Comments on: Helm’s wager http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/ A forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of Christianity and culture. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:32:43 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: SAVEDBYGRACE http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269632 SAVEDBYGRACE Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:25:43 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269632 STEVEG, PAINE - "Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas." He says the same reason that Thomas would not believe is the same reason for him not to believe. He cannot see or touch Jesus so he won't believe. I will re-read The Age of Reason but I believe he is treating the account of Thomas as historical. You're right, it is a reasonable desire just as Peter and John had to run to the tomb to make sure it was empty for themselves. But would it be reasonable to demand that God reveal Himself to every single person in the same way in every generation? I think He has given us enough evidence as it is in the New Testament. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". STEVEG - "those things about God that are both true and necessary for all, God has already revealed universally and objectively." So what about your atheist, Buddhist or Hindu friends? If what God has revealed is necessary for all, and it's universal and objective, then what happens to them? Hebrews 11:6 - "anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." One of the problems with universal salvation is it supports the idea that God rewards those who don't earnestly seek Him. STEVEG,
PAINE – “Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.”

He says the same reason that Thomas would not believe is the same reason for him not to believe. He cannot see or touch Jesus so he won’t believe. I will re-read The Age of Reason but I believe he is treating the account of Thomas as historical. You’re right, it is a reasonable desire just as Peter and John had to run to the tomb to make sure it was empty for themselves. But would it be reasonable to demand that God reveal Himself to every single person in the same way in every generation? I think He has given us enough evidence as it is in the New Testament. Jesus said “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.

STEVEG – “those things about God that are both true and necessary for all, God has already revealed universally and objectively.”

So what about your atheist, Buddhist or Hindu friends? If what God has revealed is necessary for all, and it’s universal and objective, then what happens to them? Hebrews 11:6 – “anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” One of the problems with universal salvation is it supports the idea that God rewards those who don’t earnestly seek Him.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: SteveG http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269539 SteveG Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:29:16 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269539 I understood what you meant, but I wanted to try to put that excerpt into its full context. I think Paine rather is using the story of Thomas, whether true or not, as an example of the reasonableness of wanting to see something so fantastic for yourself rather than depend on someone else's story as a sole basis for belief. I don't think it means Paine is expecting the wounded Christ to appear before him; I think it ties into his larger argument that those things about God that are both true and necessary for all, God has already revealed universally and objectively. As for your second point, I'm always open to having my mind changed, but my experience with Internet debate forums like this is that it rarely happens. It does happen, but not often. The value, I think, is in honing and refining your own arguments, having weaknesses pointed out so you can patch them, and just the fun of arguing ideas. When minds do change, it's usually when there's more going on in the person's life than just the debate, though that can be the catalyst. I understood what you meant, but I wanted to try to put that excerpt into its full context. I think Paine rather is using the story of Thomas, whether true or not, as an example of the reasonableness of wanting to see something so fantastic for yourself rather than depend on someone else’s story as a sole basis for belief.

I don’t think it means Paine is expecting the wounded Christ to appear before him; I think it ties into his larger argument that those things about God that are both true and necessary for all, God has already revealed universally and objectively.

As for your second point, I’m always open to having my mind changed, but my experience with Internet debate forums like this is that it rarely happens. It does happen, but not often. The value, I think, is in honing and refining your own arguments, having weaknesses pointed out so you can patch them, and just the fun of arguing ideas.

When minds do change, it’s usually when there’s more going on in the person’s life than just the debate, though that can be the catalyst.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: SAVEDBYGRACE http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269531 SAVEDBYGRACE Sun, 03 Feb 2008 03:42:10 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269531 STEVEG, Maybe you missed my main point. Paine refers to Thomas' unbelief as if he is a historical person and that his unbelief is historical. The only way we know about Thomas' unbelief is because of John's testimony. So Paine thinks John's testimony alone about Thomas' unbelief is enough evidence but John's testimony about his subsequent seeing, touching and believing is not enough evidence. History is not the same as a court of law because we can't cross examine and we can't bring in more witnesses or take more depositions than what we already have. Maybe some day we will dig up more scrolls but I doubt that would change anyone's mind. If you think it is reasonable to believe that the evidence we have is not reliable, then I just have to pray that these discussions and conversations with other Christians may help to change your mind. STEVEG,
Maybe you missed my main point. Paine refers to Thomas’ unbelief as if he is a historical person and that his unbelief is historical. The only way we know about Thomas’ unbelief is because of John’s testimony. So Paine thinks John’s testimony alone about Thomas’ unbelief is enough evidence but John’s testimony about his subsequent seeing, touching and believing is not enough evidence.

