Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Shadow Wolf]

Why would she have died? You contradict yourself.

She had a medical crisis, was in a coma and they couldn't stabilize her while she was pregnant and there was no saving pregnancy outside of her (and even then her parents wouldn't have stood for opting to save an unborn fetus over their daughtsr). So they did an emergency abortion, got her stabilized and eventually she recovered.
And her kids today are pretty cool. It would be such a shame to have none of them because some people believe abortion is just for convenience and worked through the legislation process to have it extremely regulated and nearly entirely eradicated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She had a medical crisis, was in a coma and they couldn't stabilize her while she was pregnant and there was no saving pregnancy outside of her (and even then her parents wouldn't have stood for opting to save an unborn fetus over their daughtsr). So they did an emergency abortion, got her stabilized and eventually she recovered.
And her kids today are pretty cool. It would be such a shame to have none of them because some people believe abortion is just for convenience and worked through the legislation process to have it extremely regulated and nearly entirely eradicated.

I am amazed sometimes how antiabortionists can be so ignorant of what can go wrong in a pregnancy. Being pregnant can be very hazardous for women.

 

[Heyo]

So you really don't know the difference between people and animals? Maybe go back to school?

Maybe you should?

People = homo sapiens (species)
Genus: Homo
Tribe: Hominini
Subfamily: Homininae
Family: Hominidae
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Suborder: Haplorhini
Order: Primates
Class: Mammalia
Phylum: Chordata
Kingdom: Animalia

People are animals.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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?

A little of both. There are plenty of Christians who believe they are "good" and that they will be rewarded with heaven while lots of bad people roast in hell.

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

One of the Christian concepts of hell is that it is a place of suffering because of the absence of God and his love. But, if you love someone only to avoid something like suffering it is a hostage situation, no? Stockholm Syndrome may be a stretch, but it is parody.

 

[Quagmire]

A little of both. There are plenty of Christians who believe they are "good" and that they will be rewarded with heaven while lots of bad people roast in hell.

Well then they don't understand how their own religion is supposed to work.

One of the Christian concepts of hell is that it is a place of suffering because of the absence of God and his love. But, if you love someone only to avoid something like suffering it is a hostage situation, no.

First off, that's a nonsequenter: are we talking about God's love for his people or people's love for God? Because you're using them interchangeably and it doesn't make any sense when you do that in this context.

Secondly, "loving" someone in order to avoid suffering isn't love, it's fear.

Stockholm Syndrome may be a stretch, but it is parody.

The problem isn't that it's a "stretch", the problem is that it's an unjust stereotype based on a misleading premise.

Try this:

"All [-------] people are thieves"

It's a stereotype.

Is this any better:

"All [------] people are kleptomaniacs".

Stereotypes are bad m'kay?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Well then they don't understand how their own religion is supposed to work.

That's a common thing in Christianity. Blame hell and brimstone preaching?

First off, that's a nonsequenter: are we talking about God's love for his people or people's love for God? Because you're using them interchangeably and it doesn't make any sense when you do that in this context.

People's love for god, though in truth this would call into question god's love for the people as well. This is in line with Christian doctrine.

Secondly, "loving" someone in order to avoid suffering isn't love, it's fear.

Exactly!

The problem isn't that it's a "stretch", the problem is that it's an unjust stereotype based on a misleading premise.

Try this:

"All [-------] people are thieves"

It's a stereotype.

Is this any better:

"All [------] people are kleptomaniacs".

Stereotypes are bad m'kay?

I don't think my edit is an unjust stereotype. It is a major theological problem:

1. We must love God to escape hell, which is the furthest place from God's love.

2. In order to love God we must know him and believe in him.

3. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, could provide us with proof of him unquestionably.

4. God hasn't done #3.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. We must love God to escape hell, which is the furthest place from God's love.

2. In order to love God we must know him and believe in him.

3. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, could provide us with proof of him unquestionably.

4. God hasn't done #3.

Yes to all and so what? There seems to be a hidden therefore. Now give proof of the therefore.

 

[Quagmire]

That's a common thing in Christianity.

Is it a cmmon thing in here?

Because here is where the cartoon was posted, and here is where it's going to be seen.

You know, by the Christians in here.

Do you think they've earned that? Or does that matter?

Blame hell and brimstone preaching?

I would if I were looking for an excuse to be rude and inconsiderate.

People's love for god, though in truth this would call into question god's love for the people as well. This is in line with Christian doctrine.

What?

Exactly!

Exactly as in what? Exactly as in your post wasn't supposed to make sense in the first place?

You lost me.

How does any of that justify the stereotype.

Or is this just a case of, If we talk about it long enough and bury it under enough words and vaguely related ideas we can pretend it's something else?

I don't think my edit is an unjust stereotype. It is a major theological problem:

1. We must love God to escape hell, which is the furthest place from God's love.

2. In order to love God we must know him and believe in him.

3. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, could provide us with proof of him unquestionably.

4. God hasn't done #3.

For **** sake. I'm saying the cartoon is a stereotype. That's what we're talking about, remember? The the message in the cartoon.

