Christians, anything wrong with the following?

[Blackdog22]

What a strange question? Why don't we look at what Jesus actually said instead of judging him by gross misrepresentations made by people who existed 2000 years later?

1. Jesus died to save us from our selves not from anything he will do?
2. If you want analogies then use one that is more appropriate. One that is not so bad is the courtroom. God is the judge, Satan the prosecutor, and Christ the defense attorney.
3. If your partial to that cartoon for some reason then use more accurate language. Like Christ being a doctor that has created the cure for the disease everyone on the other side of the door have, which their own behavior has both created and spread. He paid for the cure himself, he doesn't charge for it, and he will not force anyone to take it. He knocks and the person on the other side says go away, but the doctor says that he has the cure for the disease that is killing those in the room. The room full of people despite overwhelming symptoms say they do not believe they are sick, that they are happy with their symptoms, and have no need for a cure for a non-exist but 100% lethal disease. They deny the door's existence, the diseases existence, their symptoms, the cure and the doctor, or even if they all exist that the doctor is malevolent.
4. They then die from the disease they do not think they had despite every symptom to the contrary because they denied the doctor that kept knocking on their door offering help. Not only do they die from their refusal to believe they were sick, but they even blame the doctor they denied existed for the symptoms of the disease they created.

In the end they get what they actually desired, eternal separation from God, or eternal unity with him. In my own view that means utter annihilation for those that die from the disease they both created and denied existing. Even if I am wrong and they do exist for an eternity suffering from the disease they created then denied, they will probably continue to eternally hate the doctor they didn't believe even existed.

First off the behavior in question that is deemed worthy of such things was created out of thin air by God himself. He made it a disease, it didn't have to be one. Secondly the consequences for being "diseased" are completely up to him and he chose those consequences to be some eternal psychopathic torture chamber he created special for us and Satan and the fallen angels. You didn't do a very good job making him look like the good guy. I would much prefer him just annihilating me or sending me to a second earth that isn't as cool as heaven until I am redeemed and become the best person I can become, but no, instead he throws me in an oven. Im sorry, the dudes a monster.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Spoken just like someone who has not experienced any of the choices in actuality before.

No, spoken like a happy and grateful person. I need nothing more in life than what I have. I am happily married, we are in good health and surrounded by beauty, we want very little and can afford what we want, we are surrounded by friends that are available for socializing, I live a mile high on a mountain lake in some of the best weather in the world, the surrounding culture is vibrant and friendly, and I live without regret or shame.

What do you have to offer me? Stories of gods and heaven? You'll do better with those on skid row and death row. Go to bridges where people are getting ready to jump. They might feel better with all of this talk of sin, redemption and salvation. I can't identify with it at all.

If you had ever experienced God's presence you would understand what contentment and actual peace truly are and according to the bible what a Christian experiences in this life are but pale reflections of what we will experience in the next. You are demonstrating the OP's mistaken analogy.

Sorry, but I'm already maximally content.

God is not going to force you to accept him, you have chosen that for your self, in the end you get exactly what you choose, eternal separation from God and everything he comes with. Where's the unjustness in that?

This god employs an interesting strategy. It always seems to imitate a nonexistent god perfectly. It does what would happen of there were no god. Nonexistent gods also don't appear before us, perform miracles for us to behold, or force us to believe in them.

Incidentally, separation from this god has been pretty tolerable so far. That's not really a loss.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No wonder you don't accept Christianity, you don't know what it is. Christ himself told the apostles to touch him physical after resurrection specifically to show them he was not merely a spirit. He is called the first fruit, the first resurrection to a perfect spiritual body from death. We will be given new bodies that lack all the flaws our current bodies have. The Earth will be scorched and made back into the paradise it was meant to be. You need to read the bible more (it is the most important text ever written, unless you magically know that a universal negative is true) the mistakes your making are spelled out emphatically in the primary events in the most reliable parts of the bible.

