Theological Question

[Etagloc]

The first problem with this question is that it seeks to define the whole of the issue according to an illustration like this.

The first problem with the post is its first sentence. The sentence is incorrect. Because the sentence (and its premise) is incorrect, you have based your post on an incorrect statement.

The incorrect statement is a misrepresentation of what I said. Therefore, it is a strawman argument and a stawman post- or a post based on a strawman to be specific.

You have to misrepresent my position in order to attack it. That says something.

This thread's OP is not intended does not "seek to define the whole of the issue". The OP discusses an aspect. Your post is based on a falsehood, on a misrepresentation.

A whole and an aspect are two different things. My right arm is a part of my body but the whole of my body is not my right arm.

What you have displayed (yet again) is that you have an ideological agenda to conceal certain aspects of things as part of some sort of Republican Jesus type theology

 

[rainerann]

The first problem with the post is its first sentence. The sentence is incorrect. Because the sentence (and its premise) is incorrect, you have based your post on an incorrect statement.

The incorrect statement is a misrepresentation of what I said. Therefore, it is a strawman argument and a stawman post- or a post based on a strawman to be specific.

You have to misrepresent my position in order to attack it. That says something.

This thread's OP is not intended does not "seek to define the whole of the issue". The OP discusses an aspect. Your post is based on a falsehood, on a misrepresentation.

A whole and an aspect are two different things. My right arm is a part of my body but the whole of my body is not my right arm.

What you have displayed (yet again) is that you have an ideological agenda to conceal certain aspects of things as part of some sort of Republican Jesus type theology

Really the problem is that no matter what I say, you won't like it. You are trying to apply a specific instance to an situation that is more abstract in reality. In this case, I said I found the two examples equal. I cannot understand why we cannot find common ground from what I posted, which was my intention.

I was not saying something as to insult you with my initial observation. I was pointing out that the situation that you are describing is specified in this case so that the way I would answer the question could not be applied to all cases that were not equally as specific to this one.

Outside of this, I don't understand how there wasn't something that didn't create the possibility of more agreeable discussion between us regarding the subject of reward from a Christian perspective.

 

[Etagloc]

Really the problem is that no matter what I say, you won't like it. You are trying to apply a specific instance to an situation that is more abstract in reality. In this case, I said I found the two examples equal. I cannot understand why we cannot find common ground from what I posted, which was my intention.

I was not saying something as to insult you with my initial observation. I was pointing out that the situation that you are describing is specified in this case so that the way I would answer the question could not be applied to all cases that were not equally as specific to this one.

Outside of this, I don't understand how there wasn't something that didn't create the possibility of more agreeable discussion between us regarding the subject of reward from a Christian perspective.

Again- I am talking about something specific. If a math question says 12 times 12..... it's about 12 times 12. You are changing the subject. You come with your posts spreading nonsense and confusion and then you play the victim. You do this over and over again.

Not everything is about your preconceived ideological notions. When people talk about the Native American genocide and you try to cover it up because it is specific (not fitting into how you want to frame things) rather than "objective" (how you want to frame things, eliminating the aspects that your feelings don't like)........ it is not about you or how you feel....... it is a sense of entitlement (basically you have to take what isn't about you and make it about you)..... you can have your sense of entitlement and look at things through a warped lens but keep your warped lens for yourself.... don't come bringing poision and then play the victom for the millionth time.... "Native American genocide.... who cares! I am victim!"

 

[Etagloc]

anyways, your stuff pretty plays out to the formula ive described. you dont really deviate from the formula.

you go ahead and write whatever and you get in your last word of the delusional........ you are welcome to finish.... for my own response, I have already pretty much described your formula that you use a million times so i am not interested in responding to you

 

[AspiringSoul]

Pretty sure I haven't rejected anything. Except Republican Jesus. Although that's probably up for debate.

If that sounded absurd it's cause I failed at being ironic, or funny. Not really sure. I don't pretend like my 5 minute interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas is built out of stone. It's true that I don't know who's been judged in the after life. I can only try to witness Gods work through events and history. Ceasar got stabbed in the middle of the Senate. But it was his heir that consolidated power and birthed the Roman Empire. Just saying, for a bunch of pagans and mystics they got shit done.

The myth of the Titan isn't baseless. But we already have people here who believe in the fallen angels, and promote that sort of stuff.

