Flat Earth cirruculum.. :: World of Warcraft

#304 Mar 12 2014 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Um... And also that it's God (aka the Vineyard owner) who decides the reward, not the workers.

No, not really. I mean you can take that from it just like you can take "Guys who own vineyards hire workers to harvest it" which is also true from the story. But neither of those are the actual point of the parable.

Edited, Mar 12th 2014 5:27pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#305 Mar 12 2014 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good

CoalHeart

Sage

505 posts

someproteinguy wrote:

I so want to get to heaven and find out Jesus was really black. Would be so much more entertaining that way.

He may or may not have been black, but according this preacher, he was most certainly a "*****".

____________________________

Never regret.To regret is to assume.

#306 Mar 12 2014 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good

Bijou

GBATE!! Never saw it coming

9,957 posts

Kavekk wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Has anyone thought about how silly this all sounds? I mean, imagine if I started praying to Gandalf, and saying that I accept Bilbo into my heart as my savior because he destroyed the ring, and I would be welcomed into the Shire when I died. Isn't that a little outlandish?

Yeah, obviously. It was Frodo/Gollum that destroyed the ring, not Bilbo.

Belkira: Heretic. Smiley: mad

____________________________

remorajunbao wrote:

One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#307 Mar 12 2014 at 5:27 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Stalker rdmcandie wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Catwho wrote:

Gbaji is arguing the Calvinist/predestination viewpoint, which is one frequently used by the wealthy as an excuse for not giving to the poor. I've never been a fan of it.

Absolutely not! Where the hell did you get that impression? I'm arguing kinda the opposite. No one can know they are saved. Period. Not the Pope. Not a born again Christian.

This is just false. If you follow the words of the bible as the gospel truth, ANYONE can get into heaven by accepting Jesus into their hearts.

Yes. "Can". And for "accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts", which presumably means more than just saying "I accept Jesus Christ into my heart".

Quote:

Thats it. Poof you are magically Heaven approved.

False. For someone rambling on about reading the words of the bible, you're ignoring a whole hell of a lot of them.

Quote:

Thats all it takes nowadays. Thanks Rome!

Incorrect, and I already explained quite thoroughly how the Catholic church does not teach this, but it's a common misconception among those who aren't fully aware of Catholic teachings. Confession is not a get out of jail free card.

Quote:

Why follow all kinds of sh*tty rules that don't make any sense when the only need of acceptance is.

I'm not talking about rules at all. I'm saying that it's sheer arrogance for anyone to presume that they've met some magical criteria that gets them a direct ticket into heaven. Period.

Quote:

"I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that through him I will enter his fathers kingdom." Thats it thats all.

Yeah. That's a statement of intent, not a claim of entitlement. "I will enter" doesn't mean "I'm entitled to enter". It means "I'm going to commit myself to living a good Christian life. This is actually part of why I wrote the Monastery parable. To express the idea that heaven isn't so much a destination to seek, but a mindset to have your entire life. The traveler who loved the mountain didn't arrive at the monastery and find anything he didn't already know. That's the point.

Quote:

Because this might shock you...Heaven only exists in the hearts and minds of men. Thats it. That is the big secret. If you believe you will go to heaven when you die...you will get there.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The problem is that you get the first part, but then still think of heaven as a place you go. In some cases, Jesus is talking about a reward after death, but in others, he's talking about ones own state of mind/soul. Being "in the kingdom of God", isn't just about going to heaven. It's about being a part of a new way of looking at good and evil and sin, and all the other stuff Jesus was trying to get people to do differently.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#308 Mar 12 2014 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good

Smasharoo

Lunatic

30,086 posts

Similarly, in my parable

The primary difference is that your parable is ******* nonsense and no one cares about it.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#309 Mar 12 2014 at 5:41 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Um... And also that it's God (aka the Vineyard owner) who decides the reward, not the workers.

No, not really. I mean you can take that from it just like you can take "Guys who own vineyards hire workers to harvest it" which is also true from the story. But neither of those are the actual point of the parable.

It's one of the two main points of the parable Joph. WTF?