History is not the same as a court of law because we can’t cross examine and we can’t bring in more witnesses or take more depositions than what we already have. Maybe some day we will dig up more scrolls but I doubt that would change anyone’s mind. If you think it is reasonable to believe that the evidence we have is not reliable, then I just have to pray that these discussions and conversations with other Christians may help to change your mind.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: SteveG http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269516 SteveG Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:22:49 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269516 Incidentally, <i>The Age of Reason</i> is available online <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and at a few other sites, if you want to see more for yourself than it's practical quote here. Incidentally, The Age of Reason is available online here and at a few other sites, if you want to see more for yourself than it’s practical quote here.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: SteveG http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269515 SteveG Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:21:10 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269515 SBG at #40: The Paine quote suffers a bit from being excerpted, but it's part of a larger argument he makes about the nature of special revelation. In summary, he argues that a special revelation is only a revelation to the person who directly receives it. To everyone else, it's hearsay. In this passage he's contrasting the virgin birth narratives to the resurrection. The birth narratives, he argues, are purely based on special revelation. God speaks to the principal figures in dreams ... meaning nobody but the dreamer knows for sure what was said. There is no expectation or possibility of any external support, because of the hidden nature of the revelations. He argues the resurrection, and, particularly, the ascension, would have been a publicly seen event had it happened, and that's the part I quoted. <i>(By the way, Paul said that more than 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection, so it wasn’t only 8 or nine as Paine claims)</i> Paul said. None of the 500 apparently ever spoke for themselves. Paine does not treat that assertion specifically, but it plays into his point. We don't have 500 accounts from people who saw Jesus post-crucifixion. We have Paul saying that number saw him. Paine would say this is hearsay evidence at best. SBG at #40: The Paine quote suffers a bit from being excerpted, but it’s part of a larger argument he makes about the nature of special revelation.

In summary, he argues that a special revelation is only a revelation to the person who directly receives it. To everyone else, it’s hearsay.

In this passage he’s contrasting the virgin birth narratives to the resurrection. The birth narratives, he argues, are purely based on special revelation. God speaks to the principal figures in dreams … meaning nobody but the dreamer knows for sure what was said. There is no expectation or possibility of any external support, because of the hidden nature of the revelations.

He argues the resurrection, and, particularly, the ascension, would have been a publicly seen event had it happened, and that’s the part I quoted.

(By the way, Paul said that more than 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection, so it wasn’t only 8 or nine as Paine claims)

Paul said. None of the 500 apparently ever spoke for themselves. Paine does not treat that assertion specifically, but it plays into his point. We don’t have 500 accounts from people who saw Jesus post-crucifixion. We have Paul saying that number saw him. Paine would say this is hearsay evidence at best.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: sodiumpowered http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269512 sodiumpowered Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:07:13 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269512 Well, this is all very philosophical, and veering towards abstract. But I don't believe you can convince people on those grounds. Paul had a little success on Mars Hill, but not much. And afterwards he decided to change tactics. Christianity is true when God has spoken to you directly. You've seen true followers, and seen that there are both genuine (converted) and pretentious (unconverted) Christians. You decide the true ones have something you want. Maybe you have the extra incentive of believing prophecy counts for something, or maybe someone has prayed for you or someone you know, and miracle of miracles, it works. Perhaps you're just convinced that God's principles of love excel everything else you've heard. Etc. What I'm trying to say is, it doesn't boil down to abstract theory about the probability of this or that. It's about being true to my own encounter with divine truth. If you've had no such encounter, time to pray for one. Otherwise, EVEN IF YOU DECIDE TO BELIEVE ALL THIS, you're still lost. Bummer. Well, this is all very philosophical, and veering towards abstract. But I don’t believe you can convince people on those grounds. Paul had a little success on Mars Hill, but not much. And afterwards he decided to change tactics.

