Should I convert to Christianity?

The argument is this: if I am an atheist, and if there is no God and if there is no afterlife (as I now believe), in death I neither gain nor lose anything. On the other hand, I am faced with the prospect, however inconceivably unlikely, of eternal hellfire. If I choose Christianity, I shall at least be less likely to face this possibility. If I were to bet that there is no God, and there is no afterlife, I would in death gain nothing if right, and I would be punished for all eternity if wrong. If I were to bet that there is a God, that there is an afterlife, what I would gain if right would be an existence in Heaven. And if I were wrong, I would lose nothing. Would you not bet on something for which you have nothing to lose if wrong, and plenty to gain if right? Or would you bet on something for which you have nothing to gain if right, and plenty to lose if wrong?

What has hitherto made me unable to accept this argument, first articulated by Pascal, is a conviction that if I choose Christianity I lose intellectual integrity, since there is no real reason, religion having its foundation on faith alone, to suppose Christianity true; and it has moreover long been my conviction that it is undesirable to believe in any proposition for which there is no evidence to suppose true. Now I am doubting this line of reasoning. For if Christianity is true and I choose to believe in Christianity, in addition to getting into Heaven I lose not my intellectual integrity in the eyes of God, whose perspective, since He is omniscient, must carry more weight than that of men. The only thing I have to lose if I choose Christianity is my intellectual integrity in the eyes of men; if I choose atheism, and if Christianity turns out to be true, what I have to lose is my soul, and what I am faced with is Hell. What is worse - to lose intellectual integrity in the eyes of men, or in Hell to burn?

I fear two things, however. I fear that I might be incapable of forcing myself to believe in Christianity, and in spite of what I said above I fear by believing in Christianity I would lose any intellectual integrity I might have. I fear this, even whilst fully acknowledging that Christianity is the most logical thing to bet on.

Until I can be convinced otherwise, therefore, I shall practise Christianity by emitting the appropriate conduct without necessarily believing in the religion, in its deity in particular. I cannot force myself into believing any doctrine I esteem preposterous, even although doing so in this case would be highly logical, so far as the 'bet' is concerned, and highly desirable, so far as my well-being in the future is concerned. I am not saying that the belief itself is logical; it is not. But believing in it is logical in the sense that it is an appropriate response to the owning of the possibility, however unlikely, of burning in hell for disbelieving in it, and of the fact that I have nothing to lose in death by believing in it.

This is most problematic for me.

What if Allah is the true God, and Mohammed his prophet?

What if Allah is the true God, and Mohammed his prophet?
I cannot choose other religions. If I choose Buddhism, for example, not only would I be unable to force myself into believing it, but I would have nothing to gain from it which would outweigh what I could gain from Christianity, and nothing to lose which would be greater than what I could lose by not believing in Christianity. Islam, too, is out of the question, because, like Buddhism, I feel I am unable to force myself into believing it. This may be said of many other religions. 'Confucianism' and Taoism are more social ideologies and primitive philosophies than religions per se; moreover, any religion without an afterlife of some sort is out of the question, for obvious reasons. I used to believe in Christianity; it is for that reason the only religion I could be capable of supposing true.
But the argument applies just as much to Islam, Judaism, as it does to Christianity. I could choose any such religion, and I would thereby lessen my chances of burning in Hell, so long as I choose one. It is a logical to bet on any one of the religions which posit hell for those who sin.

Ixabert, you're already a christian big time.

Pascal's wager, eh. Well, if you're thinking about converting to Christianity for the sole purpose of escaping possible damnation, you're not converting on pure intentions. You'll appear just as guilty in judgement. I'd recommend you read the New Testament and see if you'd be able to follow those teachings instead of relying on Pascal's logic (which is not necessary, even contradictory to the desired aim). If you believe that you can give your soul to Christ and become a sheep in His flock, then baptize yourself into the religion. If not, or if you convert on the premise of the current bad faith that you have proposed, then don't waste your time.

@Edana: Allah is the same God of the Jews and Christians. The Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet, and Jesus must be accepted that way, though so must Mohammed. There is no exclusion per se, yet a full recognition of Mohammed as the last prophet.

Well Ixabert, all I can say is if you really want to convert to Christianity; it will be some work since Im assuming you've been an atheist for some time. It took me some time to accept many things about Christianity and such. However, by converting you do not lose intellectual integrity. In fact you'd suprised at the genius of many Christian intellectuals.

Pascal's wager, eh. Well, if you're thinking about converting to Christianity for the sole purpose of escaping possible damnation, you're not converting on pure intentions. You'll appear just as guilty in judgement.

