Kid dies

[Angrboda]

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

Yes but....

Yeabut, yeabut, yeabut!  The siren song of someone who has been proven wrong.

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

No, the point I made was that they believed people would get "what they deserved" in the end.  

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

That you feel it's the opposite of what is the case is based upon your misreading of my post.  I never said anything about it being based on fairness according to standards of the time, that is a fantasy you injected into my post.  

 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!!!

I read the parable.  Did you?  Apparently not, because Jesus, in the person of the owner of the field, says outright, "I am being fair with you."  That you take from the parable that Jesus was saying that he was unfair in his standards for paying the workers is something I can only attribute to your lack of reading comprehension and your general tendency to inject your own assumptions into everything you read.

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.

The only primitive sense of fairness that exists is that in your strawman version of what I said.  I simply pointed out that heaven and hell were conceived as providing a sense of justice to those who were all too aware of the palpable unjustness of the temporal world.  And that perception of heaven and hell is repeated in the conceptions of redemptive justice at the time, as well as in modern beliefs that people are justified through faith, as well as early conceptions of heaven and hell, such as the following passage from the book of Enoch:

   Then I looked and turned to another face of the earth and saw there a valley, deep and burning with fire. And they were bringing kings and potentates and were throwing them into this deep valley. And my eyes saw there their chains while they were making them into iron fetters of immense weight.

   And I asked the angel of peace who was going with me, saying, “For whom are these imprisonments chains being prepared?”

   And he said unto me, “These are being prepared for the armies of Azazel, in order that they may take them and cast them into the abyss of complete condemnation, and as the Lord of the Spirits has commanded it, they shall cover their jaws with rocky stones. Then Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel themselves shall seize them on that great day of judgment and cast them into the furnace (of fire) that is burning that day, so that the Lord of the Spirits may take vengeance on them on account of their oppressive deeds which (they performed) as messengers of Satan, leading astray those who dwell upon the earth.”

https://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.co...t-writers/

Again, the question is not fairness itself as a standard, but divine justice.  That you keep misrepresenting this point over and over again is beyond reason.

 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.

Around 350 BC, King Philip II of Macedon started invading the crap out of Greece. After he had several key footholds under his command, Philip decided to start putting pressure on Sparta, and sent them the following threatening message: “If I win this war, you will be slaves forever.”  The Spartan’s sent back a single word in reply: “if”.

Since I never said that the Christian conception of divine justice was based upon these measures, your entire statement is moot.

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?

I really could give two shits about your personal fantasies, Drich.  As I've shown multiple times, Christians both currently and historically have considered faith as an essential ingredient in their potential salvation.  What you think God has or hasn't done in your life is completely irrelevant.

"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.

More red herrings from you.  I never said anything about blind faith.

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.'

Again, this is nothing more than your strawman version of what I said.  I notice you didn't bother to answer the question.  Will those who don't believe be saved?

I'm going to cut to the chase here because you simply keep repeating the same misunderstandings.  That you think that the system of justice set up in canon is in some sense "different" does not in and of itself demonstrate that it was not also in a very real sense the same.  That would be a non sequitur.  The whole apparatus of sin and grace and faith and heaven and hell is about JUSTICE.  Nothing in anything you've said refutes that simple fact.  You simply keep repeating the same uncharitable misrepresentation of my original point and bleating "But it was different!  It was different!"  As originally noted in my first reply to you that has fuckall to do with how the concepts of heaven and hell have been perceived both historically and currently.  That you want to focus exclusively on canon to the neglect of what people then and now say they believe is simply your attempt to rescue a bad interpretation of my original point. As I noted in my original point, heaven and hell were a primitive conception of justice, and the working out of the particularities of "canon" are simply a reflection of the working out of that shackling of their primitive sense of justice to a flawed metaphysics and set of myths. It was all in my original post, you just want to try to be clever by focusing on irrelevant aspects of that story.

---

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.

Fuckhead, you were simply wrong in trying to draw a parallel between the use of rhēma in Romans and the use of logos in John.  The rest of this is just you desperately trying to find some way to justify your error, and blaming me for pointing it out.  Even if I were to grant the rather idiotic substitution, you still have failed to make a sensible point in the matter.