1. That it doesn't matter how long you've "served", the reward is the same.

2. That it's God's choice who is rewarded, and no man should complain that someone else got a better/easier deal.

You lose a good portion of the parable's meaning if you leave off the second part. It's a response to the idea of the day that you could know who was favored and who wasn't. This site has a decent explanation of it:

Quote:

The first group of workers in the vineyard resented receiving the same wage as the last group. Their attitude was similar to that of the Pharisees, who were incensed at Jesusâ€™ teaching that others could inherit a heavenly kingdom they thought was reserved for them alone. They despised Jesus for offering the kingdom to poor, oppressed, weak sinners whom He made equal to them. In verse 15, the landowner asks, â€œIs your eye evil because I am good?â€ The â€œevil eyeâ€ was a Hebrew expression referring to jealousy and envy. Godâ€™s goodness and mercy produced in the self-righteous Pharisees the evil eye of envy. The rest of the workers received their wages without complaint or envy of others. In the same way, as Christians, we should rejoice when others come to the Savior, as we should rejoice in the service others render to Him. He is faithful to reward us for our service as He has promised, and how He rewards others should be of no consequence to us, nor should it affect our devotion to Him.

It's extremely relevant to the idea of any group of people assuming that they are saved (especially if they believe that others who are not in the group aren't). Which is why I found it completely ironic that a born again Christian would reference it (and manage to fail to understand what it said about his own position on salvation).

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#310 Mar 12 2014 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

It's one of the two main points of the parable Joph.

Ok then. Go with it.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#311 Mar 12 2014 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good

Smasharoo

Lunatic

30,086 posts

It's extremely relevant to the idea of any group of people assuming that they are saved (especially if they believe that others who are not in the group aren't). Which is why I found it completely ironic that a born again Christian would reference it (and manage to fail to understand what it said about his own position on salvation).

Yeah, except that it's not and you misunderstood it AND the explanation. The point is that it's not a competition, and not to be jealous of others apparent lack of effort relative to your own. Kelvy understands it perfectly. Joph does as well. I imagine most 9 year old Sunday School children understand it. Not sure what you're ******* missing but it has ZERO to with people "assuming" they are saved. In point of fact, the primary selling point of Christianity is the CERTAINTY that ANYONE can be saved if they accept Christ. IT'S THE PRIMARY ******* LYNCHPIN OF THE RELIGION. It's not a mystery. It's a personal experience. There are lots of mysteries in any invisible man in the sky story, but this parable is absolutely not alluding to them. If anything it's preaching certainty and community. Each sinners path is equally valid IF he repents and accepts Christ. Hitler on his deathbed or Mother Teresa (actually she seems to have been a bit of an attention ***** fraud, but let's stipulate the persona most people mean when they reference her).

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#312 Mar 12 2014 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

+1

50,767 posts

We're crossing theological scholar off the list.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

#313 Mar 12 2014 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Quote:

It's extremely relevant to the idea of any group of people assuming that they are saved (especially if they believe that others who are not in the group aren't). Which is why I found it completely ironic that a born again Christian would reference it (and manage to fail to understand what it said about his own position on salvation).

Dude. The workers knew they were gettin' paid. It's not like they lined up at the end of the day and the vineyard owner paid some and didn't pay others*. They were pissed that they'd worked longer and "only" got the reward they were promised, not proportionately more than the latecomers.

*Although that would be an interesting parable.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#314 Mar 12 2014 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Smasharoo wrote:

It's extremely relevant to the idea of any group of people assuming that they are saved (especially if they believe that others who are not in the group aren't). Which is why I found it completely ironic that a born again Christian would reference it (and manage to fail to understand what it said about his own position on salvation).

Yeah, except that it's not and you misunderstood it AND the explanation. The point is that it's not a competition, and not to be jealous of others apparent lack of effort relative to your own.

Yeah, because it's God's decision who gets paid and who doesn't, not yours. If God wants to give a guy who worked 5 minutes a full day's pay, that's his choice. Get it? It's about how God decides who is worthy, not man. Holy hell you guys are dense! I linked and quoted a source that said this exact thing, yet you're still going to insist it's something else? Why? Because I'm saying it and you have a pathological need to believe that I'm wrong?

Wow. Just... wow.

Quote:

Kelvy understands it perfectly. Joph does as well. I imagine most 9 year old Sunday School children understand it.

They understand incorrectly. I'm just not sure how much more clearly I can say this. We could ask 100 Bible experts what the parable means, and all 100 of them will include some form of "God chooses who goes to heaven, not man" in their explanation. It's part of what the parable teaches. If you don't get that, that's your failure, not mine.

Quote:

Not sure what you're @#%^ing missing but it has ZERO to with people "assuming" they are saved.

It does have a lot to do with people making assumptions about what is required to be saved though. If we equate "receiving one denarius" to "going to heaven", the entire thing is about the first group assuming that since they worked a full day to get their denarius, that it would be unfair for someone who worked less to get the same reward. This is exactly about one group believing they know what is required to be saved, and then being pissed to discover that people who didn't do the same things they did *also* got saved.

