Everyone knows Pascal's Wager. He stated that there is no logical evidence that God does or does not exist, but that we should believe in God because the benefits of doing so, if we are correct, are infinite, while the benefits of disbelieving in God, if we are correct, are finite. This can be reversed to refer to suffering. This is not the basis on which I believe in God, but it is Pascal's basic way of thinking that has led to many of the mental breakdowns you may have seen on this site. Applying his wager to ethics, if a given act (using the word act to include words and thoughts) is not specifically ordered or deemed permissible in the Bible, then I feel that I should not carry out such an action. After all, I might want to do something, but the satisfaction of that want is finite. If it should turn out that the act is sinful, the consequences, in Christian theology, could be infinite (eternal hell). If I am uncertain, I will not be punished for erring on the side of self-discipline, but if I err on the side of self-indulgence, I will, in my own understanding, go to hell. This leads me into a more and more narrow circle of habits until I feel I can do almost nothing safely. It drives me to madness, and many of you have seen that madness on this site. Of course, one might argue that I should abandon this wager, but I would risk hellfire if I did so, and I would risk hellfire if I stopped believing that... ad infinitum. I cannot reason past this point. I therefore ask for the advice of experts on religion. I greatly appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Pascal took things one step further.
The wager also assumed that the gambler put his money down on the correct god. Shintoists, Zoroastrians, Hindus etc. didn't believe in "God". Pascal's Wager argued that what ever number you selected on Fortuna's wheel, it might be the wrong one.
In any case, this sort of spiritual commitment is hardly an act of faith. It's an act of cautious reason.

Regarding the ethics question:
While there are several mentions in the bible of cannibalism there is no condemnation of the practice. How does this naturalistic taboo fit into your paradigm?

Well, the Bible does not specifically approve of cannibalism either. As for your other point, it is correct, but my belief in God isn't based on Pascal's wager. I was comparing his logic with what leads me into my ethical dilemmas. My ethics tend to be based on this:

1. If a given action is not specifically approved or condemned in the Bible, it might or might not be wrong.

2. If I choose the more restrictive approach (just in case it might be wrong), I will not be punished if I am incorrect.

3. If I choose the less restrictive approach, I will be punished (possibly eternally) if the action is, in God's sight, immoral.

4. Therefore, whenever I have no guidance as to whether or not I should do something, I should not do it, since it might be wrong and I might suffer eternally for doing it.

This is very cold and methodical, but it also drives me into fits of insanity.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

One might think that, if the bible were man's behavior handbook, that it might offer some guidance on the matter of devouring the tissue of others. It instructs slaves how to relate to their masters and condemns us for wearing blended fabrics. The level of detail can get pretty narrow. We intuit that cannibalism is wrong because it offends us at a pre-cognative level. That's why it's not necessary for the bible to condemn it. Our morality is actually gathered from our native common sense. Cultures that don't have this Judeo-Christian collection in their tradition share all our important mores.
I think there is only one fundamental moral rule: Treat others as you would be treated. That is the essential civilizing impulse.

That ethic, while well intended, has the flaw that others may not wish to be treated as we wish to be treated. Therefore, one must add to that ethic a qualifier, "Treat others as you would be treated... if you were them." However, it is impossible to know how others wish to be treated with absolute precision. Then there is the problem that neither we nor others may know what is best for us in the long term. Would that ethics were as simple as the golden rule, but it is not.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

You are not perfect, nor does God expect you to be, and this why we have reconciliation. If a criminal can enter heaven, why can’t you?
You should read some of the books written by Scott Peck. He suggested that everyone must have a master whether it is God, government, an ideal, or one’s own ego.

Without intending to extend our quarrel into the religion forum, Jellyfish, I must state in all sincerity that I am not going to take advice on religion or philosophy from you.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I am giving you sound advice.
If you want to play the fool, then by all means do so!

You may hate me too, Force, but Jellyfish is right. I believe that there's a certain degree of blasphemy when expecting oneself to be perfect. Absolutely nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to be perfect in order to get to heaven. Only God can be perfect.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Actually, I respect you and all of the others I insulted a while back. That was one of the fits of insanity I was writing about (not an excuse, just an explanation). I don't respect Jellyfish, however, and if you have seen many of his posts you know why.

Well, it isn't that I expect to be perfect, it's that I don't know when I am required to repent. Some things I know to be sins, others I know to be good deeds, but to be honest, I am uncertain about the ethical status of the majority of actions.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)