Your faith based beliefs are unshared premises when you base an argument on them. Nothing that follows from a premise I don't accept has any meaning to me.

And where do you get the idea that you understand life or even Christianity better than I do? No two of you seem to have the same religion or describe the same god. I'd say that gives me a better understanding of what Christianity is than any one of the people who claim that their version is correct.

I also can understand scripture better than any believer reading it with a faith based confirmation bias. Such a person has to scrub it clean.

He has to reconcile the contradiction by saying that one of two contradictory ideas doesn't mean what it say, or that i was mistranslated, or that it can onlly be understood with the gift of discernment from the Holy Spirit.

He must sweep all of the errors in history and science under the rug and call them allegory or metaphor.

He must whitewash the failed prophecies by invent tortured explanations for how this one anticipated this and that one anticipated that despite nobody knowing that either of those things was coming. One guy told me that the Bible foretold of modern telecommunications by citing a scripture from Job : "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" - Job 38:35

Of course, nobody had a clue that "lightnings" could be used to communicate until man discovered the science and technology of telecommunications.

I don't have to do any of that. I can just read the words and tell you that they are mostly poetry that you can read pretty much however you want - a verbal Rorschach test into which you project your own psychology and needs.

Do you prefer the angry, harsh, judgmental god of the Old Testament or the gentle and forgiving one of the New? Whatever your psychological profile, there's a version of this god that will appeal to you, and you can tell me what this god thinks and wants. Why be the only one that doesn't?

So yeah, I think that like most unbelievers familiar with it, I understand Christianity better than those immersed in it. I have a better vantage point from which to view it: From the outside looking in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That would only make my original point more substantial. You accuse the only human for which no evidence exists that he ever harmed another living thing, and the same person took the punishment you actually deserve for you, of being an actual tyrant. We reward humans with museums and medal's who suffer for the sake of others, they must also be on your list of bad things. The truth categories of objective good and evil do not even exist unless God does. Where do you get your rights from? I don't have them to give you, the government doesn't have a warehouse full of rights to distribute. All the core things humans love to believe in don't and can't exist if God doesn't.

I don't know to what you are referring. My comment was that in Christianity, the concepts of good and bad are deformed by my standards. There is nothing good about requiring a blood sacrifice or gratuitously torturing people with fire. There is nothing inherently bad about atheism or having consensual, legal premarital sex.

So the only foundations for the most cherished human values is not even on your radar, I guess the rest follows logically from that view point. I did not say me beliefs or even God's beliefs determine morality. You do not seem to know much about the things your denying. God's nature determines moral values and duties, his commands follow necessarily from his nature.

Once again, you're beginning with unshared premises. What god? Show it to me. Establish that it exists and that you know its will and standards.

Until you do, you're just sharing your faith. You're just telling me about that which you are willing to believe without cause. However comforting that may be for you, it does nothing for me.

Your world view is irrelevant. Logical laws and philosophical arguments will trump your worldview regardless.

Not to me. But yours is.

From your first claim you are apparently not grateful enough to even consider a way to retain that life.

This would be a good example of the irrelevance of your worldview.

Why are you lecturing others on how to live and think? What makes you think that you are qualified to do that?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am not defending religion. I am telling you what is required for the core human beliefs to even correspond to a possible fact.

Your opinions don't ring true to me. You haven't given me a single idea that I can use.

Tell me where you get your objective moral values from? If they are merely subjective and based on your mere preference, why should anyone care?

I don't have objective moral values, and neither do you. Yours come from a very old book. Mine come from reflection in the light of reason and empathy, which makes for a more stable foundation for moral judgment - an internal one. You can't make me violate those standards. All I have to do to get a Christian to be immoral is to convince him that that is what his god commands or did. If you want to manufacture consent for a Holocaust, just convince a Christian nation that it is God's will.

