Kid dies

[purplepurpose]

Pretty sure that wasn't your original question. Do you really have one, or are you just bitching on the internet about something you supposedly don't believe anyway?

I don't have questions. It's my problem that I speculate about religious magical fantasy.

[John V]

OK. No clue why you'd find it surprising that children would be given a pass for things adults are held accountable for, but whatever...

[RoadRunner79]

---

That’s an interesting view.  I don’t see the teachings about heaven as being deserved at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Romans 10:8-9, NASB

I don't give a shit about "teaching" if it's not what people believed in their hearts.  The simple truth is that believers then, as now, commonly believed themselves saved, despite the finer points of theology.  Your "teaching" meant diddly to the common man.  Take the following sample from a random Christian website for example:

I'm Glad I'm Saved Because ...
Bill Brinkworth

Getting saved is one of the greatest experiences one can ever have. There are many good things that come along with having God’s promise of heaven. I am so glad that I am saved:

*Because I am going to heaven. All through the Bible there are many verses telling its readers how they can know for sure that when they die they will go to heaven. All they need to do is trust that Christ’s finished work on the cross is payment for all their sins.

Is there or is there not a performance criterion for salvation?  Will the enemies of Christ be saved?  Who do you think that leaves to be saved.  Your apologetics 101 argument that salvation comes only through grace is a dodge for the obvious, Christians consider themselves likely to be saved because of their faith in the life and the resurrection.  If not, then what is the point in believing?  It's an us versus them polarization, plain and simple, despite your tap dancing.  That's why we have ignorant shitheads like Godscreated lecturing us on this site about the proper way to live; he's convinced he's got his.  Maybe if Christians actually believed the teaching and lived in doubt, you'd have a point; but they don't.  The "teaching" on heaven and hell developed in the period just prior to the life of Christ.  How do you know that salvation through grace is what was being taught then?  I imagine then as now, what was "taught" was the promise of salvation.  That's the engine which drives apocalypticism.  Your complaint about later "teaching" is just so much irrelevant noise compared to that practical fact.

See for example, the following from Isaiah:

10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.

11 In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush,[a] from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.

12
He will raise a signal for the nations
   and will assemble the banished of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
   from the four corners of the earth.
13
The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart,
   and those who harass Judah shall be cut off;
Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah,
   and Judah shall not harass Ephraim.
14
But they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west,
   and together they shall plunder the people of the east.
They shall put out their hand against Edom and Moab,
   and the Ammonites shall obey them.
15
And the Lord will utterly destroy[b]
   the tongue of the Sea of Egypt,
and will wave his hand over the River[c]
   with his scorching breath,[d]
and strike it into seven channels,
   and he will lead people across in sandals.
16
And there will be a highway from Assyria
   for the remnant that remains of his people,
as there was for Israel
   when they came up from the land of Egypt.

Isaiah 11:10-16, NASB

Just who do you think Isaiah is talking about here?

---

It is normally credited to Augustine for saying "Never judge a philosophy by it's abuse".  I suppose that I differ from you, because I'm not concerned more with the foundations, and what is true, rather than the distortion. Here I would think that it is quicker to ask, what is the basis for that doctrine, rather than trying to figure out if it is sound, which even if it is sound, doesn't make it legit.  

I think that it is interesting, in your reference of Romans here.   That might have been something that I would have picked to support the opposite.  For your random website, I don't think that it demonstrates your point very well, you may want to apply some intelligent design to your process.  I'm also not sure where you are getting with the Isaiah passage (though I didn't look it up for context). 

I don't disagree, that a works based or performance based system has not been or is not currently taught by some.  I am against these as well (and don't really care if they don't make sense to you).   I'm currently reading about Martin Luther, I was previously familiar with some of the issues about indulgences, but learning more about the extent of the problem, as well as other issues of that time, is eye opening.   However I have read the New Testament, and I have read a number of the early Church writings. I don't see this performance based manipulation being taught or employed.  Now there is some debate, if belief, faith and such are a work.   Something that we are doing.   I tend to fall on the side that it is not; and I think it is a stretch to try to force it into a performance and deserving based system which you seem to be arguing against.   The carefully chosen phrase used (by those who think very much about these things) is "by grace, through faith".  This is what I see in the scriptures and the early writings.   It is pretty much the opposite of what I would do, if the purpose was as you say.    I don't even doubt that you can proof text something which tells us to do good works, or that sounds like it is works based.   However when you look at the whole, I am doubtful you would get that message.

