How does God make this justice happen?

[Greatest I am]

How does God make this justice happen?

Genesis 4:15
And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Genesis 4:24
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
If an unrepentant killer goes to hell forever and an unrepentant killer of a killer goes to hell forever, how then can the punishment that God promises be fulfilled?
How can God give punishment seven times forever or seventy times forever?

Regards
DL

[grayman]

He can't. He's a myth.

[Upchurch]

If an unrepentant killer goes to hell forever and an unrepentant killer of a killer goes to hell forever, how then can the punishment that God promises be fulfilled?
How can God give punishment seven times forever or seventy times forever?
I'm not reading "forever" in there.

[Loss Leader]

If an unrepentant killer goes to hell forever and an unrepentant killer of a killer goes to hell forever, how then can the punishment that God promises be fulfilled?

How can God give punishment seven times forever or seventy times forever?

Regards
DL


Nothing in the two Genesis verses you quoted says anything about unrepentant killers. Nothing in the verses says anything about hell. Nothing in the verses says anything about being punished forever. Nothing in the verses talks about murderers in general.

All the verses say is that someone who hurts Cain will be punished 7-fold and someone who hurts Lamarch will be punished 77-fold.

Everything else is stuff that you personally are reading into the bible that is not there.

[halofish2000]

So Lamech kills his great, great, great, great grandfather. Google lamech the blind. Good read. I know it is boring and confusing, but if you follow the begats for Cain's lineage and do the same for Seth's you will see a unique pattern for the rest of the Old Testament. The legends and stories of Lamech will give rise to a sorry sort of people.

[KingMerv00]

How DOES Lucky get those marshmellows to morph, grow, and do his bidding? Nanotech perhaps?

[halofish2000]

You lost me your Majesty.

[KingMerv00]

You lost me your Majesty.

The OP asked how a nonexistant creature did an impossible thing. I did the same. In case you don't know who Lucky is:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f7/220px-Lucky_charms.jpg

Edit: Normally I wouldn't fight a hypothetical question, but this is the second thread of this kind Greatest I Am has started and I can only take so much.

[volatile]

Is Deckard a Replicant? Or Who built Stonehenge? Which type of answer are you after here, GIA?

[halofish2000]

Thanks...Of course I know Lucky. The only reason I eat breakfast at all is to consume those magical marshmallows.

[halofish2000]

With his new found Bible decoder book he will soon enlighten us all.

[KingMerv00]

Thanks...Of course I know Lucky. The only reason I eat breakfast at all is to consume those magical marshmallows.

I never had them. Lucky is too canny a foe for me. How did you manage to catch him? Tazer?

[halofish2000]

No tazer...just a pot of fools gold and a Crossman pellet gun.

[halofish2000]

GIA what does Lamech mean in Gen 4:23 " for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt." You left this verse out.

[Greatest I am]

GIA what does Lamech mean in Gen 4:23 " for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt." You left this verse out.

No idea. I looked for a reference to who he had killed and could find none.

His slain man to his wounding may be that he overdid his retaliation and killed while only having been wounded by the dead victim.

His killed to my hurt may be the same kind of deal but these are pure speculation.

Regards
DL

[Kochanski]

I will expand on Grayman's comment. The bible was written by men, it has no divine origin, and you are spending too much time reading it.

[aggle-rithm]

The OP asked how a nonexistant creature did an impossible thing. I did the same. In case you don't know who Lucky is:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f7/220px-Lucky_charms.jpg

Edit: Normally I wouldn't fight a hypothetical question, but this is the second thread of this kind Greatest I Am has started and I can only take so much.

Lucky is a sick individual. He suffers under the paranoid delusion that people are always "after" his Lucky Charms.

If he really has the power he claims to have, would he be so paranoid?

[aggle-rithm]

No idea. I looked for a reference to who he had killed and could find none.

His slain man to his wounding may be that he overdid his retaliation and killed while only having been wounded by the dead victim.

His killed to my hurt may be the same kind of deal but these are pure speculation.

Regards
DL

I'm guessing that, since the vowels were left out in the ancient Hebrew, this was the closest translation they could come up with, and nobody knows what the hell it's supposed to mean.

[aggle-rithm]

I will expand on Grayman's comment. The bible was written by men, it has no divine origin, and you are spending too much time reading it.

For a moment I thought you said, "The bible was written by me".

