Pascal's Wager?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that wouldn't be consistent with the teller of the parable's point of view then. I'm simply saying that one can take any metaphor and make it say something absurd, if it's read literally. So I don't accept that would be a valid interpretation of what the parable was meant to convey. I wouldn't even consider a "Freudian Slip" in the mind of Jesus. It's think at best, it's a clever political interpretation, but nothing to seriously consider.

A more likely intended meaning behind that passage is that God predestines people for eternal life or not. At the risk of contradicting my point about not looking for a coherent message in the Bible, we can see this same sentiment echoed in many other passages such as Romans 9 (we're all "pots" and the "potter" will designate us for whatever purpose he chooses) or the Book of Job (don't judge God's actions unless you're as mighty as God).

Really, the message of this parable is something like "Christianity isn't about universal salvation, and that's just the way God wants it."

 

[Windwalker]

A more likely intended meaning behind that passage is that God predestines people for eternal life or not. At the risk of contradicting my point about not looking for a coherent message in the Bible, we can see this same sentiment echoed in many other passages such as Romans 9 (we're all "pots" and the "potter" will designate us for whatever purpose he chooses) or the Book of Job (don't judge God's actions unless you're as mighty as God).

Really, the message of this parable is something like "Christianity isn't about universal salvation, and that's just the way God wants it."

That is of course the Calvinist interpretation of predestination read into various passages. The idea that the parable of the sower and seed fits a Calvinist theology had never entered into my mind in reading it. In fact I very much hear it as a statement consistent with any sort of human ability to receive truth and knowledge, regardless of what it is, and be able to integrate it into their lives. The metaphors of the thorns and the stone are ways to talk about the internal states of a person's mind and heart, and it applies to anything. If the worries of the world consume you how can you see the forest through the trees? How can you stop to smell the roses if you're constantly distracted by your mundane concerns? What the world has to offer becomes lost to you, because you choke it death by being preoccupied, and all of that. "Where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also".

These are axioms. They are universal truths, spoken in metaphors. I honestly think it's a stretch to say it speaks of predestination. Why bother to sow at all? But again, I wish to stress, these apply to anything that is beneficial to us, and how many never let it take root, never let it grown, and never integrate them. The reasons expressed in the metaphor are valid ways to talk about why and how. Right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is of course the Calvinist interpretation of predestination read into various passages. The idea that the parable of the sower and seed fits a Calvinist theology had never entered into my mind in reading it. In fact I very much hear it as a statement consistent with any sort of human ability to receive truth and knowledge, regardless of what it is, and be able to integrate it into their lives. The metaphors of the thorns and the stone are ways to talk about the internal states of a person's mind and heart, and it applies to anything.

So in your version of the parable, a seed that was thrown onto the path by the farmer would have been able to get up, walk over to fertile ground, and re-plant itself?

 

[Windwalker]

So in your version of the parable, a seed that was thrown onto the path by the farmer would have been able to get up, walk over to fertile ground, and re-plant itself?

Running with the parable, the seed has the same potential to grow as in all seed. The seed is simply the vessel of truth, and in and of itself has no potential to unfold if it has no adequate ground in which to grow. The seed is freely dispersed, indiscriminately, without judgement, such as the saying, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Rain is rain. Seed is seed. Light is light. They are nothing in and of themselves without the interaction of the environment with them. (So your "bad farmer", by the way is probably better understood in the light of indiscriminate generosity in this light and not foolish stewardship).

You can probably put it this way then to help with the analogy, a bird eats berries and shoots out seeds through their digestive tracts indiscriminately, some landing on the sidewalk, some in a weed garden, and some on fertile soil. So the bird is the sower of the seed. But the seed does not grow without the right environment. And that is absolutely true of anything in our lives. We are the ones who do what is necessary to make ourselves good ground to receive seeds, light, and watering through conscious choice. That point is, as humans, we have choice and will. And if were are mindless, careless with ourselves, we aren't very fertile ground for much of anything, really. It's not a problem with the seed. It's not a problem with the farmer (or the bird). It's about the choice we make about how open and receptive we are through a disciplined mind and heart to truth and knowledge, or not. And how much or how little that is the case is a choice of our own conscious will.

Again, I'll stress, that receptivity is not about accepting a bunch of teachings from some particular religious group's book of doctrines. Not at all. It's open living with an open heart, one that does deny or reject genuine light in whatever form that takes and becomes an infertile heart. If our "ground" isn't open, we become fruitless.

