Christianity and Love

[Esprix]

Polycarp wrote:

Esprix, my friend, your last post is, unfortunately, reinforcing a stereotype, which I don’t think you are looking to do.

What stereotype?

Hey, FoG has judgmental beliefs, and you and I, and Gaudere and David and most of the rest of the planet, have suggested to him where his beliefs are in error. He’s offered his apologies to you for offending you.

Well, guess what? That ain’t good enough. (Ooo, how un-Christian of me!) I do not appreciate this hypocrite casting judgement on people that I care about, especially when his interpretation of his gospel is so blatantly in error (and I think most Christians would agree with me).

The decent thing to do is not to have a hissy fit about what he didn’t do, but to accept them and calmly show him what else he needs to do to make recompense (i.e., excluding gay people devoted to God in Jesus from the title Christian – he needs to rethink his premises).

I don’t know that he can do anything as further recompense, but I will say he could start by recanting his statement that “no gay person can be a Christian,” or at least qualifying it by saying it’s only his own belief and/or opinion. If he’s going to speak about Christianity, he ought to at least be able to differentiate what is accurate and what is opinion. (I say this because of all the Christians I’ve ever talked to, he is the first and only person to say this, so it seems clear that his opinion on this matter has little to do with the whole of Christian goodness.)

Your salvation is not determined by where you put your penis, but where you put your heart.

Ooo, that’s a keeper!

Friend of God would presumably adduce the contents of the Bible in evidence for the existence of God. Rather obviously, you, David, and Esprix would laugh that evidence out of court. Avalongod and I seem to concur that there is sufficient evidence for an open-minded person to allow that God exists in some form or other…

Hey, I said I wasn’t Christian, but I didn’t say anything about believing or not believing in God, or a god, or many gods, or no god. Let’s not jump to any hasty conclusions - I really don’t consider myself either Atheist or anti-religion.

Esprix

[Liberal]

Avalongod

Actually, Ockhams’ Razor states (in English), “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.”

Gaudere

It is possible to sin eternally, which is exactly what cold hearts do. But that aside, how would you propose that God reveal Himself to you without usurping your free-will?

Perhaps you’ve got it the wrong way 'round. Perhaps He awaits your revealing yourself to Him.

[Gaudere]

But that aside, how would you propose that God reveal Himself to you without usurping your free-will?

Boy, darn that Mississippi river for taking away my free will to not belive it exists by actually obviously existing! And darn my mother for taking away my free will by outright telling me she loves me and clearly demonstrating that she does! God has apparently not had any trouble physically manifesting or providing more solid evidence previously, He’s just kind of shy nowadays, I guess. He certainly has yet to even show His face on my tortillas, although I asked nicely for some sort of sign. Besides, Lib, you say I’m a Christian already, right, so what are you asking me for?

Perhaps He awaits your revealing yourself to Him.

Reveal myself to someone I’ve never met? Heck, usually it takes dinner and a movie first! ::cheerfully continuing to steer the thread into vaguely salacious territory::

[Liberal]

Gaudere

Besides, Lib, you say I’m a Christian already, right, so what are you asking me for?

Fair enough.

Reveal myself to someone I’ve never met?

Did you not do that here, to seven thousand of us?

You say you asked God nicely for a sign. A sign of what, exactly, that He exists? That He loves you? Or what?

[Polycarp]

The “stereotype” was the classic easily-provoked-to-shrillness gay man (see any 1960’s era movie that portrays a minor character as supposedly gay), which the tone of your refusal to accept FoG’s apology seemed to be taking on some of the aspects of. And I know you as someone who doesn’t even come close to matching the stereotype, and didn’t want you projecting it to someone who would clearly not distinguish the difference.