I was hoping you'd be able to explain a few things. :(

[Upchurch]

He can't. He's a myth.
I just want to point out that there are at least two different ways to approach these kinds of questions.

The first is to take the empirical approach that grayman and several others have. Which is fine and more than appropriate in certain situations. In this particular case, it dismisses the question, not based on it's intrinsic merits, but on the premise which has been taken for granted.

The second is to take the "for the sake of argument" approach that halofish2K and I took. In this case, we're approaching the question the way we might approach a discussion about the Harry Potter books. We allow a certain suspension of disbelief in order to address the question on its own terms, all the while with the underlying understanding that we know it's just a book.

In situations where there is no specific claim that the question is applicable to reality, I prefer the latter approach as it tends to result in more interesting conversations. If you take the empirical approach, the discussion is over before it has a chance to begin.

[volatile]

I just want to point out that there are at least two different ways to approach these kinds of questions.

The first is to take the empirical approach that grayman and several others have. Which is fine and more than appropriate in certain situations. In this particular case, it dismisses the question, not based on it's intrinsic merits, but on the premise which has been taken for granted.

The second is to take the "for the sake of argument" approach that halofish2K and I took. In this case, we're approaching the question the way we might approach a discussion about the Harry Potter books. We allow a certain suspension of disbelief in order to address the question on its own terms, all the while with the underlying understanding that we know it's just a book.

In situations where there is no specific claim that the question is applicable to reality, I prefer the latter approach as it tends to result in more interesting conversations. If you take the empirical approach, the discussion is over before it has a chance to begin.

That's just a more verbose way of saying what I already said in Post #9. :) I agree with you wholeheartedly!

[Upchurch]

That's just a more verbose way of saying what I already said in Post #9. :) I agree with you wholeheartedly!
Why say something with five words when you could use five hundred? ;)

[KingMerv00]

I just want to point out that there are at least two different ways to approach these kinds of questions.

The first is to take the empirical approach that grayman and several others have. Which is fine and more than appropriate in certain situations. In this particular case, it dismisses the question, not based on it's intrinsic merits, but on the premise which has been taken for granted.

The second is to take the "for the sake of argument" approach that halofish2K and I took. In this case, we're approaching the question the way we might approach a discussion about the Harry Potter books. We allow a certain suspension of disbelief in order to address the question on its own terms, all the while with the underlying understanding that we know it's just a book.

In situations where there is no specific claim that the question is applicable to reality, I prefer the latter approach as it tends to result in more interesting conversations. If you take the empirical approach, the discussion is over before it has a chance to begin.

Sometimes you just have to smash the premise from the start and walk away.

If someone asks, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" You should not take out your calculator. It gives the question more dignity than it deserves.

[halofish2000]

My point to GIA is if you are gonna take a couple verses and yank them out by their roots in order to clobber someone on the head , at least know the premise. Begin by reading whole thought patterns...that means the chapter and if necessary the previous chapter.

[Kochanski]

For a moment I thought you said, "The bible was written by me".

I was hoping you'd be able to explain a few things. :(

Eewww, what a thought. If I ever write something like that please chop off my hands ;)

[halofish2000]

I have not tried to post a link but I will try herewww.piney.com/LegCain.html
Hope this is correct.

[alfaniner]

Lucky is a sick individual. He suffers under the paranoid delusion that people are always "after" his Lucky Charms.

Maybe if he'd quit making new ones all the time...! I remember when it was just "Hearts, moons, stars, and clovers."

[Tanstaafl]

Why say something with five words when you could use five hundred? ;)


Wait... I didn't know my brother was a JREFer! :eek:

[Darth Rotor]

How can God give punishment seven times forever or seventy times forever?

Regards
DL
How many times can you spank someone, if you have all eternity to do it?

DR

[Oroborus]

How DOES Lucky get those marshmellows to morph, grow, and do his bidding? Nanotech perhaps?


Very tiny elves.

[Elizabeth I]

I never had them. Lucky is too canny a foe for me. How did you manage to catch him? Tazer?

I never had them because the idea of marshmallows in milk at breakfast time made me completely nauseated.

[PAC]

Interesting that my fundamentalist christian relatives have banned Harry Potter books from thier home but want everyone to read and believe (quite literally) the bible. As children we got laughs by going into the side door of my catholic church to read the list of banned books. Given the standards for banning books I would think the bible would be banned as well as the other books on the lists. The fiction lists of course!