I recently read this about the moral plasticity of Trump's Christian base:

Donald Trump and the Transformation of White Evangelicals at http://time.com/4577752/donald-trump-transformation-white-evangelicals/ "White evangelical Christians set a new high water mark in their support of Republican candidates by giving Donald Trump 81% of their votes, according to the 2016 exit polls"

Look at how easily manipulated they are:

"Back in 2011, consistent with the “values voter” brand’s insistence on the importance of personal character, only 30% of white evangelical Protestants agreed with this statement. But this year, 72% of white evangelicals now say they believe a candidate can build a kind of moral wall between his private and public life. In a shocking reversal, white evangelicals have gone from being the least likely to the most likely group to agree that a candidate’s personal immorality has no bearing on his performance in public office. Today, in fact, they are more likely than Americans who claim no religious affiliation at all to say such a moral bifurcation is possible."

Does that sound like any kind of objective morality to you? You can't do that with somebody who is anchored by a well-developed internal moral compass.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What a strange question? Why don't we look at what Jesus actually said instead of judging him by gross misrepresentations made by people who existed 2000 years later?

1. Jesus died to save us from our selves not from anything he will do?
2. If you want analogies then use one that is more appropriate. One that is not so bad is the courtroom. God is the judge, Satan the prosecutor, and Christ the defense attorney.
3. If your partial to that cartoon for some reason then use more accurate language. Like Christ being a doctor that has created the cure for the disease everyone on the other side of the door have, which their own behavior has both created and spread. He paid for the cure himself, he doesn't charge for it, and he will not force anyone to take it. He knocks and the person on the other side says go away, but the doctor says that he has the cure for the disease that is killing those in the room. The room full of people despite overwhelming symptoms say they do not believe they are sick, that they are happy with their symptoms, and have no need for a cure for a non-exist but 100% lethal disease. They deny the door's existence, the diseases existence, their symptoms, the cure and the doctor, or even if they all exist that the doctor is malevolent.
4. They then die from the disease they do not think they had despite every symptom to the contrary because they denied the doctor that kept knocking on their door offering help. Not only do they die from their refusal to believe they were sick, but they even blame the doctor they denied existed for the symptoms of the disease they created.

In the end they get what they actually desired, eternal separation from God, or eternal unity with him. In my own view that means utter annihilation for those that die from the disease they both created and denied existing. Even if I am wrong and they do exist for an eternity suffering from the disease they created then denied, they will probably continue to eternally hate the doctor they didn't believe even existed.

You recently informed me that I did not understand Christianity, and I explained how it is easier for an unbeliever familiar with it to understand it than somebody viewing it through a faith based confirmation bias that scrubs the doctrine clean. You left out so much.

Who gave us this disease? With omnisciecne and omnipotence comes omni-responsibility.

You seem to have scrubbed hell theology out of the doctrine. You keep referring to eternal separation. The Bible says that you will kept conscious forever so that you feel the pain of burning that this god will gratuitously inflict upon you for not acceding to its demands.

That's what the image of Jesus knocking at the door was alluding to you - "Let me in so I can save you from what I'm going to do to you if you don't."

You don't see that any more. I do. So who understands your religion better? Who is in the better position to view it objectively?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

What a strange question? Why don't we look at what Jesus actually said instead of judging him by gross misrepresentations made by people who existed 2000 years later?

1. Jesus died to save us from our selves not from anything he will do?
2. If you want analogies then use one that is more appropriate. One that is not so bad is the courtroom. God is the judge, Satan the prosecutor, and Christ the defense attorney.
3. If your partial to that cartoon for some reason then use more accurate language. Like Christ being a doctor that has created the cure for the disease everyone on the other side of the door have, which their own behavior has both created and spread. He paid for the cure himself, he doesn't charge for it, and he will not force anyone to take it. He knocks and the person on the other side says go away, but the doctor says that he has the cure for the disease that is killing those in the room. The room full of people despite overwhelming symptoms say they do not believe they are sick, that they are happy with their symptoms, and have no need for a cure for a non-exist but 100% lethal disease. They deny the door's existence, the diseases existence, their symptoms, the cure and the doctor, or even if they all exist that the doctor is malevolent.
4. They then die from the disease they do not think they had despite every symptom to the contrary because they denied the doctor that kept knocking on their door offering help. Not only do they die from their refusal to believe they were sick, but they even blame the doctor they denied existed for the symptoms of the disease they created.

