Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[Clear]

JM2C

You and 1robin have offered forum readers your theory that infants are morally "depraved" and that babies "sin constantly" (respectively). Though you have both been asked multiple times to answer, you have yet to answer the questions regarding what sins a new infant commits.

1) Can you describe for readers, the sin you yourself, committed as a new infant after being born?

2) Can you describe for forum readers any sin that it was possible for ME to commit as a newborn infant?

Is there any chance that your theory has an answer to this very basic question?

Clear
σεσεδρνετζω

 

[JM2C]

JM2C

You and 1robin have offered forum readers your theory that infants are morally "depraved" and that babies "sin constantly" (respectively). Though you have both been asked multiple times to answer, you have yet to answer the questions regarding what sins a new infant commits.

1) Can you describe for readers, the sin you yourself, committed as a new infant after being born?

2) Can you describe for forum readers any sin that it was possible for ME to commit as a newborn infant?

Is there any chance that your theory has an answer to this very basic question?

Clear
σεσεδρνετζω

I did so many times already and can not change it anymore. Is your conscience bothering you that you asked the same question all the time?

 

[Clear]

JM2C

What you did was offer a few scriptures and were exposed for abusing the texts in saying they had meaning that we've already demonstrated was incorrect. Athiests and agnostics are just as intelligent and as rational and capable of the same level of logic as christians. When a Christian posits an irrational theory, especially if one lies or is disingenuous in supporting a theory, it is counterproductive to the Christian purpose.

JM2C, The fact that you and 1robin are unable to enumerate or describe a single sin that a newborn infant commits should serve as evidence that this is not a rational, or logical theory.

If you are going to create a theory where infants are morally "depraved", or that they "sin constantly" then you should have some data as to what moral "deprivations" newborns are committing. You could simply say, "I really don't know of any, but I believe the tradition that my parent or my pastor taught anyway." This does not support the theory, but it is at least honest.

If you do not WANT to answer the questions, I understand.

The questions that remain unanswered are :

1) Can you describe for readers, the sin you yourself, committed as a new infant after being born?

2) Can you describe for forum readers any sin that it was possible for ME to commit as a newborn infant?

That is : WHAT SINS DOES A NEWBORN COMMIT THAT MAKES THEM "MORALLY DEPRAVED" in your theory?

Clear

 

[JM2C]

The NT fits good enough into the Hebrew Scriptures for many to believe it. But, The Koran fits into the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT for a lot of other people to believe that it's part of the same revelation from the one true God.

Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Ro 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Ro 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

“in Isaac shall thy seed be called –Rom 9:7” and not from Ishmael, “which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God –Rom 9:8”

You would ask then, Gentile Christians are not Jews or not descendant of Isaac, then how they are different from Ishmael.

Ro 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them/Gentiles my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Ro 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

How they, the Gentiles became “the children of the living God? –Rom 9:26”

JN 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
JN 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

If you read the Lord Jesus Christ genealogy, His human genealogy, in Luke 3:23 and 3:34 we can read that He is related to Isaac, and not to Ishmael.

Therefore, through the Lord Jesus Christ, by faith, the Gentiles became “the children of the living God? –Rom 9:26”

How do we fit the Koran into the NT and OT?

In the OT through Ishmael, but in the NT, totally against it, but in the OT the promise is through Isaac and not through Ishmael.

In the Koran through Ishmael then, “which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God –Rom 9:8”.

In the NT through Isaac “in Isaac shall thy seed be called –Rom 9:7” “the children of the living God? –Rom 9:26”

 

[JM2C]

JM2C

What you did was offer a few scriptures and were exposed for abusing the texts in saying they had meaning that we've already demonstrated was incorrect. Athiests and agnostics are just as intelligent and as rational and capable of the same level of logic as christians. When a Christian posits an irrational theory, especially if one lies or is disingenuous in supporting a theory, it is counterproductive to the Christian purpose.