It's the whole freaking point of the parable!

Quote:

In point of fact, the primary selling point of Christianity is the CERTAINTY that ANYONE can be saved if they accept Christ.

Yup. "Can be". I could have sworn I already addressed this point. The other primary point of Christianity (and I'm sure you'd normally agree any religion that depends on an untestable reward) is that no one can be certain if they've really earned salvation. No one. It's about keeping people on the straight and narrow, right? The whole "anyone can be saved if they accept Christ into their hearts" is to ensure that no one thinks "well, I've been a bad person all my life, so there's no point in trying to change".

"Accepting Christ" is about more than standing up in front of people and saying "I accept Christ as my savior". That's the point.

Quote:

There are lots of mysteries in any invisible man in the sky story, but this parable is absolutely not alluding to them. If anything it's preaching certainty and community. Each sinners path is equally valid IF he repents and accepts Christ. Hitler on his deathbed or Mother Teresa (actually she seems to have been a bit of an attention ***** fraud, but let's stipulate the persona most people mean when they reference her).

If that were the only lesson, then it wouldn't mention the first workers being upset that they got the same pay as the people who showed up last. It's *also* teaching people that God decides who is saved, not man.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#315 Mar 12 2014 at 8:07 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Samira wrote:

Quote:

It's extremely relevant to the idea of any group of people assuming that they are saved (especially if they believe that others who are not in the group aren't). Which is why I found it completely ironic that a born again Christian would reference it (and manage to fail to understand what it said about his own position on salvation).

Dude. The workers knew they were gettin' paid. It's not like they lined up at the end of the day and the vineyard owner paid some and didn't pay others*. They were pissed that they'd worked longer and "only" got the reward they were promised, not proportionately more than the latecomers.

Yes. Get it? They were pissed because they believed that only those who worked the full day would receive the full pay. Ergo, they assumed that those who worked less would not receive the same reward. Getting it yet? They assumed that those who didn't do all the things they did would not get to heaven. Get it? Do I need to go really really really slowly to explain this?

Someone who believes that they know what is required to get to heaven, and/or that only people who do certain things, belong to a certain sect, follow certain rules, etc will get to heaven, are WRONG. That's the point. Just like those who assumed that only those who worked a full day in the Vineyard would get paid a denarius were wrong. That's what the parable means. You can't make assumptions about what criteria God puts on salvation. That's the lesson.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#316 Mar 12 2014 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

+1

50,767 posts

gbaji wrote:

We could ask 100 Bible experts what the parable means, and all 100 of them will include some form of "God chooses who goes to heaven, not man" in their explanation.

Realistically you'd just get a hundred different interpretations.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

#317 Mar 12 2014 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Of course I get it, you fool. It's what I said.

It is not, however, what YOU said.

Reading your corkscrew gbajic is just painful. How do you get from that first paragraph to the second? Maybe you DO need to go really really slowly. You apparently missed a turn.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#318 Mar 12 2014 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

We could ask 100 Bible experts what the parable means, and all 100 of them will include some form of "God chooses who goes to heaven, not man" in their explanation.

They might. They'd also say that's not the primary point of the parable. Of course, I'm not sure why you'd think anyone would accept your idea on what "100 Bible experts" would say when you're getting it wrong yourself.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#319 Mar 12 2014 at 9:19 PM Rating: Default

angrymnk

Scholar

1,323 posts

Well, as Gbaji so well has shown...is it not the entire problem with religion?

ie. it is subject to interpretation? This is why we have multiple splintering factions and people fighting over what god ACTUALLY meant to say.

Pfft...

There is an argument to be made about some people treating Reason, and Science in a similar fashion, but that is probably a topic for a different day.

____________________________

Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam

#320 Mar 12 2014 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent

trickybeck

Tracer Bullet

12,636 posts

angrymnk wrote:

Well, as Gbaji so well has shown...is it not the entire problem with religion?

ie. it is subject to interpretation? This is why we have multiple splintering factions and people fighting over what god ACTUALLY meant to say.

Actually, this is people fighting over what a children's-level morality story means, with one person lacking a child's cognition. Whether god wrote it is irrelevant in this case.

#321 Mar 13 2014 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good

Kelvyquayo

Imaginary Friend

16,112 posts

I wish I didn't have a conference call in 15 minutes.... (this is why I try no to read this crap at work any more)..