I didn't say your edit was a stereotype, I was pointing out that it's just a reiteration of the stereotype that was there to begin with.

You didn't change the message, just the words, I don't see how you would think that would help.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes to all and so what? There seems to be a hidden therefore. Now give proof of the therefore.

I suppose the "therefore" would be that Christianity, taken literally (which is the mainstream view) suggests a hostage situation.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Is it a cmmon thing in here?

Because here is where the cartoon was posted, and here is where it's going to be seen.

You know, by the Christians in here.

Need it conform to the beliefs of Christians here? It seems that if it is a common thing in Christianity then a religious forum is a good place to discuss it.

Do you think they've earned that? Or does that matter?.

I'm not sure. I just like discussing the concepts brought up by the cartoon.

I would if I were looking for an excuse to be rude and inconsiderate..

It need not be. Hell and brimstone preaching is what it is. Calling it out through satire is a legitimate way of countering their own inaccuracy.

What?

That was meant to point out that the relationship between god and people should be transactional.

Exactly as in what? Exactly as in your post wasn't supposed to make sense in the first place?

You lost me..

Exactly that in both my suggested edit and the original cartoon, fear is a factor in the percieved relationship between god and humans.

How does any of that justify the stereotype.

Or is this just a case of, If we talk about it long enough and bury it under enough words and vaguely related ideas we can pretend it's something else?

I'm here for the discussion so yeah, that works.

For **** sake. I'm saying the cartoon is a stereotype. That's what we're talking about, remember? The the message in the cartoon.

I didn't say your edit was a stereotype, I was pointing out that it's just a reiteration of the stereotype that was there to begin with.

You didn't change the message, just the words, I don't see how you would think that would help.

If it didn't change the meaning then it is still a stereotype, right? I think it did change the meaning, though maybe not the theme. The theme remains a creator god using fear to keep folks in line. Christians may agree with this, but this is an interesting thing to discuss: Is it a healthy relationship?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nonsense. We all know most abortion is about convenience... quit deceiving yourself.

case in point

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not if we are animals.

Plenty of animals have "rules of conduct", aka "morality".

Not just humans.
Even a pack of wolves has rudimental morality.

But hey man, if you need a 2000 year old book to tell you that it's nice to steal, kill, rape and maim... by all means, continue to believe in that book.

Whatever keeps the morally bankrupt from not going on killing sprees or alike, I guess....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is why?

Every social species that relies on cooperation, requires a form of morality.

It's required for the functioning and survival of the tribe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That implies that nature has intentions.

No, it doesn't.

Funny how people can't get away from the language of design no matter how much they try.

Funny how people continue to argue strawmen.
Funny how people insist on being wrong all the time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That doesn't even make sense... For a population to evolve individuals have to evolve.

It only doesn't make sense to someone who refuses to learn how it works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suppose the "therefore" would be that Christianity, taken literally (which is the mainstream view) suggests a hostage situation.

Well, that doesn't follow from the premisses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nevertheless actions reflect on the people.
As with Adam and Eve, if they were not prepared to acknowledge God as the one they should be trusting and obeying then they would continue to do bad,,,,,,,,,,, even occasionally,,,,,,,,,, and end up teaching their kids that way to be.

That's a story from an old book meant to instill some sort of moral value that I don't agree with.

We are responsible for our own actions and for making amends to our victims. We are not bad or evil based on other peoples' actions. And we aren't inherently evil because the two first people in an old story did something wrong. That's immoral, imo.

It is forgiveness from God which is going to secure us eternal life.
God expects those who are forgiven to forgive others and also someone who sees their evil actions and repents also wants to somehow make amends even if all they are able to do is be sorry or say they are sorry.

So God forgives the murderer. And then the victim of said murderer is supposed to forgive the murderer. That's what the victim gets in this scenario, seriously? It seems to me like the murderer is coming out on top in this scenario while the victim is getting screwed.

God can restore what was lost 1000 fold and the victim might even demand that the perp makes some amends too beyond saying sorry, but I imagine the victim will be forgiving others who have harmed him/her and the desire for absolute justice, revenge, amends, might be gone in paradise where the victim also has been forgiven of the evil things they have done also.

Well, these are claims, not in evidence. In this life, I don't see any gods showing up to do any of this. But if there is a God, I still don't see how this is moral. Good thing humans have given up relying on Gods and decided to enact some laws instead.

I hope I went further in explaining my point above and answering what you are talking about. If not,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, what are you talking about without just repeating what you said/?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Isn't the fact that God continues to reach out for us even when we reject Him evidence of the goodness of God.

I've seen no evidence of any such thing taking place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's something that applies to God's truth and justice and crossing the Ts and dotting the i s, and not just waving His hand and forgiving everyone when some don't want to repent or condemning everyone when some don't deserve that and when He wants to provide a way out for everyone.
The atonement is explained in various ways in the Bible and through history and some people don't get or at least always want a better explanation.

As noted, I find this supposed system to be immoral. Which is where we started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As noted, I find this supposed system to be immoral. Which is where we started.

Christians have a very difficult time understanding why substitutionary atonement is evil in its nature.