Space Moose and Erring on the Side of Caution
-
Space Moose[^] is pretty offensive but this kind of entity always attracts the best hate mail. I find it ridiculous how seriously the mailers take themselves and their complaints, as if the creator of Space Moose is going to give a rats ass. In fact the mailers probably provide more fodder for his comics. Anyway, one letter in particular highlighted something I have heard before, something I get ticked off at. Something I don't think most Christians advocate, but something I have heard from enough Christians to be worried about: "If you're not sure about the existence of God, whether Jesus really is the Son of God, or whether faith in Jesus is really the way to Heaven, then I have one question: wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution and respect the possibility? (Just in case there IS an afterlife?) " by "Melissa Hilderman" from "Space Moose angers many" If I was a Christian I would be irrate at that, as it is I am just mildly ticked off. Who thinks like that? Who thinks that is a good way to spread and convince people of the word of Christ? And anyone who follows that advice is just... well... god what the hell! Are you on drugs? Do you really think St. Peter or whoever is going to accept you as a true Christian because you erred on the side of caution and bet on the best odds? One word describes why this pisses me off: Conviction So that is me for the day, night all and... :zzz:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
"Pascal's Wager" seethis page. your argument is the second bullet point. congrats! i normally go for the third bullet: if there's no god, then i've wasted my life in service of nothing. -c
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
-
"Pascal's Wager" seethis page. your argument is the second bullet point. congrats! i normally go for the third bullet: if there's no god, then i've wasted my life in service of nothing. -c
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
Chris Losinger wrote: your argument is the second bullet point. congrats! :-D Great minds think alike... and so do daft ones :rolleyes: Chris Losinger wrote: i normally go for the third bullet: if there's no god, then i've wasted my life in service of nothing. In terms of Pascals Wager then definitley that is something to consider. But in terms of people who really believe in God X and are not just taking the best odds, then I think they are better off than others because at least they had conviction, at least they were true to themselves. Thanks for the link, just goes to show that so much of what we discuss has already been pondered over by countless others :) [edit]Just read to the end of the page, the Atheists wager is very much how I think: "It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him." And if god is so mighty then I can't see how he could not be benevolent.[/edit]
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
Space Moose[^] is pretty offensive but this kind of entity always attracts the best hate mail. I find it ridiculous how seriously the mailers take themselves and their complaints, as if the creator of Space Moose is going to give a rats ass. In fact the mailers probably provide more fodder for his comics. Anyway, one letter in particular highlighted something I have heard before, something I get ticked off at. Something I don't think most Christians advocate, but something I have heard from enough Christians to be worried about: "If you're not sure about the existence of God, whether Jesus really is the Son of God, or whether faith in Jesus is really the way to Heaven, then I have one question: wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution and respect the possibility? (Just in case there IS an afterlife?) " by "Melissa Hilderman" from "Space Moose angers many" If I was a Christian I would be irrate at that, as it is I am just mildly ticked off. Who thinks like that? Who thinks that is a good way to spread and convince people of the word of Christ? And anyone who follows that advice is just... well... god what the hell! Are you on drugs? Do you really think St. Peter or whoever is going to accept you as a true Christian because you erred on the side of caution and bet on the best odds? One word describes why this pisses me off: Conviction So that is me for the day, night all and... :zzz:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
Another method of apologetics is to ask whether or not you believe Christ existed. If not, how can you deny historical evidence,etc.... If so, then you cannot deny his importance as a figure. Based on his teaching he must have either been a liar(not God), a lunatic, or Lord. The book More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell goes into this in some detail. A much better approach than "What have I got Lose" method you're talking about. After reading it, I'm still not convinced, but I certainly appreciate the argument. I just need to mull it all over a bit more. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