On my categorizing you with David and Gaudere, the reference was not to the question of God – I know you are an active UU member from previous discussions – but to the credence given to the Bible as evidence. And earlier in this thread you alleged it to be a collection of stories to which you gave little if any credence. I didn’t, and wouldn’t, imply anything about your relationship to God and/or religion without firmer evidence than I have at present. I simply contradistinguished those who support your general view of the Bible from those who give some credence to it but insist on a scholarly approach (myself, and Tom~ and a few others), and both groups from the Inspired Word of God literally-true philosophy to which FoG presumably belongs.

[Gaudere]

Did you not do that here, to seven thousand of us?

:o Goodness, you’ll give me a rep, Libby.

I have asked for some sort of sign that God exists–something significantly different than my previous experience, as evidence. I’ve done this a couple times, with no response, so I’ve kind of shrugged and given up for thge time being. Remeber when you gave the set of prayers to Glitch and nothing happened? That sort of test. At this point, just by figuring the odds, something unusual is bound to happen one of these times, so I have to take that into account too. It doesn’t make any sense to ask if a non-existent being cares about me, so establishing existence is the first priority.

[andros]

Lib:

It is possible to sin eternally, which is exactly what cold hearts do.

Come again? How can the human heart, no matter how cold, sin eternally within a temporarily shell? I’m sorry, but near as I can figure there hasn’t been anyone in human history who deserves to burn for longer than, oh, two or three million years. (OK, maybe N’Sync . . .)

[Gaudere]

Look, I’m psychic. ::concentrates:: Lib will post about how he is talking about the Spirit, not atoms.

[andros]

And if he does, I hope he will explain how we can sin eternally without eternal perception. Whether or not our spirit is eternal, we live in the temporal world and have no way to perceive our spirit before or after this life.

I’d really hate to think that after I die my spirit will go all cold and sinful.

I’m sorry that sounded flippant, Lib, but I hope I’m conveying adequately this fairly esoteric thought.

[Gaudere]

Nor do I think “having a cold heart”, even eternally, merits eternal torture–it’s what you do with it, and indifference and lack of love do not merit torture, any more than a less-than-loving person should be thrown in prison (unless they actively are cruel, not just not-loving). But I believe Lib’s Hell is the absence of God, so it’s not like people are in torment. (Yes, theists, I know it is the worst torture possible, but for me it is a little milder than boiling sulfur for eternity–especially since Lib was certain that I was in Hell at one point, and I still thought my life was pretty cool.)

[avalongod]

Hello all, some replies:

Polycarp:

quote:

I actually liked this analogy, though of course as Guadere noted that the ability to generalize to "wives" makes it a weaker analogy. However if you make references specifically to Cindy K. Polycarp (I am making up a name) we now have an individual, not a generalized category, and thus no epistemological reason to presuppose she might exist. Still weak, but getting there.

Espirix:

quote:

~~~Well, guess what? That ain't good enough.

I am not sure why the bends you so out of shape. I suspect FOG thinks I'm a goin' ta Hell to for having had premarital sex. :eek: But that is something with which I can live (his opinion that is, not going to hell)

Libertarian:

quote:

~~~Actually, Ockhams' Razor states (in English), "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity."

Which differs from my more colloquial definition "...that has the fewest assumptions..." in what way? Or did you think Occam meant specifically spiritual entities ( I believe you'd be wrong since he was discussing scientific theories)?

