Hello guys, this is my first post here.
First, I must confess that atheists' attack on Christianity is not baseless. It is not at all.
Old Testament DID really have some nasty stuff and weird rules. And Yahweh isn't as good as I have been taught to.
However, while I admit that maybe Yahweh isn't all-powerful and not omni-benevolent , it is still a possibility that we live in the world that he created. Therefore, we are also bound by his rules, no matter how strange it is.
So, isn't it safer to hedge your afterlife by accepting Jesus?
I mean, is there any person in the history who had boldly guaranteed your afterlife like Jesus did?
Please give me your thought about this.
While it may be technically possible that Yahweh created the world, the available evidence, including the bible, would discount the possibility as being practically impossible.
If you are suggesting that we should bet on Jesus because there maybe a chance that he was telling the truth, you must also realize that there may be a chance that Muhammad and Allah could be the correct bet (isn't it safer to hedge your 72 virgins by blowing yourself up for Allah?). Or maybe Yahweh created the world and he's supper pissed at people breaking the first commandment with this Jesus fellow. Maybe the Japanese tsunami was Poseidon's wake-up call to a world that has turned its back on him.
Welcome aboard emulio! Your hedging (It's called Pascal's wager.) has been refuted by logicians as a fallacy in logic. Solitary
Quote from: "emulio"However, while I admit that maybe Yahweh isn't all-powerful and not omni-benevolent , it is still a possibility that we live in the world that he created.
A practically nonexistent possibility, and offered more out of tact than evidence. And simply one belief among many.
QuoteTherefore, we are also bound by his rules, no matter how strange it is.
Does not follow. You'll have to make separate cases for the existence of God and why we ought to follow his rules.
QuoteSo, isn't it safer to hedge your afterlife by accepting Jesus?
I don't believe in believing "just in case".
QuoteI mean, is there any person in the history who had boldly guaranteed your afterlife like Jesus did?
Countless.
Quote from: "Hydra009"QuoteI mean, is there any person in the history who had boldly guaranteed your afterlife like Jesus did?
Countless.
This.
The only way that atheists attack Christianity is by existing in the first place.
I personally have nothing against Christianity, but it has a thing against me, so all its problems are its own.
Anyway, it is a fallacy to believe that becuase someone has offered the chance of redemption that one should take it up as a 'win win' scenario.
As above, countless people have given promises of life ever after, so the idea of 'better safe than sorry' (a 50:50 chance) is totally off the mark.
Someone posted a graph here a while back (years ago) calculating the odds of believing in the 'right' afterlife taking into account all the Claims. It was a lot less than 50:50.
I've had the same thought, but the above reasoning re: the number of gods stands.
Quote from: "emulio"So, isn't it safer to hedge your afterlife by accepting Jesus?
To accept Jesus strictly as a hedge is the same as saying that you don't really believe in Jesus but you're willing to follow the rules and go through the motions just in case you're wrong. The problem here is that if Jesus is real, then we also have to assume that he is all knowing and all powerful or whatever else people claim him to be. And if he's all knowing, then he's going to know that you didn't believe and you were only going through the motions so you could fake your way into a getting a ticket.
Kind of like the guys who aren't feminists or supportive of feminists, but they go to Lilith Fair because it chock full of girls and they figure they'll get laid if they just put on a feminist t-shirt and drop the right buzz words. I mean if the feminists can see right through these guys (and they can), I gotta figure this Jesus dude ought to be able to see the hedgers from a mile away.
Maybe the universe was created by Stanley Kubrick, who for reasons unknown to us, refused to tell us he was the real God, and will grant us eternal life only if we figure it out on our own.
There is no end to the what-if scenarios to bet on, here. The fact that there is an equal amount of evidence for any of them (specifically zero), creates fertile ground for all mutually exclusive religious claims about entry into the after-life to compete with each other on an equal footing. Not only are your chances of guessing right less than 50-50 (more like 1 out of a thousand), the "zero evidence for any of them" factor makes the whole thing rather pointless.
Quote from: "emulio"H
Old Testament DID really have some nasty stuff
Nasty stuff? The thing is a piece or cracker stupidity. The sky is water? The earth was made before the sun? The sun was made after all plants on earth? There was light before the sun? The sky can be rolled up like a scroll? One third of the stars already fell to earth? A dragon lives inside the earth capable of ensnaring a third of the stars and then throwing them to earth? WTF?
Quote from: "emulio"Hello guys, this is my first post here.