What are you talking about? Ixabert's motivation is covered by imperfect contrition, which is accepted by the Church. God doesnt necessarily care how or why you come to him at first, he's concern at that moment is that you come to him. Afterwards, God hopes to make your motivations more nobler than simply to escape damnation. God has a perfect understanding of man's fallen nature.


@Edana: Allah is the same God of the Jews and Christians.

:rolleyes: No he is not! The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim concepts of God are not the same. For example Judaism has no concept of the Trinity, which is the basis of Christian understanding of God, and neither does Islam.


The Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet, and Jesus must be accepted that way, though so must Mohammed. There is no exclusion per se, yet a full recognition of Mohammed as the last prophet.

The Jesus honored in Islam is significantly different than the Christian Jesus. The Jesus of the Koran has little if anything in common with the Jesus of the four Gospels.

What are you talking about? Ixabert's motivation is covered by imperfect contrition, which is accepted by the Church. God doesnt necessarily care how or why you come to him at first, he's concern at that moment is that you come to him. Afterwards, God hopes to make your motivations more nobler than simply to escape damnation. God has a perfect understanding of man's fallen nature.

You've mistaken God for the church. I suggest you immediately correct your blasphemy.

It is possible for the church to offer the meat of theology and purify the sinner's heart, though the heart of the sinner must be willing to embrace it on the premise of the glorification of the church as Christ's true remnant, of the Saints, of the Virgin Mary, of the Martyrs, of the Holy Spirit deriving from the Son and the Father; one does not become baptized for the selfish affirmation of an eternal 'paradise', nor for the potential to rape little boys. Ixabert has already expressed an affection for them, and I do not doubt that his intentions may be towards this direction. The church needs to be filled by those who are pure of heart and embrace our Lord for His own glory, not for the purpose of an afraid ego bent towards a solution in bad faith nor for any other decadent cause. The church has no use for these heretics. Moreover, quality within the church is extremely important. Saint Paul's writings affirm this.

:rolleyes: No he is not! The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim concepts of God are not the same. For example Judaism has no concept of the Trinity, which is the basis of Christian understanding of God, and neither does Islam.

The Father before Christ's glorious birth was understood by the Hebrews in the theology of Judaism. After the resurrection of Christ, the Hebrews understood God through the Trinity and in the theology of Christianity, which Saint Paul spread to the gentiles. The birth, teachings, and conquests of Mohammed gave rise to an understanding of the Father in terms of the written Quran. Perun, there is no different God, only new prophets that alter the understanding of God.

The Jesus honored in Islam is significantly different than the Christian Jesus. The Jesus of the Koran has little if anything in common with the Jesus of the four Gospels.

Mohammed's understanding of Christ was very limited, as was his understanding of religion in general. That's why he gave himself to the sword to terrorize the people into accepting his blasphemy.

Friends, as True Christians®, we are obliged to try to save as many lost souls as we can. In witnessing at our country club to Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Democrats and other unsaved trash, Heather and I have heard time and again from people who are leery of our faith because they think life as a born-again Christian would be difficult. They actually think our lives are complicated. This gross misconception will ensure that countless people we know will wind up in Hell, roasting on one of Satan’s many pitchforks, as their privates burn to a crisp. We must all spread the message that being a saved Christian isn’t hard at all. In fact, it’s the easiest lifestyle imaginable.
Start out by letting your unsaved friends know they need not have courage to become a Christian. In fact, it is precisely because they lack courage that many of our brothers and sisters became Christians. We all fear death. We all fear the unknown. We all fear the possibility there may be nothing after this mortal life. Psychologists and 12-step programs teach people to confront these fears head-on and overcome them. But True Christians® know better. In fact, our faith uses these fears to induce people to join our ranks. We say, “Of course, you fear death, as well you should, because not only is death the end of this life, but it is the beginning of eternal torment and pain. But if you accept Jesus, there is no death, but only everlasting life in utopia.” Why should anyone have to confront his fears when our faith promises an afterlife of all good and no bad?

Let your unsaved friends know they don’t need self-esteem to be Christians. In fact, self-esteem is a barrier to salvation. Christians don’t think positively about ourselves, for our faith teaches that we are miserable beings, born into sin. Every one of us is so despicable that we deserve to burn in flames forever. It is only by the grace of God that we will wind up in Heaven—we have certainly done nothing to deserve to be there. Christians take no pride in anything we accomplish on Earth, for worldly accomplishments are evil (1 John 2:16; 1 Timothy 3:6). True Christians®, like many psychiatric outpatients, think of ourselves as totally undeserving, wretched beings, who are lucky God has decided to spare us. In other words, one needn’t seek psychiatric help and eliminate feelings of self-doubt and worthlessness to be a Christian. Those emotions are the essence of our faith and a key to our salvation.

