Kid dies

[Catholic_Lady]

---

---

Are you implying that I claimed that heaven was reserved for those who are justified by their works, because I made no such statement.  Just what exactly is your objection to my original statement? It appears that you read in more than was actually stated.  You seem to have misunderstood both my original statement and my reply, making your comments not so much wrong as simply not germane.  Why don't you clarify what you meant by your original objection.

I apologize, if I misunderstood. I recently had a death in the family, so if you don't mind, I'm just going to drop the subject.

I'm so sorry : (

[LastPoet]

I apologize, if I misunderstood.  I recently had a death in the family, so if you don't mind, I'm just going to drop the subject.

Ah, man. that is a thing. My condolences.

[Drich]

Religion may have failed, but only a fool ascribes that failure to God. Over and over through the scriptures and in history of the church we have revival after revival/shedding of religion inorder for people to seek God directly rather than through the lens of religion.

---

You know we don't believe there is a god right ?  and we don't ascribe any blame on your one of many non existent gods. We ascribe blame to the belief systems that formed on that belief.

Glob...

Yes I know that is the claim, but I see more anger towards God than anything else. meaning most of you misidentify your theological beliefs. you claim to be atheist. but in truth you are a miso-theist. Once can not hate what one does not believe in. Yet there is much hate here.

[drfuzzy]

You know we don't believe there is a god right ?  and we don't ascribe any blame on your one of many non existent gods. We ascribe blame to the belief systems that formed on that belief.

Glob...

Yes I know that is the claim, but I see more anger towards God than anything else. meaning most of you misidentify your theological beliefs. you claim to be atheist. but in truth you are a miso-theist. Once can not hate what one does not believe in. Yet there is much hate here.

You're a GLOB of WHAT, DripShit?  We don't hate god any more than we hate Jack Frost, Batman, or the Easter Bunny.  We're just annoyed by people on all sides that judge and badger us because we don't share their special, personal relationship with the Green Lantern.

[downbeatplumb]

You know we don't believe there is a god right ?  and we don't ascribe any blame on your one of many non existent gods. We ascribe blame to the belief systems that formed on that belief.

Glob...

Yes I know that is the claim, but I see more anger towards God than anything else. meaning most of you misidentify your theological beliefs. you claim to be atheist. but in truth you are a miso-theist. Once can not hate what one does not believe in. Yet there is much hate here.

I don't hate god anymore than I hate any other fictional being.
Now religion that is a thing that gets me angry especially because people are doing all those horrible things in the name of an obvious falsehood.
I'm talking about fundamentalists of any stripe.
Most believers are ok, its the one who REALLY believe that are the problem. 
You see if believing in religions made you nice then the true believers would be the nicest people around.
That is not what you see is it.
The fundamentalists are the Taliban and the christian Abortion clinic bombers etc etc etc.
Proper belief creates proper bastards.

[Angrboda]

Again I beg to differ and appearently so does the parable and the one that told it. If you read the parable it clear points out that the 'fairness of heaven has little to do with what man believes is fair. [snip]

It still sets a redemptive standard as to who will and who will not merit heaven.  Does the parable say that those who didn't show up to work at all will also be paid?  No it does not.  The parable underscores the point that people will be redeemed "by grace, through faith."  While faith isn't a sufficient condition for salvation, it does play a role.  I've read several interpretations of the parable and in none of them was the message of the parable that Christ was unfair.  Quite the contrary, he points out that all will receive the same reward, by grace, through faith.  So faith becomes the first dividing line between those who might be redeemed and those who definitely will not be redeemed.  It is the only aspect of the sanctification process which we can control, and the only part that we can know by inspection.  That Christ taught a specific form of redemptive justice does not negate the fact that he did in fact teach such a form.  That is all that's necessary to show that heaven and hell still functioned in the people's minds as a dessert for those who are faithful, as the passage from Romans underscores.

"Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,"
John 11:25, NASB

You are so obsessed with the ways in which Christ's message differed that you fail to see the ways in which it was also the same.

 What you fail to see is that vengence was the right given under the law at the time. (An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.) there was nothing wrong with it till Christ said we must forgive as we have been forgiven.
Which again ran counter to what was right and wrong at the time. Even now one can make a case for retrbution or even reperations with all the law suits and litigation we employ in the pursuit of Justice..

Simply forgiving others is very counter intuitive to the 'right and wrong process.

Whether or not it is counter to the prevailing standards of the time is irrelevant to the question as to whether it was a system of redemptive justice or not.  Again, will those who do not have faith in the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice be saved?  If you answer "no," then you've already set up a standard by which the "good people" -- that is, those who have faith -- will be sorted separately from those who do not.  You haven't abolished heaven and hell as cosmic equalizers, you've simply changed the entrance requirements.

