nice to have the objective data points in the OP list.

If that was your intent, it was poorly conveyed. The OP gives the impression that you're trying to argue that the lower the risk, the more preferable the choice so your choices are more rational than those that carry risk. Which, even if we accept that premise, your risk assessment is flawed because it ignores the elephant in the room that if your choices do not line up with God's choices risk is inherent because your whole assessment misses the mark. So your premise is flawed and the claim that your positions lack risk is also flawed.

 

[Blade]

Thanks for me 'IF" is doubting and its not something I have with Christ.. well He's real. Some of the others apply to the SDA, Salvation.. don't have osas or lose it thoughts. Caught up... it will happen its written so I am ready now.

I read about the 10 commandments. Odd huh will if you fail in one of the what 613 you failed in all yet the 10 commandments.. its ok to fail in one or many and still your good to go. Odd one would think if you fail in 1 you fail in all 10.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

"knowing" something is or is not "true" (however you wish to know it). Is fine and we all claim to "know" that something is true - where that something in many cases "is the exact opposite" between two people that claim to "know something".

In option we ask that the atheist be "awake enough" to admit to the difference risk. But we don't claim that "that difference is the only point in favor of God". It is just an irrefutable data point to take into consideration.



Which is fine. But the "risk element" is there to help the person stuck on rejecting that Bible evidence you are referencing - to see that maybe they should "take a second look".

It is there to "prompt" someone to have a more open mind and more objective review of the evidence - in this case the Bible texts.



True but it does not prove there is a god - rather it prompts to take a second look , to try and be as objective as possible.

The branch of philosophy known as epistemology, which deals with the nature of knowledge, has been one of my primary areas of interest for at least 20 years.

In the post you quoted, I said it has been my goal to get "as close to" the Truth as I can in this lifetime, not to "know" the Truth. Ultimate metaphysical claims like the existence (or nonexistence) of God and the truth (or falsity) of Christianity can't be objectively known in this lifetime.

We can only reach some level of conviction, as I have done with Christianity. I accept the possibility, remote as I may think it is, that naturalistic atheism or Buddhism is, in fact, ontologically True. This is simply being rational and not pretending to know things that can't be known. Some believers in all religions, and certainly Christianity, claim to "know" - but this is an inner knowing that carries no weight with anyone else and is really just a very strong conviction.

In reaching my Christian convictions, "risk assessment" simply hasn't been part of the equation, nor do I think it should be. Getting as close to the Truth as possible in this lifetime is, to me, a product of experience, observation, study, reflection on my experiences/observations/studies, and intuition. I just see no place for risk assessment.

I have a lot of experience dialoguing and debating with atheists. In my experience, they are well-aware of the risks of their position. That's why they call Christianity wishful pie-in-the-sky thinking - i.e., because it puts all its hope in a blissful eternity the atheists think is a fantasy. The approach is to show them that it's rational, supported by evidence and sound arguments, and not delusional. No one is ever really talked into Christianity, but at least this approach may open their hearts and minds to God's call.

 

[DamianWarS]

If Sabbath opposing views in the OP allow Rom 14 to say that we get to choose which day we keep without any risk - then they allow the opposing view held by those who think the Commandments still matter -- to be risk-free. I don't see that you have gotten around it. And so far in real life - that is exactly what we see happening.

if you reject those opposing views then it's flawed logic to use the inverse to proclaim safety in your own position. if it's wrong the inverse is wrong too. if you however agree with those opposing views it refutes your own point. this also exposes a flaw in the motivation being safety-driven not what "God-actually-wants" driven and is a selfish perspective as it is about what you get out of it not about what God desires.

 

[DamianWarS]

So your proposal to the atheist is "hey I know you don't believe that God exists - but don't you think it makes the most sense for you to have as your number one motivation -- doing what gives God glory?"

Is that the kind of discussion you have with atheists in real life - and if so - how did that work for you?

I have seen a lot of "discussions with atheists" using similar logic as can be seen in my OP #1 option and we even have one former one on a thread similar to this - talking about the success of that model. Do you have one where an atheist says "I was an atheist until I started to think that being an atheist probably does not give God as much glory as He deserves"?

atheists don't believe in God so any argument towards belief in God is going to be challenged regardless of what it is, including this safety position you propose. Feel free to throw whatever angle you wish at them, I just choose to not reduce God to insurance but YMMV.

However, this is a digressed topic and you have lost track of your own point. Correct me if I'm wrong but the OP is not about evangelism strategies it is about doctrinal motivations and the two are different conversations, so if you want to have the former then it would probably be better to start a new thread. Once that atheist becomes a Christian by even misguided means we can challenge their motivation behind their held beliefs. But I don't see the value in discussing doctrinal points with an atheist as it pertains to this discussion.

Not true.

A very poor argument such as the one I point out above - is well known to "not work".

Christ gives a great example of making a strong logical argument with his hostile-audicence enemies in Matt 22 for the future resurrection and also in Mark 7:6-13 with his opposers regarding their bogus traditions that are in opposition to the Word of God. In Matt 22 Christ's stellar logic "silenced the Sadducees" as the Pharisees themselves admitted.

Your claim that we could be equally as successful making statements that don't make sense -- is one of the things you find on the internet where Atheists hold those things up for ridicule and use them as effective proof on their side that to be a Christian is to abandon reason. They gain many converts with the help of Christians.

A great many atheists have become Christian - including one reading this thread - and they did so because of issues like #1 in the OP. But I have yet to find even one that claimed they came to be a Christian while Atheist because of the force of the statement "I don't think my atheism is giving God glory".

===================

Peter says not to give lame arguments.

1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect

Paul agrees.

Titus 1:7 For the overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined, 9 holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

It does not say "able to contradict those who contradict" but rather "able to refute those who contradict". In some circles merely name-calling and contradicting is "enough" -- and is all that should be asked of them in their own POV. Scripture does not agree.

so my argument is lame, is it? You do realize I could just copy and paste what you just said and throw it back to you because you're points are about "lame arguments" and not specific in any way to what I said, you just label it as lame. Well, I can do the same to you and call you're argument lame but then that would just be name-calling wouldn't it? I'm challenging your motivation as misguided not the conclusions of whatever doctrinal points you bring up (which frankly I'm not interested in discussing). I personally feel a more noble motivation is to seek God's desires even if it doesn't present itself as the safest option for our personal gain. But if you feel seeking risk-free positions is better than God's desires then that's something you will have to take up with God.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Reversed version of the Bible says that God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in Him and keeps the Saturday Sabbath will not perish but will have eternal life.

 

[pasifika]

Are you talking about Rom 8?

Rom 8:
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,...."

In any case - the OP is not taking those additional steps that look into the evidence for one side or the other - just noting that at the start - there is a contrast between what view "has risk" and which one "has no risk". Noticing that detail - one still has to look into these various Bible texts to find the right answer.

No I'm referring to James 2:10...for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumble at just ONE POINT is guilty of BREAKING ALL of it. ..