 

[Parsimony]

The logic used in Pascal's Wager can lead to very strange consequences. Imagine a stranger walking up to you and claiming that he was a god. He says that if you do not do everything that he tells you to, for life, he will torment you forever in the afterlife. According to Pascal's Wager, the best choice is to do as he says, "just in case". Now who would actually do that?

 

[Thief]

The logic used in Pascal's Wager can lead to very strange consequences. Imagine a stranger walking up to you and claiming that he was a god. He says that if you do not do everything that he tells you to, for life, he will torment you forever in the afterlife. According to Pascal's Wager, the best choice is to do as he says, "just in case". Now who would actually do that?

That's what the parables do.

 

[Thief]

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
Wolfgang Pauli

Rough translation:
It's not right...it's not reasonable enuf to even be wrong!

We all see things differently.
When you read scripture it will have a unique affect on your mind and heart..
That reaction makes all the difference.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only the reader has a reaction.
Scripture is just a Rohrschach ink blot.

 

[Thief]

Only the reader has a reaction.
Scripture is just a Rohrschach ink blot.

???...I thought I just said that.

 

[Revoltingest]

???...I thought I just said that.

You had the scripture doing the reacting.

 

[Thief]

You had the scripture doing the reacting.

ooops!....I shall edit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Running with the parable, the seed has the same potential to grow as in all seed. The seed is simply the vessel of truth, and in and of itself has no potential to unfold if it has no adequate ground in which to grow. The seed is freely dispersed, indiscriminately, without judgement, such as the saying, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Rain is rain. Seed is seed. Light is light. They are nothing in and of themselves without the interaction of the environment with them. (So your "bad farmer", by the way is probably better understood in the light of indiscriminate generosity in this light and not foolish stewardship).

You can probably put it this way then to help with the analogy, a bird eats berries and shoots out seeds through their digestive tracts indiscriminately, some landing on the sidewalk, some in a weed garden, and some on fertile soil. So the bird is the sower of the seed. But the seed does not grow without the right environment. And that is absolutely true of anything in our lives. We are the ones who do what is necessary to make ourselves good ground to receive seeds, light, and watering through conscious choice. That point is, as humans, we have choice and will. And if were are mindless, careless with ourselves, we aren't very fertile ground for much of anything, really. It's not a problem with the seed. It's not a problem with the farmer (or the bird). It's about the choice we make about how open and receptive we are through a disciplined mind and heart to truth and knowledge, or not. And how much or how little that is the case is a choice of our own conscious will.

Again, I'll stress, that receptivity is not about accepting a bunch of teachings from some particular religious group's book of doctrines. Not at all. It's open living with an open heart, one that does deny or reject genuine light in whatever form that takes and becomes an infertile heart. If our "ground" isn't open, we become fruitless.

Running with the parable, the seed has the same potential to grow as in all seed. The seed is simply the vessel of truth, and in and of itself has no potential to unfold if it has no adequate ground in which to grow. The seed is freely dispersed, indiscriminately, without judgement, such as the saying, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Rain is rain. Seed is seed. Light is light. They are nothing in and of themselves without the interaction of the environment with them. (So your "bad farmer", by the way is probably better understood in the light of indiscriminate generosity in this light and not foolish stewardship).

You can probably put it this way then to help with the analogy, a bird eats berries and shoots out seeds through their digestive tracts indiscriminately, some landing on the sidewalk, some in a weed garden, and some on fertile soil. So the bird is the sower of the seed. But the seed does not grow without the right environment. And that is absolutely true of anything in our lives. We are the ones who do what is necessary to make ourselves good ground to receive seeds, light, and watering through conscious choice. That point is, as humans, we have choice and will. And if were are mindless, careless with ourselves, we aren't very fertile ground for much of anything, really. It's not a problem with the seed. It's not a problem with the farmer (or the bird). It's about the choice we make about how open and receptive we are through a disciplined mind and heart to truth and knowledge, or not. And how much or how little that is the case is a choice of our own conscious will.

The parable suggests that it's not a matter of choice at all. Rock doesn't choose to be rock; thorny ground doesn't choose to be thorny... and more to the point, the ground is powerless to make itself better even if it wanted to be. Rocky soil becomes good soil by having a farmer clear the rocks away. Thorny ground becomes good land by having the farmer clear the thorn bushes.