Whether or not Christ taught some things that ran counter to contemporary standards of morality has fuckall to do with the main point I wrote about in my original post.  Next time you decide to sneer about my "deep thoughts," try not to be talking irrelevant bullshit at the time.

What a load of crap. You want to talk about Asgard, but ignore Thor's description of it for your own mis informed predetermined closed minded view of it. How does that work in an intellectuall honest conversation? Heaven as described by Christ is cannon and therfore trumps your BS. what do you not get about that? If Christ says or is recorded in saying Heaven is ABC then you have no authority in telling people heaven is efg... If you presist in the face of cannon with your efg claim, then know it is you who is off topic and is described some fan fiction version of Heaven.

First of all, in my original post I said that "people" are the subject of my consideration, not Christians specifically.  The fact is that ideas about heaven and hell predate the life of Christ (e.g. the book of Enoch) and post-date him (Islam).  That you personally consider Christ God and therefore privileged in his opinions on the subject means absolutely squat.  And while I used the terms heaven and hell, which technically restricts me to apocalyptic Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other faiths which followed, the idea of a divinely ordained reward for doing or believing the right things has a much greater scope, including Exilic and Post-exilic Jews and their notion of a "New Kingdom" (e.g. Isaiah), Norse mythology with its Valhalla, Grecian mythology with its Elysian fields, Hindu belief with its concentration on karma and moksha, and Buddhists with their concepts of dependent origination and nirvana.  So, no, I am not limited in the scope of my comments to the lense through which you personally view the question, that of the words of Christ. If you insist on limiting the scope of the discussion in this way, it is you who is off-topic, not me.

Regardless, my words hold true both within your "canon" and outside of it.

In what way did Jesus teach that was in line with society? Everything was different. Soceity then taught (as you do now) based on its version of morality and goodness. Christ taught atonement which throws the 'morality book' in the garbage. Soceity taught good people went on to the resurrection while bad people stayed in the grave. Jesus taught His followers would inherrit eternal life and those he did not know would be sent to Hell. Good or bad did not play into the equation.

This is getting tiresome.  The fact that Jesus taught a different standard in no way negates the fact that he taught various standards about what did or did not make a person worthy, and faith in the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice is the card that trumps then standards of the time.

---

The Greek word in John is "Logos", which does not appear anywhere in the passage from Romans which I quoted.  The passage was originally written in Greek.  Performing a search and replace based upon the English translation of the passage simply results in garbage.   Whatever point you were trying to make here has been spoiled by the fact that you're an ignorant moron who didn't realize he was talking complete crap.  Your substitutions simply aren't valid for the original text.   Moreover, like your earlier "contributions," this has fuckall to do with the point I was making.

and in Romans 10:8 the word used is:
rhēma
a saying of any sort, as a message, a narrative: concerning some occurrence, λαλεῖν τό ῤῆμα περί τίνος, Luke 2:17; ῤῆμα τῆς πίστεως, the word of faith, i. e. concerning the necessity of putting faith in Christ, Romans 10:8; a promise, Luke 1:38; Luke 2:29; καλόν Θεοῦ ῤῆμα, God's gracious, comforting promise (of salvation), Hebrews 6:5 (see καλός, c.); καθαρίσας... ἐν ῤήματι, according to promise (properly, on the ground of his word of promise, viz. the promise of the pardon of sins; cf. Mark 16:16), Ephesians 5:26 (others take ῤήματι here as equivalent to 'the gospel,' cf. Ephesians 6:17, Romans 10:8; (see Meyer at the passage)); the word by which something is commanded, directed, enjoined

Which changes the meaning of logos ( a record of what was done) to A promise yet to be full filled (BY THE SAME GUY)

Nothing changes in my point sportress, as Christ is still the 'Word' we must have in our hearts and on our toungues in order for us to be in a place to make that simple confession. meaning (Rather than Christ Himself if you use the John 1:1 defination as I did, You with the word rhēma get the promise Christ made... is in your words, acts and faith will buy you eternal life if you simply call out to Him.

You were so quick to 'rightly divide' the word you failed to see how it all fits together.

First of all, rhēma is only equivalent to logos if one is referring to a speech act.  John was not referring to a speech act but rather to the divine personage himself, so your equivalence is a false one.  The word logos was a term of art in Hellenic philosophy and religion of the time, and it has shades of meaning far beyond those contained in the word rhēma.  So, no, you can't just substitute one for the other without drastically altering the meaning of the text, as one refers to a speech act and the other has a considerably different connotation.

