You're gonna burn in hell (but not the one by TS)

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:39 pm

CelticCat wrote:It's not just religion I don't voice my opinions about, it's damn near everything. The main reason is I just respect almost every lifestyle choice there is, excluding crime and being a Griz fan. Plus I'm not the kind of guy to care about world issues, politics, abortion, what have you. I find worrying about those things just makes me age faster.

Don't get me wrong I love a good argument, but I like to argue about stupid things. Me and my friends are like a carbon-copy of Seinfeld tossed in with the stupidity and maturity of Animal House. We'd rather argue about whether peeing in the shower is acceptable vs if killing an unborn baby is.

It takes work not to care, people don't give me enough credit.

I envy you ... I truly do.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:51 pm

Celtic Cat: I think you've reached nirvana. You must always have a perpetual half-smile on your face.

For whatever reason, religion exists. It’s real. How people deal with their own beliefs about religion is where things run off track. I have no problem with any of the basic tenets of Islam, Xtianity, Judaism. The fundamentals of their messages are nice to believe, if you can convince yourself to do it. I don’t like that the unknown is a source of fear and confusion for me, but I cannot lie to myself and just blindly believe in something. There has to be a reason. You can’t fake confidence, so I don’t think anyone can say they have faith in whatever religion they profess to belong to, because I don’t think the human mind is capable of that. Religion is an answer to the question: Why are we here?

As usual a discussion about religion has led to a fight (bickering in this case about whether or not BAC is open-minded). Which is what religion is in the world today - a fight. It’s hard to say if religion has caused more peace or war. I’d like to think peace, but if war is defined as any kind of turmoil (divorce, arguments, fist-fights, etc.) then it’s probably a close race.

Religions are supposed to teach tolerance, but it’s kind of hard for them to do that. We always find something to argue about, whether it's peeing in the shower or double-dipping.
For the record, peeing in the shower is OK, but double-dipping is a social no-no.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:34 pm

Since Hawaii is three hours past the west coast, all of you got a head start today. Let me try to catch up...

briannell wrote:sorry HC93, you can go every Sunday to whatever Church you belong to, but the only requirement ANYONE needs to get to Heaven is Christ in their heart.

Absolutely. I didn't say anything about any requirement for church attendance.

BAC wrote:...why did you change religions in the first place? Clearly, you believe that your current religion is the only "right" religion and all of the rest are flawed.

I was an agnostic for the four years I was at MSU--no one could prove to me God existed, and I was sure I couldn't prove there wasn't a God. But I came to a time and place in my life where I couldn't sink any lower. God met me there, and on October 13, 1993, I accepted Christ as my savior. Life is not easy--and my life's no different--but I've had more joy and peace in my life in the past 12 years than I can remember.

BAC wrote:How much more close-minded can one get than HC's position (he claims to know the absolute truth with zero wiggle room, and is telling a large number of us, probably including you, that we are going to hell)?

I'm sorry if you see my case as close-minded and egotistically superior. As I've posted on this thread before, all I can do is make a case for Christ it's up to you to accept or deny Him.

BAC wrote:...just because somebody doesn't appreciate being damned to hell by someone else...

I'm not judging you, BAC. Only God can do that. I can only present what I know to be true.

BAC wrote:...mindlessly belief what I/we/they believe without challenging anything I/we/they say...

I actually want to thank you, BAC, for the opportunity to share with you and all the other viewers on this thread. I think it's been an honest, open, and fruitful discourse.

BAC wrote:It seems to me that any opinion that anyone holds should be challenged for their own good. The better able they are to defend that opinion or belief, the better off they are.

And that's exactly why I want to thank you.

BAC wrote:I wasn't wrong simply because somebody's faith points a finger at me as being damned to hell.

I hope that's not what you took from my postings. I can't tell you if you are going to Hell. That's a matter between you and God. I can only tell you the prerequisites for doing so. Again, I'm not the one with jurisdiction on this matter, I can only show the two destinations, and how to get there.

BAC wrote:I particularly refuse to believe that you are going to hell simply because you are Catholic.

I absolutely never said that. I know several Catholics that will be in heaven. I only stated that it is salvation through Christ that allows Heaven as a destination.

1AAFan wrote:As usual a discussion about religion has led to a fight (bickering in this case about whether or not BAC is open-minded).

