Let's just look at 2 possibilities: Atheism vs. Christianity

Understanding that neither can be entirely proven correct nor wrong at least until death and then can't be reported back to those still alive assuming that anything or something happens after death.

Atheist refers to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. When referring to life after death and sitting with God and possibly the son of God, Jesus, this justy isn't going to happen to an atheist.

Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God and the only way to heaven is by accepting that Jesus is the messiah and all who believe in him will have eternal life.

Let's say atheist are right. After death...nothing but black. You don't even know you're dead. Just complete nothing. Well...those silly Christians wasted their life believing in something that didn't exist. Oooops.

Now... let's say Christians are right and there is actually life after death. Those who believed in Jesus get door number 1. The others... door number 2. Ooooops.
I'm not advocating that this should persuade either side to change their beliefs... just a thought I had the other day.
What if "they" were right.

The Pascal's Wager you brought up is a good point.

Unfortunately some years ago some guy tried to replace the point with an argument that this means 'you can believe anything with this logic' as an argument.

Even thought there is no flying spagetti monster, or any demand you believe in one.

It's really sad that they are so quick to suspend thinking when it comes to their eternal soul.

actually the primary argument against pascal's wager is that it assumes there is no cost for belief, and it doesn't have to be vengeance in the afterlife from another god. for a lot of people pascal's wager intrinsically would have huge costs in this life. i was miserable as a christian and have been a much happier, more fulfilled person without it. how sad would it be if this life is all there is, and i wasted my time in utter misery forcing myself to believe something that happened to be false?

irrelevant - there are plenty of other gods that people actually believe or believed in, many of which do/did demand exclusive worship and/or obedience. if "god" exists and has a reward/punishment system based on what happens in this life, you have no way to be 100% confident what his requirements are. that should be obvious since christians can't even agree among themselves about that.
wouldn't someone who, based on their view of objective evidence, doesn't believe the bible is true have to suspend thinking and either fake belief or become self-brainwashed to take advantage of pascal's wager? what kind of god would reward what is actually insincere or forced-false belief, and punish someone who is acting sincerely?

I have no idea why you continue to bang your head against a wall and bring logic and reasoning into these debates.

But I am glad you do.

Personally, I feel like giving up my Sunday mornings 40-52 weeks a year would be quite a cost. But I worship at the altar of football like a savage heathen. (Also, imo, this explains why the west coast is so hippiesque.....if football started at 10am going to church on sunday really really blows 5 months a year.)

actually the primary argument against pascal's wager is that it assumes there is no cost for belief, and it doesn't have to be vengeance in the afterlife from another god. for a lot of people pascal's wager intrinsically would have huge costs in this life. i was miserable as a christian and have been a much happier, more fulfilled person without it. how sad would it be if this life is all there is, and i wasted my time in utter misery forcing myself to believe something that happened to be false?

irrelevant - there are plenty of other gods that people actually believe or believed in, many of which do/did demand exclusive worship and/or obedience. if "god" exists and has a reward/punishment system based on what happens in this life, you have no way to be 100% confident what his requirements are. that should be obvious since christians can't even agree among themselves about that.
wouldn't someone who, based on their view of objective evidence, doesn't believe the bible is true have to suspend thinking and either fake belief or become self-brainwashed to take advantage of pascal's wager? what kind of god would reward what is actually insincere or forced-false belief, and punish someone who is acting sincerely?

I've never thought about this, but that WOULD suck! I would just find a church like mine that has many services, including one or two on Saturday night.

I've never thought about this, but that WOULD suck! I would just find a church like mine that has many services, including one or two on Saturday night.

Personally, I feel like giving up my Sunday mornings 40-52 weeks a year would be quite a cost.

Don't forget Christianity's 10 percent vig.

I actually like that a lot. Kudos to your church. Asking people to come in on Sunday morning is so demanding......why not have an early sat. night service.....you are not infringing on the Sabbath AND people could come get their absolvance on before going out on the town and sinning up a storm.

I'm going to make some comments even though this post was generally tongue and cheek.

1) Protecting the sabbath is a Jewish thing, not a Christian thing.

2) The people that only care about honoring God while at church are not the type of people that go to my church. (in the general sense) Obviously there can people that are hypocrites, but the whole point of loving God and desiring to honor him is to do so when your "church friends" ARE NOT around.

And I am not sure why you described tithing as a Jewish concept. I have never encountered it in all my years and I was Bar Mitzvahed and everything.