Beyond your ignorant butchering of the meaning of the text, I still do not see what point you think you are making with this errant substitution.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

No. Nor do I worry about suddenly appearing death stars, or being invaded by a bunch or orks.

As you shouldn't because there would be nothing you could do to change it, If they come they come just like your death is on the march for you today and till the end. Could be sooner than you think don't you know.

GC

---

The Bible says that you will be judged based on your works on Judgment Day, ever think about this?

 That's for those who reject Christ, my sins are forgiven. And if you are trying to say entrance into heaven does not rely on works, the NT is full of examples of this not being so. If you believe this it is due to your lack of understanding anything about Christianity, educate yourself please and stop trying to make points on things you know nothing about, it makes you look foolish.

GC

---

What exacly do you serve? And what do you mean by service? Oh it's you GC. I know who you serve.

---

I serve the God of this universe and last I checked you do not even believe in Him let lone know Him.

GC

Yahweh loves the pleasing aroma of roasting meat offered as a sacrifice to him.  Maybe you should roast a goat (but don't boil a young goat in its mother's milk) to keep him happy.

[Drich]

Glob...

Yes I know that is the claim, but I see more anger towards God than anything else. meaning most of you misidentify your theological beliefs. you claim to be atheist. but in truth you are a miso-theist. Once can not hate what one does not believe in. Yet there is much hate here.

You're a GLOB of WHAT, DripShit?  We don't hate god any more than we hate Jack Frost, Batman, or the Easter Bunny.  We're just annoyed by people on all sides that judge and badger us because we don't share their special, personal relationship with the Green Lantern.

sorry fuzz you can't speak for everyone. In fact you can't even properly repersent yourself here as I remember several conversation where you've spit anger and bile in the direction of God for any preceived social injustice God may bestow upon 'the community.'

[Angrboda]

Question: "Why is sola fide important?"

Answer: Sola fide which means "faith alone" is important because it is one of the distinguishing characteristics or key points that separate the true biblical Gospel from false gospels. At stake is the very Gospel itself and it is therefore a matter of eternal life or death. Getting the Gospel right is of such importance that the Apostle Paul would write in Galatians 1:9, “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Paul was addressing the same question that sola fide addresses—on what basis is man declared by God to be justified? Is it by faith alone or by faith combined with works? Paul makes it clear in Galatians and Romans that man is “justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law” (Galatians 2:16), and the rest of the Bible concurs.

Sola fide is one of the five solas that came to define and summarize the key issues of the Protestant Reformation. Each of these Latin phrases represents a key area of doctrine that was an issue of contention between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church, and today they still serve to summarize key doctrines essential to the Gospel and to Christian life and practice. The Latin word sola means “alone” or “only” and the essential Christian doctrines represented by these five Latin phrases accurately summarize the biblical teaching on these crucial subjects: sola scriptura—Scripture alone, sola fide—faith alone, sola gratia—grace alone, sola Christus—Christ alone, and sola Deo gloria—for the glory of God alone. Each one is vitally important, and they are all closely tied together. Deviation from one will lead to error in another essential doctrine, and the result will almost always be a false gospel which is powerless to save.

Sola fide or faith alone is a key point of difference between not only Protestants and Catholics but between biblical Christianity and almost all other religions and teachings. The teaching that we are declared righteous by God (justified) on the basis of our faith alone and not by works is a key doctrine of the Bible and a line that divides most cults from biblical Christianity. While most religions and cults teach men what works they must do to be saved, the Bible teaches that we are not saved by works, but by God’s grace through His gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Biblical Christianity is distinct from every other religion in that it is centered on what God has accomplished through Christ’s finished work, while all other religions are based on human achievement. If we abandon the doctrine of justification by faith, we abandon the only way of salvation. “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:4-5). The Bible teaches that those that trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone are imputed with His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21), while those who try to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works will receive the punishment due to all who fall short of God’s perfect standard.....


https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-fide.html

[Drich]

Again I beg to differ and appearently so does the parable and the one that told it. If you read the parable it clear points out that the 'fairness of heaven has little to do with what man believes is fair. [snip]

It still sets a redemptive standard as to who will and who will not merit heaven.

Yes but the point you were making was the standard was the goodies went to heaven and the enmeies of the goodies went to Hell.

When in fact the oppsite it true. In that only admitted "baddies" go to heaven and the "moral goodie" goes to Hell.

 Does the parable say that those who didn't show up to work at all will also be paid?  No it does not.  The parable underscores the point that people will be redeemed "by grace, through faith."  While faith isn't a sufficient condition for salvation, it does play a role.  I've read several interpretations of the parable and in none of them was the message of the parable that Christ was unfair.

