Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
How can they know that it was wrongt before having a concept of 'wrong'?
How could they know the serpent was evil before having the knowledge of good and evil?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?
- Thread starter Lady B
- Start date
How can they know that it was wrongt before having a concept of 'wrong'?
How could they know the serpent was evil before having the knowledge of good and evil?
Hi Draupadi : I am at work and so can only type small snippets here and there during the day.
In the context of causing suffering to innocent infants and children, my own main employment involves doing this very thing (although I feel justified in causing such suffering). I currently practice pediatric medicine.
All day long, for years, I have caused suffering to innocent children as part of my employment. For example, I either put needles into the skin of infants and innocent children or order someone else to do it. I often cut into the skin of innocent infants and children with small sharp knives and leave them with wounds that are painful and leave them suffering for some time. I occasionally will put staples into the skin of little children, sometimes in sensitive areas and sometimes without numbing the skin where I am puncturing their tender skin.
Not only do I cause pain, but I will, on purpose, push on a small childs belly with the express intent to cause that child pain. I will, on purpose, intentionally cause pain to a bone or joint of a small innocent child. I will, in fact, move bones in a small child that I already know are dislocated and which I know, beforehand, will cause this innocent child suffering and pain.
Not only do I cause such suffering and pain, but I do it to some children that I love. Even the loving parents of these children know that I am going to cause suffering to their child and yet they pay me well to do what I do. In fact, I currently live in the United States and have received honors from my state society for doing what I do. And, despite my intentional causing such pain and suffering, day in and day out, for years, both theists and non-theists continue to ask me to do things which will cause suffering to innocent infants and children that they truly and deeply love.
Is there any way I can justify causing the suffering of innocent infants and children in my work or is it simply evil for causing suffering as I am doing?
Should I stop doing these things that I am doing?
Clear
σετωφθδρνεω
In the context of causing suffering to innocent infants and children, my own main employment involves doing this very thing (although I feel justified in causing such suffering). I currently practice pediatric medicine.
All day long, for years, I have caused suffering to innocent children as part of my employment. For example, I either put needles into the skin of infants and innocent children or order someone else to do it. I often cut into the skin of innocent infants and children with small sharp knives and leave them with wounds that are painful and leave them suffering for some time. I occasionally will put staples into the skin of little children, sometimes in sensitive areas and sometimes without numbing the skin where I am puncturing their tender skin.
Not only do I cause pain, but I will, on purpose, push on a small childs belly with the express intent to cause that child pain. I will, on purpose, intentionally cause pain to a bone or joint of a small innocent child. I will, in fact, move bones in a small child that I already know are dislocated and which I know, beforehand, will cause this innocent child suffering and pain.
Not only do I cause such suffering and pain, but I do it to some children that I love. Even the loving parents of these children know that I am going to cause suffering to their child and yet they pay me well to do what I do. In fact, I currently live in the United States and have received honors from my state society for doing what I do. And, despite my intentional causing such pain and suffering, day in and day out, for years, both theists and non-theists continue to ask me to do things which will cause suffering to innocent infants and children that they truly and deeply love.
Is there any way I can justify causing the suffering of innocent infants and children in my work or is it simply evil for causing suffering as I am doing?
Should I stop doing these things that I am doing?
Clear
σετωφθδρνεω
Last edited:
Draupadi
Active Member
Look you do that to cure them. You don't kill them like God. And you are a human being so you have your limits. God is omnipotent and can have His way without interfering free will. He send angels, parted the sea, etc. to help the innocents according to the Bible. Granted that all were not lucky enough to get it but why shouldn't they? It seems that all merciful God is biased.
An all powerful god that prefers or chooses people above others doesn't fly.
I believe this.
(Acts 10:34) "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:"
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Oh my God, just because they didn't know what doing wrong was until they did what was wrong, they should have known that it was wrong, because God told them not to do it. And, even without knowing that the serpent was really the lying, conniving devil in disguise, they should have known that an old man with a long white beard is much more trustworthy than a talking reptile.
But even more irrefutable proof is that God thought they should have known better. Otherwise, why would God have cursed them? But wait a minute, if God knows all and sees all, why didn't he see this happening and put a stop to it? Why did he show up later and pretend he couldn't find Adam and Eve? Did he want it to happen? It seems like a lot of trouble to go through just so he could send his only Son to die for us a few thousand years later.
