Unfortunately, Crazyheart, this is the attitude that many take when ascribing to Christianity and other organized religions.

It's surely not what Christ had in mind. His vision, imo, was that everything we do we should do out of love and service, and not out of some fear of death or some false feeling of being saved.

Selflessness is the keynote to salvation. Nothing less.

Mad blood pump,

it is probably like this:

It's a start. Obviously it's only one little piece of the Christian faith, but it's as legitimate a place to start as any, we get our fire insurance and then we learn and grow and love and share and much, much more (hopefully).

To complete the fire insurance analogy, accepting Jesus as insurance against suffering is like paying your insurance company to not set fire to your house.

This isn't insurance - it's religious extortion.

I agree with chansen here.

If you accept the theology of eternal hellfire and damnation, then part of the package is a despotic, torturing God.  At least, if you are internally consistent in your theology.  As Al Bundy used to say in an entirely different context, you can't have one without the other!

lol - I'm not underinsured at all CrazyH.

Insurance is only necessary if there's a possibility of loss.

Mendalla

Well, I believe in all religions. Just in case, eh?

arrn, isn't that double-dipping?

No, it is multi-dipping: the ultimate form of dipping.

I agree with chansen and RevMatt here.

On the other hand, if Jesus is insurance, at least the premiums aren't bad!

On the question of whether we're under-insured, how can we be under-insured as the recipients of God's grace?

Wow chansen, steven, matt david and I agree -

And chansen says there's no God. How does he explain away this miracle!

Hi RevSteven:

Chansen believes in a self-miraculous universe.

I think we're all a little anti-theist, in regards to the common Christian messages out there.  To you, it's an insult to your religion.  To me, it's an insult to my senses.  The idea that I have to believe a certain way about a god for which I have no evidence, or else suffer some sort of eternal suffering for which there is also no evidence, is stupid.  Besides, any god who has a requirement like that is a jackass and not worthy of my respect, never mind worship.  It's a damn good thing there is no evidence for this, or any other god.

Accepting Jesus Christ just to escape hell is typical humanist thinking. Humanism and some forms of atheism (such as Chansen's brand of hate filled atheism) is a toxic plague on society that is a slow, creeping death.

Atheism and humanism are like a souless, dead, stinking bloated carcass floating in a pool of filth.

 Of course, I don't believe I "have" to believe in God without any evidence. I choose to believe in God without objective evidence, because it's my choice. Nor do I believe that I would suffer eternal suffering if I made a different choice.

(Added by later edit: Of course, I realize that you weren't saying that I believe in those things. I just thought it would be helpful to put out front myself that I don't believe in those things.)

Yeah, those awful humanists and atheists, walking around, not believing in God!  *gasp*

That's just like a bloated carcass swimming in filth.  The analogy is obvious.

I should have made it more clear that not all atheism is the same. It's only your brand that is stinking and vile.

It's your hate filled venom that spews forth from your shit fountain that is at issue here. Not all atheists are alike, I will grant you that. But your particular brand of vile, toxic atheism is what spreads like a wasting disease.  That is why your "Toxic" avatar is so ironic. You believe that the faiths those symbols represent are toxic, yet you fail to see your own toxic wasteland of hate, intollerance and bigotry. Your lack of vision is not surprising due to your over inflated ego and your constant ridiculing of other people's faith. What you spew forth is venom and you justify your hate with stupid notions of "I attack beliefs". What a pile of crap. What people believe is a part of who they are. Attacks on beliefs are attacks on people who hold those beliefs.

That is why your specific brand of atheism is a toxic sewer.

... and another thread taken down the drain by Darth (consumingfire) Fire's hatred for Chansen.

Sigh...

Hi CH;

From where I sit your observation seems to be the resultant flip side of the observation of Pascal's Wager.

Show me where I have said that I hate Chansen as a person. I do not hate anybody. Chansen can spew his hate (for others beliefs) around and it is fine. But the moment somebody counters in a strong way it is branded as hate for a person. It is clear that chansen hates the beliefs of those who profess faith. He hates my beliefs and that is fine. But don't expect me to sit idly by while my beliefs are used a a doormat.

The definition of hate is getting more lax by the minute. It seems to be the default position for many on wondercafe.

Sigh......

Yep, that's why my answer is pretty much the same as my answer for Pascal.

crazyheart. I do apologise to you if I have derailed your thread. I will no longer respond unless it is directly related to your opening post.

Well, cf, if you can tell me what Pascal's Wager is, I would be happy to hear from you. I am now lost.