Let your unsaved friends know, as Christians, they won’t have to worry about or deal with their problems. Are they poverty-stricken? Illiterate? In ill health? In an abusive relationship? Secular thought would have them seek education, job training, a healthier lifestyle and divorce to overcome these problems. But True Christians® know better. We tell them they shouldn’t be ashamed of their plight at all. In fact, they should be proud to be disenfranchised. After all, the meek, the poor, the hungry and the persecuted are blessed (Matthew 5:3-6). They will be rewarded in Heaven for their suffering on Earth. Become a Christian and you will no longer feel compelled to cope or deal with your mortal problems.

Finally, let your unsaved friends know they needn’t be good people to become Christians. Our faith teaches that we all come up short—we all sin. But by accepting Jesus, all our sins are forgiven – both our sins of the past and the ones we will inevitably commit in the future! In fact, even those committing the most evil acts imaginable will still go to Heaven, so long as they are saved.

The bottom line is that being a Christian is the easiest lifestyle one could ever adopt. You need no courage, no self-esteem and no motivation. In fact, those lacking anything other than the abject desire for something better than what they now have are prime candidates for salvation. Typically, these people turn to alcohol, drugs, sex, food or some other vice. Those crutches cause liver cirrhosis, heart attacks, venereal disease and obesity. Christianity has none of those ill side effects. It’s sugar-free, fat-free and Satan-free.

With this message in hand, you should have no difficulty dramatically improving the success of your witnessing and gaining new entrants to the church. After all, once your friends know that the characteristics of which they are most ashamed are precisely the characteristics that make up a True Christian®, they should have no trouble substituting Jesus for the bottle.

You've mistaken God for the church.

And the church is God's representive on earth.


I suggest you immediately correct your blasphemy.

Its not blasphemy. :rolleyes:



The church needs to be filled by those who are pure of heart and embrace our Lord for His own glory, not for the purpose of an afraid ego bent towards a solution in bad faith nor for any other decadent cause.


http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/essays/worth.htm

"The men of to-day who are so far from Christianity are fond of saying that the Church ought to be made up of perfect people, saints, and complain of her that she includes so many faulty persons, sinners, and pseudo-Christians. It is the standing argument against Christianity, and it is one that betrays non-comprehension or forgetfulness of the nature and essence of the Church. The Church exists before all else for sinners, for imperfect and wandering beings. Her origins are in Heaven and her principle is eternal, but she operates on the earth and in time, among elements submerged in sin; her first business is to succour an erring world at grips with suffering, to save it for eternal life and raise it to the heavens. The essence of Christianity is a union of eternity and time, of Heaven and earth, of the divine and the human, and not any separation between them: the human and temporal are not to be despised and rejected but enlightened and transfigured."
--Nikolai Berdyaev the Worth of Christianity and the Unworthiness of Christians




The Father before Christ's glorious birth was understood by the Hebrews in the theology of Judaism.

The religion of the Hebrews is not Judaism.

"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
--Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser Judaism and the Christian Predicament p. 59

In fact on page 3 of the 1980 Jewish Almanac further debunks this notion when it states:
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all....."

Judaism has origins in the Babylonian Captivity not the Israelite religion. Rabbi Stepehen Wise admitted this when he stated: "The return from Babylon, and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, marks the end of Hebrewism, and the beginning of Judaism."

Perun, there is no different God, only new prophets that alter the understanding of God.

:rolleyes:
"...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other. ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. There is not any similarity between the two concepts."
--Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August 1961

Tell me another one Julius! :rolleyes:

Im not even getting into the nonsense Timo wrote. :rolleyes:

God has a perfect understanding of man's fallen nature.
He ought to. After all, He's responsible for it (supposing that the tenets of Christianity are true).

This "perfect" God that Christians believe in made the first men imperfectly. How so? Because a perfect man would, by definition, be incapable of error. He would always be capable of doing evil, perhaps, but he would never be tempted to disobey God; he would shrink from the thought of sin with absolute horror.

Here's an analogy. Human beings have no innate desire to eat dog crap. Could anything on earth tempt you to eat a dog turd? I hope not. Yet we still have free will to eat dog crap if we really want to; no one is stopping any one of us from picking one up off the lawn and chowing down on it. It's just that we would never dream of doing so. The very thought is too disgusting. Well, that's the way God could have made man with respect to sin. God could have given man 100% free will, yet at the very same time filled man with a strong aversion to sin of any kind. Yet He didn't. Hence, it's God's fault that mankind fell -- and that Lucifer fell too, for that matter. Of course this contradicts mainstream Christian teaching, but that's too bad: it's an airtight argument.