Another method of apologetics is to ask whether or not you believe Christ existed. If not, how can you deny historical evidence,etc.... If so, then you cannot deny his importance as a figure. Based on his teaching he must have either been a liar(not God), a lunatic, or Lord. The book More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell goes into this in some detail. A much better approach than "What have I got Lose" method you're talking about. After reading it, I'm still not convinced, but I certainly appreciate the argument. I just need to mull it all over a bit more. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
brianwelsch wrote: Another method of apologetics is to ask whether or not you believe Christ existed. If not, how can you deny historical evidence,etc.... If so, then you cannot deny his importance as a figure. Based on his teaching he must have either been a liar(not God), a lunatic, or Lord. I for one do not deny Jesus existed. I just do not know whether he was what he claimed to be. Wether he was or not, many of his teachings are still good and worthy and should be used. You don't have to believe the whole "truth" to use parts of it. brianwelsch wrote: The book More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell goes into this in some detail. I will see if I can get my hands on that, sounds interesting. ta
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
brianwelsch wrote: Another method of apologetics is to ask whether or not you believe Christ existed. If not, how can you deny historical evidence,etc.... If so, then you cannot deny his importance as a figure. Based on his teaching he must have either been a liar(not God), a lunatic, or Lord. I for one do not deny Jesus existed. I just do not know whether he was what he claimed to be. Wether he was or not, many of his teachings are still good and worthy and should be used. You don't have to believe the whole "truth" to use parts of it. brianwelsch wrote: The book More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell goes into this in some detail. I will see if I can get my hands on that, sounds interesting. ta
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
The interesting thing about Josh MacDowell is that he initially tried to prove the folly of Christianity, and in researching he found undeniable evidence that Christ was who He claimed He was. That transformation is covered in a different book of his, which I haven't read, but certainly sounds interesting. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
Space Moose[^] is pretty offensive but this kind of entity always attracts the best hate mail. I find it ridiculous how seriously the mailers take themselves and their complaints, as if the creator of Space Moose is going to give a rats ass. In fact the mailers probably provide more fodder for his comics. Anyway, one letter in particular highlighted something I have heard before, something I get ticked off at. Something I don't think most Christians advocate, but something I have heard from enough Christians to be worried about: "If you're not sure about the existence of God, whether Jesus really is the Son of God, or whether faith in Jesus is really the way to Heaven, then I have one question: wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution and respect the possibility? (Just in case there IS an afterlife?) " by "Melissa Hilderman" from "Space Moose angers many" If I was a Christian I would be irrate at that, as it is I am just mildly ticked off. Who thinks like that? Who thinks that is a good way to spread and convince people of the word of Christ? And anyone who follows that advice is just... well... god what the hell! Are you on drugs? Do you really think St. Peter or whoever is going to accept you as a true Christian because you erred on the side of caution and bet on the best odds? One word describes why this pisses me off: Conviction So that is me for the day, night all and... :zzz:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
What a strange title for a reliflame! They're not even good... some of them are just offending for the offense' sake. Paul Watson wrote: Do you really think St. Peter or whoever is going to accept you as a true Christian No, but there will be less "true" Christians you offended during your life, and so less "true" Christians will cheer "nee-na-na-naaah!" when St. Peter consolates you like "well, the smell is sometimes stingy, but at least they have heating!" [edit] the very last response is the right spirit, go Mike![/edit] [edit]OK, this one[^]'s cool![/edit]
skulls don't kiss for an explanation - wait for the vacation photos! [sighist]
-
What a strange title for a reliflame! They're not even good... some of them are just offending for the offense' sake. Paul Watson wrote: Do you really think St. Peter or whoever is going to accept you as a true Christian No, but there will be less "true" Christians you offended during your life, and so less "true" Christians will cheer "nee-na-na-naaah!" when St. Peter consolates you like "well, the smell is sometimes stingy, but at least they have heating!" [edit] the very last response is the right spirit, go Mike![/edit] [edit]OK, this one[^]'s cool![/edit]
skulls don't kiss for an explanation - wait for the vacation photos! [sighist]
