Christians, anything wrong with the following?

[1robin]

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?

.

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.

 

[1robin]

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

Did Christ offer forgiveness or demand payment from those who nailed him to the cross?

 

[Skwim]

If you're not willing to do the work of rationalizing away all the inconsistencies and irrationalities with Christianity, then how do ever expect it to make sense? I have no idea why so many people think that the message from the one, true god should be logical and consistent.

 

[Skwim]

What a strange question?

Is this a question (it is punctuated with a question mark)?

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.

So, do you deny that the reason people should let Jesus into their hearts is so he can save them from what he will do to them if they don't let him in?

A "yes" or "no" will suffice.

.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't recall Jesus threatening an outcome if his invitation wasn't accepted??

So there are no negative repercussions at all....believing is exactly the same as not believing?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well you all complain how terrible God is for creating hell and death, eternal damnation and hellfire etc. But he gives a simple way out, believe in Jesus. You can't say you don't believe in God and still complain that God created death and hell, complaining God must be terrible while ignoring the fact that all you have to do is believe in Jesus.

That might be confusing since I didn't take the time to dress up the wording, but do you get what im saying?

So if I don't believe in Santa, I can't call him fat and jolly?

Same with Allah, I'm told. All you need to do is believe in him to avid Muslim hell. That's fair, right? If you awaken in Muslim hell, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Allah offered you his gift and you refused it. The only fair punishment would be eternal torture. Look at how often Allah warns you:

2:39 But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein.

2:85 Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression ?- and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof ? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.

2:104 O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): "Listen to us" but say "Look upon us," and be ye listeners. For disbelievers is a painful doom.

2:114 And who doth greater wrong than he who forbiddeth the approach to the sanctuaries of Allah lest His name should be mentioned therein, and striveth for their ruin. As for such, it was never meant that they should enter them except in fear. Theirs in the world is ignominy and theirs in the Hereafter is an awful doom.

2:126 And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day, He answered: As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey's end!

2:162 They ever dwell therein. The doom will not be lightened for them, neither will they be reprieved.

2:165 Yet of mankind are some who take unto themselves (objects of worship which they set as) rivals to Allah, loving them with a love like (that which is the due) of Allah (only)- those who believe are stauncher in their love for Allah - Oh, that those who do evil had but known,(on the day) when they behold the doom, that power belongeth wholly to Allah, and that Allah is severe in punishment!

2:166 (On the day) when those who were followed disown those who followed (them), and they behold the doom, and all their aims collapse with them.

2:167 And those who were but followers will say: If a return were possible for us, we would disown them even as they have disowned us. Thus will Allah show them their own deeds as anguish for them, and they will not emerge from the Fire.

2:174 Lo! those who hide aught of the Scripture which Allah hath revealed and purchase a small gain therewith, they eat into their bellies nothing else than fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He make them grow. Theirs will be a painful doom.

2:175 Those are they who purchase error at the price of guidance, and torment at the price of pardon. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire!

[In case you're wondering, I don't believe that any more than I do your holy book, and for the same reason that we both reject the Qur'an - there is absolutely no reason to believe that stuff]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

disbelief is possible for reasons we don't know. Maybe we can guess. Jesus told doubting Thomas that believing on faith is better than having proof. Perhaps because the less proof you require is equal to how much you love, accept and trust in Jesus based on his good works. Healing the sick, raising the dead. How would we know Jesus was good and powerful like that if there were no sick or dead?

Don't forget Allah. I'm told he likes faith even more. There's absolutely no way to believe in that god without a boatload of faith. If you can muster that, you've earned a pass from Allah hell. Allah likes people who believe in him for no reason.

If you can see anything wrong with these Allah equivalents, then you know how the skeptic feels about the same claims coming from Christianity. There is zero reason to have faith in these things, and faith is not a virtue if it can just as easily lead you to one god belief as the other. How could that possibly be a path to truth?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

So there are no negative repercussions at all....believing is exactly the same as not believing?

Greetings, Milton
What does accepting or declining the invitation to explore the wonders of selfless Love have to do with belief?? If you invite someone to dine with you and they decline, what do you do? Rough 'em up? Burn their house down?