No, he said the keeping of a sabbath was a jewish thing, not tithing. Unless I missed something.

I have no idea why you continue to bang your head against a wall and bring logic and reasoning into these debates.

But I am glad you do.

Personally, I feel like giving up my Sunday mornings 40-52 weeks a year would be quite a cost. But I worship at the altar of football like a savage heathen. (Also, imo, this explains why the west coast is so hippiesque.....if football started at 10am going to church on sunday really really blows 5 months a year.)

To hell with it all... I'm joining the Church of the Fonz.
Aeeeyyyyyyyyy!

actually the primary argument against pascal's wager is that it assumes there is no cost for belief, and it doesn't have to be vengeance in the afterlife from another god. for a lot of people pascal's wager intrinsically would have huge costs in this life. i was miserable as a christian and have been a much happier, more fulfilled person without it. how sad would it be if this life is all there is, and i wasted my time in utter misery forcing myself to believe something that happened to be false?

irrelevant - there are plenty of other gods that people actually believe or believed in, many of which do/did demand exclusive worship and/or obedience. if "god" exists and has a reward/punishment system based on what happens in this life, you have no way to be 100% confident what his requirements are. that should be obvious since christians can't even agree among themselves about that.

wouldn't someone who, based on their view of objective evidence, doesn't believe the bible is true have to suspend thinking and either fake belief or become self-brainwashed to take advantage of pascal's wager? what kind of god would reward what is actually insincere or forced-false belief, and punish someone who is acting sincerely?

I just meant you should not bn infringing on our holy time. As far as number 2, well obviously this is what SHOULD be true but I think even your church probably has some people who are only pious when their church friends are around.

And I am not sure why you described tithing as a Jewish concept. I have never encountered it in all my years and I was Bar Mitzvahed and everything.

No, he said the keeping of a sabbath was a jewish thing, not tithing. Unless I missed something.

I'm saying that both of these are 100% Jewish. Tithing is only spoken about in the covenant with Abraham in the OLD TESTAMENT, there is not a set amount spoken about in the New Testament. Keeping the Sabbath is not mentioned as a requirement in the NEW Testament, it was just an Old testament (e.g. Jewish) requirement.

Just because you use the words objective evidence, it's still just a belief system, seeing as how you're trapped in time/space and fixed on one small planet and haven't really even grasped Unifying theory yet, so to say you have enough data to determine the reason/method for existance or have concluded that there is no God really isn't anything more worthy of respect than saying Jamie Gold is the best poker player in the world because he won the ME once.

Says you, I am pretty sure most Chrisitans are very much in agreement.

This correct, the sabbath requirement became "the first day of the week" requirement, by new testament example.

says polls. US christians are virtually split down the middle on whether accepting biblical christianity at all is a necessary requirement for salvation.

I'm saying that both of these are 100% Jewish. Tithing is only spoken about in the covenant with Abraham in the OLD TESTAMENT, there is not a set amount spoken about in the New Testament. Keeping the Sabbath is not mentioned as a requirement in the NEW Testament, it was just an Old testament (e.g. Jewish) requirement.

For the ninth or tenth time, the Bible has nothing to do with polls. "John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life no one comes to the father except through me." These "Christians" are not Christians. They are religious people that don't care about God or the Bible.

I'm still waiting for this list of "many" gods that require exclusive worship. Make sure you use relevant gods.

Hmmm. Well you guys co-opted the tithing thing. The 10% requirement did not exist at my temple or any other temple I know of.

Maybe it is because we are cheap.

I watched a segment on CBS Sunday Morning a few months back about the tithe (giving 10%). They interviewed a pastor and many of the parishiners. When they asked to see the passage in the bible that said give 10% he presented a passage that really could have been interpreted as anything. It was pretty obvious that he was fervent of all the parishiners giving him 10% of there income though. He looked very well off. The poor lady with the sick kids that couldn't afford medicine that still gave him 10% was pathetic. Another thing that I pretty much despise about religon.

The Pascal's Wager you brought up is a good point.

Unfortunately some years ago some guy tried to replace the point with an argument that this means 'you can believe anything with this logic' as an argument.

It stuck.

Even thought there is no flying spagetti monster, or any demand you believe in one.

It's really sad that they are so quick to suspend thinking when it comes to their eternal soul.

What are you talking about? Do you have a references for this? I've never heard of such a thing.

