RE: Pascal's Wager

• sigh*

You can "look" smarter all you want. Ultimately, your god is still damning people for not believing in him if, as you say, they've been exposed to some knowledge about him.

You are, as typical, looking at this from the perspective of only your religion. Why would a die hard Hindu want to convert to Christianity? You're saying that because a book written by man says you're damnable for exposure, that a Hindi A is immune to Hell so long as he never comes into contact with Christianity while Hindi B happens to meet a Christian tourist that spouts off at the mouth about Jesus. Now, Hindi B, who was perfectly content before, is going to hell.

Fool please. "Rules" written by man are ignominious at best. If they don't believe, then they don't believe. So just face it, they're going to hell. Your Hindu co-workers. Hell bound. Your Taoist co-workers. Hell bound. And for what? Because an all powerful god with all the ability to make things clear ... chooses not to. Instead, allowing people born into the "wrong faith" to continue down that path.

You talk of exposure to Christianity like all of a sudden a light should turn on and a person will say, "Well, duh, what the hell have I been wasting my time as a Hindu all these years for." Ask yourself this, what would it take for a Hindu to convert you? You take it for granted that someone can become like you but never really consider the implications of what that decision means for them. Everything you must wrestle with to admit that your god may not exist, that if you choose poorly you may go to hell and the persecution you will receive from your current faith for turning on them ... that is what your converts face. And most of them won't do it for the very reason you won't.

Is that a damnable offense?

Reason before you comment - it makes you look smarter.

"Research before you comment - it makes you look smarter.''''''''

My objective is not to look smarter to people with closed minds. If you read the article in the link below the opener as I did, you would not have denigrated my research. I bet it was too hard for you to understand - as it was for me. I will respond in true nerd fashion by bombarding you with my research which will make great demands on your intelligence and indeed on your own bible research. Enjoy!

http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=204

http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=193

http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=188

The bible is not the sole source of truth in religion. That was only a notion created by Luther as a vehicle for attacking corruption in the Catholic Church. There have been many other valid teachers since John bit the dust.

It must be presumed that you have ignored the question posed because, for all your certainty and bible reading, you can't begin answer it. I suspect that you are afaid to admit so because of the investments you have put into your belief sack which has this great gaping hole at the bottom.

Under this assumption, would it not be nicer if the church did not bring people into contact with Christianity? Options: come in contact and believe or go to hell... Don't come into contact and then you must be bad to go to hell - or do all that have been lucky enough to avoid contact with Christianity go to heaven?

Summary: destroy Christianity and every one goes to heaven? Seems to good to be true... is it the basis of the soviet state?