Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

Christians themselves do not hold a consistent view of Hell, and what they frequently believe isn't really Biblically sound. Like dying and having a soul instantly beamed to somewhere else to face judgement.
The Biblical position is we stay dead until the day we are all resurrected and judged, and the damned are destroyed and remain dead, not eternally tortured.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I could point to those who have come to Jesus over the years and have changed lives because of that, or to testimonies of people who say just how they came to Jesus and what happened subsequently but it sounds like you want some sort of proof of God and proof that He is who has performed miracles in people's lives, as opposed to just me giving what I call evidence.

Those are still the claims, not the evidence.

I could point to people who have changed their lives without having to first believe in Jesus/God(s). That doesn't show that God(s) don't exist any more than people changing their lives by finding Jesus is evidence that God(s) do exist.

Nevertheless in the story of humanity in the Bible, God's continued trying to being humanity back to Him and to forgiveness and eternal life does show a caring God and sending Jesus to atone for sin shows His love for us.

The Bible describes an angry, jealous, bumbling God who can't seem to get anything right. Plus, he's got a terrible moral compass, to boot.

So, we're back where we started, with you claiming that vicarious atonement is a moral thing, while I find it immoral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christians themselves do not hold a consistent view of Hell, and what they frequently believe isn't really Biblically sound. Like dying and having a soul instantly beamed to somewhere else to face judgement.
The Biblical position is we stay dead until the day we are all resurrected and judged, and the damned are destroyed and remain dead, not eternally tortured.

The Bible is not clear. It says both that people will be tortured and then die and that they will be tortured forever. Christianity is far too often a smorgasbord r religion:

What Does the Bible Say About Eternal Torment?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not if we are animals.

What does being an animal have to do with it?

It sounds like you have a very limited imagination if you can't think of any way to determine whether an action is good or bad without some deity telling you so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Oops, you avoided the point and the actual content of the post.
Again.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Bible is not clear. It says both that people will be tortured and then die and that they will be tortured forever. Christianity is far too often a smorgasbord r religion:

What Does the Bible Say About Eternal Torment?

An assortment of verses isn't a good point. Or even a point at all.
First the Christians had to reinvent Satan and then create Hell, achieved through twisting the OT into something it isn't (this is very necessary for many aspects of Christianity). Amd then it ignores the parts of the second death, how the spirit shall die and be destroyed, be cast into eternal darkness, and how Jesus says not to fear the one who can destroy the flesh but the one who can destroy the soul. And, yeah, that furnace may be eternal but those evil branches and wicked fruits cast into it will be destroyed.
And, of course, it ignores the parts of shall not perish but have everlasting life and being saved from death.

 

[Quagmire]

Need it conform to the beliefs of Christians here?

Yes, if someone's going to presume to make a statement about what a group of people believes, it should be based on something that they actually believe.

It's like you're asking," if you're going to accuse someone of something do the accusations actually need to be true"?

Well yeah, one would hope. And if you going to satirize something it needs to reflect a certain level of prevalence within the group that is aimed at in order to be relevant. Otherwise it's just propaganda.

It seems that if it is a common thing in Christianity then a religious forum is a good place to discuss it.

Is it a common thing in Christianity?

Let's be clear about the "it's" that we're talking about here.

The cartoon is saying a few things:

1. It's assuming that Christians in general consider themselves good people.

2. That Christians in general need the threat of hell to be good people.

3. That therefore Christians in general are actually bad people.

These are flawed assumptions because:

1. The idea that anybody is good is anti-biblical, and any Christian who understands they're own religion would know this.

2. Why should it be assumed that Christians, or religious people in general, have somehow managed to avoid developing the same socially inspired moral conscience that everybody else has? Are we to assume that every religious person is soiciopathic by nature and would be running around doing all kinds of evil if they weren't afraid of going to hell? The cartoon seems to be suggesting that they are.

3. Labeling a whole group of people "bad" is, ironically, a pretty hefty piece of self-righteousness. If it's based on a misconception about that group it's something worse, it's propaganda.

There's a difference between discussing an idea and defending propaganda.

One major difference is that when someone's discussing an idea they'll generally address their opponent's objections directly instead of dancing around them.

When someone's defending propaganda, they'll usually respond to objections with a lot of evasive tactics, like clouding the issue, changing the subject, purposely misinterpreting those objections or ignoring them all together and focusing on whatever personal reasons the other person has for making them in the first place.

The latter is mostly what I'm seeing here.

I'm not sure.

Not sure if the people that are going to be insulted by this deserve it ? Or not sure if that matters?

I just like discussing the concepts brought up by the cartoon.

Like I said before: I have no problem with the basic concept:

Yes, if someone needs the threat of hell (or threats in general) in order to be a good person then they're not actually a good person.

My objection is about the way the message is being delivered: wrapped up in a lot of unfair assumptions based on a juvenile interpretation of what a group of people believes about themselves and about their religion.

It need not be.

What do you mean it need not be? Either posting the cartoon here is rude and inconsiderate or it isn't.

