The Bobcat Nation

'93HonoluluCat wrote:If she had not yet accepted Christ as her savior, she would be destined for an eternal life in hell. That would be one reason.

The other reason is we are not God. It's time we stopped trying to be.

Hmmmm. So does that mean we should stop making machines that artificially keep people alive, or does that mean we should use them to keep people alive at all costs? We seem to be running into some gray area with this one. I am still wondering how God gets out of this without any blame. Why did he put her in that state? What are we as mortals to do when he plays these dirty tricks on people by destroying their bodies, yet giving us the ability to create technology to keep them alive indefintitely. Somebody needs to have a talk with that guy and get some firm ground rules for this sort of thing.

As for the first part ... it's your myth, believe what you want (I'm willing to bet eternal damnation plus $2 that you're way off). I prefer to think that God's not quite that insecure and spiteful. No wonder I loath self-righteous religious fundamentalist cults so much. They're just not very nice.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:If she had not yet accepted Christ as her savior, she would be destined for an eternal life in hell. That would be one reason.

The other reason is we are not God. It's time we stopped trying to be.

As for the first part ... it's your myth, believe what you want (I'm willing to bet eternal damnation plus $2 that you're way off). I prefer to think that God's not quite that insecure and spiteful. No wonder I loath self-righteous religious fundamentalist cults so much. They're just not very nice.

This isn't the right thread for this discussion, (and I don't want to raise the ire of KMax) so I'll be brief.

It's your eternity, not mine. But let's think about this. If you're right and I'm wrong, and there's not a God like I believe, I'm out nothing, other than believing in something that wasn't true. If I'm right and you're wrong, on the other hand, eternity won't be very fun for you.

I'm happy to carry this discussion to another thread, if you so desire.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's your eternity, not mine. But let's think about this. If you're right and I'm wrong, and there's not a God like I believe, I'm out nothing, other than believing in something that wasn't true. If I'm right and you're wrong, on the other hand, eternity won't be very fun for you.

I'm not too worried. Hell sounded scary when I was about 5, but after that it began to sound like something made up to scare little kids (and some adults) into doing what their parents (or church leaders) wanted them to do.

Living life without fear of a cartoon character named Satan a vengeful and spiteful God is good by me. And if I'm wrong, who's to say that hell isn't the fun place to be? If the only people in heaven are one narrow band of religous followers, it stands to reason that there will be at least a couple interesting people to hang out with in hell. I mean, out of 99% of the world's population, I'll find at least a couple friends. The parties will certainly be better as well.

I moved it to a new thread, if that makes you feel better.

Bay Area Cat wrote:I moved it to a new thread, if that makes you feel better.

I really couldn't care less, but kmax would have busted us for moving off topic, methinks.

If we're going to continue the "if I'm right" thought, you have to accept the entire package.

Hell is not a pleasant place. Several times throughout the Bible, it's described as being a place filled with torment--Revelations calls it the "Lake of Fire."

All the bad in this world owes its existance to one event in the Garden of Eden, when Satan first tempted mankind. God could have created us without an ability to do wrong, no question. But a choice of doing His will and following Him is better and a greater blessing to Him than if he created us to be obedient robots.

But Revelations is a critique of the Roman Empire, so I'm not going to pull anything literal out of the string of parables in there.

And the Garden of Eden is an element of myth, just like every other religion's creation story. Fortunately, our society has advanced to the point that we now have a better idea of what happened throughout history, yet we can still appreciate the moral and sociological virtues of the Book of Genesis. The Bible is indeed a very interesting and enlightening book when read in the proper context.

I'm sticking to the "hell is fun" theme. It's impossible to disprove, and 99.999% of the people on earth can't be wrong!

Bay Area Cat wrote:
I'm sticking to the "hell is fun" theme. It's impossible to disprove, and 99.999% of the people on earth can't be wrong!

LMAO alrighty then but i will tell ya this: there is only one way to prove your point and i hope to god that you dont want to prove it BAC, i will miss our policitcl sparring

Well, we could have seance and conjure up some demons and angels to testify or something, but I think I'll just let this life thing play itself out, and then do my gloating on the other side.

Just remember, HC, when we both live out our full wonderful lives and pass on to other side, you will know who I am when I ride up to you on my dirt bike and say "I want my two dollars!"

Hell's Bells wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:
I'm sticking to the "hell is fun" theme. It's impossible to disprove, and 99.999% of the people on earth can't be wrong!

LMAO alrighty then but i will tell ya this: there is only one way to prove your point and i hope to god that you dont want to prove it BAC, i will miss our policitcl sparring

And not to be a downer, HB, but in minds of many fundamentalist Christians (I have no idea if HC believes this or not), Catholics aren't catching the shuttle bus to heaven. You might just be fighting me for top bunk in our hell dorm ... and I snore. Maybe that's the definition of hell itself.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's your eternity, not mine. But let's think about this. If you're right and I'm wrong, and there's not a God like I believe, I'm out nothing, other than believing in something that wasn't true. If I'm right and you're wrong, on the other hand, eternity won't be very fun for you.

Ahh yes, Pascal's Wager. Let's see -- if you graduated from MSU in 93 (from your screen name), that means it must have been about 1990 or so when you took Philosophy 101 and learned about this argument. Impressive that you still remember it 15 years later.

However, since you learned about Pascal's Wager, I'm sure that in the course of your class's discussion, you guys probably also figured out why it's a flawed argument. If the reason you believe in God is because of the "Wager," then an omnipotent God will know that you do not truly believe, and you'll still burn in hell. Sorry to disappoint you...

--GL

Bay Area Cat wrote:But Revelations is a critique of the Roman Empire

By who's interpretation?