But I guess, since a thousand years is only like a day to him, it's only been a few days. So that's not so bad. It only seems bad to us because it feels like it's been a long, long time of human pain and suffering. But, when you put it in God's time, it's really not that bad, a couple of weeks, a month at the most. So he's really not that bad a God at all. A month of pain for an eternity of bliss, not a bad trade off. Except for those that don't know him. For them, it's a month of pain and then an eternity of more pain. But, it's their own fault, they should have known better.
Clear commented regarding suffering of innocent infants and children: “All day long, for years, I have caused suffering to innocent children as part of my employment. “
Clear asked : “Is there any way I can justify causing the suffering of innocent infants and children in my work or is it simply evil for causing suffering as I am doing?” post # 4024
Draupadi offered a justification for the suffering I cause : “Look you do that to cure them.“ # 4025
Hi Draupadi, I’ve been busy all day and this is the first time I’ve had a chance to respond :
Thank you for offering a justification for the unintentional as well as the intentional, but necessary suffering that I cause innocent children in my employment. I very much agree with you that INSIDE the context of accomplishing certain benefits for a person, some temporary suffering is justified. I think your logic and reasoning are perfectly fine and they form a good base model for how early Christians justified suffering in this life. Can I take this model just a bit further? In my office we justify causing pain when giving immunizations in the hope that performing a somewhat painful procedure now will both prevent greater specific future illness and suffering and improving long term happiness.
JUSTIFICATION OF SUFFERING
If one can justify the suffering of innocents I cause in my medical role because I am ultimately benefiting them much more than a temporary and limited harm that is done to them, then God could be justified in early Christian theology in the same way IF the early Christians felt that the suffering in mortality was part of obtaining a much greater eternal benefit. According to early texts, when God considered inaugurating this great plan for achieving eternal life of man, one great controversy and concern would be because the plan would entail mankind both doing and suffering evils upon the earth. My point in telling you this is that the context of these texts are not that of a Father who is punishing wayward children for their "evil" deeds or to make them "good" , but it is often in the context of a moral schooling and tutoring that was taking place.
If we agree on these basic principles, then I’d like to move from modern Christian theories and switch to early Judeo-Christian historical texts so as to discuss conditions that existed prior to the creation of the earth and the populating it with mankind. Conditions that underlie mortality in the early worldviews.
Clear
σεσεσετωσιω
Clear asked : “Is there any way I can justify causing the suffering of innocent infants and children in my work or is it simply evil for causing suffering as I am doing?” post # 4024
Draupadi offered a justification for the suffering I cause : “Look you do that to cure them.“ # 4025
Hi Draupadi, I’ve been busy all day and this is the first time I’ve had a chance to respond :
Thank you for offering a justification for the unintentional as well as the intentional, but necessary suffering that I cause innocent children in my employment. I very much agree with you that INSIDE the context of accomplishing certain benefits for a person, some temporary suffering is justified. I think your logic and reasoning are perfectly fine and they form a good base model for how early Christians justified suffering in this life. Can I take this model just a bit further? In my office we justify causing pain when giving immunizations in the hope that performing a somewhat painful procedure now will both prevent greater specific future illness and suffering and improving long term happiness.
JUSTIFICATION OF SUFFERING
If one can justify the suffering of innocents I cause in my medical role because I am ultimately benefiting them much more than a temporary and limited harm that is done to them, then God could be justified in early Christian theology in the same way IF the early Christians felt that the suffering in mortality was part of obtaining a much greater eternal benefit. According to early texts, when God considered inaugurating this great plan for achieving eternal life of man, one great controversy and concern would be because the plan would entail mankind both doing and suffering evils upon the earth. My point in telling you this is that the context of these texts are not that of a Father who is punishing wayward children for their "evil" deeds or to make them "good" , but it is often in the context of a moral schooling and tutoring that was taking place.
If we agree on these basic principles, then I’d like to move from modern Christian theories and switch to early Judeo-Christian historical texts so as to discuss conditions that existed prior to the creation of the earth and the populating it with mankind. Conditions that underlie mortality in the early worldviews.
Clear
σεσεσετωσιω
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Don't worry, it's not his. The lady that started it hasn't been around for probably a year. She started this thread right after the elementary school shootings in Connecticut.
Now that's the big question: If God knows all and is all good, why does he allow such things to happen. Some Christians believe that God grants a pardon to under age children. Some think that he knew they would turn out bad, so he let them be taken out. But what some Christians say isn't that great of an explanation of what God does and why he does it. I don't know of anybody here that agrees with anything that any Christian has said. I don't know how much the different Christians even agree with each other. But kids get sick and die. They get kidnapped. They die in car crashes. And, they get gunned down. Why?
