> >>>>> On Thu, 7 May 1998, "LW" == Lloyd Wood wrote:
>
> LW> Why isn't 'deeds alone' an option here? There's a distinct
> LW> religious/cultural bias in the question otherwise.
>
> It's not an option there because the question revolves around the
> relevance of deeds in relation to faith.
and why not faith in relation to deeds? Why reject karma out of hand?
> That faith is required is a given, at least among those who tend to
> ask the question.
Only if you agree with Pascal's reasoning in his Wager. Pascal's main
problem there is that he does not attempt to consider the existence of
multiple religions; this requires some recalculation of the
probabilities, and comes out with an answer rather different to the
one he wanted.
To assume that faith is the necessary component around which all else
must pivot is a distinctly biased viewpoint, but that's
understandable...
> Christ paid for our sins so that we can
> enjoy eternal life with Him. Had he not, we'd spend eternity apart from
> Him. He never promised that we wouldn't have to pay the earthly price
> for our transgressions against society.
...given where you're so obviously coming from.
The problem is that any obviously sensible religions, where deeds and
intent count far more than faith does, have no marketing ploy to gain
new converts and Spread The Word Further. Hence, the non-sensible
religions (that is, all surviving organised ones) get to have crusades
and fervent jihads thanks to their separate on- and off-reality
accounting systems, and wipe out everything else. Hmmph.
Evangelist = evil agent (anagram).
L.
thinks Thomas Aquinas is bunk. Good grief, Altavista has actually
indexed through Amazon's tracking system on Aquinas - is Amazon owned
by catholics, perchance?
<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.sat-net.com/L.Wood/>+44-1483-300800x3641