Question: Why dont you adhere to the rationale of Pascal's Wager in other areas of life? For instance, Republicans are pretty dismissive of global warming as a whole. Many of them are also Christian.

However, the threat of global warming fits very neatly into Pascal's Wager. If the Global warming proponents are correct, and we do nothing then we lose everything (the Earth). If we clean up the Earth and it turns out global warming was overblown....hey all we have done is create a cleaner than necessary planet.

It's really sad that people are so quick to suspend thinking when it comes to the only planet they have.

Well, from a christian perspective it doesn't really matter, no matter what we do we were not meant to be here forever, anyway. The global warming crowd is made up largely of very scared humans with little to no hope of eternal life, so this is it for them, and if this is it for them than it must be true for others as well. I am not as dismissive of global warming as I am dismissive of the idea that it matters in the grand scheme of things. This world was created to end in time.

That being said, give it a few years, and you will see, as always, there will be yet another thing you just be afraid of and this will not be that big of a deal. Whatever the science special of the decade will be all the rage, and when that is debunked as well there will be no accountability, because a very large portion of this scoiety needs to be told they are in error, needs to live in fear, because it makes them feel like they matter.

fair enough. I was merely pointing out the parallels......I suppose the end of days is not such a big deal if you think you and your kids will be on the express train to utopia.

your thoughts on fear and scared humans apply just as readily to the scare tactics that dominate our country's discussions on the war on terror imo.

other "christians" would say that's your opinion based on your interpretation of the bible, and they interpret it including that passage differently. what you want to call them is irrelevant. i'm sure many would say they don't consider your exclusivity very christ-like.

Hmmm. Well you guys co-opted the tithing thing. The 10% requirement did not exist at my temple or any other temple I know of.

Maybe it is because we are cheap.

If this was the case, which I agree with you is very likely, then these people would have started their own new religion based on whatever they felt was best. It's obvious that the Bible is exclusive... to say any different makes you look stupid. Show me a Biblical scholar that "interprets" it any different and I'll show you an idiot. I could care less what the polls say how people think Christ would act. I will read the only book that tells me what he would do.

I am going to use a very cliche answer.
What if you are wrong about santa claus? No more gifts at christmas.
What if you are wrong about Islam and Allah? oooops

This qustion of "what if you are wrong?" is such an empty question.

what you believe is irrelevant. the point was people believe a lot of things, and it's intellectually dishonest (and egotistic) to claim your particular belief intrinsically comes with exclusive rights to pascal's wager.

No it's not. It's intellectually dishonest to say that people that claim to be Christians and yet don't care what the Bible says about anything, should have any bearing on the conversation at hand.

Also a key point to Pascal's wager was the fact that you can easily throw out 'gods' that don't matter, like the FSM. If a god like Ra, never talked to anyone and never told us that we should believe in him exclusively for salvation then why would he be in the equation. He would only be brought up by people trying to confuse the facts with fiction.

they care about the bible. what you see as an obvious interpretation they see differently. i know a few christians who still think singing hymns with instrumental music is a hell-worthy sin, and claim they can support that biblically. i assume you think that's silly and you're not about to worry about what they believe just because of pascal's wager, nor should you - any more than someone who feels they have good reason to believe the bible is mythology should worry about christianity just because of pascal. the whole idea is just stupid (pascal literally had brain damage when he came up with it).
if you want to narrow it down to only gods that people believe in today, sure you can throw out egyptian, mayan etc gods, but those gods certainly talked to their priests and made demands with negative consequences for disobedience in this life or the next. and you're still stuck with islam. you don't get to discard it just because the koran says the earth is flat or whatever. christianity is every bit as primitive and superstitious a belief as islam, and it's not really that significantly larger a belief at this point. if i were you i'd start covering my women and praying to mecca. can't take any chances you know.

Then your temple doesn't follow the Torah, which is fine, but it doesn't.

Now let us make a midrash on these things. If we apply the fourth rule of Hillel (building of a father from two or more texts) we see that a general Torah principle emerges as we examine the Mosaic Tithe, Abraham's Tithe and Jacob's tithe. These passages point to a general Torah principle by which YHWH provides Torah teachers through the tithes of his people and by which YHWH's Torah teachers are supported by the tithes of those who benefit from their teaching.

If you are Jewish, reside in the Land of Israel and harvest produce from the Land then you are required by the Torah to pay the Mosaic tithe as described above to Levite Torah teachers.