This is from religioustolerance.org It is a paraphrase of Pascal's Wager.

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist".

  It basically amounts to hedging your bets and leaves no room for faith or experience because your belief in God is based solely on taking the chance that He exists. It really does not require a specific belief in God. 

I hope this helps, CH.

What CF has posted is correct.

The other problem with Pascal's wager is it is a fallacy of false dichotomy. It predicates that there are only two choices, Christianity and Atheism, and hedges the bet based on that. It completely ignores that there are other religions out there, and that if they are right, Christians are equally screwed for their choice as are atheists.

Pascal's wager, along with "The skeptics trilemma" are probably the two most commonly used examples of faulty reasoning given in first year philosophy and critical thinking courses.

One wonders why fundies invariable end up using one or the other, as if they were sound and reasonable arguements.

Thank you witch and cf. That helped me a lot.

...and Miracles! Like a post of Chanson's being agreed to!

Neat-o way to start the day...3:30 pm ...hmm...I'm up early

Hi Crazyheart,

Well, I think some might believe that God is easily duped that way.  I'm not one of them.

I'm not sure how the courts would handle or enforce it.

You are only under-insured when the flood you never planned for happens.

If God is gracious then those who are saved are saved entirely by the grace of God and not by whatever insurance they seem to think they can force God to sell them.

One day there will be some who cry, "Lord, Lord" and Jesus will turn to them and say, "get away from me I never knew you."

Grace and peace to you.

John

 I thought I accepting Jesus was about love not being covered "Just in case scenario". 

Isn't Atheism in a sense a religion?

 Nevermind that question at the end ..I got off topic. Sorry.

Evidence of unity in diversity. What a concept.

One day there will be some who cry, "Lord, Lord" and Jesus will turn to them and say, "get away from me I never knew you."

[/quote]

Do you really believe this John? But maybe God will say "But, I knew you. You are forgiven. Come on in."

Hi crazyheart,

I believe that it is part of the narrative of scripture.

I would not be surprised if Jesus did, in fact, say it.  He seemed to have some pretty pointed words for those who thought appearances proved righteousness.

To some I am sure God will say as much.  I don't believe it will be said to all.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Removed comment.

 2 comments:

1. Sounds like Pascal's wager -- Check out  http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm  if interested.  Pascal: "You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist."

2. I also like Wm Willimon's take: "We don't claim that the gospel is helpful or interesting; we only claim that it is true."  Perhaps we are not asking the right question.

Pascal's Wager is one of the more morally bankrupt reasons to believe in God.

First, it assumes a God who, above all, wants to be believed in, or else He will banish you to hell.  It supposes a rather vile God who I would not be inclined to worship, even if I did believe in Him.

Second, it suggests that people be intellectually dishonest.  It suggests that, if you don't believe, you should set aside your doubt and your questions and your reason, and simply believe.  Is this what your "God" wants?  People to consciously lie to themselves?

Christopher Hitchens does a much better job than I can here, answering the Wager from an audience member:

I had a quest this week - a hard core scientist - and we talked about evidence - he measures through a telescope to get evidence of stars - objective.  However, he also pointed out as a sceptic he would not limit evidence to that which is measured nor use objective to express evidence - faith is both evidence in the sense of its role in human experience and it is objective.  It is objective yet also open to human construction - that is some theory about the nature of the world in the same way he uses theory to explain the stars.  When is using measurement he gets a picture but not a full picture of the cosmos.  That takes more.

As long as supernaturalism is the view of both the conservative religious person and the anti theist then we move no where in our theological discussion. 

Yes chansen our common thread was the rejection of some literalistic explanation -

One another point we misusnderstand eternity - it is beyond time thus not in space and time.  However many religious comments act as it it is space and time.  This fact of beyond our understanding of time opens us to all sorts of cosmological questions. 

Pan, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.  Seriously - I'm at a bit of a loss.

What is a "hard core scientist"?  I can see someone in astronomy using subjective language to describe his findings, but of course he can't see everything.

As for supernaturalism, that is the nature of many religious claims.  We can't avoid the subject, so long as we're talking about Christianity.

And on what basis do you say we "minsunderstand eternity"? 

We, most people in general, misunderstand eternity because we think that time will go on for ever and ever, which it won't. The big bang created both time and space and started at a given point, it will also end at another given point. Anything that has a beginning must have an end.

However, there is a concept that our consciousness can reach a level of awareness where it actually stands outside of time and space. A point of view that's beyond the rule of past, present and future. This is the true eternity.

