******** can't get into heaven?

[Scuba Pete]

Rubbish? WHich part? What God said, or my opinion of why he did it? As for putting words into God's mouth, I did no such thing.

Exodus 15:26 He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you."

Or do you fault me merely for not seeing God as you do: some cosmic ogre preying on the innocent. Yeah, I think once more I committed the grevious sin of not holding to your enlightened perceptions. Color me guilty.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for putting words into God's mouth, I did no such thing.

Exodus 15:26 He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you."

Our poor apologists whines about whining. Nevertheless ...

• The clear intent of the quote is the threat of God-inflicted "disease", i.e.: do it My way and I will not do to you what I did to the Egyptians. Otherwise, I will.
• There is absolutely nothing in that quote about the laws being "intended to keep Israel intact during their wanderings".
• Evidence of the wanderings is embarrassingly sparse.

Unfortunately, doing it His way meant, for example, treating women as property and homosexuals as abominations.

Or do you fault me merely for not seeing God as you do: some cosmic ogre preying on the innocent. Yeah, I think once more I committed the grevious sin of not holding to your enlightened perceptions. Color me guilty.

I fault you not at all for your tattered apologetic window-dressing, but please don't blame me for fabricating some cosmic ogre. Your quote does that quite well. It is truly not my fault that you find yourself compelled to artificially prettify Deuteronomy only to then rush to assure your audience that, fotunately, these particularly "enlightened" manifestations of God's love no longer apply.

As for your coloring, I'm sure it's fine.

 

[Scuba Pete]

First, I think you are confusing plagues with diseases.

Unfortunately, doing it His way meant,

which is very similar to how you treat theists.

As for the rest of your "attack"... is it easier to demean and demonize than to intellegently talk about the issues? Or do you just enjoy it? Being a cyber bully does not help to prove your arguments. It seems more of an attempt to squash the discourse rather than further it. But hey, that's YOUR choice.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First, I think you are confusing plagues with diseases.

I've been confused before. On the other hand, note 79 to the NET Bible's Exodus 15:26 reads:

The reference is no doubt to the plagues that Yahweh has just put on them. These will not come on God’s true people. But the interesting thing about a conditional clause like this is that the opposite is also true—“if you do not obey, then I will bring these diseases.”

In any event, the text does not say "I will protect you from { X }", but "I will not bring on you { X }". The inference is clear.

As for the rest of your "attack"...

I'm a cyber bully now? And here I thought that I was little more than some random atheist cynically promoting the noxious view of YHWH as "some cosmic ogre preying on the innocent".

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well aside from your "creative etymology" I see diseases as diseases. Frogs and locusts don't constitute a "disease" by any stretch of the imagination. The "do doubt" sends up as big a flag as "it can be clearly seen" on my BS-O-Meter.

As for your reading of the passage, I have not read it that way before and will definitely have to re-read it several times. The inference is anything but "clear".

BUT, one of YOUR pet peeves is how God is responsible for EVERYTHING (including evils). So I see this more as convenient for you to argue it thus rather than what you really feel (the cosmic ogre syndrome). Ergo, if God brings on all suffering, then your inference is disingenuous at best.

You being a cyber bully has NOTHiNG to do with your view of God. It has everything to do with your "no holds barred" style of bludgeoning your opposition with a verbal club.

 

[anders]

The meaning of the Hebrew text in Deut. 23:2 is so obscure that it cannot be taken as a guideline for Jews or Christians or anybody else. It might refer to children of mixed ethnic relations, whatever that may mean, or children from "illegal" alliances. I suppose there are very few Ammonites or Moabites these days, so in any case, 23.3 should have no appreciable impact.

The "congregation of the LORD" should in any case refer to the Israelites, and who would bother about being accepted there by their god?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well aside from your "creative etymology" I see diseases as diseases.

And infirmities are infirmities.

As for your reading of the passage, ... The inference is anything but "clear".

Yet it is clearly not my reading alone.

BUT, one of YOUR pet peeves is how God is responsible for EVERYTHING (including evils).

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].​

The Problem of Evil has challenged a good many brighter minds than I, many of whom have invested considerable effort in understanding it. To dismiss it as a pet peeve is either naive or pretense. Furthermore, it is hardly my "pet peeve" - I was working only with the verses you chose to quote. I'm truly sorry if you find your own selections to be so problematic.

(If you must know, my pet peeve is the wonton ignorance of the pertinent archaeology.)

So I see this more as convenient for you to argue it thus rather than what you really feel (the cosmic ogre syndrome). Ergo, if God brings on all suffering, then your inference is disingenuous at best.

While I generally don't trust arguments which use ergo", in this case I simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You being a cyber bully has NOTHiNG to do with your view of God. It has everything to do with your "no holds barred" style of bludgeoning your opposition with a verbal club.

Another petty ad hominem like that and I'll bop you with a smiley face!

 

[t3gah]

The King James is a real classic bible. Yup.

Unicrons and ********.

The best of both worlds!


******* is a word that can't be used with today's society.

but the answer is most likely along the lines of fornication or adultery. offspring didn't fare well in the scriptures if i remember correctly.

 

[michel]

Again (I have just replied to another thread - and I have completely forgotten which) - can we really imagine that An everloving and forgiving God would make a child suffer for the 'sin' of his parents?
What about children born as a result of Rape?

 

[jesusfreakjess]

Ok well i am a good perosn i speak the word of god to everyone i am a terrific christen i have never done drugs smoked drank i am a true friend but just becuase i am a ******* child i can't go to heaven ok well tell me this what is the point of going to church or being the best christen i can be? My mom left him becuase he did drugs i have a step dad who is great but sence i don't know my dad because he did drugs so i am a bastered child so do you really think god would punish me just becuase of that?

 

[Bastet]

Meh...just add it to the list of things already keeping me out of "heaven". Good thing I don't believe in such a place.

BTW, did anyone else notice that 'ergo' is 'ogre' spelt backwards?

 

[may]

Ok well i am a good perosn i speak the word of god to everyone i am a terrific christen i have never done drugs smoked drank i am a true friend but just becuase i am a ******* child i can't go to heaven ok well tell me this what is the point of going to church or being the best christen i can be? My mom left him becuase he did drugs i have a step dad who is greta but sence i don't know my dad because he did drugs so i am a bastered child so do you really think god would punish me just becuase of that?

"The Law has become our tutor leading to Christ."—GALATIANS 3:24.

The Mosaic Law was to be a temporary arrangement. the apostle Paul described it as a "tutor leading to Christ." (Galatians 3:24) A tutor of ancient times accompanied children to and from school. He was generally not the teacher; he merely led the children to the teacher. Similarly, the Mosaic Law was designed to lead God-fearing Jews to Christ. Jesus promised that he would be with his followers "all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 28:20) Once the Christian congregation was formed, therefore, the "tutor"—the Law—served no further purpose. (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:25)

Acts 10:34, 35: "God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him."​

John 3:16: "God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (Exercising genuine faith in him is necessary in order for any of us to attain to the kind of relationship with God that Adam lost. That privilege is open to all people.

God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him."—ACTS 10:34, 35.

 

[jesusfreakjess]

I am sry but i think that everyone can get into heaven as long as they are true to god!!