First, I must confess that atheists' attack on Christianity is not baseless. It is not at all.
Old Testament DID really have some nasty stuff and weird rules. And Yahweh isn't as good as I have been taught to.
However, while I admit that maybe Yahweh isn't all-powerful and not omni-benevolent , it is still a possibility that we live in the world that he created. Therefore, we are also bound by his rules, no matter how strange it is.
So, isn't it safer to hedge your afterlife by accepting Jesus?
I mean, is there any person in the history who had boldly guaranteed your afterlife like Jesus did?
Please give me your thought about this.
Welcome, emulio!
If the bible is correct then Jesus was a jewish teacher teaching the jewish law to his fellow jews. He'd have wanted you to be jewish. Accepting Jesus as the messiah owes more to the ideas of Paul than anything else. And that's in addition to all the above posts too.
Jesus actually goes by John Oldman now. Most recently he spent a decade teaching history at some college, and when he tried to peace out really quick fast his fellow teachers we're like "whaaaat" and the black dude from final destination was like "hell no!"
I wonder if Christianity would be as popular if jebus died peacefully in his sleep for my sins.
But no. Newtestamentgod needed to see someone suffer for a few days.
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"I wonder if Christianity would be as popular if jebus died peacefully in his sleep for my sins.
But no. Newtestamentgod needed to see someone suffer for a few days.
His violent painful death is supposed to underscore how much he loved us. Yeah, it was an ugly affair for sure, but then he doesn't really die. He gets back up, walks around, and then lives forever. So did he die for us or not? Apparently, it was just a temporary death, as opposed to a permanent one. I'm not sure how much that counts.
(//https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_PUIrFcSo9wDsLJ_VeyONl-UyM6Zw95ZZJnoM6olQJk8P5s7afQ)
Pascal was a child progeny and brilliant in mathematics.
For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed.
Blaise Pascal, Pensées #72
Pascal's Wager
(a) If God exists, then whoever doesn't believe in him will end up being eternally tormented or at least annihilated.
(b) If God exists, then whoever believes in him will gain eternal life.
(c) If God doesn't exist, then whether or not people believe in him can't matter very much.
(d) Hence [from (a)-(c)], nontheists are running a grave risk. At the very least, the expected utility of their belief situation is infinitely worse than that of theists.
(e) But such people are able to self-induce theistic belief.
(f) Therefore [from (d) & (e)], all nontheists ought to change their beliefs and become theists.
Here are some objections to PW:
There is no good reason to believe PW's premise (a), and there are many theists who would deny it. Furthermore, if that premise were true, then that would provide a basis for the Argument from Nonbelief, which is a strong argument for God's nonexistence. Thus, the given premise is weak and conceptually problematic.
According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God's son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, premise (b) of PW is not generally true, so far as the Bible is concerned. And, furthermore, apart from the Bible, there is no reason whatever to believe that premise. Thus, PW's premise (b) can reasonably be doubted.
Most people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others.
In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.
It may be that God does not exist and, instead, some other being rules the universe. That being may dislike intensely and may inflict infinite punishment on anyone who believes in God or who believes anything out of self-interest (as recommended in PW). But a person who comes to believe in God on the basis of PW would in that case be in "a heap of trouble," even though God does not exist. The expected utility of the theist's belief situation would be infinitely worse than that of the nontheist. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.
To believe in God, one must believe propositions that are, from the standpoint of most nontheists, impossible (or at least very hard) to believe. For that reason, PW's premise (e) can be rejected.
Belief is not directly subject to the will. So, it is impossible (or at least very difficult) for nontheists to self-induce theistic belief. This also renders PW's premise (e) false.
For all of these reasons, PW ought to be rejected.
Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Pascal was a child progeny and brilliant in mathematics.
For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed.
Blaise Pascal, Pensées #72
Pascal's Wager
(a) If God exists, then whoever doesn't believe in him will end up being eternally tormented or at least annihilated.
(b) If God exists, then whoever believes in him will gain eternal life.
(c) If God doesn't exist, then whether or not people believe in him can't matter very much.
(d) Hence [from (a)-(c)], nontheists are running a grave risk. At the very least, the expected utility of their belief situation is infinitely worse than that of theists.
(e) But such people are able to self-induce theistic belief.
(f) Therefore [from (d) & (e)], all nontheists ought to change their beliefs and become theists.
Here are some objections to PW:
There is no good reason to believe PW's premise (a), and there are many theists who would deny it. Furthermore, if that premise were true, then that would provide a basis for the Argument from Nonbelief, which is a strong argument for God's nonexistence. Thus, the given premise is weak and conceptually problematic.