Guadere:

~~~I have asked for some sort of sign that God exists--something significantly different than my previous experience, as evidence. I've done this a couple times, with no response, so I've kind of shrugged and given up for thge time being.

This seems to me like a little girl (I don't mean that facetiously, just part of the example) who doubts there are lions. She goes outside to the backyard and screams at the top of her lungs "OK if there are any lions in the world, you better show yourself RIGHT NOW!!!" No lions come, so she decides they do not exist.

As a side question (one that will earn FOG's ire) how do you know for sure that God give's a rat's ass whether we believe in him or not? Think of it this way...if you have an aquarium, are the fish aware of you? Do you wonder if they are very much? Does it really make all that much of a difference to you if they are aware of you. For myself I would say I am content with my fish being fish (actually my attempts to keep them ended in trajedy) and keep em cuz they're cool.

[Gaudere]

She goes outside to the backyard and screams at the top of her lungs “OK if there are any lions in the world, you better show yourself RIGHT NOW!!!” No lions come, so she decides they do not exist.

Well, that analogy might work if it weren’t that the God I keep being told about supposedly does respond to these sort of things, and really really wants to contact me. If someone said lions often appeared when you called them, and then you called them lots and lots of times and they did not show up, I think you would be in order to lack belief in appearing lions. Of course, maybe the lions don’t like you; maybe you called wrong; maybe they appeared and you blinked and missed it, etc., so the lions may still be possible; still, I would not believe, I think. So I do not say God (or appearing lions) cannot or absolutely do not exist; I simply lack belief since I have not yet seen compelling evidence.

I realize this does not offer up evidence against the deist God, but it was never intended to. As I have noted before, there is no way to absolutely disprove all possible Gods. However, if someone tells me “hey, when I did X God spoke to me! Try it!” I may give it the ol’ college try.

As a side question (one that will earn FOG’s ire) how do you know for sure that God give’s a rat’s ass whether we believe in him or not? Think of it this way…if you have an aquarium, are the fish aware of you? Do you wonder if they are very much? Does it really make all that much of a difference to you if they are aware of you. For myself I would say I am content with my fish being fish (actually my attempts to keep them ended in trajedy) and keep em cuz they’re cool.

Entirely possible; hell, I keep wondering why none of the theists want to listen about my theories of an indifferent God, incompetent God, or evil God. But somehow they keep insisting God has to be Good, which may be reassurring but limits one’s speculation. The deist God has always seemed one of the more sensible ones to me, although I lack belief in him/her/it too; the “first cause” or “why life?” arguments are not personally convincing, as I’ve mentioned. I can’t figure out why God would necessarily care all that much if we believe He exists either. I mean, if He cared and was capable of proving He exists, you would think He’d have done so. But we have been over this before; Poly would likely say that God knows it is best for us to know and love Him, so that’s why He cares that we know He exists–He has our best interest at heart.

[avalongod]

Hey

quote:

As you might suspect, I was not presupposing God was particularly trying to contact you (or anyone else)

quote:

~~~Entirely possible; hell, I keep wondering why none of the theists want to listen about my theories of an indifferent God, incompetent God, or evil God. But somehow they keep insisting God has to be Good, which may be reassurring but limits one's speculation.

All possible, and I have noted you make some mention of the above. I think I remember suggesting to someone that God might be incompetent (it might actually have been DavidB, though forgive me if I am wrong) but he didn't buy it (he probably was going for the no-god thing). :p

[Gaudere]

The problem is, the “Incompetent God” is indistinguishable from the “Working in Mysterious Ways Yet Absolutely Powerful and Perfect God”. If you have a problem with accepting intestinal worms as the creation of a wholly perfect, wholly good God, you can escape with either the Incompetent God or the Mysterious Ways God. Most seem to find the Mysterious Ways God more pleasant to think about. Death, disease, famine, carloads of children dying flaming deaths? God is working in mysterious ways; trust that what He does is always for the Ultimate Good. The Evil God can also be synonomous with the Working in Mysterious Ways God. Love, joy, baby bunnies? All part of a Evil plan to make us miserable; we don’t understand how, but trust God to do what is wholly Evil. Interestingly, the LDS God is not all-powerful, although He is certainly the most powerful being in the universe.

Ask the Deist Time: Is your God Good? Does S/He/It care about humans in particular? Do you have faith that a God who communicate withs/interacts with humans does not exist; i.e. do you have faith in your Deist God? Have you ever asked the Interacting God for a sign of some sort?