I never accused BAC of being open- or closed-minded. I was rather enjoying the conversation.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:51 pm

HC: On a personal level, regardless of what it was that you were on, I would say "stick with it." It certainly does work well for you. I have seen few people with a more even keel demeanor, and I can't even tempt you into getting snide with me. That's impressive (especially with me being a smartarse most of the time). If your faith is a contributing factor to that, then I would definitely say that you are one of those people for whom religion is a definite positive. I just wish I was able to keep things as mellow as you seem to (maybe if I started substituting pot in place of the speed....) [Just kidding]

We agree rarely, but I respect you for being willing to duke it out and not taking it personally. I can honestly say that I learn a lot when I have good exchanges with you. You won't be changing my mind on any life-changing level anytime soon, but there's always a lot of room for intellectual growth from all directions, and that's a very good thing.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:34 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:We agree rarely, but I respect you for being willing to duke it out and not taking it personally. I can honestly say that I learn a lot when I have good exchanges with you. You won't be changing my mind on any life-changing level anytime soon, but there's always a lot of room for intellectual growth from all directions, and that's a very good thing.

Thanks. That's the nicest thing you said to me...

I enjoy our debates as well. More people need to learn the value of listening to dissenting opinion.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:05 am

bac - about those few notable AGR's that DO like long debates. my question is how do we make them stop?

since you know whom I am reffering to, and you are a "brother" of his, share the knowledge you've aquired. I jumped out the window on a friendly yet stupid disagreement a month ago and need to "go back in". since you are the AGR here, how long do i need to give it before I can do that?

have a great day!

-rebecca[/quote]

wbtfg · Post by **wbtfg** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:17 pm

This is an interesting website somewhat related...

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/fartp4.html

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:11 pm

if that reply was to my BAC question - I meant to send that PM, just because discussing a third party we both know over B.N. is not appropriate. MY bad . I care for (platonically) &respect that individual too much, and wouldn't want to compromise my friendship with him. But, the question still remains, so BAC let me know your imput.

-rebecca

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:52 pm

I have one question if the BTK killer in Kansas was a member in the right Church does he go to hell or heaven?

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:00 am

jagur1 wrote:I have one question if the BTK killer in Kansas was a member in the right Church does he go to hell or heaven?

I believe I answered this in this post dated Jun 20, 2005:

I wrote:
BAC wrote:So that last line speaks to your belief that Catholics go to hell? So, once again, what specific religions, in your view, DO go to heaven? I'm curious as to how exclusive of a group this is.
It's not an exlusive group. Anyone who admits their sin and accepts the sacrifice of Christ's death in their stead gets to go. There's no secret handshake or doorknock to get in. Catholics will be separated just like Protestants: those that made the decision for Christ will go to heaven, and the rest won't. The same is true of everyone--regardless of how "evil" they are. If they repent of their sin, and accept Christ's justification. And I do mean everybody: Osama bin Laden and the Dali Lama could both go to heaven if they follow this "two step program."

Let me sum up: it's not the right or wrong church that sends one to Heaven or Hell--it's the acceptance or denial of Christ's sacrifice on the cross that determines one's eternal destination.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:54 am

jagur1 wrote:I have one question if the BTK killer in Kansas was a member in the right Church does he go to hell or heaven?

Quick note: The BTK killer was poising as a good Christian. He obviously was not. He was using the church as a disguise, and it worked for 30 years.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:10 am

I think the hardest part is defining what a "good" Christian is. And further, why there is a difference between a "good Christian" and a "good person", and why any supernatural being would care to distinguish between the two.

Doesn't really matter -- unless we accept the word of Allah through his prophet Mohommad, we are all going to hell, so what's the point?

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:21 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:I think the hardest part is defining what a "good" Christian is. And further, why there is a difference between a "good Christian" and a "good person", and why any supernatural being would care to distinguish between the two.

Doesn't really matter -- unless we accept the word of Allah through his prophet Mohommad, we are all going to hell, so what's the point?

Are you trying to say that the BTK killer might have been a "good" Christian and/or a good person? At any rate the guidelines to being a good Christian is laid out in the Bible, and I would say that the BTK killer fell significantly short of qualifying for the title of "Good Christian."