THEN READ THE PARABLE ITSELF!!!
9 “The workers who were hired at five o’clock came to get their pay. Each worker got one silver coin. 10 Then the workers who were hired first came to get their pay. They thought they would be paid more than the others. But each one of them also received one silver coin. 11 When they got their silver coin, they complained to the man who owned the land. 12 They said, ‘Those people were hired last and worked only one hour. But you paid them the same as us. And we worked hard all day in the hot sun.’

13 “But the man who owned the field said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am being fair with you. You agreed to work for one silver coin. Right? 14 So take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same pay I gave you. 15 I can do what I want with my own money. Why would you be jealous because I am generous?’

16 “So those who are last now will be first in the future. And those who are first now will be last in the future.”

How could you possible miss this?

In the parable it clearly states the men who worked all day thought Christ/landowner to be unfair! And the land owner rebuked them explaining that their reward/heaven was not based on what they did, but what he was generous enough to give them. Again dispelling your idea of a primitive sense of fairness.

 Quite the contrary, he points out that all will receive the same reward, by grace, through faith.  So faith becomes the first dividing line between those who might be redeemed and those who definitely will not be redeemed.

 Actually Christ sums it all up by saying the first shall be last and the last first in Heaven. again a bit of unfairness if one measures service by how long and what they do.

It is the only aspect of the sanctification process which we can control, and the only part that we can know by inspection.  That Christ taught a specific form of redemptive justice does not negate the fact that he did in fact teach such a form.  That is all that's necessary to show that heaven and hell still functioned in the people's minds as a dessert for those who are faithful, as the passage from Romans underscores.

If this were true then there would only be room in Heaven for those of faith. I have little to no faith in what I believe I need to see proof. God delivers 'proof' for people like me if we meet Him on His terms. Doubting thomas and Even Paul both needed 'proof' inorder to believe in Christ. They (to a varying degree) Got what they needed. Now according to your take on the Romans 10 message faith is the only key to salvation.. So what then of those who do not need faith as they experience God?

"Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,"
John 11:25, NASB

But is belief predicated on Faith? Do you have faith in oxygen/air? or do you believe in the evidences that Oxygen is present and believe that the air is safe to breath???

Belief is the key and it is not the same as blind faith. That said the bible points to those who have only their faith and great is their reward in Heaven, but trlly so many more believe because they are privy to God.

first you said:

I was thinking about this earlier. Heaven and hell are a manifestation of the imagination of people who recognize that the world isn't fair, and can't accept it. They are completely unable to accept reality as it is, and so they imagine a reality in which everybody gets what they deserve.

Now you say:

Whether or not it is counter to the prevailing standards of the time is irrelevant to the question as to whether it was a system of redemptive justice or not.  Again, will those who do not have faith in the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice be saved?  If you answer "no," then you've already set up a standard by which the "good people" -- that is, those who have faith -- will be sorted separately from those who do not.  You haven't abolished heaven and hell as cosmic equalizers, you've simply changed the entrance requirements.

When has redemptive justice ever been fair???
One dying for all or even someone else is not fair. An innocent man dying in place of another is the oppsite of fair...

Me think she moveth the goal post on this one.

Even so according to Jesus there are no "good men" only God is 'good.'

First of all, in my original post I said that "people" are the subject of my consideration, not Christians specifically.

That's a load. Even if you want to say that now it becomes 'moot' in your last sentence when you brought in all the rest of modern religion. Once you claim modern religion was 'schackeled by primitive thoughts on heaven and hell) you opened yourself up to a compareson to cannon, not your fan fiction of heaven and hell.

But modern religious people are shackled to the past, and so they endorse such infantile fantasies.

That's all you sweet heart. By comparing modern religious people to those who by your estimation could not conceive of a world without "fairness" in their heaven or hell you opened the discussion to cannon. In that what does cannon say about heaven and hell verse your estimation of what those people in your fan fiction had to say, verse what the people thought and did in that time frame.

 The fact is that ideas about heaven and hell predate the life of Christ (e.g. the book of Enoch) and post-date him (Islam).  That you personally consider Christ God and therefore privileged in his opinions on the subject means absolutely squat.  And while I used the terms heaven and hell, which technically restricts me to apocalyptic Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other faiths which followed, the idea of a divinely ordained reward for doing or believing the right things has a much greater scope, including Exilic and Post-exilic Jews and their notion of a "New Kingdom" (e.g. Isaiah), Norse mythology with its Valhalla, Grecian mythology with its Elysian fields, Hindu belief with its concentration on karma and moksha, and Buddhists with their concepts of dependent origination and nirvana.  So, no, I am not limited in the scope of my comments to the lense through which you personally view the question, that of the words of Christ.  If you insist on limiting the scope of the discussion in this way, it is you who is off-topic, not me.