peterchen wrote: go Mike Mike who?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
peterchen wrote: go Mike Mike who?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
the author of the last reply-to-space-moose. :cool:
skulls don't kiss for an explanation - wait for the vacation photos! [sighist]
peterchen wrote: the author of the last reply-to-space-moose. Crumbs, you read them all? I just skimmed and read a few lines of each. Got a bit bored after the 10th "you insensitive person you" retort. Of course he is, that is what his comic is all about. LOL that last guy took a different tack, well done. Though frankly, ignoring Space Moose is probably best if you don't like it.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
peterchen wrote: the author of the last reply-to-space-moose. Crumbs, you read them all? I just skimmed and read a few lines of each. Got a bit bored after the 10th "you insensitive person you" retort. Of course he is, that is what his comic is all about. LOL that last guy took a different tack, well done. Though frankly, ignoring Space Moose is probably best if you don't like it.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
Space Moose[^] is pretty offensive but this kind of entity always attracts the best hate mail. I find it ridiculous how seriously the mailers take themselves and their complaints, as if the creator of Space Moose is going to give a rats ass. In fact the mailers probably provide more fodder for his comics. Anyway, one letter in particular highlighted something I have heard before, something I get ticked off at. Something I don't think most Christians advocate, but something I have heard from enough Christians to be worried about: "If you're not sure about the existence of God, whether Jesus really is the Son of God, or whether faith in Jesus is really the way to Heaven, then I have one question: wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution and respect the possibility? (Just in case there IS an afterlife?) " by "Melissa Hilderman" from "Space Moose angers many" If I was a Christian I would be irrate at that, as it is I am just mildly ticked off. Who thinks like that? Who thinks that is a good way to spread and convince people of the word of Christ? And anyone who follows that advice is just... well... god what the hell! Are you on drugs? Do you really think St. Peter or whoever is going to accept you as a true Christian because you erred on the side of caution and bet on the best odds? One word describes why this pisses me off: Conviction So that is me for the day, night all and... :zzz:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
-
"Pascal's Wager" seethis page. your argument is the second bullet point. congrats! i normally go for the third bullet: if there's no god, then i've wasted my life in service of nothing. -c
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
Chris Losinger wrote: ethis page. That's classic! :laugh: Thank you! :-D That's why I ramble so much. If you're short and quotable, there's a much greater danger of ending up in a sig. [Christopher Duncan on how to prevent yourself from ending up in a sig]
-
Space Moose[^] is pretty offensive but this kind of entity always attracts the best hate mail. I find it ridiculous how seriously the mailers take themselves and their complaints, as if the creator of Space Moose is going to give a rats ass. In fact the mailers probably provide more fodder for his comics. Anyway, one letter in particular highlighted something I have heard before, something I get ticked off at. Something I don't think most Christians advocate, but something I have heard from enough Christians to be worried about: "If you're not sure about the existence of God, whether Jesus really is the Son of God, or whether faith in Jesus is really the way to Heaven, then I have one question: wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution and respect the possibility? (Just in case there IS an afterlife?) " by "Melissa Hilderman" from "Space Moose angers many" If I was a Christian I would be irrate at that, as it is I am just mildly ticked off. Who thinks like that? Who thinks that is a good way to spread and convince people of the word of Christ? And anyone who follows that advice is just... well... god what the hell! Are you on drugs? Do you really think St. Peter or whoever is going to accept you as a true Christian because you erred on the side of caution and bet on the best odds? One word describes why this pisses me off: Conviction So that is me for the day, night all and... :zzz:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaColin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
This is a dumb argument, mainly because it presumes that God, if He exists, does nothing to prove it. If God does not interact with people who ask Him to, then who's to say He can do anything for us when we die, anyhow ? As such, it's totally divorced from the Bible, but the issue you raise is also correct. Lots of people plan to believe in God when they are old, I doubt that is the sort of attitude that shows any sort of desire to be part of what He has planned. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