In the end they get what they actually desired, eternal separation from God, or eternal unity with him. In my own view that means utter annihilation for those that die from the disease they both created and denied existing. Even if I am wrong and they do exist for an eternity suffering from the disease they created then denied, they will probably continue to eternally hate the doctor they didn't believe even existed.

Oy, I just can't let this go, @1robin. You were doing OK outlining potentials and options for a Christian Truth-seeker, etc., but what's this about ETERNALLY separate from our Father? That's crap and certainly not supported even by the stories of your own Teacher, to wit, the Return of the Prodigal Son. It incontrovertibly indicates you have not yet experienced the Father, and it's ignorant statements like this which make people go, "Who needs a God like that? That's how unconditional Love works? F that!"

No, that's not how Divine Love works. Souls, "made in the image" (formless Spirit, not forms) instinctively, soulfully know that can't possibly be the Truth--precisely because they ARE "made in the image." Like sparks of a Grand Fire. God is Exquisite Love, Truth, Awareness, Bliss. That's not "His nature," God is That. And That thou art, as well. It's impossible to be separate from that God/your own Self for even one nanosecond, let alone eternity. "You" wouldn't exist if God didn't infuse the tools of your soul (body, mind, intellect, etc.) with the life breath/energy which only "He" creates, maintains and reabsorbs back unto Himself. If you were Supreme Love, would you condemn yourself to an eternal separation from yourself? Laughable. Good grief, Mankind, reflect on these things, think it through and reconcile these glaring discrepancies between what you read and your experience. Or get the experience and share that....

 

[Muffled]

This is an image (created in 2013 I believe) that first appeared on the Betty Bowers ("America's Best Christian") web site, which has since found itself popping up across the internet---it was recently posted in a thread here on RF. It's a parody of the For Dummies instructional/reference books.

I realize some Christians might take exception to it, perhaps as an abuse of a well known theme of Jesus knocking on the door, but aside from that, as a succinct summery of Christian salvation I believe it's spot on.

Any disagreements?

.

Of course I believe that is shallow and immature. Is it true? only in the periphery as far as I am concerned. The fact is that He is already going to do it to you but He is giving you a way to escape.

 

[Muffled]

It does come off as an extortion racket, doesn't it?

I believe that was intentional by the person portraying it. I believe that person qualifies as an enemy of humanity.

 

[Muffled]

Can't see anything Theologically incorrect there

I believe it is a perverted view and a half truth which as often as not constitutes a lie.

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe that was intentional by the person portraying it. I believe that person qualifies as an enemy of humanity.

Wait, so you're saying that the authors of the NT were enemies of humanity?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course I believe that is shallow and immature. Is it true? only in the periphery as far as I am concerned. The fact is that He is already going to do it to you but He is giving you a way to escape.

What a mensch. How can we thank Him enough for giving us a way to escape His wrath?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe that was intentional by the person portraying it. I believe that person qualifies as an enemy of humanity.

But not the guy who nearly sterilized the earth once with water, intends to do it again with fire, cursed man to work the fields and women to pain in childbirth because some kids at an apple that he dangled before them at the advice of a demon he cast to earth (thanks for that) and left them alone with, and has created a master demon and a fiery torture pit in which he intends to toss most of humanity to suffer gratuitously forever.

Name a greater enemy of humanity in all of history or fiction.

 

[1robin]

Not really.

1.You are assuming that out of well over 1000 religions, you have the correct one without exploring each of them intimately.

I did not give any evidence for God's existence. My visible information says I am a Christian. So when I speak of God I assume the person read what my religion was and replied in that context. If you want a comparative religion debate, that is fine but this thread was about the accuracy of a cartoon.