All the while, supposedly, God and Jesus are in heaven watching and waiting for the right time to intervene. They've intervened in the past for a few individuals and let others suffer and die. When they do come back everything, supposedly, will be made perfect. All the people will know God and follow his will. Why then and not now? Why did he think putting humanity through this was such a great idea? Who's he really trying to prove it to? What are we supposed to say in the end: "Oh my God, you were right. You're real. Sorry I doubted you. I guess you have every right to cast me into the lake of fire. I should have known. I should have known all the pain and suffering was just you trying to let me know how much you love me. Oh well."
Classic. "this will hurt me more than it hurts you" Thats true love.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
God is not ONLY all-merciful. People love the lamb of God but ignore that he is also the Lion of Judah, God is al merciful in that he paid 100% of the price to rectify our mistakes, yet when we reject that provision and act like maniacal lunatics anyway he at times reacts and judges. Exactly where is the flaw in any of this. Not even in mainstream secular philosophy is there a prevalent inconsistency between an all good God and the presence of misery and suffering. God granted freewill and we misuse it and often pay the price both corporately and individually.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Oh they did get it, they just ignored it. Fine I condemn the Catholics who did the same as well. Exactly how many did even one of the Atheist Utopias kill for every "witch" burned do you think? A thousand to 1 is probably not even close.
He should have been first though I am not expert on Pope Innocent, but it was a good bet he deserved it more than the ones who were. I do not defend Popery, I defend God and the bible. Are they going to be attacked at some point.
I am not a Christian because any Pope saved me. Why are you interested in them? Is God or the bible going to come into the picture instead of Bulls at some point.
Ozzy once said "wouldn't you like to see the Pope at the end of a rope". They certainly earned it in many cases. So much for Catholic leader ship by which no one has ever been saved.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That is a deduction that is more constant by far with the evidence than any alternative. I never said it was true, I said it was the best deduction by far and once again as soon as it suits you, good science is out the door in favor of terrible science. I have said and many times demonstrated in their own words that far too often science is at the mercy of theological preference. As Vilenkin emphatically stated over and over "all the evidence we have suggests the universe had a beginning".
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I was of course not being serious either. That is one heck of a theory but I see no evidence and the logic is absurdly flawed. For example the apostles had absolutely no need to assume the empirical burden of claiming a bodily resurrection. They should have (if lying) simply claimed he rose spiritually. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose going the route they did and some of them paid it.
I regard metaphysical fantasy as the most irrelevant and dangerous theological tool possible. That is not why I reject it though. These are a few of those reasons:
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846.
H. W. H Knott says of this great authority in jurisprudence: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States."
Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."
In 1846, while still Professor of Law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In his classic work the author examines the value of the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ. The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations:
They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.
"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its savior and redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."
Michael Green says that "...two able young men, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton, went up to Oxford. They were friends of Dr. Johnson and Alexander Pope, in the swim of society. They were determined to attack the very basis of the Christian faith. So Littleton settled down to prove that Saul of Tarsus was never converted to Christianity, and West to demonstrate that Jesus never rose from the tomb.
"Some time later, they met to discuss their findings. Both were a little sheepish. For they had come independently to similar and disturbing conclusions. Littleton found, on examination, that Saul of Tarsus did become a radically new man through his conversion to Christianity; and West found that the evidence pointed unmistakable to the fact that Jesus did rise from the dead. You may still find his book in a large library. It is entitled Observations on the History and Evidences of the REsurrection of Jesus Christ, and was published in 1747. On the fly-leaf he has had printed his telling quotation from Ecclesiasticus 11:7, which might be adopted with profit by any modern agnostic: 'Blame not before thou hast examined the truth.' "
"The evidence points unmistakably to the fact that on the third day Jesus rose. This was the conclusion to which a former Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, came. At a private dinner party the talk turned to the truth of Christianity, and particularly to a certain book dealing with the resurrection. Placing his fingertips together, assuming a judicial attitude, and speaking with a quiet emphasis that was extraordinarily impressive, he said, 'We, sa Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust; the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus. If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be skeptical. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, just surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favor as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.' "
Continued below:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
No teacher who did not want robots could force 100% dedication in 100% of the students. Your not talking about free choice your talking about irresistible coercion. There is no freedom in being unavoidably compelled.
