Oh Lord, Won’t You Buy Me A Mercedes-Benz?
Martin Tyrrell on lotteries, religion and Pascal’s Wager.
What, then, of the alternative possibility? That only one religion is the genuine article. Again, it is far from clear which it might be. Fail to spot it, however, and your fate could be as grim as that of any atheist.
Exactly, IC!
You are the Infidel -- the Atheist -- to those other than the
True Christians on this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
One suspects that is why ecumenism and Unitarianism -- or even pantheism? -- came into existence. A way to expand the spiritual umbrella to include practically everyone. For some there is no Heaven or Hell...there is only being "at one" with one or another overarching transcendental sense of reality.
Anything being better than, “
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.” Samuel Beckett
But even if the choice could be made accurately, there would be a further decision regarding how much commitment the religion should receive. Too low a commitment might result in perdition. Paradoxically, too great a commitment has often been looked upon as likely to have the same result. Frequently, those who seem the most committed to a particular religion have been widely disparaged as fanatics even by their coreligionists, some of whom say that this fanaticism is, itself, a sin.
And, of course, with each and every denomination in the link above there is the One True Path that must be taken while
on the One True Path to immortality and salvation. This can revolve around anything from what you are permitted or prohibited to eat or drink, to what you wear, or watch or listen to, to any number of behaviors that are judged down here by the elders...or the ecclesiastics.
Then the part where who the hell really knows what is expected of you by God down here
given all of the many conflicting liturgies around...
Take Christianity. Look at how suspect it makes the piety of the Pharisees and how favourably it treats religious slackers who go in for last minute repentance – the Prodigal Son, the meek, the poor in spirit. These days, while its fundamentalists argue that there is little or no chance of salvation beyond the faith, more ecumenical Christians have suggested that even atheists can share in the Christian prize. Increasingly, in this liberal rewrite, eternity belongs, not to Christians alone or even especially, but to the moderates of all faiths and of none.
Or does it make not a whit of difference to God if you are inclined to worship and adore him liberally or conservatively? One tries to imagine the Christian God's reaction to Pope Francis "firing" Bishop Joseph Strickland from "Don't Thread On Me" Texas.
And, of course, this is nothing short of utter blasphemy to those far more orthodox communities. Those Christian missionaries sent out around the globe to save the souls of those who are not
True Christians.
And then just how convoluted this can all become...even though the stakes are no less high.
In contrast, if Christianity could be demonstrated to be valid, the path to salvation would become more like a game of skill than a game of chance, and dedication and commitment would become more akin to an athlete’s training schedule. Pascal himself believed this. Sure that his own particular version of Christianity was correct, he recommended that non-believers go through the motions of its prayer and ritual. Were they to do so for sufficiently long, he argued, they would build faith like a man who works out in a gym every day builds muscle.
On the other hand, no doubt, there are those on the other paths above who are basically arguing the same thing about their own God. Pray to Him, concoct rituals that might please Him.
Place your bet. Roll the dice. But don't let it
all come down to luck.
)
Or does that not serve us?
(not sure what you'd prefer to call it?)