2. You are assuming that your VERSION of the religion you picked out of the over 30,000 versions is the correct version with no way to validate that this is true.

Depends, 90% of my beliefs are accepted by about 90% of Christians.

3. You are assuming there is life after death without any substantive evidence.

No I am not but I did state what must exist if life after death exists.

4. You assume that the god you worship is actually real (faith).

Yeah, the same way I assume my brother exists. I know those guys and so I believe they exist.

5. You assume that, if it is real, it is telling you the truth.

No I didn't.

6. Morals are not objective. Even if they are based upon the whimsy of your god, then they are subject to change if he so desires. As has been demonstrated in the Old Testament. If morals are truly objective, then they predate the existence of your god and did not originate in him and he would be absolutely subject to them himself.

Good lord, mentioning something's existence prior to God has been called by well credentialed philosophers to be the worst argument against God in the history or western thought. God is the necessary eternal, uncaused, first cause all causal chains end at.

7. a person can have meaning in his/her life without your god......billions do. The rest of this paragraph is bollocks.

Not objective meaning. I will quote from one of your own guys:

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
A quote from River Out of Eden

That is what happens when a biologist escapes his own lab to sneak into a philosophic lab.

 

[1robin]

First off the behavior in question that is deemed worthy of such things was created out of thin air by God himself. He made it a disease, it didn't have to be one. Secondly the consequences for being "diseased" are completely up to him and he chose those consequences to be some eternal psychopathic torture chamber he created special for us and Satan and the fallen angels. You didn't do a very good job making him look like the good guy. I would much prefer him just annihilating me or sending me to a second earth that isn't as cool as heaven until I am redeemed and become the best person I can become, but no, instead he throws me in an oven. Im sorry, the dudes a monster.

Apparently you did not read what I posted. Let me quote myself:

In the end they get what they actually desired, eternal separation from God, or eternal unity with him. In my own view that means utter annihilation for those that die from the disease they both created and denied existing.

So you wasted half of what you posted.

If God does not exist then there are no longer objective moral values and duties. When you condemn God you doing so by standards cannot possibly exist to judge God. What moral standards do you have they can condemn God? Where did you get them? How is God bound by your preferences?

Evil is anti-God, it is to do thing which contradict God's eternal moral nature. He can't make that good. I said the only things God can't do are logical incoherencies. He can't make square circles, rocks so heavy he can't lift the, nor call good evil or evil good.

I am sure many people could do better but:

1. Jesus died to save us from our selves not from anything he will do?
2. If you want analogies then use one that is more appropriate. One that is not so bad is the courtroom. God is the judge, Satan the prosecutor, and Christ the defense attorney.
3. If your partial to that cartoon for some reason then use more accurate language. Like Christ being a doctor that has created the cure for the disease everyone on the other side of the door have, which their own behavior has both created and spread. He paid for the cure himself, he doesn't charge for it, and he will not force anyone to take it. He knocks and the person on the other side says go away, but the doctor says that he has the cure for the disease that is killing those in the room. The room full of people despite overwhelming symptoms say they do not believe they are sick, that they are happy with their symptoms, and have no need for a cure for a non-exist but 100% lethal disease. They deny the door's existence, the diseases existence, their symptoms, the cure and the doctor, or even if they all exist that the doctor is malevolent.
4. They then die from the disease they do not think they had despite every symptom to the contrary because they denied the doctor that kept knocking on their door offering help. Not only do they die from their refusal to believe they were sick, but they even blame the doctor they denied existed for the symptoms of the disease they created.

That certainly describes the depravity of man and God's offering the cure for free and at his own expense.

 

[1robin]

No, spoken like a happy and grateful person. I need nothing more in life than what I have. I am happily married, we are in good health and surrounded by beauty, we want very little and can afford what we want, we are surrounded by friends that are available for socializing, I live a mile high on a mountain lake in some of the best weather in the world, the surrounding culture is vibrant and friendly, and I live without regret or shame.

