<<Most of the posters have
invoked Pascal's wager to defend the original statement, but they missed
the purpose of my response. The purpose was to show how incredibly poor
taste it is to claim someone is going to hell for their views, just as it
nothing more than a threat to claim that your life would be a complete
waste of time if you're wrong. It isn't a question of Pascal's wager,
it's a question of poor taste and threatening someone.>>
But Gordie's original post was in no way a "threat" to anyone. It was an
objective statement, one indeed with which Provine would agree. I just don't
find anything "distasteful" at all. I think Tom jumped a bit early here.
Indeed, Tom seems not to notice he agrees with Gordie and myself, for he
wrote:
<<This is actually the reason Provine happily claims he'll go to hell if
there is a god. By doing so, it takes away the ability for an
"opponent" to threaten him with hell. It's disarming to simply agree.>>
So if Provine happily claims exactly what Gordie and I maintain--if he "simply
agrees" with us, "disarmingly" so--how can it be distasteful to agree with
Provine?
As Yul would say, "Is a puzzlement." No threats were made.
<<Now, to make my final point, if all you can do when discussing with an
atheist or anyone who disagrees with you is bring up hell, then your
religion isn't really worth much. Indeed, that's a quick way to make an
atheist or only make the believers only believe out of fear. I really
don't think that's what Christianity is supposed to be about.>>
Who is this "final point" directed to? Bringing up hell is not "all" anyone
around here has done. It was a single point in one message. And certainly one
cannot avoid the subject altogether. Jesus spent a good deal of time talking
about it, so it has some importance. Crying "Threat!" won't make that go away.
Jim