According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God's son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, premise (b) of PW is not generally true, so far as the Bible is concerned. And, furthermore, apart from the Bible, there is no reason whatever to believe that premise. Thus, PW's premise (b) can reasonably be doubted.
Most people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others.
In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.
It may be that God does not exist and, instead, some other being rules the universe. That being may dislike intensely and may inflict infinite punishment on anyone who believes in God or who believes anything out of self-interest (as recommended in PW). But a person who comes to believe in God on the basis of PW would in that case be in "a heap of trouble," even though God does not exist. The expected utility of the theist's belief situation would be infinitely worse than that of the nontheist. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.
To believe in God, one must believe propositions that are, from the standpoint of most nontheists, impossible (or at least very hard) to believe. For that reason, PW's premise (e) can be rejected.
Belief is not directly subject to the will. So, it is impossible (or at least very difficult) for nontheists to self-induce theistic belief. This also renders PW's premise (e) false.
For all of these reasons, PW ought to be rejected.
Solitary
Thank you for all of your insightful answers. I've just heard this Pascal Wager term and have done a bit of research about it.
And yes, it's true the matter now isn't just accepting Jesus or not. There are 'accept Allah,' 'accept Vishnu,' 'accept Brahma,' or plethora of other gods.
Because I've heard the word God casually, I don't have a slightest idea to realize that the Bible God is not the only one. I just said, "Thank God" without even referring which god.
Maybe now the main concern is which one of those gods is the true God that can redeem our salvation?
It's possible that heaven and hell exist without the God created it. It's always been there (from atheists' perspective). So, in this case, maybe Jesus want to offer the salvation because he has been to hell and know that he can redeem our souls.
Of course, with the note that Jesus' stories are real. If not, then, the Gospel claim is all lies.
I don't say that this Yahweh is all-powerful or something like that. As the evidence from the Bible goes, a common sense will refute all omni bla bla bla claim for Bible God.
One thought is, it is just maybe Jesus can really do what he claimed to do. Until now, we don't have any evidence that refutes Jesus' claim.
Every religion probably starts with some guy claiming he's seen the light. Most of the time, people ignore these types, but once in a while, given the right circumstances and a bit of charisma, a new religion is created. Once it becomes established it makes it to a list of religions. But if I'm right about this, the premise that one has seen a light, is never more than a claim that no one can verify.
Quote from: "emulio"I don't say that this Yahweh is all-powerful or something like that. As the evidence from the Bible goes, a common sense will refute all omni bla bla bla claim for Bible God.
Have you ever wondered why they called him Yahweh? Why would an all powerful one of a kind being need a name?
(also, thanks to some lousy editing, the gods in Genesis refer to themselves in the plural. I believe Baal gets a mention later in the other books.)
Quote from: "emulio"One thought is, it is just maybe Jesus can really do what he claimed to do. Until now, we don't have any evidence that refutes Jesus' claim.
You've got the cart before the horse there. We don't have any evidence that supports the claims of Jesus.
In fact, some of the "miracles" he performed have been replicated by stage magicians and street performers. Which just undermines the miracle claim and makes it even more likely that the whole thing was made up.
When you catch someone in a lie, it casts doubt on the veracity of the rest of their claims. When you catch someone continually lying, then every claim they make is suspect.
Quote from: "emulio"One thought is, it is just maybe Jesus can really do what he claimed to do. Until now, we don't have any evidence that refutes Jesus' claim.
You don't have any evidence refuting my ability to shoot laserbeams from my eyes, either. But I don't think you're just going to believe that I can.
(Not even if I get some of the other forum members to vouch for me. Like Jesus did.)
Quote from: "emulio"One thought is, it is just maybe Jesus can really do what he claimed to do. Until now, we don't have any evidence that refutes Jesus' claim.
that's not how evidence works.
People believe in heaven because they can feel pleasure and happiness, and they believe in hell because they can feel pain and suffering. They want to be able to control what can't be controlled that effects their lives. Only a god could do that if you worship and placate him (her). :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "emulio"I don't say that this Yahweh is all-powerful or something like that.
Then why worry about him?
QuoteAs the evidence from the Bible goes, a common sense will refute all omni bla bla bla claim for Bible God.
Logic will - omnipotence is logically impossible and a god that isn't constrained by logic is also impossible.
QuoteOne thought is, it is just maybe Jesus can really do what he claimed to do.