None of which will remain unchanged. Since everything you find contentment in now will all be lost then your present circumstances are not really relevant. In fact I can't even think of a way to make what you said apply here.

What do you have to offer me? Stories of gods and heaven? You'll do better with those on skid row and death row. Go to bridges where people are getting ready to jump. They might feel better with all of this talk of sin, redemption and salvation. I can't identify with it at all.

There are Christian organizations that tend to every segment of society that has been forgotten (and they usually have the highest success rate). Conservative Christians are the most charitable demographic on earth.

I take it your house isn't on fire currently, is not being subject to an earth quake, and is not being burglarized,
at the moment but I bet you have acted to prevent and insured against those things should they occur. Why do you spend money to protect your self against rare things but have no need for what has been 100% lethal and occurs to everyone.

Sorry, but I'm already maximally content.

That is not even knowable or coherent.

This god employs an interesting strategy. It always seems to imitate a nonexistent god perfectly. It does what would happen of there were no god. Nonexistent gods also don't appear before us, perform miracles for us to behold, or force us to believe in them.

By that bizarre standard God would have to be your slave before he could exist. The claim of absence of evidence carries a burden. For it to hold water you must show that we should have more evidence for God's existence than we do. How on Earth are you going to meet that burden?

Incidentally, separation from this god has been pretty tolerable so far. That's not really a loss.

That is because you have not suffered the second death yet. You are spiritually separated from God but not the things of God. The second and eternal separation is an eternal seal placed on the spiritual separation from God, and the removal of anything that comes from God. He holds complete sovereignty over everything and everyone. He gave you a life to enter into a relationship with him and you decided you neither believed in nor wanted anything to do with him. So your going to get exactly what you chose in the end. Where is the monster?

 

[1robin]

Your faith based beliefs are unshared premises when you base an argument on them. Nothing that follows from a premise I don't accept has any meaning to me.

5 posts in a row, that is a new one even for me. I do not believe pink unicorns exist, I don't think UFOs exist, and I don't think bigfoot exists. I do not debate their existence, I am not upset if others believe in them, I act just like a person who does not hold faith in any of those three things. You do not act like someone who merely disbelieves, but one who hates the very thing he says he does not believe in.

And where do you get the idea that you understand life or even Christianity better than I do? No two of you seem to have the same religion or describe the same god. I'd say that gives me a better understanding of what Christianity is than any one of the people who claim that their version is correct.

So far by showing what you claim is not Christianity. I gave emphatic verses from the core of the bible which show you not even understand it's most important teachings.

I also can understand scripture better than any believer reading it with a faith based confirmation bias. Such a person has to scrub it clean.

So far you batting about a thousand on being wrong, concerning very simplistic and core scriptures.

He has to reconcile the contradiction by saying that one of two contradictory ideas doesn't mean what it say, or that i was mistranslated, or that it can onlly be understood with the gift of discernment from the Holy Spirit.

Who the heck are you talking abut? You sound like your having a debate by proxy or yelling at traffic.

He must sweep all of the errors in history and science under the rug and call them allegory or metaphor.

Perhaps you need to find a thread made by "him" and debate him.

He must whitewash the failed prophecies by invent tortured explanations for how this one anticipated this and that one anticipated that despite nobody knowing that either of those things was coming. One guy told me that the Bible foretold of modern telecommunications by citing a scripture from Job : "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" - Job 38:35

Of course, nobody had a clue that "lightnings" could be used to communicate until man discovered the science and technology of telecommunications.

Ok that is enough, I have never had a debate in the third person before. I don't think I was to establish a precedent.

 

[1robin]

Oy, I just can't let this go, @1robin. You were doing OK outlining potentials and options for a Christian Truth-seeker, etc., but what's this about ETERNALLY separate from our Father? That's crap and certainly not supported even by the stories of your own Teacher, to wit, the Return of the Prodigal Son. It incontrovertibly indicates you have not yet experienced the Father, and it's ignorant statements like this which make people go, "Who needs a God like that? That's how unconditional Love works? F that!"