[avalongod]

Guadere:

I do not particularly believe God is incompetent. I think I was playing a bit of Devil’s advocate at the time. I will continue to play devil’s advocate and suggest that perhaps there are some qualitative differences between an “incompetent” god and a “mysterious ways” god (henceforth to be referred to as the U2 god). I think you are saying both arguments are facile…and that might be true. The “mysterious ways” always did strike me as fascile, though you never know, women sure seem to work that way. But the “incompetent” god seems less fascile in that, on the grander scheme I think, it would be less desirable (fascile to me implies and easy, desirable answer). Personally things I wonder about (note: not necessarily believe in) include:

1.) Perhaps this universe is the best that could be done with the materials available.

2.) Perhaps the crappy side of life serves a purpose simply in making life desirable. If every moment were wonderful, what motivation would we have?

Ask the deist time? Perhaps I should open up my own Ask the Deist Psychologist thread.

I suspect you will be disappointed in the answers to your questions (though I will follow each up with a bit of personal philosophy):
question #1: Is God good?
answer: I dunno. I would like to think so…my personal philosophy says yes, but I will be the first to suggest that could be wishful thinking. I personally think the Good/Evil debate is simplified, and like the universe itself God may be prone to some of each at various times.

question #2: Does God care about humans
answer: I dunno. My personal philosophy again would suggest God cares about humans the way we care about our pets…particularly pet fish (hence my earlier analogy)…sorta distant, sorta curious, hope things work out for them, but if they don’t there’s always more at the pet store. I kinda think God is happy so long as we’re happy, and perhaps just mildly concerned when we’re not. I doubt God is really paying all that much attention to us half the time. Again, personal philosophy.

question #3: Do I have faith that a God who interacts with his/her subjects does NOT exist.
answer: I dunno. IT is pretty much a standard Deist belief that god does not interact directly with humans (through miracles and such). Like you I have never seen any particular miracles (in the turning water to wine sense) though I see miracles of a rational sort all the time in science. That hippocampus neurons reproduce is a new “miracle” for me.

question #4: Do I have faith in the deist God
answer: Finally one that isn’t “I dunno” There is no “Deist God” per se, in the same sense there is a Christian God, or Babylonian God, or Hindu God, etc…with clearly defined characteristics. Do I have faith that my philosophy about what God’s characteristics might be are correct…not at all. I have faith, in fact, that everyone who philosophizes about the nature of god is doomed to be wrong. Doesn’t stop me from doing it though (it’s good mental excersize). Do I faith that there is a “God” of some sort. Yes…that is to say I am pretty sure. But it makes the most sense to me until I get any confirmatory/disconfirmatory information.
question #5: Have I ever asked God for a sign?
answer: No. I don’t think God speaks English (seriously). I’m sure that our fish ask us for more food from time to time too, in their fishy way, but usually we don’t notice. Even if God did understand, I don’t believe it is possible for him to give me a sign (which usually involve some sort of contradiction to physical law) as this would violate the fundamental nature of the universe he created. There is a school of pseudo-diest thought that suggests that rather than god being distant, we ARE god…or at least parts thereof…that each of us is a cell in a larger celestial body, unaware of the “whole”. I find this theory intriguing though I do not particularly buy it…I’ll stick with the distant god for the moment. But if this theory were true asking for a sign would be synonymous with one cell somewhere deep in your kidney asking for a sign that there was really a human. How could you give that sign without somehow fundamentally violating your own essence?

I do not know if I have been particularly enlightening regarding deist though. Obviously “I dunno” is a big part of deism…and I think it fair to say that deism is pretty disorganized…meaning that there are no real central themes or tennants. Two deists may hold many different philosophies on what god is like (Good vs Evil for instance). The only real central themes to deism as I understand it are that science, nature and god are the same, and that god does not get involved in metaphysics (like sending signs, writing bibles, healing lepers, etc.)

[avalongod]

Oh…one point I forgot to mention (regarding my personal version of deist philosophy)

PErsonally speaking, I doubt that God differentiates much between human, dog, monkey, ladybug, squid, palm tree, yeast and paramecium. We’re all different kinds of critters in his little experiment. HE might notice us for being particularly intelligent, but relatively speaking, probably in the same sense we think a particular shrimp has a clever way of chasing crabs.