Hell and brimstone preaching is what it is. Calling it out through satire is a legitimate way of countering their own inaccuracy.

Again: no objection to the message, lots of objections to the way that it's being presented.

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

Not sure how that's relevant to what we're talking about.

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

Well duh. I think everybody gets that.

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

"Winning" the debate by obfuscation works for you?

I'll keep that in mind.

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?

Again: it's not the topic that bothers me, it's the way it's being presented.

That's what I want to talk about. If you'd rather talk about something else, you should probably go talk to someone else.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Well, that doesn't follow from the premisses.

Let me try again:

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.

Therefore, God is either not omnipotent and omniscient, is cruel, or there is some other reason for him to decide to allow this relationship to continue.

That still may not follow from the premises, but feel free to elaborate on your thinking.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, if someone's going to presume to make a statement about what a group of people believes, it should be based on something that they actually believe.

It's like you're asking," if you're going to accuse someone of something do the accusations actually need to be true"?

But specifically the people on a religious forum? Like, we must keep our discussions specifically about the beliefs of the folks on the forum?

I would suggest it's more like, "This is what appears to be the case, let's discuss it." The cartoon itself may not be doing that, and I recognize that you are specifically looking to discuss that, but my original response was meant to provoke deeper discussion...

Well yeah, one would hope. And if you going to satirize something it needs to reflect a certain level of prevalence within the group that is aimed at in order to be relevant. Otherwise it's just propaganda.
Is it a common thing in Christianity?

I think so. I grew up in a hell and brimstone church. I occasionally get pamphlets from Christians claiming that if I don't do something like go to church or repent, I am going to hell. Whether or not they are using the terms "good" and "bad" the same as "saved" or "sinful" or whether they are believing all sin, Christianity has a history of using fear of hell to illicit what they consider "right" and "wrong" behavior.

Let's be clear about the "it's" that we're talking about here.

The cartoon is saying a few things:

1. It's assuming that Christians in general consider themselves good people.

2. That Christians in general need the threat of hell to be good people.

3. That therefore Christians in general are actually bad people.

These are flawed assumptions because:

1. The idea that anybody is good is anti-biblical, and any Christian who understands they're own religion would know this.

2. Why should it be assumed that Christians, or religious people in general, have somehow managed to avoid developing the same socially inspired moral conscience that everybody else has? Are we to assume that every religious person is soiciopathic by nature and would be running around doing all kinds of evil if they weren't afraid of going to hell? The cartoon seems to be suggesting that they are.

3. Labeling a whole group of people "bad" is, ironically, a pretty hefty piece of self-righteousness. If it's based on a misconception about that group it's something worse, it's propaganda.

Hence why I offered a suggestion for a better and more theologically-accurate caption. ;-)

There's a difference between discussing an idea and defending propaganda.

One major difference is that when someone's discussing an idea they'll generally address their opponent's objections directly instead of dancing around them.

When someone's defending propaganda, they'll usually respond to objections with a lot of evasive tactics, like clouding the issue, changing the subject, purposely misinterpreting those objections or ignoring them all together and focusing on whatever personal reasons the other person has for making them in the first place.

The latter is mostly what I'm seeing here.

I hope that I am conveying more of a "discussing the idea" manner.

Not sure if the people that are going to be insulted by this deserve it ? Or not sure if that matters?

The former more than the latter.

Like I said before: I have no problem with the basic concept:

Yes, if someone needs the threat of hell (or threats in general) in order to be a good person then they're not actually a good person.

My objection is about the way the message is being delivered: wrapped up in a lot of unfair assumptions based on a juvenile interpretation of what a group of people believes about themselves and about their religion.

I can understand that.

What do you mean it need not be? Either posting the cartoon here is rude and inconsiderate or it isn't.

Again: no objection to the message, lots of objections to the way that it's being presented.

I mean that if hell and brimstone preaching is a thing, then pointing it out is legitimate. I wasn't responding specifically about the cartoon itself in that quote. (I don't think.)

Well duh. I think everybody gets that.

Then...good? We agree!

"Winning" the debate by obfuscation works for you?

I'll keep that in mind.

Nope! Never stated that. For me it's not about winning, but communication to understand new things or explore my own points. Sometimes discussing a subject leads to complexities beyond the obvious. I don't think I am purposely obscuring the point.

Again: it's not the topic that bothers me, it's the way it's being presented.

That's what I want to talk about. If you'd rather talk about something else, you should probably go talk to someone else.

I am willing to accept that advice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me try again:

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.

Therefore, God is either not omnipotent and omniscient, is cruel, or there is some other reason for him to decide to allow this relationship to continue.

That still may not follow from the premises, but feel free to elaborate on your thinking.

Now we are getting somewhere.
Now it is valid at least in some sense. So what about sound? Remember we are doing deductive logic, so now we check the evidence for all the premisses.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Now we are getting somewhere.
Now it is valid at least in some sense. So what about sound? Remember we are doing deductive logic, so now we check the evidence for all the premisses.

