One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
If you had a choice...
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Jan 5, 2016 20:18:37   #
RWNJ
 
Would you want to live in a universe without God, and face oblivion when you die, or live in a universe where God exists and rewards the faithful and punishes sinners?

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 20:30:53   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
RWNJ wrote:
Would you want to live in a universe without God, and face oblivion when you die, or live in a universe where God exists and rewards the faithful and punishes sinners?
The faithful are also sinners.

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 20:35:10   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
RWNJ wrote:
Would you want to live in a universe without God, and face oblivion when you die, or live in a universe where God exists and rewards the faithful and punishes sinners?


RWJN - Some might use Pascal's Wager in making their decision:

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."


As to me, I count myself an agnostic and try to live my life honorably and without malice. I don't feel the need to grapple with that question too much and just do the best I can.

Reply
 
 
Jan 5, 2016 20:40:31   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
PaulPisces wrote:
RWJN - Some might use Pascal's Wager in making their decision:

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."


As to me, I count myself an agnostic and try to live my life honorably and without malice. I don't feel the need to grapple with that question too much and just do the best I can.
RWJN - Some might use Pascal's Wager in making the... (show quote)
Where does an agnostic get his code of honor?

Just curious.

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 20:50:22   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
Super Dave wrote:
Where does an agnostic get his code of honor?

Just curious.


Perhaps I am a bit unfair since I was raised in the Episcopalian tradition. I can't completely discount my past and what it taught me. But as an adult I can understand that a belief in a specific God is not required to choose to treat others fairly and with compassion. The people of Tibet have been living in an honorable way since the 5th century without belief in a specific God.

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 21:17:42   #
gynojunkie
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Perhaps I am a bit unfair since I was raised in the Episcopalian tradition. I can't completely discount my past and what it taught me. But as an adult I can understand that a belief in a specific God is not required to choose to treat others fairly and with compassion. The people of Tibet have been living in an honorable way since the 5th century without belief in a specific God.


Well-said! Not to discount the existence of a supreme being, but I believe that one can live a good life--harming no one who does not harm you--without a 'ten commandments' to show one the proper road to travel.

The existence of God just makes the trip all the more meaningful...

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 21:23:28   #
RWNJ
 
Good answers, but I asked which you would prefer.

Reply
 
 
Jan 5, 2016 21:29:20   #
gynojunkie
 
RWNJ wrote:
Good answers, but I asked which you would prefer.


I would prefer a universe with a God to mete out justice; it seems that the good die young and the scoundrels and the truly evil create Foundations and run for president........

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 21:33:18   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Perhaps I am a bit unfair since I was raised in the Episcopalian tradition. I can't completely discount my past and what it taught me. But as an adult I can understand that a belief in a specific God is not required to choose to treat others fairly and with compassion. The people of Tibet have been living in an honorable way since the 5th century without belief in a specific God.


I agree....Your inner soul is speaking Paul~~~I like it!! :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 22:22:50   #
3jack
 
RWNJ wrote:
Would you want to live in a universe without God, and face oblivion when you die, or live in a universe where God exists and rewards the faithful and punishes sinners?


Flooding, wild fires, tornados, extreme heat, extreme cold, and earthquakes are all occurring in the "bible belt" states. Is god punishing sinners in those states?

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 22:28:25   #
RWNJ
 
3jack wrote:
Flooding, wild fires, tornados, extreme heat, extreme cold, and earthquakes are all occurring in the "bible belt" states. Is god punishing sinners in those states?


TROLL ALERT!

3jerk the internet troll
3jerk the internet troll...

Reply
 
 
Jan 5, 2016 22:40:41   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
RWNJ wrote:
Good answers, but I asked which you would prefer.


A fair callout RWNJ. But I did not answer your question because I find it a false dichotomy.

My preference would be for an all-loving God who draws all of us, good and (as we perceive them) evil together in a blissful eternity where we gain complete understanding of everything.

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 22:48:29   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
PaulPisces wrote:
A fair callout RWNJ. But I did not answer your question because I find it a false dichotomy.

My preference would be for an all-loving God who draws all of us, good and (as we perceive them) evil together in a blissful eternity where we gain complete understanding of everything.


Silly font on

If you would allow me to teleport UncleE's navy suit for pressing, I feel we would have more bliss (for me at least). :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol:

[/color]Silly font off.

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 22:49:05   #
RWNJ
 
PaulPisces wrote:
A fair callout RWNJ. But I did not answer your question because I find it a false dichotomy.

My preference would be for an all-loving God who draws all of us, good and (as we perceive them) evil together in a blissful eternity where we gain complete understanding of everything.


Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Everyone must make a choice. Accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, or face eternal separation from God. The majority choose the latter option.

Reply
Jan 5, 2016 22:56:32   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
RWNJ wrote:
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Everyone must make a choice. Accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, or face eternal separation from God. The majority choose the latter option.


I would never ask you to waver from your beliefs RWJN, and I support you making your own choice. But I find it arrogant for anyone to say I must believe the same or suffer eternal damnation.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.