Re: virus: Faith vs Relig

Sebastian Kinsey (
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 04:27:14 PST

if you can't force yourself to believe in anything you so decide upon, then it stands to reason that you can't 'choose' to disbelieve.

If that is the must consider that one of the following MUST be true...either God itself or the representative force(hail yoda) is directly responsible for someones status as disbeliever or believer -- thereby alleviating all guilt and subsequent punishment of the disbeliever...........or..........Just going through the 'religious motions' is enough to catch that last bus to heaven, regardless of how insincere your mind may be(the same mind which made the rational decision to 'believe' in something quite irrational)-- so long as this new believer goes through all the necessary rituals in order to obtain the 'forgiveness' which is apparently owed one can really say anything - i.e. stating"ya know, i dont really believe any of this crap, just doin' it ta save my ass!" then later confession,"forgive me lord for i was a blasphemer earlier today...but now i'm all better..sorry - amen".....

the choice between these two inevitable options seems to illustrate how human - not devine, our petty terms of faith and belief really are. I would wager that if people were finally introduced to this GOD thing...they'd start asserting that he too must believe in an even HIGHER force...quite possibly a squid of magenta hue.

>From: "Snow Leopard" <>
>Subject: Re: virus: Faith vs Relig
>Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:52:18 PST
>>I guess when I say ‘religious’, I mean those who put whatever faith
>>they have in their priest, the name of their church, or the
>>traditions, rather than the God those things are supposed to point to.
>>We come from profoundly different view points. When I say religious,
>>I mean people who have spent the time to look into issues, spent the
>>time to look into themselves -- those rare people who are in control
>>of their own divinity. They are the phaithful, to use the new term.
>>When I say "faithful", I mean those who ignore themselves and trust
>>somebody else to make their decisions for them -- be it the priest,
>>the church, the traditions, the bible, or whatever they think their
>>God to be.
>>The reason I come from this angle is that there are *many* religions,
>>and members of them all have the potential to *be religious*; not
>>with-standing the fact that some religions lack gods, and faith.
>Great. I agree. Anyone can be religious. I religiously brush my
>teeth. Maybe we should come up with anoher word, like "relijious" or
>something. Anyhow, religions lack faith is what I've been saying all
>along. If I have the most phaith in the goodness of God, then I'm not
>going to kill someone for their beliefs, because God is good and
>is bad.
>>The bare definition of the Christian faith is “Jesus Christ, the
>>perfect Son of God is the only thing that can save us from our own
>>wrongdoings. All you have to do is let him live through you,
>>accepting him as Lord and Savior.”
>>Well, you've summed up what *Paul* said Christianity was. Now do you
>>care to find out what *Jesus* said it was? Or *James*?
>I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Jesus said follow me
>and I will make you fishers of men. Well, guess what? I agree, and
>this is a lovely fishing hole. I don't happen to have anything for
>James, but the pont is, it's one doctrine told diferent ways, like the
>light of a prism.
>>Or how about -- horror of horrors -- what *you* personally have found
>>of value in Christianity?
>Personally? I've found that Christianity is, for me, a driving force.
>My time talking with all of the people who are don't have phaith in
>Christ, but have sharp intellects, is the best time I have. In a way,
>it's like military service- while I'm doing my duty to tell what I
>believe to be truth, to defend Christianity and uphold morality as best
>as I can (wish me luck) I get to see interesting things and look in on
>many fascinating perspectives.
> <<<snip>>>
>>This argument is known as Pascal's Wager, after Blase Pascal, who
>>first made it. There are many refutations available, but consider
>>Calvin: Well. I've decided I do believe in Santa Claus, no matter
>>how preposterous he sounds.
>>Hobbes: What convinced you?
>>Calvin: A simple risk analysis. I want presents. Lots of presents.
>>Why risk not getting them over a matter of belief? Heck, I'll believe
>>anything they want.
>>Hobbes: How cynically enterprising of you.
>>Calvin: It's the spirit of Christmas.
>> -- Calvin & Hobbes comic by Bill Waterson
>That's nice, but I can disprove Santa Claus a lot easier than you can
>disprove the God of the Bible.
>>Pascal's Wager, although at first convincing, has some serious flaws,
>>not the least of which is that it assumes one can *choose* to believe
>>whatever one wants to. Next on the list is that Pascal's wager does
>>not consider the fact that perhaps choosing to believe in the *wrong*
>>God could have infinite negative consequences, balancing off the
>>infinite positive consequences of belief in the correct god.
>The right god? Pardon me, Eric, but it occurs to me that I may have
>bases covered. I have a working set of beliefs, and in charity to
>whatever may be out there, I check out everything else. The funny
>is, every Biblical *discrepancy* I've heard of so far can be explained,
>if one looks though the Biblical world view. I challenge anyone
>this to point out a few, I'll show you what I mean. On the other hand,
>I have invested an incredible amount of time trying to understand the
>viewpoints of otherr religions. I see the discrepancies, ask around,
>and then the members of *whatever* think that I'm being spiteful. So,
>it looks like they're being sore losers. I keep checking. If God is
>not what I think he is, and he is powerful enoughto do anything, and
>caring enough to think of humans as more than giga-pets, then He'll
>the truth known to me. He knows I'm listening.
>Get Your Private, Free Email at

Get Your Private, Free Email at