JJ Husker

Breaking Bad is easily the best drama series ever. And I don't make that claim lightly. Better Call Saul is good but I'm not sure how I would feel about it without BB. I am always anticipating the next character from BB that will show up on Saul. Have not seen the Americans or Black Sails. Black Sails is definitely on my list though, have heard nothing but good things. Game of Thrones is probably the next best to BB on my list. Pretty big gap between those two shows and anything else out there, IMO.

You pointed that out just in time. I was about to get you a gift certificate to Helga's House of Pain. I was thinking anyone who would start this thread might enjoy that type of thing.

Hey, it's no hair off my ass. I don't see the harm in too many bowl games. If an individual team isn't going to make enough money at it, and that is their determining factor, then I guess they can turn down the opportunity if they see fit. Sure many of the games are dogs but why should I care? I watch the top games, the 9ne Nebraska is in and many others if they have teams of interest to me. I don't give a rats ass about the rest of them. If they want to match up two teams flirting with .500 records, I really don't care. It's all about the money anyways. Schools have to be smart enough to not commit if the $$'s are going to be a problem for them.

I use the full version on my Samsung Galaxy 5 with android and it works great IMO. I haven't tried the mobile version because I'm an old fart and I stick with what is familiar. Just my 2 cents.

I guess I don't blame the SEC, and other conferences in recruiting hotbeds, for supporting this ban. It is a huge competitive advantage for them to suppress the options of student athletes. The NCAA on the other hand......useless pieces of sh#t.

Texas, Florida and California last summer. I dont know if they had any planned for this year or not. But we found Dicaprio Bootle in Miami last year at one of them.Were we doing them with Pelini before Riley got here? I guess I just don't remember hearing much about them until Riley took over.

Just a question out of curiosity. What satellite camps (when & where) has Nebraska done this in the past? Is this something that we were regularly participating in?

Eco comic? Is that like a cross between Euell Gibbons and Sam Kinison?

That's kind of what I was thinking. Our conference games are about a wash compared to them, except they have their toughest ones at home and ours are away. Doesn't seem quite right.

Bingo. And the guys who we're racking up records doing girls pushups (for lack of a better analogy-sorry Moiraine) are now up in arms because their paper lion records are being scrubbed. Personally, there isn't much from the last 15 years, if it disappears, that is going to bother me too much. Or, maybe it's nothing...

I bet they're just painting the walls in the weight room.......remodeling....something like that.

Fair enough. I wouldn't say I'm "projecting" but I sure may be perceiving things in your posts that aren't there. I guess in your book, that would be par for the course with me.....seeing things that don't exist. ;-)

I'm not pissed off at "god" any more than I'm pissed off at Zeus. I don't believe the god of the Bible is real. I have no idea where this "hate" thing is coming from. It's misplaced. I have never seen you rail on how poor of a father Zeus or Odin or Allah or any of the "others" are. You usually seem to refer to these other gods in a manner that makes it obvious that they should not be taken seriously and that they are simply imposters. But, when it comes to the God of the Bible, the Christian God, it always seems to get a bit more personal and emotion filled. I've seen it too many times to think it some kind of coincidence. At least that's the impression I have gotten. Maybe it's just that you now harbor a bit of anger for "wasting" all that time in the church and with your Bible studies. IDK.

What is it exactly that has you so pissed off at God? It is very apparent there is much more to it than simply making a case against his existence. You can't logically hate something that you claim doesn't exist.

Lots of nonbelievers have the same hangup with faith and free will as AR Husker expressed earlier. I understand it but I've also thought about it a lot and I just cannot fathom how it would work if faith were not required and if we didn't have free will. God knowing what choice we will make before we make it does nothing to interfere with us making that choice. It is still up to us. It seems people want to put humanly and earthbound constraints on a being that exists outside of time and space and that leads them to thinking "faith is a sloppy way" to run the show or it precipates accusations that God is a worse father than they are. I guess I am not arrogant enough to think that way. Earthly suffering may seem pretty horrible to us but I really don't think God views in it the same manner that we are limited to viewing it. 60, 70, 80 years on earth is but a fleeting moment compared to eternity. And without free will we could not choose to love God. Imagine for a moment there is a supernatural being that always has been and always will be and that he created us and desperately wants us to know him and love him. If he makes it too obvious, he takes away our ability to freely love him. In that scenario we would be no more than play things that could not return his love. I think he has things set up in the only manner that will allow us to truly love him. If it were any easier, we would be little more than slaves. At least that is why I do not have the same hangup with free will, faith being required, and it not being easy to that degree.