[FriendofGod]

Hello everyone! I would like to start by making a general overall comment about my posts on this board. From reading these recent posts, I realize that you have all pretty much figured out my perspective on life … that I believe in God, and that I believe His Word is the way we should live our lives.

I just want to say that I don’t expect people to believe the Bible just because I say I believe in it. (Not that you guys would do that anyway!) I realize most of you have somehow come to the conclusion that the Bible and God are illogical. I realize that some of you have very legitimate questions about God. As I’ve acknowledged, I don’t have answers to all of those questions and probably never will. I also am confident that I’ve presented some VERY solid and logical points to answer some of the questions … but you guys don’t see my answers as logical at all.

Having said that … I’d like to tell you what motivates me to do this and where I am coming from. Many of you think you know, but so far I don’t think anyone has really hit it on the head (I don’t mean that derisively).

As usual I’d like to illustrate (Please note, it’s an imperfect illustration and I know it, but hopefully you’ll get the point anyway). Imagine yourself stumbling across an Internet bulletin board that is dedicated to the belief that there is no such thing as the law of gravity. Imagine that the participants regularly jump off of buildings, genuinely and sincerely believing that they will survive. You stumble across this board and your heart breaks. You try to convince them that their beliefs are faulty, but they are adamant. Sure, they discuss various ways to jump off buildings, disagree over what’s the best way to prove the law of gravity doesn’t work … but the bottom line is that they are in agreement that it doesn’t work.

So you try to prove to them that the law of gravity does work. They respond … how dare you tell us that your opinion is any better than ours? That’s just your opinion. We demand proof of your beliefs. So you try to prove your point, using common sense and logic. It doesn’t work. They come at your statements from angles that you never in a million years would’ve dreamed anyone would come from. You try to explain every objection because you so desperately want them to see the truth … but it doesn’t work. They have somehow managed to turn the belief that the law of gravity doesn’t work into something that sounds logical. Your heart breaks a little more.
That is how I feel. You guys, I realize you don’t agree with me or see things from my perspective. However, please humor me and drop yourselves into my heart for just a second. If you do … here’s what you’ll see. You’ll see many, many people who are in serious danger and don’t realize it. They are sincere. They believe they are right. You just want to shake them and say, “Don’t you see what you’re doing to yourselves?”

I truly, truly understand that you want evidence to believe. I hope that what I’ve said has given some of you food for thought, but obviously many of you are still convinced that my overall point doesn’t contain inherent logic. If I’ve done a poor job of presenting God’s truth, then I’m sorry. Perhaps I have. That doesn’t, however, make it any less God’s truth.

In conclusion, I’d like to leave you all with one overriding thought. Let’s suppose for a second that all of you are right and I am wrong (I know that won’t be hard for you to picture! :)). What are the dire consequences I will face if that indeed is true? I delude myself until the day I die and then poof, I become nothing, or I reincarnate, or WHATEVER you guys believe. Maybe I come back a worm instead of a butterfly or something. I could live with that!

However. What if … WHAT IF …
I AM right and you are wrong?

Whether I can explain it well or not isn’t the point. What if my ravings and crazy beliefs about the Bible are true? What if salvation really is laid out by God the way I’ve said it is?

IF I’m right and you’re wrong … the consequences are much more serious.

So I leave you with this thought … please stay open. Please don’t shut the door of your heart to the very POSSIBILITY that God loves you and wants a deep, passionate love relationship with you. Maybe God can’t convince you through me. Fine. But please stay open … if you don’t, you might miss the next thing He tries to use to convince you. And the next one may do the trick for you.

• whew *

Just had to get that out!
Enough with my weepy heavy-duty post. I hope you guys understand better where I’m coming from.