Well not for nothing...but look at the book of Daniel. It's authorship has been questioned, yet they still say it was at least authoured during the hellenistic period. If this is true, it obviously still predates the roman empire. Yet it was VERY accurate in foretelling the 10 emperors and Titus, the year of the 4 emperors etc..and these 10 precided over the temple.
Basically the point i'm getting at is, especially with Rome...these empires are part of a plan.
In the end, the christian world took control of the Roman territory and the muslims took the much of the greek/persian territories.
One of the beauties of it is, a previous empire would go through all the pains of establishing civilisation ie conquering the land, bringing people into subjugation, establishing a rule of law, building infrastructure etc...and then another race would just come and take it all with ease when that empire is at it's weakest. That is also true in the case of Julius Ceasar and Augustuc/Octavian. Octavian didn't need to do much fighting when Julius Ceasar and Mark Antony did it all for him. All he needed to do was just pick out at Mark Antony at his weakest point because he was clever.

Ecclesiastes.2

6 To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God.

 

[Aero]

Welcome to the thread where everyone is hard on each other. Alright, lets do this. I totally answered your question, and got no credit for it. So it doesn't surprise me a bit, that someone played the straw man card. If anything I'm amazed everything doesn't devolve into those types of debates.

What does Sin even mean? You are making a leap of faith, and wondering why it's not fair. It's too late to ask questions, you have already jumped. I can't make that leap, where God just sorts everything out. The guilty are punished and the just have to be saved. End of debate, roll credits.

Find my inner child? Haven't we been trying to stop acting like children? I swear some of you are just trying to confuse people.

Well not for nothing...but look at the book of Daniel. It's authorship has been questioned, yet they still say it was at least authoured during the hellenistic period. If this is true, it obviously still predates the roman empire. Yet it was VERY accurate in foretelling the 10 emperors and Titus, the year of the 4 emperors etc..and these 10 precided over the temple.
Basically the point i'm getting at is, especially with Rome...these empires are part of a plan.
In the end, the christian world took control of the Roman territory and the muslims took the much of the greek/persian territories.
One of the beauties of it is, a previous empire would go through all the pains of establishing civilisation ie conquering the land, bringing people into subjugation, establishing a rule of law, building infrastructure etc...and then another race would just come and take it all with ease when that empire is at it's weakest. That is also true in the case of Julius Ceasar and Augustuc/Octavian. Octavian didn't need to do much fighting when Julius Ceasar and Mark Antony did it all for him. All he needed to do was just pick out at Mark Antony at his weakest point because he was clever.

Ecclesiastes.2

6 To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God.

Right Octavian probably wasn't half the leader his symbolic father was. When Rome wasn't beating itself up, everyone pretty much got in on the action. I'm fine with the big picture you are trying to paint. It's missing some pieces, but I don't need to tell you that.

Armies and guards can protect us from our enemies. That's the easy part. But the point of these individual stories is to try to pin point what protects them from their friends. Or what protects them from the protectors. I like the quote btw. But how does that play out for the crack head, given drugs by his protectors?

 

[JoChris]

This is something I wonder about. I will try to put it into words and hopefully people see my meaning.

So let's take John A. John A is born in the projects...... his early life is horrifying. He becomes addicted to drugs and at the age of 23 he is murdered while selling drugs.

Now let's take John B. John B is born into privilige. He has everything handed to him. He commits less sin in a way than John B. However he had much less struggle.

Now..... suppose they both are believers- although imperfect- in the correct religion (Islam if you're Muslim, Christian if you're Christian)

is it possible that a person can objectively committ more sin and be more rewarded by God in the afterlife than someone who objectively committed less sin because the person who committed more sin also was objectively exposed to more suffering and temptation?

I say this because look at how poor people are often trapped in evil cycles like addiction and such things.... but the crack addict who is smoking crack..... if God is just, God has to take into account why they ended up in such a way. Because the rich person might be a saint on the outside and the poor person might be seen as evil (it is incredible how in these times of Republican Jesus it is now normal for people to hate the poor...... it is shameful and the mark of a coward to go after the vulnerable- it is a weak person trait- a strong person defends the weak) but the poor person might actually have a much better heart and the rich person might be rotten on the inside.

This is the Jesus I was taught:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -Mark 10:25

Just found this link, good analysis of why this belief can in fact be treated as a heresy:
https://learningthepath.weebly.com/behavoral-heresy.html