He didn't claim anything. Even if the myth in the Bible were true (and there's TONS of evidence that it's made up), it was all written decades (or centuries) after Jesus' death. He was (again, only if the myth were true - it's not) a Jew from the time he was born until the day he died. He never started the "Chreestus" cult. That was first Paul, then later writers. (Totally anonymous later writers - we don't know who wrote the Gospels, about all we know is that it wasn't contemporaries of Jesus.)
QuoteUntil now, we don't have any evidence that refutes Jesus' claim.
We have the whole Bible to refute the claim that he existed. There was no town in Judaea named Nazareth in the early first century (it was 2 farms - they didn't have names), so he couldn't be from it. Rome required that people return to their place of
residence for the census, not their place of birth, so the whole "no place at the inn" story is false. Not one single historian who lived at the time noticed all the miracles being performed all over the place, and there were plenty of literate people in Jerusalem at the time. (Neither Tacitus not Josephus were born by the time Jesus was dead, and neither one is reliable evidence that anyone like the Biblical Jesus existed.)
I could go on and on, but it's all the same - no actual evidence that Jesus existed, and plenty of evidence that the guy in the story didn't exist. (The Bible isn't evidence that what's in the Bible is true, it's just evidence that some people could write books.)
So if you're going by what Jesus said, you're sitting very still, not even blinking - because "Jesus" never actually said anything - it was all words put into books by people who either couldn't have known him (because they weren't born when he died, or they were too young) or were too old to be reliable witnesses when they wrote what they wrote. (The earliest scrap of manuscript that MAY have been part of the New Testament (it has only 12 words on it) dates to about 117 CE. The earliest manuscript mentioning a "Yeshua" dates from 187 CE. There are claims that there were earlier manuscripts, and that what we have are accurate copies of them, but that's all they are - claims.
There's more actual evidence that Scientology is legitimate than there is that the Biblical Jesus existed - and we have the founder's own words that tell us that Scientology is a scam.
But if you want to risk that the actual god won't throw all Christians into the fires of hell, just because they were Christians, go ahead and believe.
Quote from: "emulio"Hello guys, this is my first post here.
First, I must confess that atheists' attack on Christianity is not baseless. It is not at all.
Old Testament DID really have some nasty stuff and weird rules. And Yahweh isn't as good as I have been taught to.
However, while I admit that maybe Yahweh isn't all-powerful and not omni-benevolent , it is still a possibility that we live in the world that he created. Therefore, we are also bound by his rules, no matter how strange it is.
So, isn't it safer to hedge your afterlife by accepting Jesus?
I mean, is there any person in the history who had boldly guaranteed your afterlife like Jesus did?
Please give me your thought about this.
"He", lets start right there, so we all know that god has testicles? Invisible to boot, how convenient.
Ok, you accept that the God character is a fucking asshole as written in that book. But so you have a respite, so to speak in part two "the fake suicide", but while people point out the OT, it seems the final chapter has him handing weapons to all his toys, and then shouts "YOU STAB EACH OTHER TO DEATH AND THE LAST ONE STANDING GETS TO KISS MY ASS".
It is not a possibility that such a monster exists, that is the good news. The bad news is that humans do not understand that the god/s that they invent are a childish narcissistic reflection of their own alpha male desires.
Quote from: "emulio"Hello guys, this is my first post here.
First, I must confess that atheists' attack on Christianity is not baseless. It is not at all.
Old Testament DID really have some nasty stuff and weird rules. And Yahweh isn't as good as I have been taught to.
However, while I admit that maybe Yahweh isn't all-powerful and not omni-benevolent , it is still a possibility that we live in the world that he created. Therefore, we are also bound by his rules, no matter how strange it is.
So, isn't it safer to hedge your afterlife by accepting Jesus?
I mean, is there any person in the history who had boldly guaranteed your afterlife like Jesus did?
Please give me your thought about this.
That old Pascals Wager popping up again, why Jesus? why not Mahommad? or perhaps just simply Yahweh, Allah, Thor, Zeus or Brahman? How can you be sure Jesus in not some heathenous idol in Yahweh's eyes? So I hedge my bet in believing in no god at all rather than the wrong one.
> Maybe now the main concern is which one of those gods is the true God that can redeem our salvation?
I am.
Send me 10% of your income, and I promise that, after you die, you will go to Heaven. If you aren't satisfied with Heaven, contact me, and I'll refund the unused portion of your money.