There is no saving in other religions. The concept in general does not even exist. Enlightenment is not even similar, and even Muhammad said he did not know where he was going. Salvation is a unique Christian claim. So there is nothing like it to consider.
Even after I was born again I could never figure out why faith was the desired commodity. I finally understood when I tried to construct a merit based system. It is incoherent and impossible from the word go. How much merit? How do you ever deserve eternal contentment? It is the exact type of thing humans complain about constantly in ourselves. You literally can't make a comprehensive theory about salvation that is logical that depends on merit. It is futile. You want to waste you time give it an honest shot.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I know of no Christian and no Christian doctrine that links individual suffering with individual actions in every case. We as a race told God to get lost that we had this. So as usual we got exactly what we asked for and when it went to Hell in a hand basket we blame others. Both your view and mine has a world with natural disasters but only with God does it have a solution and eternal justice even possible.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Knowing what I will choose does not in any way what so ever determine my choice. Anyone who dies without God chose it for themselves. In the end you get exactly what you chose.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Clear, I can and will get into any subject you wish. However you have said you did not wish to debate me. I have spent more time not having a debate with you than I do with some who desired one. If you desire a debate I will address everything here but if you do not then how could I justify the time? Your choice. BTW I would be happy to tell you how to format posts into quotes if you want.
CONDITIONS FORMING A BASE CONTEXT IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEWS
Draupadi :
In your last post, you offered a simple justification for suffering which I agree with, and then you qualified the different conditions you thought were present between God and myself (I am less powerful than god, have less choice, cannot control conditions, etc). Though many specific conditions formed a base historical context in early Christian thought, I think there are a few basic ones to consider in your judgment as to what God’s plan for us was.
CONDITIONS AND PROCESSES CO-EXISTING WITH GOD IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEWS
In this early worldview, God did not create his material creation from “nothing”, but instead, matter existed in an unorganized and somewhat ethereal condition before creation. The spirit placed into Adam and mankind also existed prior to creation of material worlds and, just like matter, spirits are not made of “nothing”, but of matter. The Pistis Sophia describes spirit as “self-willed matter”. Ethereal, but material nonetheless.
Before material creation, Just as God existed in the midst of basic matter, he was in the midst of basic spirits.
GOD WAS IN THE MIDST OF SPIRITS
According to this early Christian doctrine, before the creation of this world, God was in the midst of spirits just as he was surrounded by matter (which he organizes into created things). This is why the apostle Peter, when speaking to the young convert Clement refers to God’s creation and describes mankind, “whose real nature, however, is older and for whose sake all this was created." If the world was created for the sake of mankind then there must have been an important purpose and plan underlying this effort.
Early textual testimonies describe innumerable spirits existing in “heaven” before creation and, they describe what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. Regarding pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him [God the Father] from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". (1 En 14:23)
Enoch continues : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits". (1 Enoch 40:1-2)"
In this ancient doctrine, God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth. The spirit that was to be clothed in Adam’s body was among these spirits. Jewish haggadah relates : “...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” (The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)
If you need more data either confirming or describing this early Judeo-Christian worldview, let me know. However, the important point is that matter, having its own inherent characteristics existed (from which material things were and are created) and the native (naïve) spirits of mankind existed as well.
WHAT IS GOD TO DO WITH THESE SPIRITS?
I think your logic and reasoning has been good Draupadi. Consider this situation of a creative God, who is full of grace and knowledge that is amongst intelligent but naïve and relatively uneducated and uncivilized (compared to himself) spirits which are capable of advancement and change.
What does a creative God, who is full of Grace and Truth, (i.e. full of Charity, Love and Knowledge) DO with these sentient spirits who are immature, yet intelligent and capable of unmeasured progress?
The answer to this question provides insight as to God’s purposes and insight into the processes man is undergoing in mortality. It changes the unceasing philosophical arguments regarding the origin and nature of evil. It affects considerations as to what God’s purposes in creation are; how he is going about it; why he’s doing it, and describes the nature of the processes all of mankind are undergoing in mortality as well as the expected outcome of such processes.
Does a intelligent, creative, loving God, intervene and assist these spirits in progressing in ways that are helpful and efficient and guide these spirits them toward a harmonious joyful social existence or would such a God leave native and naïve spirits to make their way and develop in ways that are less joyful, less socially harmonious, less civilized and less efficient for obtaining social happiness as a group?
What do you think Draupadi?