Again, I'll stress, that receptivity is not about accepting a bunch of teachings from some particular religious group's book of doctrines. Not at all. It's open living with an open heart, one that does deny or reject genuine light in whatever form that takes and becomes an infertile heart. If our "ground" isn't open, we become fruitless.

To run with the analogy a bit more, the thorny ground was "open" at one point, too. Its openness before allowed the thorn bushes to take root, which prevented the farmer's seed from growing.

...as was the pathway, but the fact that it was used in service of others (since a path only gets compacted with use) was what stopped it from being able to accept the seed. I may be straining the analogy here, though it does fit somewhat with the story of Mary and Martha (where Jesus promises the better reward to Mary - no relation - because she abandoned her work to sit and listen to him while her sister Martha kept working on all the things that had to be done).

 

[Thief]

The parable suggests that it's not a matter of choice at all. Rock doesn't choose to be rock; thorny ground doesn't choose to be thorny... and more to the point, the ground is powerless to make itself better even if it wanted to be. Rocky soil becomes good soil by having a farmer clear the rocks away. Thorny ground becomes good land by having the farmer clear the thorn bushes.


To run with the analogy a bit more, the thorny ground was "open" at one point, too. Its openness before allowed the thorn bushes to take root, which prevented the farmer's seed from growing.

...as was the pathway, but the fact that it was used in service of others (since a path only gets compacted with use) was what stopped it from being able to accept the seed. I may be straining the analogy here, though it does fit somewhat with the story of Mary and Martha (where Jesus promises the better reward to Mary - no relation - because she abandoned her work to sit and listen to him while her sister Martha kept working on all the things that had to be done).

So you are sure.....The Spirit settles and takes root as it is able to do so?

and we are keeping to min?....unlike the earth we can shift our manner of being.

Or do you prefer to be 'stone' rigid...you are what you are....and cannot change?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are sure.....The Spirit settles and takes root as it is able to do so?

and we are keeping to min?....unlike the earth we can shift our manner of being.

Or do you prefer to be 'stone' rigid...you are what you are....and cannot change?

I'm not talking about my own personal beliefs or preferences. I'm talking about the symbolism of this particular parable.

 

[Windwalker]

The parable suggests that it's not a matter of choice at all. Rock doesn't choose to be rock; thorny ground doesn't choose to be thorny... and more to the point, the ground is powerless to make itself better even if it wanted to be. Rocky soil becomes good soil by having a farmer clear the rocks away. Thorny ground becomes good land by having the farmer clear the thorn bushes.


To run with the analogy a bit more, the thorny ground was "open" at one point, too. Its openness before allowed the thorn bushes to take root, which prevented the farmer's seed from growing.

...as was the pathway, but the fact that it was used in service of others (since a path only gets compacted with use) was what stopped it from being able to accept the seed. I may be straining the analogy here, though it does fit somewhat with the story of Mary and Martha (where Jesus promises the better reward to Mary - no relation - because she abandoned her work to sit and listen to him while her sister Martha kept working on all the things that had to be done).

It's somewhat amusing to me how a parable must be taken so strictly, in literal terms so as to completely gut it of meaning. The are, here's the word, loose analogies, not a strict parameters as in a scientific experiment!! Gosh, it's exhausting with you. .

Here's the deal, the point is to talk about the ground, the receiver, about you, not about the farmer, not about the seed. What kind of soil are you? And if there is stone on your ground, then YOU move it. The farmer in this LOOSE analogy is the indiscriminate sower of seed, liberally throwing them to the earth like a flock of birds dropping their seed-ladened poop everywhere, liberally spreading their goopy joy. The seed is the seed, the potential of life. It doesn't get up and walk around. The analogy is about what sort of HEART do you have! Is it stony? Is it full of weeds? So it's about the receiver, and the receiver most definitely has a choice!

I have a garden in my backyard. Now, I just sit back and drink beer and let the weeds take over (which sounds about right, sometimes ), or I can tend to my soil and be mindful of what I need to do to make the seeds grow. I have to clear the rocks. I have to clear the weeds if I expect produce. In other words, how responsible are you?

It's really that simple, and if you don't get this, then I can only conclude you're just being obtuse for personal amusement. Either that, or you seriously are unable to think in terms of metaphor. That's possible too.

 

[Thief]

I'm not talking about my own personal beliefs or preferences. I'm talking about the symbolism of this particular parable.