[Czarcasm]

Yeah, I think I understand where you’re coming from.
You are yet another “savior” from the LBMB who can’t tell the difference between “fact” and “belief”, and who thinks “logic” means “thinking the way I do without benefit of my experience”.
You seem to come over in groups, I guess to support each other. The good ones stay to listen, learn, process the information and maybe make some friends. The bad ones get tired of lecturing to us heathens and either skulk off quietly, or throw large hissy fits and stalk off after a histerical You Won’t Have ME To Kick Around Anymore!!! thread.

Then another group comes, refuses to do a little research on questions and viewpoints we’ve already answered, and the process starts all over again.

[FriendofGod]

Having said all that … I will respond briefly to a few of the specific points made recently. However, this ‘tit for tat’ back-n-forth stuff is obviously not getting either side anywhere. Nevertheless I can’t resist commenting a little.

ESPECIALLY this comment!
Gaudere you said: “Well, there go my hopes of a torrid fling with FriendofGod.”
Gaudere, I didn’t know you cared! Hey who knows, in another place, another time … it might’ve been.
You also said: "You truly think that if a person cannot believe in a God that makes little logical sense, they fairly deserve to suffer for eternity? What other illogical things must we believe in to save us from eternal torture? How are we expected to live our lives without using our logic to determine what makes sense and what doesn’t? Or do you think your God gets special dispensation and doesn’t have to make sense, just because He’s your God? "

Gaudere I can guarantee this to you as a certainty and a fact … you do not have to believe one single illogical thing to believe in God. And yes, God does have to make sense. Well let me rephrase … God DOES make sense. You (and others) have many times said to me, “Do you consider the possibility that you are wrong?” Well let me pose the same question to you. Is it possible that your logic is not sound? That you think it is but it’s not? Here’s the real issue … what are you basing yours on? You know what I’m basing mine on so I won’t go there.

What about you? What standard are you looking to that tells you what you believe is truly logical? I am genuinely curious as to what you will say. What does an athiest base their beliefs on? (I AM correct in calling you an athiest, right? If I’m wrong, correct me.)

You said: “How are we expected to live our lives without using our logic to determine what makes sense and what doesn’t?” Again, you said “our logic”. Where does your logic come from? What’s it based on? What’s your “starting point” as it were?

Just because I can’t explain God’s logic to you in a way that’s fully satisfactory to you doesn’t mean He’s not logical. Gaudere let me ask you this … is there a “threshold” in your mind that must be reached in order for you to believe in God? Is there a point you can get to where you can trust God enough to know that just because you don’t understand something about Him doesn’t make it illogical? If not, you’ll never make it. There will ALWAYS be questions about God that won’t make sense at first. If you ASSUME that God is being illogical JUST because it doesn’t make sense to YOU, that’s a huge assumption. You are putting a lot of faith in your own sense of what is logical.
Another quote: "As soon as you answer my objections to your parameters; one is illogical and one is false. "

I’ll tell you what. Let me simplify my parameters and break them down better. I’ll do them one at a time.

Parameter # 1 : “God loves us and doesn’t want to punish us for our sins.”
Agree or disagree, and why?

You said: "I mean you say God must punish us. However, then you say that He doesn’t necessarily do so. Therefore your premise that God must punish us is false. "

Touche’. A better way to word it might be … God must punish SIN. We have sinned, and so God must punish US … but Jesus TOOK our sin on HIMSELF. Again, God must punish SIN … so when Jesus took it on HIM, God punished Jesus for our sins.
You also said: "Well, if you’d put some energy into it, i.e. actually clean your room, your room would become cleaner. But we are talking about basic science here, not the state of your room. Your room getting dusty is not “degenerating”, as you put it. "

Okay lets forget the room … what about the human body? You can put all the energy you want into it, but someday it’s going to grow old and die.
Later you said: "Look, FoG, you’re having a lot of trouble here because you appear to not understand the basics of logic. You insist that the things you believe are True, and therefore the logical contradictions do not bother you. "

On the contrary, I believe my understanding of logic is just fine. You are assuming here that I think there are logical contradictions in God or the Bible, and I don’t. As I’ve said before, I believe God and the Bible to be the very essence of logic and common sense. The things that don’t bother me are things that I don’t fully understand about God and the Bible. Just because I don’t understand something doesn’t make it illogical!