The unicorn analogy isn't maybe the best for this discussion. It might be possible to prove unicorns actually existed as, unlike God, there is at least a chance of finding fossil records. But, since it was already offered up.....you can't prove a unicorn exists or that it doesn't exist. Failure to prove one does not mean the other is correct by default. I completely understand the nonbelievers viewpoint, that they do not have to accept that God exists based on anecdotal evidence. But let's also not act like God never provides any proof of his existence. It just isn't satisfactory for people predisposed to not believing in him or for those who will accept nothing but earthbound (empirical) proof. Sorry but the nature of God does not lend itself to that type of proof. Like I stated earlier, if that is the only proof a person will find acceptable, they are not truly serious about finding God. It seems some want it to be too easy. It takes a lot of effort to discover and know God. It won't just happen. There are billions of people convinced of his existence. I guarantee you they aren't all just pushing the easy button because they don't have some alternative knowledge. I personally have had 2 experiences that I attribute directly to the existence of God. I'm not going to bother explaining them because they are not provable or falsifiable and could easily be explained away by someone so inclined. And funny enough, that is currently (billions of years later) the same situation that science finds itself pertaining to the moment before the big bang. I will acknowledge that does not mean "God" is the answer but it also sure doesn't mean he isn't. I don't have the answers for why God doesn't make it easier for us. It doesn't seem fair to be honest. Some people are given experiences that convince them while others don't seem to have the same opportunities. I do know one thing though, if you give up on trying to discover him it will only get harder, if nOT make it completely impossible. I have not given up accepting scientific evidence and considering it but it sure seems some have given up on the possibility of God. I feel sorry for those people. I guess that is my motivation for even participating in these discussions.

Ahh, gotcha. I guess I don't think that anyone on either side really needs much help. I've gotten to the point where I just don't have the energy to try and conjure up compelling apologetics unless it's in situations and contexts where I feel like it will be taken seriously or I have personal rapport with a person that I have seen is interested. Fact of the matter is huskerboard isn't really either of those things - nobody on this board is going to convert to team Jesus because of my posts, or at least, IF that were to happen, it would probably be from being compelled by my moments of being candid and hopefully reflecting Jesus rather than from the moments of me trying to consciously convince people of an argument. If I'm honest, I became a Christian because I was an easily influenced kid in an environment conducive for the spread of cookie cutter white evangelicalism. That's not compelling to anyone, that's me being a product of my environment. But. That was 12+ years ago, and while I spent a good amount of that time in an isolated, exclusive, tribal Christian bubble, I've also spent a good amount of time, especially lately, distant from God, wandering, going through the prodigal motions, and either consciously or subconsciously trying to be done with the whole idea. And through all of what that has entailed, I can't escape the Christ. He continues to draw me back, to meet me on my own personal "road to Damascus", to awe me with wonder and hope and to chisel away at me towards gentleness, meekness and graciousness. At the end of the day, I can try to give good arguments, and I think there are plenty of them, for historical evidence in support of Christianity, or the cosmological argument, or a million other different arguments, but those aren't what my faith is founded on. I've stripped away so much bullsh#t and all that's left is encounters with a living and loving God; encounters that I can't begin to wrap my head around and definitely can't explain well. That's the only kind of thing that I think can be compelling to your typical Huskerboard poster, but that comes from above, not from me I'm just here to love God and love people, and hopefully fail a little less at both along the way. Awesome answer. Thank you. I'm getting closer to realizing that no team changing is likely to take place in this venue but I still approach it like it may happen from time to time. I would be better served to try it your way. I have the feeling I would find it far less frustrating and that I wouldnt lose my cool like I have a couple times already in this thread.

I didn't ask this question of LOMS to elicit a direct response to the question. I was more curious why he chose to post what he did which precipitated my question. I mean most people do not feel they themselves are being irrational so I was really curious why he basically said his position was, or could rightly be looked at by others, as being irrational. The definition of rationalism says, "a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response." Me deciding to zealously following the teachings of a middle-aged Jewish carpenter, believing He was God incarnate and that he resurrected from the dead definitely does not fit within the academic definition of the word I understand all that. What I don't understand is why you, widely known on this board to be a devout believer, felt compelled to point this out rather than to offer some reasons for your belief in a creator. Really, the nonbelievers don't need any help. They've already got our inability to provide satisfactory proof. I guess it wouldn't bother me coming from one of those guys but, from you? Kind of felt like you were cheering for the wrong team in Memorial Stadium in the middle of the game. IDK.

I didn't ask this question of LOMS to elicit a direct response to the question. I was more curious why he chose to post what he did which precipitated my question. I mean most people do not feel they themselves are being irrational so I was really curious why he basically said his position was, or could rightly be looked at by others, as being irrational.

Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

This statement is mostly true, I think, and would be entirely true if God was a deistic sort of God, but if we're talking about the Christian God then we are talking about millenia of intervening within space time which would naturally lead one in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture to expect to find evidence. Oh good. You are a believer. So based on this, please post the hard evidence you have of the existence of God so we can put this to bed once and for all. I don't have any. At least not anything that couldn't just as easily be interpreted as evidence towards something else depending on a person's perspective. So does this make you and other believers irrational, since in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture one should expect to find evidence? Or did you just want to use a bunch of long words together in one sentence with no purpose whatsoever?

This statement is mostly true, I think, and would be entirely true if God was a deistic sort of God, but if we're talking about the Christian God then we are talking about millenia of intervening within space time which would naturally lead one in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture to expect to find evidence. Oh good. You are a believer. So based on this, please post the hard evidence you have of the existence of God so we can put this to bed once and for all.