Kurt Vonnegut, an American satirist, writes in his book Slaugherhouse-File, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse-Five, of a place called Tralfamadore, where past, present and future exist at once and stars look like "luminous spaghetti".

In know this is fiction, but sometimes some of our greatest modern day prophets are our science fiction writers.

This quote probably doesn't add much to the subject at hand, but it is a good interlude to the subject at hand.

AS Neo suggests  we have taken a concept of kingdom of God which is to be on earth and made it a place in heaven.  If God is both in time ( as we know it) and beyond time then that changes the idea of heaven -  it is not a place in time and space.  It is not a reward. 

The idea is to make this world a place that represents the kingdom of God.   Whaat happened is those who sought to control changed it into heaven and then sold it to control people.  This trait is still with us and warped christianity to reward.

Other religions still have ( as does christianity) that eternity is outside time and space.  But even there some who wish to control people misuse the idea as reward.

Chansen I what I was refering to in my illustration of my friend in astronomy from a dinner party conversation with other scientists was in response to the use of evidence and fact that many use here.   This is the question of empirical and the two uses of it that are influenced by a world view ( here is that word- metaphysical assumptions).

All these scientists said there is a divide in the craft between those who measure and then say that is all of reality - what is called empirical research but they call crude empiricism.  Then is the deep empiricism ( William James) that is in keeping with the scientific method but is open to a more in what they measure.

The first functions well to acheive ( measurement) what science acheives and to make it fact or final evidence of a thing or reality is to miss the point. Now much of the atheism is based on the crude empiricism and ignores that it is based on a world view - modernism.  But while that world view gives us much it does not give us reality which demands a post modern idea. 

In the first relationality is atoms running into one another so it is external.  In the second it is energy in relationship thus internal experience that is inter subjective.

This changes the nature of fact or evidence.

The next problem is faith and belief - belief is crude empiricism - this is what you must believe and it is unchanging.  Whereas faith is changing in response to the changing reality/  Faith understands formulations like doctrine to be open to change and never the truth in the final sense.

You said"As for supernaturalism, that is the nature of many religious claims.  We can't avoid the subject, so long as we're talking about Christianity."

Yes it can be avoided because supernaturalism is not an idea that can be held and yes some within the tradition are there but many are not.  Thus when arguing one must determine first if it is a supernaturalist one is speaking to, and here we share - we reject that doctrine and can show how it is not faithful to the tradition.  Thus to engage a theist who is not a supernaturalists, the atheist must deal with the idea of God that forms the theist in question.  Many of us theist here are not supernaturalists and reject it, and it is a problem in a conversation when that limited idea is used as the straw man in a rejection of some form of theism. 

A none supernaturalist view changes evidence or what is evidence for  a reality in space and time and beyond it.  A panentheistism view fits with a scientific view.  And the dinner table conversation of scientist felt it was a possible view to hold and one did not have to be an atheist when they had held that view before.

Insurance sounds so legalist. Boarding pass sounds better IMO. And yes, you have something to lose since salvation is for all people. If Jesus is God and you reject it, wouldn't that mean that you reject God? Talking of Jesus and God separately as if they were two Gods is the huge problem of Trinity. It is one and the same God in Christianity.

Ichthys, how insecure is your god, that he makes it so important that everyone believe in him?

I mean, he's supposed to be God.  He's all knowing and all powerful and stuff.  So why the desperate need for insignificant humans to believe in him, or he'll torture us?

Personally, I'm happy to reject both Jesus and God, or Jesus/God/HolySpirit, or whatever combination of the three you want, because I haven't found a good reason to believe, and this is probably the worst of the bunch.  Similarly, I don't fear boogeyman, ghosts or zombies.  Further, I don't appreciate the use of fear as a marketing tool, and I think it makes Christians who use it look gullible and cowardly by extension.

Ah, but you do!  God loves you!  He created hell for Satan and his followers.  The Bible says He doesn't want any to perish.  If you don't want to be in heaven with God, that is YOUR choice. 

As all and sundry here who read my posts know - I passionately agree with the one to one equation of Jesus with God. I would prod you, though, because a person rejects God, does that mean God rejects that person? Or is God's grace sufficient? I believe that the power of God's love is that God continues to love even those who reject God. I believe that the power of God's love is that God will accept even those who have turned away from God. I believe that the power of God's love is that God loves and accepts even -- chansen! Now, that's divine love!  

Faith brings us assurance; grace gives us salvation.

Nice steven