[Tumblehome]

I never had them because the idea of marshmallows in milk at breakfast time made me completely nauseated.


:) Quoted for 100% whole wheat truthiness.

There's a so-called "cereal" called Cocoa Puffs in the same category. Marshmallows and a chocolate confection for the most important meal of the day are proof positive of the awesome power of advertising.

As to the OP, godcandoit cause he uses a base 7 counting system. :cool:

[Vic Vega]

I just want to point out that there are at least two different ways to approach these kinds of questions.

The first is to take the empirical approach that grayman and several others have. Which is fine and more than appropriate in certain situations. In this particular case, it dismisses the question, not based on it's intrinsic merits, but on the premise which has been taken for granted.

The second is to take the "for the sake of argument" approach that halofish2K and I took. In this case, we're approaching the question the way we might approach a discussion about the Harry Potter books. We allow a certain suspension of disbelief in order to address the question on its own terms, all the while with the underlying understanding that we know it's just a book.

In situations where there is no specific claim that the question is applicable to reality, I prefer the latter approach as it tends to result in more interesting conversations. If you take the empirical approach, the discussion is over before it has a chance to begin.


On its intrinsic merits, the question is bogus. Because the Old Testament (or Torah) was written by Jews for Jews, and Jews don't have any concept of Hell, the author (or God, if you are so inclined) could not have possibly been referring to Hell as any kind of punishment.

Jewish tradition says that when the Messiah comes, the righteous will rise from the dead and live in an Earthly paradise free of the evils and strife of the pre-messianic world. The non-righteous will simply remain dead.

[Vic Vega]

I'm guessing that, since the vowels were left out in the ancient Hebrew, this was the closest translation they could come up with, and nobody knows what the hell it's supposed to mean.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but people who are fluent in Hebrew never need vowels to read it. If you pick up any newspaper or book written in Hebrew, you won't find any vowels in them. Nor will you find them in handwritten documents.

Vowels are only used in things like prayer books so that people who speak other languages and learn to read Hebrew for the purpose of prayer can pronounce the words correctly.

[Skullaxide]

With his new found Bible decoder book he will soon enlighten us all.

There's a CODE in the BIBLE?!?!?! :eek:

[SezMe]

Yeah, but it's pretty old: COBOL.

[devnull]

Is Deckard a Replicant?

YES! For the last time, YES! DECKARD IS A REPLICANT!!!!

:D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Sometimes you just have to smash the premise from the start and walk away.

And how's that approach working out in fostering dialogue and education? As was pointed out, GIA had a few false premises in his OP, don't those deserve to be addressed if we're concerned about educating people?

[Robin]

Yeah, but it's pretty old: COBOL.

Wow, the Bible is that old?

[KingMerv00]

And how's that approach working out in fostering dialogue and education? As was pointed out, GIA had a few false premises in his OP, don't those deserve to be addressed if we're concerned about educating people?

It isn't the sort of "approach" I like to use very often. I am more than willing to take part in hypothetical conversations, even those involving the Christian God. But sometimes things are just so wrong that they really don't deserve our full attention. It helps encourage dialogue and education by not wasting time on hopeless and pointless conversations. Think of it as woo triage.

If someone seriously asked you "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", how would you respond?

[UnrepentantSinner]

If someone seriously asked you "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", how would you respond?

I snipped the rest of your response in this message for the same reason I snipped the angels dancing on a pinhead comment in your earlier post. If someone makes a claim that is based on false premises, even if the basic premises of the claim are suspect (unless you know no deity or YHWH doesn't exist), shouldn't you at the very least, try and address those false premises whether they agree with your weltanschauung or not?

If you chose to just dismiss false premises and not at least acknowledge them, if not address them, then I have a hard time considering you a process drivin skeptic.

[KingMerv00]

I snipped the rest of your response in this message for the same reason I snipped the angels dancing on a pinhead comment in your earlier post. If someone makes a claim that is based on false premises, even if the basic premises of the claim are suspect (unless you know no deity or YHWH doesn't exist), shouldn't you at the very least, try and address those false premises whether they agree with your weltanschauung or not?

If you chose to just dismiss false premises and not at least acknowledge them, if not address them, then I have a hard time considering you a process drivin skeptic.