Most Christians are terrified to honestly engage in the sort of reasoning above, since they know deep down that it might compromise or even destroy their faith. Even better, they imagine that God is constantly monitoring their thoughts with a critical eye and deep frown. Most people are not able to break out of this mental prison, but those who are know that, in the end, the only thing they're really guilty of is unflinching honesty.

This "perfect" God that Christians believe in made the first men imperfectly. How so? Because a perfect man would, by definition, be incapable of error. He would always be capable of doing evil, perhaps, but he would never be tempted to disobey God; he would shrink from the thought of sin with absolute horror.

Here's an analogy. Human beings have no innate desire to eat dog crap. Could anything on earth tempt you to eat a dog turd? I hope not. Yet we still have free will to eat dog crap if we really want to; no one is stopping any one of us from picking one up off the lawn and chowing down on it. It's just that we would never dream of doing so. The very thought is too disgusting. Well, that's the way God could have made man with respect to sin. God could have given man 100% free will, yet at the very same time filled man with a strong aversion to sin of any kind. Yet He didn't. Hence, it's God's fault that mankind fell -- and that Lucifer fell too, for that matter.

Free will is conceptualized philosophically as the ability to do otherwise. As long as man has the ability to do otherwise on any given occasion, he is free. The doctrine of Original Sin says that man has an innate tendency toward sin; it does not say he is determined to sin. It would be God's fault if Original Sin implied determinism, but you have not shown that to be the case.

Wait a minute, where does the Bible posit free will?

Free will is conceptualized philosophically as the ability to do otherwise. As long as man has the ability to do otherwise on any given occasion, he is free. The doctrine of Original Sin says that man has an innate tendency toward sin; it does not say he is determined to sin. It would be God's fault if Original Sin implied determinism, but you have not shown that to be the case.I realize that Original Sin doesn't imply determinism -- no argument there. But what I'm saying is that God could have very easily created mankind such that the "fall of man" would never occur. In other words, God could have created the first humans with such an innate revulsion toward sin that they would never have done so, even though they would have always had the capability to sin (i.e., free will). Yet God chose not to do this. That means that God planned for sin to develop. He foresaw that sin would happen if He created things the way He did, yet He chose to set up the machine in a defective manner anyway.

Looking at this issue from another angle, let's assume that heaven exists and that all Christians go there. Well, what will stop people from sinning while in heaven? And why could God not have simply created everything that way in the first place, so that sin would never occur? If free will is so important to God, then why does He not give it to people in heaven? Or, if it is argued that people in heaven DO have free will, then what's to stop them from sinning and getting kicked out of heaven?

And then there's the even more basic question of "Lucifer" and the other fallen angels. Why did Lucifer disobey God? Because Lucifer was excessively proud and/or envious, say the Christians. Well, who made Lucifer with those character flaws? His creator: God. God created Lucifer in a defective state, knowing full well that if He did so Lucifer would eventually disobey Him. Yet God chose to incorporate those defects into Lucifer anyway. Does that make sense?

The Bible says that "God can even find fault with His angels." I don't see how. After all, any faults in God's angels were put there by God knowingly and deliberately!

Do you guys see now how illogical Christian beliefs about God, Satan, and sin are? I struggled with these questions for years before being forced to admit that to myself.

Wait a minute, where does the Bible posit free will?In many places too numerous to mention here. However, there are also contradictory passages in the Bible that suggest that men's free will is limited. As with many issues, the Bible argues both sides.

Traditional morality teaches that in order for men to be morally responsible for their actions, they must have at least some requisite degree of free will. That teaching makes sense. After all, if men couldn't help but sin, then it would make little sense for God to punish men for sinning -- it would be obviously unjust. On the other hand, it's also unjust for men to "inherit" the tendency to sin on account of some supposed disobedience on the part of the first humans. Why should we who are alive today have to bear the consequences for a sin that was committed long before we were born? Why shouldn't we also get to start with a clean slate? And as pointed out in my last post, the fact that sin exists at all is God's fault, as is the fact that even the potential for sin exists. If God exists, is omniscient and all-powerful, and created everything, then He is also responsible for sin. There is no escaping that conclusion; it's etched in granite.