JM2C, The fact that you and 1robin are unable to enumerate or describe a single sin that a newborn infant commits should serve as evidence that this is not a rational, or logical theory.

If you are going to create a theory where infants are morally "depraved", or that they "sin constantly" then you should have some data as to what moral "deprivations" newborns are committing. You could simply say, "I really don't know of any, but I believe the tradition that my parent or my pastor taught anyway." This does not support the theory, but it is at least honest.

If you do not WANT to answer the questions, I understand.

The questions that remain unanswered are :

1) Can you describe for readers, the sin you yourself, committed as a new infant after being born?

2) Can you describe for forum readers any sin that it was possible for ME to commit as a newborn infant?

That is : WHAT SINS DOES A NEWBORN COMMIT THAT MAKES THEM "MORALLY DEPRAVED" in your theory?

Clear

The answer remains the same.



Metanoeo, repent or change your mind.

 

[CG Didymus]

How do we fit the Koran into the NT and OT?

In the OT through Ishmael, but in the NT, totally against it, but in the OT the promise is through Isaac and not through Ishmael.

In the Koran through Ishmael then, “which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God –Rom 9:8”.

In the NT through Isaac “in Isaac shall thy seed be called –Rom 9:7” “the children of the living God? –Rom 9:26”

Okay, so that's why you don't believe the Koran is the Word of God, then what is it? If you think it's just made up, then that's kind of my point. It was either made up or given by God to a certain people at a certain time to give them a special connection with God? If it was made up, then it was a connection to a fictitious God. Yet, it is believed by many to be the very Word of God along with the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Of course, you, as a Christian, have your reasons to reject it, just like the Jews have their reasons to reject the NT.

For sure Christians have a decent explanation of how the NT fits in. But, there are problem areas. There are places where it very much seems like early Christians had to do some manipulation, mainly take things out of context, to get the NT to fit with the Hebrew Scriptures. So what is the difference when Mohammad does the same thing with the Koran? Is it really so different than what the writers of the NT did?

But part of the original question was:

Why would God ever want or need animals to be sacrificed to him? If he is real, why didn't he make things more clear to the Hebrews from the start? Why did he make them do all those rituals and follow a bunch of rules that he would later nullify? Why did he have people stoned to death for breaking some of those rules?

I was hoping you could comment on that, also? Thanks.

 

[Draupadi]

The conversation about babies are morally depraved is still going on? Now I have seen everything. :no::run:

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it is not. No matter what deficiencies we have to arrive at objective moral truth given God we have an infinite more problems without him. This is because there is no moral truth without God to even arrive at. At least with God it exists and can be potentially known. Without God we have as many opinions as people and not a single one is true. An atheist when asked how he determined what morals he adopts answered arrogantly "by feelings what else". Ravi replied well in some cultures they love their neighbors, and in some they eat them, both based on feeling. What is your preference? Even when you artificially invent problems for Christianity it is infinitely better than non-theism.

The thing I'm trying to point out to you is that even with this god you speak of, we have as many opinions as people and who knows which is true, if any.

Where have I said that atheists go on feelings alone? I just explained to you (and have several times in the past) what is involved in the post above this one. And whether you like it or not, that appears to be how all humans come to conclusions regarding morality and ethics.

This is the tactic I refer to as the arbitrary amplification of uncertainty. It involves taking what little disagreement there and amplifying it to what ever point allows dismissal. 90% of Christians agree on 90% of doctrine. That is much better than for many of the scientific theories you believe are valid.

Sorry you have a problem with it but it appears to be a fact of reality. And you keep avoiding it. Besides, you're employing the same "tactic" in reverse.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I have already stated substitute aborted for newborn. However I gave you examples for both cases. With clarification and without both have occurred in large numbers but technically I should have said aborted babies.

There is a huge difference between suggesting drugs are good and in a moment of weakness doing them. Not that either is ok. We will al morally fail but our worst failures are when we suggest bad and unjustifiable moral actions are good or good ones bad. I am certain some number of Christians have committed every sin possible. However we generally do not call immorality moral. In general we don't say it is ok, even if we fail to resist at times. Every single Christian got to be one by admitting his moral failure and it's drastic cost.