Are you looking for evidence of the premises being Christian concepts or evidence they are attributes of god?

 

[Quagmire]

But specifically the people on a religious forum? Like, we must keep our discussions specifically about the beliefs of the folks on the forum?

No, It's like maybe we should take their feelings into consideration before we posted a gross and inaccurate generalization about a group that they belong to.

That's just a side issue though: It's not like it's okay to post propaganda or stereotypes about anybody, whether they're going to see it or not.

I would suggest it's more like, "This is what appears to be the case, let's discuss it." The cartoon itself may not be doing that, and I recognize that you are specifically looking to discuss that, but my original response was meant to provoke deeper discussion...

Yes, I'm specifically looking to discuss the topic. Once we actually have, I'd be willing to move on to something "deeper, but until that happens changing the subject just looks like deflection to me.

I think so. I grew up in a hell and brimstone church. I occasionally get pamphlets from Christians claiming that if I don't do something like go to church or repent, I am going to hell.

Which isn't what the cartoon is saying

Whether or not they are using the terms "good" and "bad" the same as "saved" or "sinful"

It's a bit of a stretch. Those concepts aren't interchangeable.

or whether they are believing all sin, Christianity has a history of using fear of hell to illicit what they consider "right" and "wrong" behavior.

Hence why I offered a suggestion for a better and more theologically-accurate caption. ;-)

No, you just changed seats on the same bus. It's still going to the same place.

I hope that I am conveying more of a "discussing the idea" manner.



The former more than the latter.

Seems pretty judgmental to me either way.

I can understand that.



I mean that if hell and brimstone preaching is a thing, then pointing it out is legitimate. I wasn't responding specifically about the cartoon itself in that quote. (I don't think.)



Then...good? We agree!



Nope! Never stated that.

Go back and read your response and the post it was responding to. You'll see that you actually did, whether you meant to or not.

For me it's not about winning, but communication to understand new things or explore my own points.

That's great. But if you're not going to respond to the points I actually made, again: I'd appreciate it if you left my posts alone.

Still coming across to me as somebody who comes into a discussion with prefab answers, looking for some place they can shoehorn them in.

And if that's what you're doing, why not just say what you have to say in your own post? I mean why do you have to dress it up as a legitimate response to someone else's post?

Aside from being annoying, it's a great way to misrepresent somebody's position, even if it's done inadvertently.

Sometimes discussing a subject leads to complexities beyond the obvious. I don't think I am purposely obscuring the point.

You may not be doing it purposely but you don't seem to be going out of your way not to either.

I am willing to accept that advice.

Great.

 

[Quagmire]

Christians themselves do not hold a consistent view of Hell,

That's part of the problem: the cartoon is suggesting they do.

and what they frequently believe isn't really Biblically sound. Like dying and having a soul instantly beamed to somewhere else to face judgement.

Or that Moses was having an affair with Pharaoh's wife; Thank you Cecil b'Demille.

Or that Noah's neighbors persecuted him; Thank you Mr. Magoo.

Seriously, I've heard these claims from Christians who should be old enough to know better, but the truth is religion is pretty much always shaped to some extent by conventional lore and other extra-scriptural influences.

Our modern perception of hell owes as much or more to popular fiction (going all the way back to Dante as someone mentioned earlier) as it does to religion.

The Biblical position is we stay dead until the day we are all resurrected and judged, and the damned are destroyed and remain dead, not eternally tortured.

There are actually different takes on the afterlife, or a lack of one, in different places throughout the Bible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are actually different takes on the afterlife, or a lack of one, in different places throughout the Bible.

When you weave the entire narrative together it's a stronger case the damned face a second death upon Judgement and remain forever dead.

 

[Quagmire]

When you weave the entire narrative together it's a stronger case the damned face a second death upon Judgement and remain forever dead.

I don't know if weaving the whole narrative together is going to give you an accurate take on any of the individual strands, contradictory as they are.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

In what sense are you using the word plenty? Not in a relative sense, surely. The number of churches that teach a doctrine that could even be contorted into anything resembling this is going to be minuscule. Exceedingly liberally, you'll be under 1%. I actually wouldn't be surprised, given how strongly it is stated and restated in the New Testament, if there were an absolute zero of churches that teach that Christians are "good" and will be rewarded for being "good" in heaven, compared to non-believers who are bad.

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?

That's a non-sequitur. It does not follow, from the suffering of hell being the absence of God, that you love God only to avoid some punishment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you looking for evidence of the premises being Christian concepts or evidence they are attributes of god?

The first 2 ones. Remember you just can't find Christians who fit them. You have to check if there are Christians, who don't fit them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

A population is made up of individuals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A population is made up of individuals.

Gratz on that marvelous realization.

Meanwhile, it's still populations that evolve, not individuals.
I'm so sorry that you can't seem to grasp the very basics of the mechanics of biological evolution.

 

[Heyo]

A population is made up of individuals.

What's the sound of a single hand clapping?