You don't even attempt to hide the emotional preference at the core of your position. In fact that is the only reason I am responding. If you hate a thing then just state you do, instead of trying dress up disgust in rationality. I am not sure what it is your saying here.

1. Is it that you have some evidence that those who die separated from God can still be reconciled to him after death?
2. Is it that you just do not like a God who judges his creation?
3. Are you saying the parable of the prodigal son is an analogy of NT redemption?

No, that's not how Divine Love works. Souls, "made in the image" (formless Spirit, not forms) instinctively, soulfully know that can't possibly be the Truth--precisely because they ARE "made in the image." Like sparks of a Grand Fire. God is Exquisite Love, Truth, Awareness, Bliss. That's not "His nature," God is That. And That thou art, as well. It's impossible to be separate from that God/your own Self for even one nanosecond, let alone eternity. "You" wouldn't exist if God didn't infuse the tools of your soul (body, mind, intellect, etc.) with the life breath/energy which only "He" creates, maintains and reabsorbs back unto Himself. If you were Supreme Love, would you condemn yourself to an eternal separation from yourself? Laughable. Good grief, Mankind, reflect on these things, think it through and reconcile these glaring discrepancies between what you read and your experience. Or get the experience and share that....

1. Made in the image of God means that we are moral agents, personal, and that we have a scaled down version of God's sovereignty

2. Genesis 3:24

Not only were Adam and Eve and their progeny separated from God and removed from dwelling with Him in the Garden of Eden, they were also separated from the source of life, the Tree of Life! The tragic results are evident for anyone to see! Throughout the Bible, God simply and clearly expounds upon the results of sin.

Leviticus 16:20-22

This is what will occur to one who will not allow his mind to change and turn to God: eternal separation.
Separation from God (Forerunner Commentary)

3. There are two deaths. Physical death, spiritual death. Christ didn't physically die in our place, that is why we a still physically die. He saved us from the second or spiritual death, that is separation from Yahweh forever.

 

[Milton Platt]

Thanks for the nice response. I disagree with you, but it's nice to trade responses with someone who does not resort to ad hominems and hysteria as a defense.I'm having trouble figuring out how the multiple quote thing works, so I am going to simply post in red after your responses. Hope this does not confuse things too much.

I did not give any evidence for God's existence. My visible information says I am a Christian. So when I speak of God I assume the person read what my religion was and replied in that context. If you want a comparative religion debate, that is fine but this thread was about the accuracy of a cartoon.

Fair criticism.

Depends, 90% of my beliefs are accepted by about 90% of Christians.

Don't know how you arrived at the statistics, but can accept them. It might also be fair to say that those 90% may have additional various beliefs that do not match yours.

No I am not but I did state what must exist if life after death exists.

Yeah, the same way I assume my brother exists. I know those guys and so I believe they exist.

No I didn't.

Good lord, mentioning something's existence prior to God has been called by well credentialed philosophers to be the worst argument against God in the history or western thought. God is the necessary eternal, uncaused, first cause all causal chains end at.

I was talking about objective morality. It wasn't an argument against the existence of god, but an argument against the existence of objective morality. For morality to be truly objective, it would mean that god is subject to it just as we would be. It would be outside of and preexist him. If morality is subject to the mind of god, then it isn't truly objective. He can change it if he wishes, and seems to have done so.


Not objective meaning. I will quote from one of your own guys:

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
A quote from River Out of Eden

Yes, that pretty much describes the universe. Humans ascribe the descriptive terms of evil, good, etc.

That is what happens when a biologist escapes his own lab to sneak into a philosophic lab.

 

[Muffled]

Wait, so you're saying that the authors of the NT were enemies of humanity?

I believe I am saying that of those who consider it extortion.