• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Couldn't have said it better myself...

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
And there still isn't. If a woman is going to die they have the option of taking the baby.
They would have lost both in this case. It would have been stupid, pointless, useless and futile to let her die to save something that just wasn't likely to live anyways. But the abortion was done and many years later she now has her own family with three kids.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan

Whether he knows it or not the cartoonist is actually validating a basic premise of Christianity: that no one is good, and that we all need to be on a leash:

"There is none good. no not one"
Psalms 14:3
Romans 3:12

"He replied to him, “Why do you call Me good? There is One who is good"
Matthew 19:17-30 MEV

So pointing this out isn't much of an "Ah Hah!" moment. It's just echoing what Christianity is already saying.

IMO, most of us are on a leash anyway. I think the important point is "who's holding the other end"?

I think this cartoon does suggest something about the popular notion of hell in christianity, accurate or not, Ahaing Christians or not. Maybe a better caption would be "If you need the threat of hell to love God, then you may have Stockholm Syndrome."
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
They would have lost both in this case. It would have been stupid, pointless, useless and futile to let her die to save something that just wasn't likely to live anyways. But the abortion was done and many years later she now has her own family with three kids.
Why would she have died? You contradict yourself.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
We developed a sense of empathy to have a feeling of right and wrong to enhance group cohesion, which is a great benefit for social animals (yes, even dolphins, bonobos and elephants appear to have rules, norms amd things you don't do).
That implies that nature has intentions. Funny how people can't get away from the language of design no matter how much they try.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That implies that nature has intentions. Funny how people can't get away from the language of design no matter how much they try.
Nope. No intentions needed. So many creationists cannot remember that it is populations that evolve, not individuals If a behavior arises that is beneficial to the group that is likely to be passed on. Behavior can be genetic and they can be positive traits.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Then you said that you were not human. That is why I am asking what you are. You said that you were not human, not me. I am just trying to figure out what I am talking to . An intelligent kelp?
So you really don't know the difference between people and animals? Maybe go back to school?
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Nope. No intentions needed. So many creationists cannot remember that it is populations that evolve, not individuals If a behavior arises that is beneficial to the group that is likely to be passed on. Behavior can be genetic and they can be positive traits.
That doesn't even make sense... For a population to evolve individuals have to evolve.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
I think this cartoon does suggest something about the popular notion of hell in christianity, accurate or not, Ahaing Christians or not.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

When you say, "the popular notion of hell in christianity", are you talkng about a "notion" held by Christians about hell? Or are you talking about the popular misconception held by outsiders about the way hell is viewed within Christianity?

Maybe a better caption would be "If you need the threat of hell to love God, then you may have Stockholm Syndrome."

That wouldn't fix the the problem, it would just change the wording.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
And your apparent approval for that "torment" suggests, to me, that you might not be an altogether good person. I don't accept the need for torture ever. Incarceration, for me, is about keeping society safe. Punishment is essentially useless. It doesn't prevent anything, merely takes revenge for what has already happened.

Humanists don't see people as "bad" from the get-go. We think that is a ridiculous notion, and unworthy of the teaching of any scripture.
OK, here's where I get involved, hopefully without too much censure. Hell is not what it's cracked up to be by religionists. So the torment and smoke are not as often interpreted. The word hell is found in many Bible translations. And other translations read “the grave,” “the world of the dead,” and so forth from that same original word.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This doesn't make any sense to me.

When you say, "the popular notion of hell in christianity", are you talkng about a "notion" held by Christians about hell? Or are you talking about the popular misconception held by outsiders about the way hell is viewed within Christianity?



That wouldn't fix the the problem, it would just change the wording.
I remember before I studied the Bible, when I was in college I read some of Dante's Inferno. Poor Dante. Very influenced by unsavory teaching. I thought his depiction of hell was nuts anyway. And that's before I believed in God. But now that I know where and how the word hell comes from and how translators as well as many misinterpret it, I'm very happy that I understand this better. To sum it up, regardless of parables written with symbolic terms, the dead "know nothing." Ecclesiastes 9:5,10. You might want to look it up.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This doesn't make any sense to me.

When you say, "the popular notion of hell in christianity", are you talkng about a "notion" held by Christians about hell? Or are you talking about the popular misconception held by outsiders about the way hell is viewed within Christianity?



That wouldn't fix the the problem, it would just change the wording.
It would require a desire to know the truth, and it will set you free.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I remember before I studied the Bible, when I was in college I read some of Dante's Inferno. Poor Dante. Very influenced by unsavory teaching. I thought his depiction of hell was nuts anyway. And that's before I believed in God. But now that I know where and how the word hell comes from and how translators as well as many misinterpret it, I'm very happy that I understand this better. To sum it up, regardless of parables written with symbolic terms, the dead "know nothing." Ecclesiastes 9:5,10. You might want to look it up.
I'm wondering if his nightmares, bad mushroom trips, taking on a persoective of extreme misanthopia and pessimism, what exactly got him thinking up some of that. People complain of violence in the media today, the Inferno makes today's stuff all look like Mr. Rogers and Care Bears combined. There's no bad assing into that Hell like people say they'll do today. Limbo isn't bad, but beyond that is terrifying.
 
Top