Clear
σετωσιτωφιω
Draupadi :
In your last post, you offered a simple justification for suffering which I agree with, and then you qualified the different conditions you thought were present between God and myself (I am less powerful than god, have less choice, cannot control conditions, etc). Though many specific conditions formed a base historical context in early Christian thought, I think there are a few basic ones to consider in your judgment as to what God’s plan for us was.
CONDITIONS AND PROCESSES CO-EXISTING WITH GOD IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEWS
In this early worldview, God did not create his material creation from “nothing”, but instead, matter existed in an unorganized and somewhat ethereal condition before creation. The spirit placed into Adam and mankind also existed prior to creation of material worlds and, just like matter, spirits are not made of “nothing”, but of matter. The Pistis Sophia describes spirit as “self-willed matter”. Ethereal, but material nonetheless.
Before material creation, Just as God existed in the midst of basic matter, he was in the midst of basic spirits.
GOD WAS IN THE MIDST OF SPIRITS
According to this early Christian doctrine, before the creation of this world, God was in the midst of spirits just as he was surrounded by matter (which he organizes into created things). This is why the apostle Peter, when speaking to the young convert Clement refers to God’s creation and describes mankind, “whose real nature, however, is older and for whose sake all this was created." If the world was created for the sake of mankind then there must have been an important purpose and plan underlying this effort.
Early textual testimonies describe innumerable spirits existing in “heaven” before creation and, they describe what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. Regarding pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him [God the Father] from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". (1 En 14:23)
Enoch continues : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits". (1 Enoch 40:1-2)"
In this ancient doctrine, God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth. The spirit that was to be clothed in Adam’s body was among these spirits. Jewish haggadah relates : “...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” (The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)
If you need more data either confirming or describing this early Judeo-Christian worldview, let me know. However, the important point is that matter, having its own inherent characteristics existed (from which material things were and are created) and the native (naïve) spirits of mankind existed as well.
WHAT IS GOD TO DO WITH THESE SPIRITS?
I think your logic and reasoning has been good Draupadi. Consider this situation of a creative God, who is full of grace and knowledge that is amongst intelligent but naïve and relatively uneducated and uncivilized (compared to himself) spirits which are capable of advancement and change.
What does a creative God, who is full of Grace and Truth, (i.e. full of Charity, Love and Knowledge) DO with these sentient spirits who are immature, yet intelligent and capable of unmeasured progress?
The answer to this question provides insight as to God’s purposes and insight into the processes man is undergoing in mortality. It changes the unceasing philosophical arguments regarding the origin and nature of evil. It affects considerations as to what God’s purposes in creation are; how he is going about it; why he’s doing it, and describes the nature of the processes all of mankind are undergoing in mortality as well as the expected outcome of such processes.
Does a intelligent, creative, loving God, intervene and assist these spirits in progressing in ways that are helpful and efficient and guide these spirits them toward a harmonious joyful social existence or would such a God leave native and naïve spirits to make their way and develop in ways that are less joyful, less socially harmonious, less civilized and less efficient for obtaining social happiness as a group?
What do you think Draupadi?
Clear
σετωσιτωφιω
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
When we drive down the freeway do we want freewill for ourselves and others, or do we want everyone to obey the same set of rules, almost like we were robots. When someone breaks those rules, they get a ticket or they hit somebody. In grade school what does the teacher want? A class full of quiet, attentive kids or a class full of kids gone wild? You were or are a military man. How much individuality did you have at boot camp?
And salvation, was it in Judaism as it is in many Protestant Christianity? If not, then why not? It seems like he expected the Hebrews to obey his command like, well, like robots. If they didn't what happened? Zapped, stoned, put to the sword? That sounds a lot like "irresistible coercion." Of course it didn't work.
I do like the Christian idea of personal salvation, but since no Christian ever will or can follow and obey the will of God, then doesn't that show that there's something wrong with us? Something in our nature. Something that is in us and part of us that makes us follow our own way? No matter how much we want to love God. And, no matter how much we say we love God. But, in the end, our actions show something else. How do you live with yourself knowing that each day you will fall short of following God's will? Do you feel guilty? After a while, do you just ignore it and do the best you can at "appearing" on the outside, as being a good Christian?
I can't do it. I can't live the lie of pretending to be a Christian when, in fact, I do enjoy doing things that aren't "Christian". That I enjoy doing things that if I asked myself "Would Jesus do this?" The answer would be "No." In other words, isn't a "good" Christian like a spiritual "robot" for Jesus?
Draupadi
Active Member
The flaw is that the Lion of Judah sometimes pounces on His INNOCENT creatures. Simple.