(March 6, 2016 at 11:18 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(February 9, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Then in 2 Samuel 12:13-20, David's son is killed by God because of sins committed by David.
I don't think this is the message that is trying to get across. Even if you take the OT literally, which I certainly don't.
Since the child was innocent of personal sins, we know that he/she would have been received into heaven immediately upon death. And in this way, the child was spared a lifetime of being mocked and scorned by the people of Israel who would have known that the child was the illegitimate son of David resulting from his adultery with Bathsheba.
Basically, the child was not punished for what David did, as you seem to think. But rather, God showed mercy to the child by taking it to heaven.
Respectfully, Cath, that's horse-hockey about the "lifetime of mockery". Solomon was the second child born of their liaison, and he ascended to the throne.
And whether or not that kid "ascended into heaven", it was still a *baby* who was tortured to death (via lingering disease) in order to punish his father. It clearly states that, A->B.
It's either one of two things: God is real and a psychopath, or else God is imaginary and this stuff about disease being the wrath of a deity is as ignorant as the people who claimed lightning striking someone was the wrath of Thor.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