The fact that you are still lumping heaven and Hell with anyother mythos means you still do not understand what heaven and hell is per the bible.

Regardless, my words hold true both within your "canon" and outside of it.  

No. your word hold true about the versions of heaven where good people are treated fairly and a hell where bad people are punished.

Again Heaven and Hell proper have no such boundries and isn't centered around being 'fair.' matter of fact I will go out on a limb abd say 95% of the people going to Hell will not see it as being 'fair.' because again mst of them think they are 'good people.' While morality plays a key role in most versions of heaven and Hell, the heaven and Hell in the bible has little to do with morality.

Now if your last paragraph was anattempt to walk back and exclude Heaven and Hell proper/Christian versions then I do conceed with the first 1/2 of yourstatement that many would conceive of a proper/fair place for the goodies. but again Cannon does not describe such a place for Christian which according to you is apart of that mix.

I say they are not because Heaven and Hell as per the bible is confusing and conterintuitive once understood as written. Why would a primitive man create such a hostile enviorment as a reward why would he invent being in the service of God forever? why not 50 virgins and all the pizza and weed once could ever want?

This is getting tiresome.  The fact that Jesus taught a different standard in no way negates the fact that he taught various standards about what did or did not make a person worthy, and faith in the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice is the card that trumps then standards of the time.

Again different standard= abstract or counterintuitive thought to a primitive mind who sought to create a fair safe heaven. That fact right there defeats your critique of the reason Christianity describes the HEaven told to us in the bible.

---

and in Romans 10:8 the word used is:
rhēma
a saying of any sort, as a message, a narrative: concerning some occurrence, λαλεῖν τό ῤῆμα περί τίνος, Luke 2:17; ῤῆμα τῆς πίστεως, the word of faith, i. e. concerning the necessity of putting faith in Christ, Romans 10:8; a promise, Luke 1:38; Luke 2:29; καλόν Θεοῦ ῤῆμα, God's gracious, comforting promise (of salvation), Hebrews 6:5 (see καλός, c.); καθαρίσας... ἐν ῤήματι, according to promise (properly, on the ground of his word of promise, viz. the promise of the pardon of sins; cf. Mark 16:16), Ephesians 5:26 (others take ῤήματι here as equivalent to 'the gospel,' cf. Ephesians 6:17, Romans 10:8; (see Meyer at the passage)); the word by which something is commanded, directed, enjoined

Which changes the meaning of logos ( a record of what was done) to A promise yet to be full filled (BY THE SAME GUY)

Nothing changes in my point sportress, as Christ is still the 'Word' we must have in our hearts and on our toungues in order for us to be in a place to make that simple confession. meaning (Rather than Christ Himself if you use the John 1:1 defination as I did, You with the word rhēma get the promise Christ made... is in your words, acts and faith will buy you eternal life if you simply call out to Him.

You were so quick to 'rightly divide' the word you failed to see how it all fits together.

First of all, rhēma is only equivalent to logos if one is referring to a speech act.  John was not referring to a speech act but rather to the divine personage himself, so your equivalence is a false one.

 You failed to grasp the cmpareson. While John speaks of the embodiment of the word I am saying Paul speaks to the Promise the embodiment left. There is nothing false here.

The word logos was a term of art in Hellenic philosophy and religion of the time, and it has shades of meaning far beyond those contained in the word rhēma.  So, no, you can't just substitute one for the other without drastically altering the meaning of the text, as one refers to a speech act and the other has a considerably different connotation.

The only difference here if the "wrod/Christ were there with you, verse having his promise with us.

Beyond your ignorant butchering of the meaning of the text, I still do not see what point you think you are making with this errant substitution.

if you were not so quick to judge you might accidentally allow something into that tightly closed mind of yourn.

So quick to judge so quick to dismiss so you don't have to walk back anything else you've said. That's par for the course though isn't it? Rather than say hey "Drich" you were right. I did not know Christian's version of Heaven and Hell was so different than every other religion. I was so foolish in thinking that Dante's imaginngs were just an expression of litary art based on mythology more so than Scriptural Christianity. I simply go lost and thought everything was the same. but you are right it is different because Your stripped down version of Heaven does not sound so appealing and Hell does not sound so bad.

Then I could explain what made Heaven Heaven and Hell Hell.

But nooooo.... little miss can't ever be wrong finds it much easier to curse me and call me stupid.