BAC, have you been difficult all your life? I bet your mother was in labor for 15 hours when she gave birth to you!

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:25 am

iaafan wrote:Celtic Cat: I think you've reached nirvana. You must always have a perpetual half-smile on your face.

I'm just a goofy mofo. I find humor in just about everything.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:35 am

mquast53000 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I think the hardest part is defining what a "good" Christian is. And further, why there is a difference between a "good Christian" and a "good person", and why any supernatural being would care to distinguish between the two.

Doesn't really matter -- unless we accept the word of Allah through his prophet Mohommad, we are all going to hell, so what's the point?
Are you trying to say that the BTK killer might have been a "good" Christian and/or a good person? At any rate the guidelines to being a good Christian is laid out in the Bible, and I would say that the BTK killer fell significantly short of qualifying for the title of "Good Christian."

BAC, have you been difficult all your life? I bet your mother was in labor for 15 hours when she gave birth to you!

I have been difficult when questioning philosophies that don't make sense to me.

As most of us know, many/most born-again Christians (a large part of the evangelical movement) come to that point because they have really screwed up earlier in their lives. Either they were addicted to drugs or alcohol and ruined many/most/all of their personal relationships or they did other things (like committed crimes) that landed them in jail or other trouble. Then comes the marketing line -- let Jesus take the heat for your sins, give yourself over to him ("know" him, etc.), and then you are washed clean and are now a "good" Christian.

The "good Christians" go to heaven, while the "good people" who are not "good Christians" go to hell.

So along that theory, BTK may well go to heaven (in theory) via a jailhouse conversion (or re-enrollment of sorts if he just happened to stray from the path during that little killing phase) while people who were actually very good people all of their lives are doomed to hell. This is based specifically on what we have been told.

We also know that what defines a "good Christian" varies dramatically by who you ask, which was my point. What you read from the Bible doesn't necessarily jive with how someone else reads it.

So yes, I am difficult when presented with ideas that just don't make sense to me.

But it doesn't matter -- all of this is bad info. Islam is the one true religion, so unless BTK converts to Islam, he is properly doomed to go to a bad, bad place when he dies. I don't think anyone should be too upset about that, except maybe BTK.

Post by **kmax** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:07 am

Bay Area Cat wrote: As most of us know, many/most born-again Christians (a large part of the evangelical movement) come to that point because they have really screwed up earlier in their lives. Either they were addicted to drugs or alcohol and ruined many/most/all of their personal relationships or they did other things (like committed crimes) that landed them in jail or other trouble. Then comes the marketing line -- let Jesus take the heat for your sins, give yourself over to him ("know" him, etc.), and then you are washed clean and are now a "good" Christian.

Okay, I have stayed out of this one despite having some fairly strong feelings on the subject mainly just because I hate arguing with people, but I can't let this one go.

I don't know whether you seriously believe that first statement or are still just trying to be argumentative, but you are making statements that are completely untrue just to advance your point. Are there born again Christians who were by societies view "screwed up" before they were born again, of course. Are many or even most born again Christians that way and just looking for a get out of hell free card, you've got to be kidding.

See the thing that you seem to be fighting so hard even though HC93 has tried to explain it is that in the Christian faith there are no rules about who has in the past been "good enough" or "too bad". It is all about forgiveness, and whether your worst sin was disobeying your father or robbing a convenience store, we are all sinners and can come to that forgiveness in the same way.

Okay, I'll back out of this one again and let those who like to debate go for it again. Just couldn't let that one slide.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:19 am

kmax wrote:I don't know whether you seriously believe that first statement or are still just trying to be argumentative, but you are making statements that are completely untrue just to advance your point. Are there born again Christians who were by societies view "screwed up" before they were born again, of course. Are many or even most born again Christians that way and just looking for a get out of hell free card, you've got to be kidding.

That's not what I said. I made no mention of their motivation for trying to get out from under their sins. It probably has to do more with their guilt for their past actions and their need to rebuild their self-esteem and feeling of self-worth.

I'm not just being argumentative -- I actually know people who have been in this situation, and this is how they have explained it to me. The cynical "get out of hell free card" part was not a part of my explanation (and I'm not sure where that even came from in this discussion). People in that state need something to right their path, and this religion gives them a path to redemption. I actually didn't even say there was anything wrong with that.