I realize that Original Sin doesn't imply determinism -- no argument there. But what I'm saying is that God could have very easily created mankind such that the "fall of man" would never occur. In other words, God could have created the first humans with such an innate revulsion toward sin that they would never have done so, even though they would have always had the capability to sin (i.e., free will). Yet God chose not to do this. That means that God planned for sin to develop. He foresaw that sin would happen if He created things the way He did, yet He chose to set up the machine in a defective manner anyway.

That doesn't mean it's God's fault everytime man succumbs to sin. God made sin possible by endowing man with free will; man made it actual through his free choices. You cannot simultaneously maintain that Original Sin doesn't imply determinism and that sin is God's fault.

And as pointed out in my last post, the fact that sin exists at all is God's fault, as is the fact that even the potential for sin exists.

Does God actualize sin, Angler?

Ixabert is a brain in a jar. ( with a little cross written on the label ).
:p

That doesn't mean it's God's fault everytime man succumbs to sin. God made sin possible by endowing man with free will; man made it actual through his free choices. You cannot simultaneously maintain that Original Sin doesn't imply determinism and that sin is God's fault.
But as I explained in my first post on this thread, God could have granted men free will while making it virtually certain that men would never sin. In other words, free will does NOT imply that sin has to exist, or even that the potential for sin has to exist.

I have free will to eat a dog turd. Am I likely to do so? No. In fact, I'm so unlikely to do so, on account of my innate revulsion at the very thought, that for all intents and purposes my eating of a dog turd is impossible. Yet my free will to do so remains. Again: God could have done the very same thing with angels and with people. He could have given them 100% free will and yet prevented them from sinning by imbuing them with strong revulsion at even the thought of sin (or at least a lack of susceptibility to temptation).

God could have done the very same thing with angels and with people. He could have given them 100% free will and yet prevented them from sinning by imbuing them with strong revulsion at even the thought of sin (or at least a lack of susceptibility to temptation).

This is a moot point. You argued that the existence of sin is God's fault because God designed man in such a way that he is inclined to sin. You also conceded that Original Sin does not imply determinism. Now, if man is not determined to sin, then sin is man's fault, as man, being a free being, is morally responsible for his actions. He can refrain from committing a sin when he is tempted to do so. If man could not do otherwise on those occasions when he commits a sin, then the existence of sin would be God's fault and God would only be passing judgement on himself by condemning men to hell.

That God could have given mankind free will and a natural disinclination to sin is irrelevant if what you're trying to show that the existence of sin is God's fault. You need to show that Original Sin determines man to sin.

I cannot choose other religions. If I choose Buddhism, for example, not only would I be unable to force myself into believing it, but I would have nothing to gain from it which would outweigh what I could gain from Christianity, and nothing to lose which would be greater than what I could lose by not believing in Christianity.
This is how Christianity works, and this is how it has come about that the ‘righteous flock’ is so great in number. Note that Christian doctrine serves every possible human motivation: revenge against one’s enemies; desire to be reunited with dead loved ones; and, most primitive in nature, fear of retribution. In mass-‘conversions’ and ‘revivals’, primitive scare tactics such as the promise of hell-fire for the unbeliever are used rather than teachings of hope and love; this is, of course, because the primitive responses evoked by such tactics draw in more ‘believers’ than those evoked by teachings of charity and compassion, just as children are at times motivated to behave well when promised punishment rather than rewards.

It’s funny that you should mention Buddhism, as it serves as one of the best examples of the superiority of Christian doctrine in the way of rounding up followers. The Buddhists sent their missionaries west right around the time Christianity was founded; the Buddhists failed miserably in terms of conversions, as Buddhism promised lesser rewards and, more importantly, lesser punishments than Christianity.

One would assume that someone in possession of a mind as highly-developed as yours would be able to easily discern all of the above; perhaps you did already, and are simply lapsing back into primitive emotionally-driven thought. Ix, all the thoughts you describe are remarkably similar to those I myself had around two or three years ago. Since then I have been doing as you have described; acting like a Christian without actually believing in any of Christianity's tenets. (As Mark Twain once said: "Faith means believing what you know ain't so.")

Ix, perhaps this post is not serious at all; perhaps you are merely trying to point out exactly why Christianity has proved so successful (in which case, I applaud you). :)

Why does an otherwise intelligent person allow a Jewish fairy tale to have such power over him/her even to consider Pascal's Wager as an option?

Of course the answer is cultural conditioning within the Judeo-Christian belief system. Even I myself -- basically a life-long atheist -- felt a bit uneasy the first time I went out of my way and purposely cursed the "God" of the Bible and swore eternal emnity towards that ALIEN religion.

Later I had to laugh at myself because all you have to do is crack the Bible and read a few sentences to see that it is NOTHING but a swirling toilet of superstitious Semitic filth!