Parables draw everyone in....no exceptions.

The parable at hand includes everyone....all that hear of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's somewhat amusing to me how a parable must be taken so strictly, in literal terms so as to completely gut it of meaning. The are, here's the word, loose analogies, not a strict parameters as in a scientific experiment!! Gosh, it's exhausting with you. .

It's not just about this parable. It's about a larger thread throughout Christianity (or at least throughout common variants of Christianity): the sovereignty of God. With sovereignty comes responsibility, but many Christians seem to only be interested in talking about the sovereignty of God without talking about God's responsibility.

To use another Biblical analogy, if God really is a "potter" and we're just "pots", then our failures are God's failures. If a pot leaks or breaks when performing its intended purpose, then this is the sign of a crappy potter.

Here's the deal, the point is to talk about the ground, the receiver, about you, not about the farmer, not about the seed.

I realize that this is the intent. However, things the story says about the ground reflect on the farmer and the seed... even if believers don't want to face them.

What kind of soil are you? And if there is stone on your ground, then YOU move it. The farmer in this LOOSE analogy is the indiscriminate sower of seed, liberally throwing them to the earth like a flock of birds dropping their seed-ladened poop everywhere, liberally spreading their goopy joy. The seed is the seed, the potential of life. It doesn't get up and walk around. The analogy is about what sort of HEART do you have! Is it stony? Is it full of weeds? So it's about the receiver, and the receiver most definitely has a choice! If have a garden in my backyard. Now, I just sit back and drink beer and let the weeds take over (which sounds about right, sometimes ), or I can tend to my soil and be mindful of what I need to do to make the seeds grow. I have to clear the rocks. I have to clear the weeds if I expect produce.

You're taking the role of the farmer in this analogy. You realize this, right?

It's really that simple, and if you don't get this, then I can only conclude you're just being obtuse for personal amusement. Either that, or you seriously are unable to think in terms of metaphor. That's possible too.

Again: I realize that the metaphor is intended in the simplistic way you suggest. I'm interested in exploring the deeper issues that it raises. For a belief system to be coherent, it has to be consistent with itself. What the parable suggests in its narrow intended context has broader implications.

 

[Thief]

And you also assume? that in spite of the broad implications......you are outside the boundaries.

 

[Windwalker]

It's not just about this parable. It's about a larger thread throughout Christianity (or at least throughout common variants of Christianity): the sovereignty of God. With sovereignty comes responsibility, but many Christians seem to only be interested in talking about the sovereignty of God without talking about God's responsibility.

Fine, yes, I agree there is a larger issue. And I'm happy to go that path of discussion regarding the whole Calvinist theology (which is what you are addressing here). All I was saying is you were stretching the analogy of the parable.

To use another Biblical analogy, if God really is a "potter" and we're just "pots", then our failures are God's failures. If a pot leaks or breaks when performing its intended purpose, then this is the sign of a crappy potter.

You know, actually, I tend to think that such versus or analogies or metaphors also fall victim to the literalist mind and become such doctrines as a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. I know these verses, and in a certain loose way, from a certain point of view, they speak a truth. When one literalizes it, then you end up distorting the meaning into some formula, some magical supernatural technical schematic to analyze how this "God" ostensibly functions. It's absurd, but yet that truly defines what most theologies are, reducing God to an "operators manual" like how to make your tractor work. It's just laughable, if it weren't so tragic.

I realize that this is the intent. However, things the story says about the ground reflect on the farmer and the seed... even if believers don't want to face them.

I just think there are better ways to go about pointing out the flaws in one's cherished doctrines they cling to for their sense of security.

You're taking the role of the farmer in this analogy. You realize this, right?

Kind of, yeah. I would say we are more the stewards of our own garden, and the seeds are free, abundantly dropped everywhere by airplane flown by Farmer God. If we want our gardens to be fruitful, we have to maintain them.

Again: I realize that the metaphor is intended in the simplistic way you suggest. I'm interested in exploring the deeper issues that it raises. For a belief system to be coherent, it has to be consistent with itself. What the parable suggests in its narrow intended context has broader implications.

Only if you envision God as John Calvin did.

 

[Skwim]

My problem with Pascal's Wager

If god makes his decision of whether person X goes to heaven or hell based on the assertion of X, wouldn't this assertion have to be sincere rather than an expediency? In other words, would mere lip service as to god's existence be enough?

Personally, I would think not.