Reflectorites
Sorry this is late!
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:58:46 -0800, bill r wald wrote:
[...]
>SJ>When the Christian and non-Christian dies, if the Christian is wrong,
>>both he and the non-Christian have gained nothing and lost nothing. But if
>>the Christian is right, he will have gained everything and the non-Christian
>>would have lost everything:
BW>What if the Christian is wrong and the Hundu is right? the Christian is
>reincarnated as a mosquito.
This is indeed an objection to Pascal's wager that there are other
alternatives.
But as I said, Pascal's Wager is not a full-blown philosophical argument. It
was specifically directed by Pascal to the atheists of 17th century Port-
Royal, France. The wager there was a stark contrast between the Christian
God and no God at all.
If Pascal's Wager was addressed to a Hindu, it would be re-expressed in
terms of the Hindu's wager. In that case, it would be between what
Hinduism claimed would happen to non-Hindus if turned out to be right
and what Christianity claimed would happen to non-Christians if it turned
out to be right.
Pascal's point was that we *are* all wagering that we are right, against
*all* other religions and philosophies, whether we realise it or not:
"Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already
committed. Which will you choose then? ... You would have to
play (since you must necessarily play) ..." (Pascal B., "Pensees,"
Penguin, 1966, p.123)
In the case of non-Christians, each individual is wagering that Christianity
is false, whether they realise it or not. If Bill claims to be a Christian, then
he himself is wagering that the Hindu is wrong and Christianity is right,
whether he realises it or not.
BW>But Hinduism isn't a threat to Christianity.
If Hinduism claims that non-Hindus will be "reincarnated as a mosquito", then
it *is* "a threat to Christianity" and indeed to all non-Hindus.
BW>Judiasm is the threat, thus
>Christians have historically been more interested in killing Jews than
>any other reliegion.
I don't know that that is true. Christendom (i.e. Christianity mixed up with
politics - not "Christianity" itself as taught by Jesus in the NT), may have
killed more Moslems in the Crusades alone than it has ever killed Jews.
Of course, except maybe in cases of self-defence, *both* killing of Jews
and Moslems was *un*-Christian, being a total violation of Christ's
teaching in the NT.
BW>Why is Judaism a threat to Christianity? Because
>Judaism is a complete theology and doesn't need Christianity
Disagree with that too. Judaism needs the Messiah, without which
it is incomplete.
BW>while if
>there is any truth in Christianity the entire Jewish Bible must be true.
>If pre AD28 Judaism is false then Christianity is false.
Bill fallaciously equates "Judaism" with the "Jewish Bible". The Jewish
Bible could be true but Judaism be false.
In fact Christianity uniquely took over the "entire Jewish Bible":
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,108294+2+105945,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Christianity
The church and its history
The essence and identity of Christianity
[...]
In the move from their exclusive roots in Judaism to their experience in
Greek and Roman cultures, Christians did something rare if not unique in
the history of religion: they adopted the entire scriptural canon of what
they now saw to be another faith, Judaism, and embraced the Hebrew
Scriptures as what they called the Old Testament. But while doing so, they
also incorporated the insistent monotheism of Judaism as part of the
essence of their truth and way of salvation, just as they incorporated the
Hebrew Scriptures' story as part of their own identity-giving narrative and
experience.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BW>Acts 5:34-40 is two-edged sword. As long as there is 10 practicing Jewish
>men on earth Gamelial's wager hasn't been settled.
I can't see any "wager" by Gamaliel in Acts 5:34-40, nor do I see anything
about "10 practicing Jewish men on earth."
The point is that Christianity proved it was from God in Gamaliel's terms
because it did not "fail" (Acts 5:38) and the Jewish religous leaders were
not "able to stop" Christianity, and so were "fighting against God" (Acts
5:39).
BW>The 1800 years of
>Christianity did not have a theological need for practicing Jews and
>realized their case was better if every Jew was dead. Thus history
>indicates that Jews were much better off under Islam than under
>Christianity.
See above that I presume that Bill is a Christian. If that is the case then I
assume by "Christianity" above Bill means "Christendom" (i.e. Christianity
mixed with politics) or "institutionalised Christianity" and not true
"Christianity" (as taught by Christ and the Apostles in the New
Testament)?
Because if Bill *really* means that in the case of true "Christianity" (as
taught by Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament that its "... case
was better if every Jew was dead" then Bill would be claiming to belong to
an *inherently* anti-semitic and genocidal religion.
If that is indeed what Bill does mean, then the "Christianity" I believe in
and belong too is not the same religion that Bill does.
BW>It was J.N. Darby's invention of ultra-dispensational theology at the end
>of the 19th century which required biological practicing Jews to rebuild
>the Temple so that Jesus would have a place to return to.
Dispensationalism's catch-cry is "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Tim
2:15 AV). The problem with dispensationalism is that it does not live up to
its own standard. There is no requirement in the NT that Jesus needs to
return to a physical temple in Jerusalem. That was a prophecy in the OT
which predicted "the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple" (Mal
3:1); but the NT says this was already fulfilled by Jesus at His first coming
(Mt 11:10; Mk 1:2; Lk 7:27). The NT says that Christians themselves are
God's temple now (1Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; Eph 2:21).
The point is that according to the New Testament, after Jesus the Messiah's
inauguration of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31; Lk 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; 2Cor
3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15; 12:24), "biological practicing Jews" are just like
members of any other religious group. They need as individuals to believe
in Jesus the Messiah in order to be saved (Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12).
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 17:00:30 EST