I have limited time and a limited attention span. Surely, we don't have the resources to go in depth with every nutter an crackpot out there?

Don't think I "just dismissed" his false premise. A summary of my beliefs is sufficient for this thread: "God is unproven. Discussing the minutiae of how God delivers justice is moot." I was snarky about it because Greatest I Am really isn't here for a discussion. Unless I am mistaken, he is a hit and run artist. If I am wrong about that, then I apologize for the snarkiness...but not my brevity.

[Greatest I am]

I have limited time and a limited attention span. Surely, we don't have the resources to go in depth with every nutter an crackpot out there?

Don't think I "just dismissed" his false premise. A summary of my beliefs is sufficient for this thread: "God is unproven. Discussing the minutiae of how God delivers justice is moot." I was snarky about it because Greatest I Am really isn't here for a discussion. Unless I am mistaken, he is a hit and run artist. If I am wrong about that, then I apologize for the snarkiness...but not my brevity.

You are verry mistaken.

Regards
DL

[KingMerv00]

You are verry mistaken.

Regards
DL

You have 597 posts and only started 22 threads...not indicative of a hit and runner. My apologies. We have so many on here, it is hard to keep track.

You are still debating the minutiae of the unproven. Also, I'm not sure what it means to show "how" God gives out punishment. You mean the mechanism?

[Greatest I am]

You have 597 posts and only started 22 threads...not indicative of a hit and runner. My apologies. We have so many on here, it is hard to keep track.

You are still debating the minutiae of the unproven. Also, I'm not sure what it means to show "how" God gives out punishment. You mean the mechanism?

In part yes.

This whole stoty in the Bible seems strange to me and I am using this question to see if there is any logic to Gods justice in it before I discard it for it's lack of, divine, shall we say, inspiration.

I believe the Bible to be a good road map to God but this path seems foolish to me.

Regards
DL

[Kochanski]

In part yes.

This whole stoty in the Bible seems strange to me and I am using this question to see if there is any logic to Gods justice in it before I discard it for it's lack of, divine, shall we say, inspiration.

I believe the Bible to be a good road map to God but this path seems foolish to me.

Regards
DL

If you are looking for logic in the bible, you are looking in the wrong place for logic. There is much that is contradictory. That is why we get so many different answers from all sorts of christians. They pick and choose what they wish to believe among all that is there.

GIA bible was written by men, it is not divine and any answers you find there will be you interpreting what you see and taking what you find relevant to yourself.

Mapquest would give you a better roadmap to god and their directions are often awful.

[KingMerv00]

OK, I'll play along with the hypo:

How can God give punishment seven times forever or seventy times forever?


Perhaps he could divide you into seven people, all of whom share pain. God could then procede to punish you all forever.

[Greatest I am]

If you are looking for logic in the bible, you are looking in the wrong place for logic. There is much that is contradictory. That is why we get so many different answers from all sorts of christians. They pick and choose what they wish to believe among all that is there.

GIA bible was written by men, it is not divine and any answers you find there will be you interpreting what you see and taking what you find relevant to yourself.

Mapquest would give you a better roadmap to god and their directions are often awful.

I disagree.
I was born RC but was a non believer for my first 30 yrs of life.
All bibles have value but I do not read them literally.
I believe that they are to be read as works of philosophy.
My KJ I read looking for a God who is the word. In other words I look for the philosophy that the writers, inspired or not, have tried to convey.
Like the works of Socrates, these are ancient ideas and I don’t mind trying to update them if they do not quite fit with our notions of secularism.
I find that applying logic or trying to find logic within it’s pages is possible.
Doing this from a position of non belief is what lead me to find the God that is well hidden by the dust of time.
This process likely would work with any Bible.
I had to sort of work backwards. I decided that at minimum, God needed to be perfect and if he was not then He was not worthy of finding.
By interpreting scripture from the view of a perfect God, He began to shine through.
It has it’s challenges.
For instance, all that we see around us needs to somehow be perfect if there is to be a perfect God.
It took 20 years for me to finally see this perfection all around me.
I had to take the position that the wise have always advocated but is hard to do. I had to lose respect for all. This is when actual independent thought started. Then I started seeing clearly.
The funny thin is that now that I have found the Christian God, my view puts me at odds against not only non believers but also against believers because most are misinterpreting what is written.