[Nay_Sayer]

Maybe if your false god could just get up off his lazy ass and do something, But he isn't there, obviously.  Only the lost sheep of the ideology who hide sermons and proselytizing in food drives and missionary work and their free time reposting 1 like= 100 prayers on facebook.


Compare this to the teachings of Pastafarianism scripture which is quite clear you should always give when you can and that one should strive to help another. Whose chosen followers know that giving without an ulterior motive is a reward in it of itself.

FSM works tirelessly to undo the injustices caused by false belief systems which wrong people some people on pedestals via the backs of the poor and ignorant.

RAmen

Do something like provide just one country in the west 10X the ability to provide food for the whole world, but rather than give this abundance away we pay our farmers not to over produce as to not ruin the grain markets???

Again my simple minded brother. if God commanded we feed the poor but could not provide for them then that is a god problem/God not doing anything. If however we have the resources but choose not to, than that is a humanity problem.

God provides the rain and harvest in over abundance. we simply do not distribute it as tasked.

Correct only my god does, Your false idol sits around idle as his men of the cloth diddle choir boys.  FSM doesn't tolerate that shit spudd.

[Angrboda]

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.  But the people who thought it up were primitive people, with primitive ideas about justice.  To them, their enemies deserved the worst punishment imaginable, and the good people deserve the best results possible.  It's stupid and absurd.  But modern religious people are shackled to the past, and so they endorse such infantile fantasies.

And for those (like the writers of the bible) who do not describe Heaven and Hell as being about what is or is not fair? Even Christ in the parable of the workers (where a land owner goes out several different times and highers workers throughout the day) and at the end they all get the very same reward/which was unfair for the very first workers.

This has fuckall to do with whether or not heaven and hell were or were not conceived as cosmic equalizers.

Heaven has Christ taught it was often time at odds with the soceity's heigharchy on what was fair and not fair. The prime example being one could not hold a grudge or have ill will towards another even if that person sinned aginst him. The parable of the unmerciful servant shows us that if we seek vengence for being treated wrongly and will not forgive another who sinned against us, we in turn are endanger of loosing our own salvation. This was a very counter culture idea at the time and one you seemed to miss as well in your deep thoughts sessions.

The parable of the unmerciful servant even underscores the point that heaven and hell were cosmic equalizers by pointing out in its last line that, if you don't be good little children, you'll get yours in the end, from God himself. 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.

Not to mention the idea of Hell was new, and who went to Hell did not always included enmies, but loved ones as well. often times believers would have to choose their God over their family member. This too is very counter the cut and dry veiw of a simplistic/primitive man heaven or hell. Rather this is what moder people believe Heaven and hell are about rather than what the bible teaches. It is a way for the 'superior mind' to straw man their way past the subject rather than try and explain what is written on page concerning heaven or hell

Yeah, more irrelevant twaddle from the mouth that loves to hear itself talk. Jesus preached a message which in some ways may have undermined traditional alliances in society. What he didn't do was preach a novel message about heaven and hell being equalizers. And here you are sneering again, when your mouth is full of shit. And no, heaven and hell weren't new teachings, they date to before Christ. So this again, in addition to being simply wrong, has fuckall to do with what I originally wrote.

---

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Romans 10:8-9, NASB

[snip]

Who (not what) is "the word." As in John 1:1 forward. The "Word" is another name for Jesus. so substitute "The word" with JEsus and you get 8 But what does it say? “Jesus is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is,Jesus by faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

So IF Jesus is Near you, in your mouth (you speak about him) nd in your Heart/you think and lng to be with Him)  you teach him, then if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord then... you will be saved.

Takes on a new meaning when you understand who the word is, and again John 1:1 forward defines who the word is.

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.

[Godscreated]

GC

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

---

 Unless one accepts Christ into their life they will not be in heaven, no matter what they may call themselves. People who wait to the end might not see the end coming, ever think about this?