Christianity is true when God has spoken to you directly. You’ve seen true followers, and seen that there are both genuine (converted) and pretentious (unconverted) Christians. You decide the true ones have something you want. Maybe you have the extra incentive of believing prophecy counts for something, or maybe someone has prayed for you or someone you know, and miracle of miracles, it works. Perhaps you’re just convinced that God’s principles of love excel everything else you’ve heard. Etc. What I’m trying to say is, it doesn’t boil down to abstract theory about the probability of this or that. It’s about being true to my own encounter with divine truth. If you’ve had no such encounter, time to pray for one. Otherwise, EVEN IF YOU DECIDE TO BELIEVE ALL THIS, you’re still lost. Bummer.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: SAVEDBYGRACE http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269439 SAVEDBYGRACE Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:21:59 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269439 STEVEG, So based on your PAINE post(#23), you don't believe in the resurrection because you can't see or touch Jesus for yourself. Do I have that right? I think one problem with Paine's discourse is that he is referring to Thomas as an example of needing ocular and manual demonstration. That means he is taking Thomas and the account of Thomas as a historical account of a historical person. So does he only take that portion of the account - Thomas not believing - and not the other portion of the account - Thomas seeing, touching and believing - as true? I think Paine really does have enough evidence to believe, he just chooses not to trust that portion of the story that is supernatural. (By the way, Paul said that more than 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection, so it wasn't only 8 or nine as Paine claims) STEVEG,
So based on your PAINE post(#23), you don’t believe in the resurrection because you can’t see or touch Jesus for yourself. Do I have that right?

I think one problem with Paine’s discourse is that he is referring to Thomas as an example of needing ocular and manual demonstration. That means he is taking Thomas and the account of Thomas as a historical account of a historical person. So does he only take that portion of the account – Thomas not believing – and not the other portion of the account – Thomas seeing, touching and believing – as true? I think Paine really does have enough evidence to believe, he just chooses not to trust that portion of the story that is supernatural.

(By the way, Paul said that more than 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection, so it wasn’t only 8 or nine as Paine claims)

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Roger http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269437 Roger Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:10:20 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269437 CCC -- If all relativists exercised the same logic when crossing the street as they do when considering Pascal’s wager, there would be no one left to debate. Roger -- Bingo. When nothing is at risk, wagers are merely fun little games. CCC — If all relativists exercised the same logic when crossing the street as they do when considering Pascal’s wager, there would be no one left to debate.

Roger — Bingo. When nothing is at risk, wagers are merely fun little games.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: CCC http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269419 CCC Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:55:37 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269419 Dr. Dave wrote: 28: “Pascal’s Wager is categorized today as belonging to the class of n-alternative zero sum games. That is, while the original form of the wager assumed two alternatives, that is an artificial distinction.” Pascal’s wager also requires the bettor to play with a full deck of cards. The number of alternatives (n) is irrelevant; it’s whether the alternatives are mutually inclusive or exclusive. As it is, the world is awash in deniers of the law of noncontradiction and the belief that truth is relative. If all relativists exercised the same logic when crossing the street as they do when considering Pascal’s wager, there would be no one left to debate. Everyone has there own Truth frame of reference. For the atheist, their Truth is atheism and anyone who denies the essentials of their Truth is a non-atheist (what the non-atheist believes, at this point, is irrelevant.) After all, atheism can’t be both true and not true at the same time and in the same relation. The same mutual exclusion applies to every religion. If I’m a Christian and someone denies the essentials of Christianity, the only possible way to describe them is as non-Christian. The mutual exclusivity of the alternatives is essential to Pascal’s wager making any sense. Dr. Dave wrote: 28: “Pascal’s Wager is categorized today as belonging to the class of n-alternative zero sum games. That is, while the original form of the wager assumed two alternatives, that is an artificial distinction.”

Pascal’s wager also requires the bettor to play with a full deck of cards. The number of alternatives (n) is irrelevant; it’s whether the alternatives are mutually inclusive or exclusive. As it is, the world is awash in deniers of the law of noncontradiction and the belief that truth is relative. If all relativists exercised the same logic when crossing the street as they do when considering Pascal’s wager, there would be no one left to debate.

Everyone has there own Truth frame of reference. For the atheist, their Truth is atheism and anyone who denies the essentials of their Truth is a non-atheist (what the non-atheist believes, at this point, is irrelevant.) After all, atheism can’t be both true and not true at the same time and in the same relation. The same mutual exclusion applies to every religion. If I’m a Christian and someone denies the essentials of Christianity, the only possible way to describe them is as non-Christian. The mutual exclusivity of the alternatives is essential to Pascal’s wager making any sense.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Roger http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/comment-page-1/#comment-269324 Roger Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:58:45 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/31/helms-wager/#comment-269324 As I said before, you can wager all you want; it's not real money. As I said before, you can wager all you want; it’s not real money.

Report comment to moderator

]]>