How was the child's right to his own body protected. This is worse than racism or even speciesm, it is me-ism and has the price of death. A mother demands rights which she does not even have without God, but she denies the exact same rights to the unborn child. Even though it was her actions that resulted in the child existing. So for her actions and for her non-existent rights she denies the very same rights to the one she terminates. I literally cannot think of an action more worthy of condemnation. It is the most immoral thing I can possibly think of. If that does not indicate moral insanity then no event possibly can reverse this train wreck. Yes Christian fail in the same way but in general they do not defend it by calling it right. They give in, feel extreme remorse and repent. They don't try to cover it up by calling the greatest possible evil, good.
Why not? Would it not be the default. Would not humanism come by evolutionary means? How does evolution explain behavior in one case and not in another? It is the most pliable theory that ever existed.

Give me a label that means morality by opinion by the exclusion of God. I will use it.

Could you respond in a way that addresses the point?

 

[idav]

The conversation about babies are morally depraved is still going on? Now I have seen everything. :no::run:

However your not considering the evil babies speak in their little evil languages. Then they are all innocent looking making us powerless as we are enslaved to abide their needs. All this after being a parasite for a long duration followed by causing some of the most torturess pain known. These babies know more than they tell!

 

[Clear]

A) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT INFANTS ARE MORALLY "DEPRAVED"

JM2C What you did was offer a few scriptures and were exposed for abusing the texts in saying they had meaning that we've already demonstrated was incorrect. Athiests and agnostics are just as intelligent and as rational and capable of the same level of logic as christians. When a Christian posits an irrational theory, especially if one lies or is disingenuous in supporting a theory, it is counterproductive to the Christian purpose.

JM2C, The fact that you and 1robin are unable to enumerate or describe a single sin that a newborn infant commits should serve as evidence that this is not a rational, or logical theory.

If you are going to create a theory where infants are morally "depraved", or that they "sin constantly" then you should have some data as to what moral "deprivations" newborns are committing. You could simply say, "I really don't know of any, but I believe the tradition that my parent or my pastor taught anyway." This does not support the theory, but it is at least honest.

If you do not WANT to answer the questions, I understand. The questions that remain unanswered are :

1) Can you describe for readers, the sin you yourself, committed as a new infant after being born?

2) Can you describe for forum readers any sin that it was possible for ME to commit as a newborn infant?

That is : WHAT SINS DOES A NEWBORN COMMIT THAT MAKES THEM "MORALLY DEPRAVED" in your theory?

Clear

JM2C admits to us :

“The answer remains the same.”Post 4365

JM2C Your tacit admission that you also, cannot think of a single sin that a newborn commits IS the point.

1) The fact that you have been unable to produce reason or data for this specific point is important. Your theory that newborn babies are morally “depraved” and the theory that babies “sin constantly” is not supported by any reasonable or logical data that even YOU are able to generate. It is an illogical and unreasonable theory even by your own standards of logic and reason.

2) The fact that this theory is not a clear biblical doctrine demonstrates the theory is not a doctrine that gained any prominence among biblical writers as a legitimate base doctrine in this early christian movement.

3) The fact that the biblical texts you have, so far, offered us, have been shown to be a series of misinterpretations and abuses of the scriptural texts also demonstrates that your theory is not particularly biblical and that one must inject the doctrine INTO the texts If one is to find them there.

4) The fact that textual examples from early Christian sacred literature OPPOSE your theory of the moral depravity of infants since they believed newborn infants did NOT sin, demonstrates your theory of infant depravity is not particularly historical.

5) The fact that in multiple different contexts whether Christian or non-christian; Theistic or atheistic, your theory is unreasonable and illogical. It is therefore reasonable for Christians; agnostics; athiests; and non-Christians to reject this specific theory and they may feel completely comfortable in doing so without any danger at all of offending a just and loving God unless one can provide better data to support this theory.