They see god as a loser who return over and over to fix what is wrong with the world but if there is a God then His creation, us and all about us must by definition be perfect. There is nothing that needs fixing except the things that man himself can fix because it is man himself that has screwed it up. Not God.
From this position, all I can now do is try to show the way. It is not easy and if it was not for the responsibility I fell to those who seek, I would not bother with this unsatisfying work.

Regards
DL

[Elizabeth I]

:) Quoted for 100% whole wheat truthiness.

There's a so-called "cereal" called Cocoa Puffs in the same category. Marshmallows and a chocolate confection for the most important meal of the day are proof positive of the awesome power of advertising.



No, no, Cocoa Puffs is the food of the gods. Of course, I haven't had it in years and when I ate it regularly it was mostly dry out of the box as an after-school snack.

But Lucky Charms... <<shudder>>

[halofish2000]

How about the evils of Count Chocula and Frankenberry. Then Boo Berry comes along. Can you even buy these anymore?

[Tumblehome]

No, no, Cocoa Puffs is the food of the gods. Of course, I haven't had it in years and when I ate it regularly it was mostly dry out of the box as an after-school snack.


As a snack, sure. As breakfast...yuck.


How about the evils of Count Chocula and Frankenberry. Then Boo Berry comes along. Can you even buy these anymore?


Those sound like "theme" cereals, produced to capitalize on kids TV shows of the time (The Munsters, maybe?).

At first, I thought sugary cereals had nothing to do with God's justice, but now I'm not so sure.

[fuelair]

How does God make this justice happen?

Genesis 4:15
And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Genesis 4:24
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
If an unrepentant killer goes to hell forever and an unrepentant killer of a killer goes to hell forever, how then can the punishment that God promises be fulfilled?
How can God give punishment seven times forever or seventy times forever?

Regards
DLSwitches the warp drive inputs and jacks up the thrusters to run you back to when the punishment started and starts it over again.

[halofish2000]

GIA, did you figure out what the punishment "sevenfold" means yet?

[Greatest I am]

GIA, did you figure out what the punishment "sevenfold" means yet?

Not as yet.
I have not had any good suggestions either.

regards
DL

[halofish2000]

GIA, your opening question is without merit and untrue.

"How can God give punishment seven times forever or seventy times forever?"
The punishment is not _x forever. Lamech was the one who did the deed and was therefore to be punished 7 fold. In his fear, he made a statement that whoever killed him(Lamech) would be punished 490 fold.

Google- Lamech the Blind- and read some of the stories. May help....may not.

[six7s]

Lucky is a sick individual. He suffers under the paranoid delusion that people are always "after" his Lucky Charms.

If he really has the power he claims to have, would he be so paranoid?

Since when have such powers and paranoid delusions been mutually exclusive?

:confused:

[KingMerv00]

Since when have such powers and paranoid delusions been mutually exclusive?

:confused:

Also, Lucky's powers are not strong enough to eliminate all of his enemies. He is a minor demigod at best. He has been caught and tricked a number of times so I think is paranoia is somewhat justified.

My advice to him is to stop making his cereal "magically delicious" to humans if possible. Failing that, delicioius but poisonous. Failing THAT, stop making it. Failing even that, he should make marshmellow bodyguards.

[Beerina]

Why doesn't god just put Cain into his own virtual world where he'll be safe? Why leave him here then make threats to the rest of humanity not to touch him?

What a diseased mind this creature has. Woe be to us.

[halofish2000]

You would think that someone from possibly Seth's side of the family would have paid retribution. But, it was Cain's own that sealed his fate. Form Seth's lineage we get the antedeluvian patriarchs. Cain's offspring not so good.

Why didn't God just remove Cain to protect him?
Wouldn't his plan be to destroy him since he committed a heinous act? Which is what happened. Why didn't anyone from Seth's lineage kill Cain.

[six7s]

Why didn't God just remove Cain to protect him?
Wouldn't his plan be to destroy him since he committed a heinous act? Which is what happened. Why didn't anyone from Seth's lineage kill Cain.

I think that, as per other suspense-and-message-formulaic blockbusters, he was required in a later scene...

gracethrufaith.com » childrens-stories » cain-and-seth (http://www.gracethrufaith.com/childrens-stories/cain-and-seth)

Cain and Seth
Children's Stories for Adults

<snip/>
Technically this account is not a children's story but a fascinating continuation of Cain's life from which we can draw much insight.

