Adams had reportedly been receiving end-of-life care for the past week, just over six months after he announced his prostate cancer had spread to his bones
That’s Pascal’s Wager, taken to the logical conclusion. Pascal’s Wager is basically the idea that debating whether or not God exists is meaningless; If you simply live life as if God does exist, then there are no downsides. Just be someone who God would want in heaven, and the actual belief doesn’t really matter.
But then when you take that to a logical conclusion, it basically turns into “there’s no downside if I’m wrong, and repenting on my deathbed means all my previous sins are forgiven. So why not repent right before dying, so my previous sins are forgiven and I’m dying with a clean slate?”
Different denominations have different opinions on it. Baptists tend to take the “fire and brimstone unless you repent, but you’re all golden after repentance” stance. So they would tend to agree with this scenario. This is also why southern baptists tend to be such cunts, because they tell themselves that their actions are righteous and backed by God, because they have repented. Basically, justifying evil is easy when you change the question from “is this morally evil” to “is this backed by my god?”
Catholics used to have a very hard “baptism washes away (almost) all sins” stance, but have recently adopted a more fluid “how you act in life is just as important as what you believe” stance. So older Catholics would have likely agreed, but modern Catholics would tend to disagree.
The more liberal denominations (like United Methodists) would scoff and say that faith without works is dead.
If he’s a pascal’s wager guy, I hope he died in battle just in case the Norse are correct. And his deeds in life kept his heart lighter than a feather, in case the Egyptians got it right. Etc.
debating whether or not God exists is meaningless; If you simply live life as if God does exist, then there are no downsides. Just be someone who God would want in heaven
Not what Pascal’s wager is, afaik.
Jesus says many times that not believing in God is the ultimate sin. Thus, if you don’t sincerely believe that God exists, you’re fucked. Ergo, Pascal’s wager is believing that God exists regardless of your actual attitude toward religion.
Which is why I said it is taken to the extreme logical conclusion. Many denominations believe that baptism and/or repentance is enough to wash away and forgive previous sins. After all, that was Jesus’ whole thing. So why bother believing for the majority of your life, when you can simply accept God on your deathbed? No need to believe your entire life, when believing right at the end is enough.
pascals wager is incredibly stupid and illogical. What about other 10 billion religions? What if accepting jesus now puts you down with 9,999,999,999 other religions?
That’s Pascal’s Wager, taken to the logical conclusion. Pascal’s Wager is basically the idea that debating whether or not God exists is meaningless; If you simply live life as if God does exist, then there are no downsides. Just be someone who God would want in heaven, and the actual belief doesn’t really matter.
But then when you take that to a logical conclusion, it basically turns into “there’s no downside if I’m wrong, and repenting on my deathbed means all my previous sins are forgiven. So why not repent right before dying, so my previous sins are forgiven and I’m dying with a clean slate?”
Different denominations have different opinions on it. Baptists tend to take the “fire and brimstone unless you repent, but you’re all golden after repentance” stance. So they would tend to agree with this scenario. This is also why southern baptists tend to be such cunts, because they tell themselves that their actions are righteous and backed by God, because they have repented. Basically, justifying evil is easy when you change the question from “is this morally evil” to “is this backed by my god?”
Catholics used to have a very hard “baptism washes away (almost) all sins” stance, but have recently adopted a more fluid “how you act in life is just as important as what you believe” stance. So older Catholics would have likely agreed, but modern Catholics would tend to disagree.
The more liberal denominations (like United Methodists) would scoff and say that faith without works is dead.
If he’s a pascal’s wager guy, I hope he died in battle just in case the Norse are correct. And his deeds in life kept his heart lighter than a feather, in case the Egyptians got it right. Etc.
He did, he died battling cancer.
Well, the cancer died, too. So technically it was a tie.
RIP Norm.
Not what Pascal’s wager is, afaik.
Jesus says many times that not believing in God is the ultimate sin. Thus, if you don’t sincerely believe that God exists, you’re fucked. Ergo, Pascal’s wager is believing that God exists regardless of your actual attitude toward religion.
Which is why I said it is taken to the extreme logical conclusion. Many denominations believe that baptism and/or repentance is enough to wash away and forgive previous sins. After all, that was Jesus’ whole thing. So why bother believing for the majority of your life, when you can simply accept God on your deathbed? No need to believe your entire life, when believing right at the end is enough.
pascals wager is incredibly stupid and illogical. What about other 10 billion religions? What if accepting jesus now puts you down with 9,999,999,999 other religions?