B) REGARDING YOUR SIMPLE REFERENCE TO “REPENTANCE”
Your quote of the greek word μετανοεω (“Metanoeo&#8221 is a correct but superficial “dictionary” reference to the greek word for “repentance”, (the "change of mind"). You are able to “cut and paste” like a thousand others, but you remain unable to understand the deeper nuances of what such words actually mean.

Μετανοεω was MORE than “a change of mind”, but in everyday koine, it was used in the context of “a coming to ones’ senses” on a subject at hand; In Koine it referred to the use of rational and logical thought on a subject in that it was a willingness to “amend” and to “change” current thoughts (and habits). Origen said that evil was “the refusal to progress”. Often this referred to an irrational unwillingness to “let go” of prior incorrect traditions; an unwillingness to learn where one is making errors in thought and judgment and then abandoning error and accepting corrections as one is introduced to better data. It is a “persisting in folly” that much of the early Papyri refer to in the context of evil and refusing better data.

I truly understand your desire to hold onto your present tradition that infants are morally “depraved” or that “babies sin constantly”. Still, the early Christian tradition that new born infants were innocent of sin is more rational, more logical and more superior tradition than your theory that newborn infants are morally “depraved” or that they “sin constantly”.



C) THE THEORY ITSELF IS NOT MORALLY NEUTRAL.

1Robin claimed that : “ We will al[l] morally fail but our worst failures are when we suggest bad and unjustifiable moral actions are good or good ones bad.”

If 1Robin is correct in his logic, then this logic may also mean that among our misjudgments and moral failures “are when we suggest bad and unjustifiable moral beings are good or good beings (infants) bad”.




Whether you hold on to all prior traditions you have or whether you amend and change them over your life as you gain new data and new understanding (as we all do), still, I hope your journey is good JM2C .


Clear
σεσεφυσεσεω

 

[Skwim]

For example, Skwim, in post 4266 gives us another four examples where the creators of other bibles did not correct the error made in the King James Bible..

Which is the cool thing about Christianity: if one Bible doesn't say what you need it to say there's a good chance there's another Bible that does. Picking and choosing particular points so as to assemble one's personal theology is one of the strong points of Christianity. Don't like the church down the street, there's always another denomination with a different slant on it all down another street. (There are thousands* to choose from.)



*Source

 

[CG Didymus]

The conversation about babies are morally depraved is still going on? Now I have seen everything. :no::run:

Yes, it's still going on. It'd be nice to know your thoughts on the subject. Most of us are just talking theories. I can't imagine the things that you've probably seen and lived through.

 

[Draupadi]

I have fought with them before about it, but their faith has too strong influence over them to accept the reality. So I gave up. And it is better to avoid those who makes you feel like tearing your hair and make your blood boil.

And as for what I have seen, I have seen a woman support sexual slavery (other words raping) of women because it is for their benefits, in another forum. Here someone condoned the raping of women as punishment for their men attacking God's chosen people. That too commanded by a holy prophet.

 

[JM2C]

B) REGARDING YOUR SIMPLE REFERENCE TO “REPENTANCE”
Your quote of the greek word μετανοεω (“Metanoeo&#8221 is a correct but superficial “dictionary” reference to the greek word for “repentance”, (the "change of mind").

You are able to “cut and paste” like a thousand others, but you remain unable to understand the deeper nuances of what such words actually mean.

Μετανοεω was MORE than “a change of mind”, but in everyday koine, it was used in the context of “a coming to ones’ senses” on a subject at hand; In Koine it referred to the use of rational and logical thought on a subject in that it was a willingness to “amend” and to “change” current thoughts (and habits).

I read and learned it from Vine’s. Do you think your expertise in Classical Greek is better than Vine, or you read it also from Vine? Please stop pretending that you knew Greek fluently.