Gbaji, yes complete and utter assurance is possible
Do you want more quotes cause believe me there are plenty? Most of the stuff that I have seen you write on this subject is completely without merit.. If you claim to have to some Biblical basis then feel free to quote it.. otherwise, YOU, are the one simply regurgitating human dogma to me..
The funny thing about the Bible is.. unless you actually study it; it's kinda confusing and YES can even seem contradictory...
But regarding who is "saved" and "not" The Bible says that NO ONE can know and claim that Jesus us their savior without the Holy Spirit being inside of them.. That is the assurance.. Who has it likely knows it.. unless they are subject to poor teaching.. It is not by works it is by grace...
There is a difference between being saved and between living a fruitful Christian life. One can be saved and be a complete ********* The Bible clearly states that there are rewards in Heaven for those that are fruitful... fruitful meaning to help guide people into heaven by preaching/teaching the gospel...

by the way.. I should add for the record [I know you care!!!lol] that I previously was identifying myself as a "fundamentalist" well on thinking on that.. I'm most certainly NOT that.. otherwise I wouldn't be here talking to you heathens Smiley: dubious

.... I got my terms mixed up.. because in my view nothing is more fundamental than spreading the Gospel.. but apparently that means something else.. It's amazing that Christians that actually do what Jesus said like trying to spread the Good News are considered some fringe element.. simply amazing.. "THESE Christians think that the Bible is true!!(wow!) and actually see fit to try to actively spread their teaching like Jesus and the apostles said to do..(oooohh!)

____________________________

With the receiver in my hand..

#322 Mar 13 2014 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1680481127345

Sage

21,262 posts

My view on it was always this: You do a better job "spreading the Good News" by being a good example of a decent human being. If one flavor of a religion is running a soup kitchen and the other one is stoning people to death, I'm probably going to be more convinced by the group feeding hungry people.

#323 Mar 13 2014 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

Catwho wrote:

My view on it was always this: You do a better job "spreading the Good News" by being a good example of a decent human being. If one flavor of a religion is running a soup kitchen and the other one is stoning people to death, I'm probably going to be more convinced by the group feeding hungry people.

My issue is the notion that being a decent human being is somehow intrinsically tied to otherworldly rewards. Does acceptance into Heaven have to be the prime motivating factor? Why can't people be decent folk for the sake of being decent folk, because it's the right thing to do?

Edited, Mar 13th 2014 1:56pm by Debalic

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#324 Mar 13 2014 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent

someproteinguy

Meat Popsicle

13,666 posts

Debalic wrote:

Catwho wrote:

My view on it was always this: You do a better job "spreading the Good News" by being a good example of a decent human being. If one flavor of a religion is running a soup kitchen and the other one is stoning people to death, I'm probably going to be more convinced by the group feeding hungry people.

My issue is the notion that being a decent human being is somehow intrinsically tied to otherworldly rewards. Does acceptance into Heaven have to be the prime motivating factor? Why can't people be decent folk for the sake of being decent folk, because it's the right thing to do?

Edited, Mar 13th 2014 1:56pm by Debalic

It's probably moot. In theory you get in no matter what. You could be a murderous psychopath for your entire life and
still be allowed to come to the party. No one is excluded, just accept that a 2000+ year old middle-eastern zombie is going to protect your immortal soul and such.

In my experience though, most other Christians seem to use the Bible to justify their nice behavior rather than the other way around. Anyone who's only being nice because the Bible told them too is going to slip up eventually; 75 years on this planet is a lot time to fake something. I'd like to think we'd mostly be good people regardless.

But there I go being optimistic again... Smiley: lol

____________________________

That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover

#325 Mar 13 2014 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1680481127345

Sage

21,262 posts

Debalic wrote:

Catwho wrote:

My view on it was always this: You do a better job "spreading the Good News" by being a good example of a decent human being. If one flavor of a religion is running a soup kitchen and the other one is stoning people to death, I'm probably going to be more convinced by the group feeding hungry people.

My issue is the notion that being a decent human being is somehow intrinsically tied to otherworldly rewards. Does acceptance into Heaven have to be the prime motivating factor? Why can't people be decent folk for the sake of being decent folk, because it's the right thing to do?

This is specifically in regards to the requirement of the Bible to try to convert people as part of Christianity.

Yeah, you should be a good person regardless of whether you get into heaven or not. But if you sincerely believe that you should try to "save" other people too, you're going to do a better job of convincing them if you're not a hypocrite and/or an ******* about it.

#326 Mar 13 2014 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

+1

50,767 posts

I don't have much faith in a book where a dozen different people argue a dozen different interpretations of each sentence.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.