My point is, this philosophy then says that these people deserve heaven, while people who have been good people their whole lives, but didn't come to the point of "accepting Jesus" per se (either because they didn't have personal issues that forced them to look for that or they had other personal religious or moral philosophies that didn't include that piece) are doomed to hell.

That's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and that's the part of the definition of being a "good Christian" that I think falls short of being univerally accepted by all people who consider themselves Christians.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:33 am

And actually, the "get out of jail free card" theory is more of a thing that I heard in CCD growing up -- that was the theory amongst us Jr. High Catholics -- we could sin all we wanted, as long as we confessed to one minor one afterwards, and then ALL of our sins would be wiped free by the Priest. It seemed like a pretty good theory at the time.

From my understanding, this approach doesn't fly in the more evangelical religions.

Post by **kmax** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:37 am

You said, and I quote again

As most of us know, many/most born-again Christians (a large part of the evangelical movement) come to that point because they have really screwed up earlier in their lives. Either they were addicted to drugs or alcohol and ruined many/most/all of their personal relationships or they did other things (like committed crimes) that landed them in jail or other trouble. Then comes the marketing line -- let Jesus take the heat for your sins, give yourself over to him ("know" him, etc.), and then you are washed clean and are now a "good" Christian.

You say that "most of us know, many/most" have come to that point due to horrible crimes such as drugs, jail, etc. This is what I am taking issue with, to say that Christianity is made up mostly of ex-druggies, ex-killers, etc is a gross exageration and you know it. Your "Then comes the marketing line..." portion is where you are talking about how they have used Christianity as the proverbial get of hell free card.

I understand that that was not the entire point of your post and I plainly said that I was taking issue with only that one section as it was not only wrong, but a bad argument that did nothing to advance your point due to it's innaccuracies. My point was that your statement was incorrect and that in fact the vast majority of born-again Christians are people who are trying to be "good enough" just like you and not people hiding a mug shot in their closet.

Your argumentent that you can be a good person all your life and deserve to go to heaven is an argument against the basic tenet of the Christian faith. You can argue that as long as you want, people have been arguing it for centuries without getting past the divide. But if you are going to argue it, don't use misinformation to support your side.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:54 am

kmax wrote:You said, and I quote again

As most of us know, many/most born-again Christians (a large part of the evangelical movement) come to that point because they have really screwed up earlier in their lives. Either they were addicted to drugs or alcohol and ruined many/most/all of their personal relationships or they did other things (like committed crimes) that landed them in jail or other trouble. Then comes the marketing line -- let Jesus take the heat for your sins, give yourself over to him ("know" him, etc.), and then you are washed clean and are now a "good" Christian.
You say that "most of us know, many/most" have come to that point due to horrible crimes such as drugs, jail, etc. This is what I am taking issue with, to say that Christianity is made up mostly of ex-druggies, ex-killers, etc is a gross exageration and you know it. Your "Then comes the marketing line..." portion is where you are talking about how they have used Christianity as the proverbial get of hell free card.

I said specifically that many/most (I don't know exact figures, so this shows a trend, but not a specific number) BORN AGAIN Christians came to that point because they had previously screwed up their lives. That is quite consistent with many, many testimonials I have heard from people both personally as well as written, on TV, etc., etc. In fact, this is basically how the church presents the concept of being born again. The whole idea is that you messed things up the first time. This is not to say that CHRISTIANITY is "made up mostly..." the kinds of people you described (as Christianity is a much larger group than the subset that is "born again.") I think my words were quite supportable when read literally, but are clearly not when paraphrased in your post.

In the context of the BTK guy, he clearly would fall into the BORN AGAIN category if he were to end up being considered a good Christian by anyone, so my discussion specifically of the born again phenomena seemed appropriate.

The "marketing" line was not intended to suggest the heaven/hell thing (although I do now see how you got to that point -- that is another facet of the marketing, just not one I was speaking to at the time). I meant that these people who are at desperately low points in their lives are told that if they accept JC, their sins will be lifted from them. To a guy in prison or somebody who has walked down a rough road as has a lot of guilt to carry around, that is a very compelling message. I think the heaven/hell marketing message is probably more aimed at the people who aren't in such desperate places in our lives where we have the luxury of pondering such things.