If you are not Jewish or do not raise produce in the Land of Israel then you should follow the Torah principle of supporting your Torah teachers through YHWH's tithe.

Actually there is widespread misunderstanding of the Biblical tithing obligation. The Torah does not actually command a general tithe of agricultural produce for the poor. The "first tithe" described in the Torah actually goes not to the poor, but to the tribe of the Levites.


This tithe is a fascinating example of the anti-aristocratic element present from the very beginning of Jewish history. To the best of my knowledge, the institution of hereditary landed gentry was present in virtually every civilized land until only a few generations ago, yet was found in not a single organized Jewish community since antiquity. Indeed, an intensely debated program for so-called Jewish "improvement" at the beginning of the 19th century counted among Jewish "failings" the following: "No class distinctions". (1)


Instead of an aristocracy — a dominant, landed class that collects taxes from subservient tenants or serfs based on their ownership of land, the Torah presents the tribe of Levi as a model anti-aristocracy, a class of itinerant scholars who collect taxes from free citizens based on their own lack of ownership of land. "Don't abandon the Levite in your gates, for he has no portion and inheritance among you" (Deuteronomy 14:27).


More precisely, their inheritance is spiritual, not material: "Therefore, Levi has no portion and inheritance with his brothers; the Lord is his inheritance, as the Lord your G-d spoke to him" (Deuteronomy 10:9). The first tithe, which is given to the tribe of Levi, is meant to free them and compensate them for devotion to G-d's work: "And to the children of Levi I have given the tithe in Israel as a portion, in return for the service they serve, the service of the Tent of Meeting" (Numbers 18:21). As Maimonides explains, the service in the Tabernacle is only an example; the Levites are meant to devote themselves to learning and teaching Torah.


Thus, the first tithe was designed to advance enlightenment, not domination.


The second tithe also was not devoted solely to the poor. The agricultural cycle in the land of Israel is seven years in duration. In the seventh, or Sabbatical year, all produce is freely available to all. In the third and sixth years, there is a second tithe given to the poor. In the remaining four years, the farmer himself takes the second tithe, or its value, and consumes it in Jerusalem together with his family, taking due care to share it also with the less fortunate.


The second tithe is not collected and redistributed by some central authority; rather, it is distributed by the farmer individually. In the first, second, fourth and fifth years he has to actually meet and endow the poor; in the third and sixth year he is expected to actually invite them to join him in his good fortune. "And the Levite, who has no portion and inheritance with you, will come; and the stranger, and the orphan and the widow in your gates; and they will eat and be satisfied, so that the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do" (Deuteronomy 14:29).


Thus this tithe was meant not only to support the poor but also to advance social solidarity by creating a meaningful interface and interaction between haves and have-nots.

The Biblical tithing obligation applies only to agricultural produce in the land of Israel. But for hundreds of years it has been customary to donate a portion of our income to charity, and the most accepted amount is one tenth of after-tax income. The Shulchan Aruch (authoritative Code of Jewish law) states that the average person should give one-tenth of his income to charity, and that anything less is considered stingy. (3)


This custom retains the spirit of the original agricultural tithe. The personal element is maintained, as this tithe is distributed according to individual discretion and is in addition to regular taxes, including communal levies, which are administered by the community as a whole. (4)


Likewise, the custom keeps the focus on enlightenment. While the main recipients of charity funds are the poor, a Midrash states that the foremost recipient of tithes should be "Those who labor in the Torah," (5) and Torah scholars and Torah education are given a high priority. And when giving to the poor, the highest level of charity is that given to enable a person to earn an independent living. (6)


We see that the original tithing obligation of the Torah, and its modern-day equivalent, are far more than a simple "poor tax"; they are a tool not only to fight poverty, but also to increase enlightenment, equality, and social solidarity.

SOURCES: (1) See Amos Elon, The Pity of It All, pg. 114 (2) Maimonides Code, Laws of Shemitta 13:12 (3) Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 249:1 (4) Turei Zahav commentary on Yoreh Deah 249:1 (5) Midrash Tanchuma, Deuteronomy 14:22 (6) Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 249:6

The Pascal's Wager you brought up is a good point.

Unfortunately some years ago some guy tried to replace the point with an argument that this means 'you can believe anything with this logic' as an argument.

It stuck.

Even though there is no flying spagetti monster

or any demand you believe in one.

It's really sad that they are so quick to suspend thinking when it comes to their eternal soul.

This is 100% Jewish, 0% Christianity.