Bay Area Cat wrote: And not to be a downer, HB, but in minds of many fundamentalist Christians (I have no idea if HC believes this or not), Catholics aren't catching the shuttle bus to heaven. You might just be fighting me for top bunk in our hell dorm ... and I snore. Maybe that's the definition of hell itself.

i have heard that argument before and it makes no sence. Most of the people who i know who make that argument are the nicest people you would meat but that argument in itself is flawed...i dont want to get into it tonight and i am sure you dont want this to turn this into a dogmatic thread...well more so then it is. I do not believe that. All of my family are cathlic and as for myself i shuttle myself between the cathlic church and a series of 2 evangelical churches.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:But Revelations is a critique of the Roman Empire

By who's interpretation?

BAC where did u get that? kinda got be interested in that kind of interpertation...the history buff in me

Grizlaw wrote:Ahh yes, Pascal's Wager. Let's see -- if you graduated from MSU in 93 (from your screen name), that means it must have been about 1990 or so when you took Philosophy 101 and learned about this argument. Impressive that you still remember it 15 years later.

Never took Phil 101; I decided on other classes for my Core...just can't remember what at this point in time. Regardless, I'm not claiming that line of thought as my own. It's just one that I thought was perinent.

Grizlaw wrote:However, since you learned about Pascal's Wager, I'm sure that in the course of your class's discussion, you guys probably also figured out why it's a flawed argument. If the reason you believe in God is because of the "Wager," then an omnipotent God will know that you do not truly believe, and you'll still burn in hell. Sorry to disappoint you...
--GL

That statement shows a misunderstanding of what I believe. I believe that Christ is the son of God, and was sent to a horrible death hanging on a cross to pay for the sins of everyone--yes, everyone, whether they believe He did or not. It is incumbent on everyone to confess their sins and accept Christ as Lord in order to go to heaven. Without that confession and acceptance, no one goes to heaven, "Wager" or not.

To really fulfill "The Wager" in this context, BAC would have to believe as I do, and I would have to accept his belief system.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:But Revelations is a critique of the Roman Empire

By who's interpretation?

God told me.

I can't remember -- I've read that in a lot of places, and it makes a lot more sense than anything else I have read on the topic.

Hell's Bells wrote:i have heard that argument before and it makes no sence. Most of the people who i know who make that argument are the nicest people you would meat but that argument in itself is flawed...i dont want to get into it tonight and i am sure you dont want this to turn this into a dogmatic thread...well more so then it is. I do not believe that. All of my family are cathlic and as for myself i shuttle myself between the cathlic church and a series of 2 evangelical churches.

I agree that it is flawed -- none of it makes any sense (that there is a God so insecure that he will banish you to a bad, bad place unless you believe in him and only him even without any proof to support his existence and wishes). I just get a laugh out of it when people throw that kind of idea out there, and it gets even stranger when they go on to say that only their very specific brand of Christianity makes the cut, it gets even harder to understand. (Besides, South Park already let us know that the right answer was "The Mormons." Yes, the Mormons are the one true religion. Very funny episode.)

I'm just a big fan of JC's "Do unto others" credo, and I leave the eternal damnation stuff to people who need/want it for whatever reason (to scare them into following the rules, to feel superior to others, to have a sense of purpose, to be able to say "hell" without it qualifying as a swear word, etc., etc.).

But like I said, be very afraid. When I say I snore, I mean I snore really loud. And no matter how much you beg, I'm not sharing my bunk. If you show up late and all of the bunks are full, you get the floor.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:But Revelations is a critique of the Roman Empire

By who's interpretation?

God told me.

I can't remember -- I've read that in a lot of places, and it makes a lot more sense than anything else I have read on the topic.

This isn't where I read it, but it was the first thing to pop up on a google search. Enjoy:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... white.html

BAC wrote:I'm just a big fan of JC's "Do unto others" credo

So am I.

BAC wrote:...and I leave the eternal damnation stuff to people who need/want it for whatever reason (to scare them into following the rules, to feel superior to others, to have a sense of purpose, to be able to say "hell" without it qualifying as a swear word, etc., etc.).

Christians aren't supposed to make ourselves "superior to others," because we're all sinners. None of us are perfect, and all of us need Christ's redemption. And I can say "Hell" when ever I want, just like you can say "Montana": they're both locations, so why wouldn't I be able to say "Hell?"

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

Grizlaw wrote:However, since you learned about Pascal's Wager, I'm sure that in the course of your class's discussion, you guys probably also figured out why it's a flawed argument. If the reason you believe in God is because of the "Wager," then an omnipotent God will know that you do not truly believe, and you'll still burn in hell. Sorry to disappoint you...
--GL

That statement shows a misunderstanding of what I believe. I believe that Christ is the son of God, and was sent to a horrible death hanging on a cross to pay for the sins of everyone--yes, everyone, whether they believe He did or not. It is incumbent on everyone to confess their sins and accept Christ as Lord in order to go to heaven. Without that confession and acceptance, no one goes to heaven, "Wager" or not.

To really fulfill "The Wager" in this context, BAC would have to believe as I do, and I would have to accept his belief system.

Don't get me wrong; I wasn't suggesting that Pascal's Wager was the reason why *you* believe in God. I was just pointing out the logical inconsistency that is inherent in the argument. For the reason I stated, Pascal's Wager is an invalid argument in terms of convincing a non-believer that he/she should believe. That's all I was pointing out.

'93HonoluluCat wrote: This isn't the right thread for this discussion, (and I don't want to raise the ire of KMax) so I'll be brief.

Geez, am I really that cranky? I really am a nice guy, I promise.

Throughout the time on Bobcat Nation, the ESPN board and Rivals, BAC simply picks a topic, then an opinion and argues just to argue. Even if he believes in the opposition, I think the guy just likes playing "devils advocate" and loves to debate. Should have been a lawyer BAC - especially since you want to go to hell.