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

---

Because heaven (according to the bible and not christian religion) is not about morality. It is about service to God. and who wants to serve and does not want to serve.
Service yield very high reward.

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

[Angrboda]

---

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Romans 10:8-9, NASB

I don't give a shit about "teaching" if it's not what people believed in their hearts.  The simple truth is that believers then, as now, commonly believed themselves saved, despite the finer points of theology.  Your "teaching" meant diddly to the common man.  Take the following sample from a random Christian website for example:


Is there or is there not a performance criterion for salvation?  Will the enemies of Christ be saved?  Who do you think that leaves to be saved.  Your apologetics 101 argument that salvation comes only through grace is a dodge for the obvious, Christians consider themselves likely to be saved because of their faith in the life and the resurrection.  If not, then what is the point in believing?  It's an us versus them polarization, plain and simple, despite your tap dancing.  That's why we have ignorant shitheads like Godscreated lecturing us on this site about the proper way to live; he's convinced he's got his.  Maybe if Christians actually believed the teaching and lived in doubt, you'd have a point; but they don't.  The "teaching" on heaven and hell developed in the period just prior to the life of Christ.  How do you know that salvation through grace is what was being taught then?  I imagine then as now, what was "taught" was the promise of salvation.  That's the engine which drives apocalypticism.  Your complaint about later "teaching" is just so much irrelevant noise compared to that practical fact.

See for example, the following from Isaiah:

Just who do you think Isaiah is talking about here?

---

It is normally credited to Augustine for saying "Never judge a philosophy by it's abuse".  I suppose that I differ from you, because I'm not concerned more with the foundations, and what is true, rather than the distortion. Here I would think that it is quicker to ask, what is the basis for that doctrine, rather than trying to figure out if it is sound, which even if it is sound, doesn't make it legit.  

I think that it is interesting, in your reference of Romans here.   That might have been something that I would have picked to support the opposite.  For your random website, I don't think that it demonstrates your point very well, you may want to apply some intelligent design to your process.  I'm also not sure where you are getting with the Isaiah passage (though I didn't look it up for context). 

I don't disagree, that a works based or performance based system has not been or is not currently taught by some.  I am against these as well (and don't really care if they don't make sense to you).   I'm currently reading about Martin Luther, I was previously familiar with some of the issues about indulgences, but learning more about the extent of the problem, as well as other issues of that time, is eye opening.   However I have read the New Testament, and I have read a number of the early Church writings. I don't see this performance based manipulation being taught or employed.  Now there is some debate, if belief, faith and such are a work.   Something that we are doing.   I tend to fall on the side that it is not; and I think it is a stretch to try to force it into a performance and deserving based system which you seem to be arguing against.   The carefully chosen phrase used (by those who think very much about these things) is "by grace, through faith".  This is what I see in the scriptures and the early writings.   It is pretty much the opposite of what I would do, if the purpose was as you say.    I don't even doubt that you can proof text something which tells us to do good works, or that sounds like it is works based.   However when you look at the whole, I am doubtful you would get that message.

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.

[RoadRunner79]

---

It is normally credited to Augustine for saying "Never judge a philosophy by it's abuse".  I suppose that I differ from you, because I'm not concerned more with the foundations, and what is true, rather than the distortion. Here I would think that it is quicker to ask, what is the basis for that doctrine, rather than trying to figure out if it is sound, which even if it is sound, doesn't make it legit.  

I think that it is interesting, in your reference of Romans here.   That might have been something that I would have picked to support the opposite.  For your random website, I don't think that it demonstrates your point very well, you may want to apply some intelligent design to your process.  I'm also not sure where you are getting with the Isaiah passage (though I didn't look it up for context). 

I don't disagree, that a works based or performance based system has not been or is not currently taught by some.  I am against these as well (and don't really care if they don't make sense to you).   I'm currently reading about Martin Luther, I was previously familiar with some of the issues about indulgences, but learning more about the extent of the problem, as well as other issues of that time, is eye opening.   However I have read the New Testament, and I have read a number of the early Church writings. I don't see this performance based manipulation being taught or employed.  Now there is some debate, if belief, faith and such are a work.   Something that we are doing.   I tend to fall on the side that it is not; and I think it is a stretch to try to force it into a performance and deserving based system which you seem to be arguing against.   The carefully chosen phrase used (by those who think very much about these things) is "by grace, through faith".  This is what I see in the scriptures and the early writings.   It is pretty much the opposite of what I would do, if the purpose was as you say.    I don't even doubt that you can proof text something which tells us to do good works, or that sounds like it is works based.   However when you look at the whole, I am doubtful you would get that message.