For example, I have no idea how a rocket can be made that can fly to the moon and back with three people inside. If I just sat here and thought about it, I’m sure I’d come up with dozens of things that I thought were seeming logical contradictions that would make it totally impossible. However, if I had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with a NASA engineer, perhaps he could point out that what I thought were logical contradictions had clear answers. Just because I don’t know the answers doesn’t mean they’re not there.
"Yet when you find illogic in scripture, you insist that the illogic does not exist. "
Again, I don’t believe I’ve ever found something in the Bible that wasn’t logical … just things I didn’t understand.
"Do you see why anyone who has not yet accepted scripture as True will refuse to accept it when it is illogical, just as you would refuse to accept anything that was illogical that you have yet to accept as True? "
As long as you SEE the Bible as illogical, yes I understand your point. I’m submitting to you that it is not, never has been, and never will be illogical, and you just don’t see that at this point in time. I realize that you see it the exact opposite way.

One last comment. Libertarian said "It is possible to sin eternally, which is exactly what cold hearts do. "

Interesting thought. Gaudere, some believe that when people go to hell, they won’t change one bit. They’ll still be convinced that it was unfair for God to do this to them, they’ll still curse God, they’ll still think that “they were right”, etc etc. If that’s true, and they are continuing in their sin indefinately, then eternal punishment makes total sense.
Okay, that’s it for now folks. Bedtime. Thanks for listening!

[pinqy]

Fair enough, FoG, here’s an analogy for you.

Faeries are going to kill you. I know this for sure. I have had experiences in my life that faeries are the only explanation for. I don’t understand why you don’t believe in faeries; you’ve seen hills, right? That’s where faeries live. Have you ever seen a circle of mushrooms? The faeries put them there to sit around and meet. You don’t really think mushrooms would grow in a perfect circle by accident, do you? The evidence is all around you if you’d just open your eyes. No, I can’t show you actual faeries; they’re invisible. I have several books on faeries you can read. Many different authors all agreeing remarkably on faeries. Well, there were some books that claimed to be about faeries, but they weren’t about real faeries, and we can’t include them in the canon on faeries. Nixies, pixies, sprites, elves? No, they’re not real. Sure, there are books on them, but those books aren’t as good, and I know it was the work of faeries I saw. The faeries want to be your friend. They used to be friends with some people, but the people started and argument and didn’t want to be friends anymore. So the faeries said they’d kill anyone who wasn’t their friend. Oh, you can’t just “say” you’re their friend. You have to really be their friend. You can’t be sure unless they kill you, then you know you’re not. So…don’t you want to be their friend? It costs you nothing, and you’ll die if you won’t be their friend.

Now, this is the stripped down version…I haven’t included the variations on how you become a friend of the faeries, but how clearly and obviously the one I tell you is correct.

Here’s the question: What exactly is the difference? Can you believe in faeries? There really have been many, many reports of them. I actually can point to historical evidence (documents showing the existence of Thomas of Ercledoune, aka True Tom, aka Thomas the Rhymer, who was kidnapped by the Faerie Queen and spent 7 years in Faerieland. He was a well-known prophet and all his predictions came true).

Now, (assuming you don’t believe in faeries) I assume my above analogy seems ridiculous to you. Why? Honestly sit down, and tell me logically where the arguments differ. I warn you that this was off-the-cuff and I can definitely improve on it (belief in faeries are found in every culture, for example). Why are your arguments “logical” and mine aren’t?

For a different example, see Kiss Hank’s Ass

And since this is long enough, I’ll just link you to a refutation of Pascal’s Wager which you referenced in your post. Just in case you’re not familiar with the name (and I’ve seen many Christians who aren’t), Pascal’s Wager is the “it’s better to believe in God because if you’re wrong then…” argument.

pinqy