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't recall Jesus threatening an outcome if his invitation wasn't accepted??

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

*

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

I believe this is a quote out of context and is not attributable to Jesus but rather to the king in a parable Jesus narrated and which Luke is retelling. Please read Luke 19, commencing at verse 11.

 

[Ingledsva]

I believe this is a quote out of context and is not attributable to Jesus but rather to the king in a parable Jesus narrated and which Luke is retelling. Please read Luke 19, commencing at verse 11.

The meaning of the parable is obvious.


Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Luk 19:16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

Luk 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Luk 19:18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

Luk 19:19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

Luk 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

Luk 19:21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

Luk 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Luk 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

Luk 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

*

 

[Kenny]

Is this a question (it is punctuated with a question mark)?


So, do you deny that the reason people should let Jesus into their hearts is so he can save them from what he will do to them if they don't let him in?

A "yes" or "no" will suffice.

.

no

 

[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.

This religion is very unappealing. I read things like this and wonder why people hope it's true.

 

[1robin]

Is this a question (it is punctuated with a question mark)?

Quite right, my logic is usually sound but my Grammar seldom is. It wasn't a question and should have had no question mark.

So, do you deny that the reason people should let Jesus into their hearts is so he can save them from what he will do to them if they don't let him in?

A "yes" or "no" will suffice.

.

Yes, I deny that.

 

[1robin]

This religion is very unappealing. I read things like this and wonder why people hope it's true.

Because if it isn't true your fleeting life will end in annihilation, but if it is true there is hope of eternal contentment. Denying Christ is an infinite net loss.

Basically your doing exactly what was predicted concerning the end time. Your calling good bad, and bad good.

If God exist objective moral values and duties exist, we have objective worth, life has actual sanctity, justice will redress injustice, we have infinite value, the universe has an actual purpose, the actions of Stalin and Florence knighting Gale are punished or rewarded on their own merits, actual racial equality exists, and our sad little tale of suffering and confusion can have an eternally happy outcome. But you call this bad.

Without God no objective moral values exist (which leads to either nihilism or might makes right), our lives have objective worth, we have arbitrary value based on preference, the universe as well as ourselves are merely anomalies without purpose, the actions of Pol Pot and Billy Graham are met with the same eventual outcome, racial equality does not exist (evolution has never two equal things), and our sad little stories end with eternal meaninglessness. But you call this good.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Because if it isn't true your fleeting life will end in annihilation, but if it is true there is hope of eternal contentment.

I'll take eternal sleep over eternal consciousness, especially if I have to live it worshiping if I'm lucky and burning alive forever if I'm not.

Denying Christ is an infinite net loss.

Not as I see it or just described it. And that's if we accept Christian doctrine. You either lose or lose more. I'm not really interested in living as a ghost with a bunch of other ghosts. Are you expecting to see them, or only this infinitely bright god?

Basically your doing exactly what was predicted concerning the end time. Your calling good bad, and bad good.

That's what I would say about the Christian versions of good and bad.

If God exist objective moral values and duties exist, we have objective worth, life has actual sanctity, justice will redress injustice, we have infinite value, the universe has an actual purpose, the actions of Stalin and Florence knighting Gale are punished or rewarded on their own merits, actual racial equality exists, and our sad little tale of suffering and confusion can have an eternally happy outcome. But you call this bad.

This is so far from where I am that I am at loss to address it except in short contradictory statements. Justice Christian style doesn't resemble what I call justice. I acknowledge duties in the absence of gods. Worth is not dtermined by a relationship to a god. Your god belief does not give the universe value.

Without God no objective moral values exist (which leads to either nihilism or might makes right), our lives have objective worth, we have arbitrary value based on preference, the universe as well as ourselves are merely anomalies without purpose, the actions of Pol Pot and Billy Graham are met with the same eventual outcome, racial equality does not exist (evolution has never two equal things), and our sad little stories end with eternal meaninglessness. But you call this good.

Sorry, but once again, this is very far from my worldview. Yes, has been very good. It's a beautiful world, I am grateful to be participating in it, my life is overflowing with meaning and purpose. If you need a god to find value in life, then your god belief has stripped life of its meaning for you. Apparently, only your death and what you hope will follow matter to you.