How's that for a deal? There aren't even any behavior requirements. You can do anything you want, subject to the laws in force in your political entity and the prevailing social climate.
Frank
Quote from: "FrankDK"> Maybe now the main concern is which one of those gods is the true God that can redeem our salvation?
I am.
Send me 10% of your income, and I promise that, after you die, you will go to Heaven. If you aren't satisfied with Heaven, contact me, and I'll refund the unused portion of your money.
How's that for a deal? There aren't even any behavior requirements. You can do anything you want, subject to the laws in force in your political entity and the prevailing social climate.
Frank
Don't be over charged on your afterlife! Act now and take advantage of this limited time offer: eternal paradise for only 9.95% of your income. But wait, be one of the next 100 callers and I'll throw in 72 regenerating virgins at no extra charge. Don't be fooled by imitations! The Poison Tree after life also come with an insanity pee for earthly wrongs--in case of criminal prosecution, just tell the judge and jury that you worship some dude you met on line. Act now and get a free 30 day trial. If your not completely satisfied, just return your order for a full refund--minus shipping and processing--and you can keep the 72 virgins--our special gift to you.
Quote from: "Brian37"Ok, you accept that the God character is a fucking asshole as written in that book. But so you have a respite, so to speak in part two "the fake suicide", but while people point out the OT, it seems the final chapter has him handing weapons to all his toys, and then shouts "YOU STAB EACH OTHER TO DEATH AND THE LAST ONE STANDING GETS TO KISS MY ASS".
Idi Amin is God?
Quote from: "emulio"And yes, it's true the matter now isn't just accepting Jesus or not. There are 'accept Allah,' 'accept Vishnu,' 'accept Brahma,' or plethora of other gods.
Because I've heard the word God casually, I don't have a slightest idea to realize that the Bible God is not the only one. I just said, "Thank God" without even referring which god.
Did you really not know that? :-k
QuoteMaybe now the main concern is which one of those gods is the true God that can redeem our salvation?
Since "salvation" is largely a Christian concept, your question might be a tad weighted in one direction.
QuoteIt's possible that heaven and hell exist without the God created it.
*wonders if he should point out that the statement appears to contradict itself*
Sure, why not.
QuoteIt's always been there (from atheists' perspective).
:-s
Heaven and hell have always been there from atheists' perspective?!
(//http://gallery.rennlist.com/albums/album439/incorrect.jpg)
QuoteSo, in this case, maybe Jesus want to offer the salvation because he has been to hell and know that he can redeem our souls.
Woah there. Lots of assumptions in there badly in need verification:
1) Jesus exists.
2) Jesus is God.
3) Heaven/Hell exists.
4) Jesus "redeems our souls" somehow.
Post proof or retract.
QuoteOf course, with the note that Jesus' stories are real. If not, then, the Gospel claim is all lies.
Well yeah. That's the sort of issue that has to be dealt with first before we talk about the pros and cons of converting, lol.
There is no more reason to believe Jesus did what he claimed than any other aspect of the bible. The bible is the word of god or it isn't. God exists or he doesn't. God can't be anything but what he claims- omnipotent, omniescent, immortal, etc. Neither can Jesus. An thing that qualifies god's nature negates it. You can't have a partial god and a complete Jesus, because they are one in the same.
Quote from: "emulio"One thought is, it is just maybe Jesus can really do what he claimed to do. Until now, we don't have any evidence that refutes Jesus' claim.
Oh, puh-leze! We don't have much GOOD evidence that the biblical Jesus ever lived.
(//http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g197/aynrkey/Pascal.png)
Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"Oh, puh-leze! We don't have much GOOD evidence that the biblical Jesus ever lived.
For values of "much" that are indistinguishable from "not the slightest shred". The only original assertion that Jesus was a real person is the Gospels. (Of which we don't have an actual shred until the 2nd century at best.) Paul merely claimed that Jesus - who was residing in the 7th heaven at the time (after having been killed in the first heaven), somehow informed him, Paul, about himself (Jesus).
These days, if someone says that he got mysterious messages in his head from someone, we diagnose him as schizophrenic and medicate him to prevent the hallucinations.
So 2 billion people believe the ravings of a 2,000-year dead schizo, and tell us that we'll be punished forever if we don't believe too. Lewis's trilemma is actually a dilemma, it's Paul, not Jesus, and he was either a liar or a lunatic. (300 years later, Constantine took advantage of the myth and created a religion that makes less sense than believing that Scientology works. And in that case, we have its inventor's own word that he did it for the money.)