---

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Next up, let's talk about the dangers of Mirkwood. They are just as threatening as Heaven is promising.

[Drich]

And for those (like the writers of the bible) who do not describe Heaven and Hell as being about what is or is not fair? Even Christ in the parable of the workers (where a land owner goes out several different times and highers workers throughout the day) and at the end they all get the very same reward/which was unfair for the very first workers.

This has fuckall to do with whether or not heaven and hell were or were not conceived as cosmic equalizers.

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. Matter of fact those who worked for the same pay from the very beginning of the day did not like they were paid the same as those who worked only a few hours at the end of the day. The lesson being is Heaven is not about being the great equalizer, but the venue where God can show his great generosity and mercy to those who do not deserve it.

One of your peer pointed out that jeffery dalmer will know the inside of heaven before scores of "moral" atheist. Again how is this 'equal or fair?" It is not, nor is it meant to be. Which put the concept of the biblical based heaven outside the minds of primitive man as most (even today ) do not completely comprehend it. As a peron who does not understand heaven would wrongfully assume all the goodies go there and the baddies goto Hell.

When in fact Heaven's population will only consist of those who can admit that they are a 'baddie' while Hell will over flow with people who see themselves and others like them as 'good moral people.'

Again how is heaven fair when it is the sinner who knows Jesus gains it and and not one 'good person' will ever step foot in it without Christ?

Heaven has Christ taught it was often time at odds with the soceity's heigharchy on what was fair and not fair. The prime example being one could not hold a grudge or have ill will towards another even if that person sinned aginst him. The parable of the unmerciful servant shows us that if we seek vengence for being treated wrongly and will not forgive another who sinned against us, we in turn are endanger of loosing our own salvation. This was a very counter culture idea at the time and one you seemed to miss as well in your deep thoughts sessions.

The parable of the unmerciful servant even underscores the point that heaven and hell were cosmic equalizers by pointing out in its last line that, if you don't be good little children, you'll get yours in the end, from God himself.

 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 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.

If that's the case then just make that anoucement in your post. Fan fiction thoughts concerning :"heaven" Then I nor Jesus has any say in your little world view of heaven. and how your heaven is the great right-er of all wrongs.

Not to mention the idea of Hell was new, and who went to Hell did not always included enemies, but loved ones as well. often times believers would have to choose their God over their family member. This too is very counter the cut and dry view of a simplistic/primitive man heaven or hell. Rather this is what modern people believe Heaven and hell are about rather than what the bible teaches. It is a way for the 'superior mind' to straw man their way past the subject rather than try and explain what is written on page concerning heaven or hell

Yeah, more irrelevant twaddle from the mouth that loves to hear itself talk.   Jesus preached a message which in some ways may have undermined traditional alliances in society.  

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.

What he didn't do was preach a novel message about heaven and hell being equalizers.

Which is what I've been saying sport. your the one that believes heaven and hell to be an equalizer. and I was using the authority of Jesus and what he said about heaven to trump your version of it.

 And here you are sneering again, when your mouth is full of shit.  And no, heaven and hell weren't new teachings, they date to before Christ.  So this again, in addition to being simply wrong, has fuckall to do with what I originally wrote.  

Again if you are doing a 'report' on fan fiction then simply label it as such otherwise know it is open to correction when you seem to be 'misinformed' and spout misinformation that is well established biblically.

---

Who (not what) is "the word." As in John 1:1 forward. The "Word" is another name for Jesus. so substitute "The word" with JEsus and you get 8 But what does it say? “Jesus is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is,Jesus by faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

So IF Jesus is Near you, in your mouth (you speak about him) nd in your Heart/you think and lng to be with Him)  you teach him, then if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord then... you will be saved.

Takes on a new meaning when you understand who the word is, and again John 1:1 forward defines who the word is.

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.