Religion has nothing to offer me.

 

[1robin]

I'll take eternal sleep over eternal consciousness, especially if I have to live it worshiping if I'm lucky and burning alive forever if I'm not.

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

Not as I see it or just described it. And that's if we accept Christian doctrine. You either lose or lose more. I'm not really interested in living as a ghost with a bunch of other ghosts. Are you expecting to see them, or only this infinitely bright god?

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.

That's what I would say about the Christian versions of good and bad.

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.

This is so far from where I am that I am at loss to address it except in short contradictory statements. Justice Christian style doesn't resemble what I call justice. I acknowledge duties in the absence of gods. Worth is not dtermined by a relationship to a god. Your god belief does not give the universe value.

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.

Sorry, but once again, this is very far from my worldview. Yes, has been very good. It's a beautiful world, I am grateful to be participating in it, my life is overflowing with meaning and purpose. If you need a god to find value in life, then your god belief has stripped life of its meaning for you. Apparently, only your death and what you hope will follow matter to you.

Your world view is irrelevant. Logical laws and philosophical arguments will trump your worldview regardless. From your first claim you are apparently not grateful enough to even consider a way to retain that life.

Religion has nothing to offer me.

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

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?

 

[Milton Platt]

Greetings, Milton
What does accepting or declining the invitation to explore the wonders of selfless Love have to do with belief?? If you invite someone to dine with you and they decline, what do you do? Rough 'em up? Burn their house down?

In the instance of the Christian god, yes, burn the house down but with you inside. The Christian religion is based upon another more violent religion and carried some of that over. I cannot remember any invitation to "explore the wonders of boundless love" in the bible.

 

[Milton Platt]

Because if it isn't true your fleeting life will end in annihilation, but if it is true there is hope of eternal contentment. Denying Christ is an infinite net loss.

Basically your doing exactly what was predicted concerning the end time. Your calling good bad, and bad good.

If God exist objective moral values and duties exist, we have objective worth, life has actual sanctity, justice will redress injustice, we have infinite value, the universe has an actual purpose, the actions of Stalin and Florence knighting Gale are punished or rewarded on their own merits, actual racial equality exists, and our sad little tale of suffering and confusion can have an eternally happy outcome. But you call this bad.

Without God no objective moral values exist (which leads to either nihilism or might makes right), our lives have objective worth, we have arbitrary value based on preference, the universe as well as ourselves are merely anomalies without purpose, the actions of Pol Pot and Billy Graham are met with the same eventual outcome, racial equality does not exist (evolution has never two equal things), and our sad little stories end with eternal meaninglessness. But you call this good.

Not really.

1.You are assuming that out of well over 1000 religions, you have the correct one without exploring each of them intimately.
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.
3. You are assuming there is life after death without any substantive evidence.
4. You assume that the god you worship is actually real (faith).
5. You assume that, if it is real, it is telling you the truth.
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.
7. a person can have meaning in his/her life without your god......billions do. The rest of this paragraph is bollocks.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

In the instance of the Christian god, yes, burn the house down but with you inside. The Christian religion is based upon another more violent religion and carried some of that over. I cannot remember any invitation to "explore the wonders of boundless love" in the bible.

Hello, I'm totally the wrong person to carry on this conversation with for two reasons. First, I'm not much into religion(s) per se, finding that "this one" and "that one" and "that one there" are usually formed not by fans of the Teacher or Prophet or even his teachings but by his fanatics, most of whom can spout the teaching but don't actually practice it. Every Teacher faces the same problem. And your pointing to Christianity regarding its particular violence is a non-starter, IMO. Violence perpetrated by religious fanatics isn't differentiated by religion but by the character and depth of ignorance of its practitioners.

Secondly, there is only one God, call Him/Her/It anything you like. Any teaching which points toward a relationship with God, uttered by any man, woman, child or beast (there have been those, too!) is an invitation to explore the wonders of boundless love. But you label yourself an atheist and this thread is not about that, so let's leave it at that, okey dokey?