 

[JM2C]

Origen said that evil was “the refusal to progress”.

Or to change mind or Metanoeo

Often this referred to an irrational unwillingness to “let go” of prior incorrect traditions;

Traditions like, “authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation” that does not really exist at all, and “the early Christian tradition that new born infants were innocent of sin” according to you without any proof at all that they really said something like this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I read and learned it from Vine’s. Do you think your expertise in Classical Greek is better than Vine, or you read it also from Vine? Please stop pretending that you knew Greek fluently.

So... just to cut to the chase, is this your argument?

- babies are morally depraved
- therefore, it's okay to let babies die
- therefore, God's not evil for letting babies die

Do I have it right?

 

[Clear]

Regarding JM2Cs theory that infants are morally depraved :

1) JM2C said : “Metanoeo, repent or change your mind.” # 4365

Telling readers that they should "repent" goes both ways JM2C.

Your theory that infants are morally “depraved” and the theory that babies “sin constantly” are illogical and irrational and your theory that infants are morally “depraved” does not have a legitimate place in this thread as a mechanism that justifies suffering of an infant.

Your simple, proud, intimation that others should “repent” and “change [their] mind” (and therefore agree with you) is not helpful. It gives no one a REASON to agree with your theory.

Your theory is simply one among many and it cannot compete with other theories on a logical basis. It can't compete on a basis of reasoning. It is not even the most traditional, or earliest or most authentic theory.

On the other hand, it is unreasonable. Your own tacit admission, that even you, yourself cannot think of sins that infants commit to support your own theory is powerful evidence both against your theory AND, it provides an obvious reason why you should consider modifying your theory and thought. This was partly why your intimation that others should "repent" was so incredibly ironic.



2) JM2C replied : “I read and learned it from Vine’s. Do you think your expertise in Classical Greek is better than Vine, or you read it also from Vine? Please stop pretending that you knew Greek fluently.” # 4375

Firstly, I do not know why you refer to “classical Greek” since, as readers will remember, neither Old nor New Testament is even written in “classical greek” . This is a very basic error.

Secondly, I do not know what “Vine” is and I have said I am certainly NOT an expert in Koine Greek, but instead I OFTEN have to look up things I do not know. We are fellow "kindergartners" regarding Koine.


DISTRACTIONS WILL NOT HELP YOUR ACTUAL ARGUMENT TO BECOME TRUE

NONE of this is relevant to your claim that infants are morally “depraved”. These are simply distractions from your theory that infants are morally “depraved”.

Other "irrelevants" such as declaring that others should “repent” and references to “classical Greek” dictionary cut and paste lookups are NOT going to support your theory that infants are morally “depraved” or that babies “sin constantly” and somehow these specific theoretical principles will help justify the untimely deaths or sufferings of infants.



3) JM2C claimed that : “ Traditions like, “authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation” that does not really exist at all, and “the early Christian tradition that new born infants were innocent of sin” according to you without any proof at all that they really said something like this.”

Not only did early Christians HAVE traditions that infants and young children were innocent, the tradition was part of certainly early New Testaments themselves. For example, in Codex Sinaiticus (one of the 5 most important early Uncial New Testaments – Perhaps THE most important), the text reads :

“All of you, therefore, who continue [in the gospel],” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3

Your modern, western, Roman-based New Testament is NOT the same as the the New Testament these early Christians read.

It is inside this early historical Christian context that I commented in post # 4066 below

Robin1’s personal theory and personal interpretation that babies commit "sin constantly" is certainly not representative of authentic early Judeo-Christian interpretation.

For example, the Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era taught the early Christians to become AS infants “with no wickedness” since “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.“

The early Christian worldview that infants had “no wickedness” but instead did not sin was the very reason infants and small children were not merely qualified to enter the kingdom of God in this early interpretation but were “foremost with him”. It was this very context which underlie the early interpretation as to what Jesus was trying to teach when he taught the disciples concerning “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”.