There is a principle in Biblical interpretation called "first mention." It's not a big deal but when you go to the place where important ideas first appear and read the passage in context, you'll often pick up additional understanding. For example the first appearance of blood (Gen. 4:10) is in connection with Abel's murder and introduces the idea that the blood is the life. In Gen. 9:4-6 this is expanded into instruction on proper meat eating (another first mention) and capital punishment (still another).

<snip/>

...focus on the parallel lines of Cain and Seth because that's where the real story is. The seventh man from Adam in Cain's line was Lamech, whose name comes from a root meaning "despairing."

<snip/>
I'm convinced this early civilization was the result of Cain's efforts to find a way around the curse the Lord had pronounced on him. Since the ground would no longer yield crops, he and his descendants turned to livestock...

<snip/>
Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth...

<snip/>


...another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him (Gen. 4:25)." This verse takes us back in time to introduce the line of Seth. His name means appointed ...
<snip/>
The seventh man down Seth's line from Adam was Enoch...
<snip/>
Three generations later came Noah and the Great Flood; 10 generations from Adam, 1656 years after the creation.

The story of Cain's line is the story of unregenerate man. Exalting himself in defiance of God's commandments (Gen. 4:23-24), using God given talents to build an Earth centered civilization in an attempt to glorify himself and defeat God's plan. The line of Seth tells a story of the faithful (see for more info). Due to man's sin nature (ever notice how cities are always more sinful than rural areas?) Cain's line attracted many converts while Seth's dwindled to a small remnant.

When the Great Flood came all the line of Cain perished along with all the accomplishments of their Earth centered civilization. From the line of Seth only Noah and his family were found faithful. ...

<snip/>

What we have in the story of Cain and Seth is nothing less than a model of the age of man. At the End of the Age the Great Tribulation will judge humankind according to spiritual lines. Those who have rejected God's ways in favor of an Earth-centered life will perish (the spiritual line of Cain)...

<snip/>

...The Church will be taken by God and spared the Great Tribulation just as Enoch was taken by God and spared the Great Flood.

And that's the adult version.

Source: www.gracethrufaith.com/childrens-stories/cain-and-seth (http://www.gracethrufaith.com/childrens-stories/cain-and-seth)

[Greatest I am]

I think that, as per other suspense-and-message-formulaic blockbusters, he was required in a later scene...

gracethrufaith.com » childrens-stories » cain-and-seth (http://www.gracethrufaith.com/childrens-stories/cain-and-seth)

If the genocidal flood only produced 8 good souls, how many can we expect at the end.

A few dozen.

This sure makes Hell a lively place and heaven a lonely one.

Showes a piss poor record for God and the prodiuction of perfect souls.

Not acceptable at all.

Regards
DL

[halofish2000]

GIA, are you advocating that we can do whatever we want and still go to heaven? Why do you think numbers matter? The battle is between good and evil. By your thinking Schindler was a loser.

[Greatest I am]

GIA, are you advocating that we can do whatever we want and still go to heaven? Why do you think numbers matter? The battle is between good and evil. By your thinking Schindler was a loser.

I don't know Schindler.

I do know that God creates souls and natures perfect.
Yes, all one need do is follow their God given nature and Heaven is the destiny of all.

I don't think it is possible to go against our natures.

Regards
DL

[Mister Earl]

Also, Lucky's powers are not strong enough to eliminate all of his enemies. He is a minor demigod at best. He has been caught and tricked a number of times so I think is paranoia is somewhat justified.

My advice to him is to stop making his cereal "magically delicious" to humans if possible. Failing that, delicioius but poisonous. Failing THAT, stop making it. Failing even that, he should make marshmellow bodyguards.

:jaw-dropp
That's the wisest thing I've heard all day.

Thank you.

[halofish2000]

It is not possible to go against our natures.
So, you are advocating that babies are born with the nature to be (take your pick) mass murderer, child rapist, preacher. So, if you follow the nature you are born with, you go to heaven. Stay away from the bong(holy) water.

[Radrook]

....Everything else is stuff that you personally are reading into the bible that is not there.

Do people who read the Koran do this too? Or is this tendency something peculiar mostly to Bible readers?

[six7s]

Two wrongs maketh a right, huh?