It was a “little child” whom Jesus set their midst as an example, saying “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

It is the moral purity of the infant which formed the early Christian teaching that after forgiveness of sin, mankind could return to their primal moral state inside this renewal. Thus the epistle of Barnabas says :“So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11.

Thus, this was one difference between early and authentic Christian theology that infants were “not wicked” and Robin1s’ Christian interpretation that babies “sin constantly”. In the early Christian interpretation, mankind was to become like a small child specifically because infants and small children were not wicked and because they were great in the kingdom of heaven. It was for these reasons early Christian were told to become LIKE little children in order to enter the kingdom of God.

This moral worldview underlies the textual witnesses of this principle such as when Jesus taught “… Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” ((Mark 10:14–15)

JM2C, simply repeating the same things over and over will not improve your theory. Tell the other forum readers to "repent" comes across as self-righteous and is, I think, counterproductive. If you don't have any NEW data, any NEW reasoning, then it might be best to simply call this a loss and stop beating this horse that was dead long ago. It certainly, won't do any good telling us all to "repent".

Please JM2C, try to keep in mind that I am not your enemy, but am instead, a fellow Christian who believes in God and Jesus as the redeemer of the world. I simply disagree with this theory, and instead, believe the earlier Christian worldview that infants were innocent is more logical, more reasonable, more historically accurate, and it makes more sense to me.
[FONT=&quot]
In any case JM2C, I honestly hope that your journey is life is good.

Clear
σεσεσιτζδρω
[/FONT]

 

[JM2C]

Yet, it is believed by many to be the very Word of God along with the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Of course, you, as a Christian, have your reasons to reject it, just like the Jews have their reasons to reject the NT.

Jews did not reject the NT; they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.

Was that the reason why they translated the LXX/OG into another version of LXX, like the Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion versions?

My question to you is, why Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome [at a later time]-ALL PRO JEWISH- after a Century or two AD, needed or even bother to translate the Septuagint-OG, and based these translations on the existing Hebrew text at that time [1st-2nd CE] and not from the Ancient Hebrew [300 BCE] that was used to translate to Greek-Septuagint-OG, in the first place if Jesus as the Christ of God and the New Testament did not really existed at all?

 

[JM2C]

Please JM2C, try to keep in mind that I am not your enemy, but am instead, a fellow Christian who believes in God and Jesus as the redeemer of the world. I simply disagree with this theory, and instead, believe the earlier Christian worldview that infants were innocent is more logical, more reasonable, more historically accurate, and it makes more sense to me.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]In any case JM2C, I honestly hope that your journey is life is good. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]σεσεσιτζδρω[/FONT]
[/FONT]

You asked me the same question over and over again and I told you my answer was and is still the same. What is it that you cannot understand?

Read and understand this [C&P if you don't mind]:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity. He is thunderstruck at the discovery of his inbred sin, and proceeds to set it forth. This was not intended to justify himself, but it rather meant to complete the confession. It is as if he said, not only have I sinned this once, but I am in my very nature a sinner. The fountain of my life is polluted as well as its streams. My birth tendencies are out of the square of equity; I naturally lean to forbidden things. Mine is a constitutional disease, rendering my very person obnoxious to thy wrath. And in sin did my mother conceive me. He goes back to the earliest moment of his being, not to traduce his mother, but to acknowledge the deep tap roots of his sin. It is a wicked wresting of Scripture to deny that original sin and natural depravity are here taught. Surely men who cavil at this doctrine have need to be taught of the Holy Spirit what be the first principles of the faith. David's mother was the Lord's handmaid, he was born in chaste wedlock, of a good father, and he was himself, "the man after God's own heart; "and yet his nature was as fallen as that of any other son of Adam, and there only needed the occasion for the manifesting of that sad fact. In our shaping we were put out of shape, and when we were conceived our nature conceived sin. Alas, for poor humanity! Those who will may cry it up, but he is most blessed who in his own soul has learned to lament his lost estate. –Charles H. Spurgeon