callistahogan | MILESTONE.

I REACHED 30K!

I seriously didn't think I would reach it today, but I did. This is partly due to my ingenious strategy of figuring out how many pages makes up approximately a thousand words (in OO, it's between two and three pages, by the way), and then not letting myself stop writing until I've filled that amount of pages. Or, you know, until I finish one page.

This is helpful because, instead of waiting to take a break after a thousand words, I wait to take a break until after a page is done. Then, while I'm taking my break, I can calculate about how many pages I need to fill before I have written a thousand words.

Rinse, repeat.

This strategy is working quite well. I hope to use it tomorrow and who knows? I wrote four thousand words in about four hours (would have taken me less than that, probably, had I not gotten sidetracked by Dancing With the Stars), so I might be able to double that tomorrow.

I hope so.

--

In other news:

This morning in English class, we were discussing Elie Wiesel's Night and somehow it turned into some sort of whole theological debate, about whether God can be paralleled to Hitler or not, whether Moishe the Beadle's words to Eliezer were saying "You are God" or something else, and all of that incredibly dense stuff that people spend lifetimes studying.

I found it interesting, but after the Hitler comment, I spoke up, and I think I made a lot of sense. Of course, I could be wrong, but I just had to say something. There are so many differences between Hitler and God, definitely, and I could write a whole post on that sometime. Oh, and a whole post on a parallel I saw, about how Voldemort pretty much parallels Hitler in ways. I might write that.

Hmm.

*goes off to think*

Current Mood: thoughtful

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How are you defining 'God' and how were the other people defining 'God'? Because by any definition of 'God' that includes 'inflicts the nastiest punishment in his power on anyone who meets X qualification' where X is something beyond that person's control (such as being born ethnically Jewish, or having longstanding beliefs on the nature of supernatural beings that are too strong for hearing the phrase 'Jesus Christ' to destroy them), yeah, God has a lot in common with Hitler.

The Voldemort = Hitler post has been done several times that I've seen. I won't say you shouldn't write it, but I don't know what you could say that hasn't been said.

Yeah, I know it's been done to death. I just thought it would be fun to entertain the idea to write it for a bit. Which I did, but then it fluttered away.

Although I may decide to do that post on that conversation in class tomorrow or some other day, although there are so many things I want to write about here in my LJ that I can't possibly discuss them all. I'll probably end up picking them out of a hat or something. :D

Ugh, people who make the "omg God is a jerk" thing bother me. I don't believe in a higher power really, but from my days as a Catholic, God never caused harm, he gave humans free will and humans cause harm. People who say crap like that give atheists/agnostics a bad name.

Congrats at 30K! I'm at...14...*shame*

I agree entirely. I dislike it when people automatically assume "God is jerk" just because bad things happen.

Don't be ashamed of 14K, though! :D You're only slightly behind where you're supposed to be, and I bet you can catch up!

Good heavens, what utter blasphemy to even attempt to equate God with Hitler! One creates the world and shows so much love for a creation which hates Him that instead of destroying them all, He dies on its behalf in order to provide forgiveness.

The other destroys millions of lives (created by that same God, by the way) for no reason except hatred.

Yeah, I see the comparsion.
/sarcasm

People never cease to astound me.

Um, but God does destroy nearly everyone at one point (the Flood). I imagine that whoever made the comparison was thinking of genocide.

Yes, that is true. However, God did not simply decide one day to destroy nearly everyone one day just because he hated them. He was lowering down justice upon those people who had sinned against him. No Jew had ever sinned against Hitler and yet he wanted to completely eradicate the entire race.

God destroyed mankind at that time because, "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence." "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."

Hardly a comparison with a man who killed millions of people for nothing.

Hitler didn't kill millions of people for nothing. In his deranged mind, the Jews and various others absolutely deserved to be exterminated; he saw them as inferior, as scum.

Not that I think the analogy is a good one, but I can see where the comparison comes from. Maybe it was just for God to destroy those who had sinned against him, but he did kill almost everyone. That would include children. I find it hard to believe that a newborn baby has sinned against God already. What has it done wrong - just existing? That does not sound like justice to me.

There is a huge difference between a deranged maniac *thinking* others are to be exterminated for whatever reason, and people actually *being* so rotten that they need to be exterminated.

It seems society was so corrupt and violent at that time as to be beyond repair. As rotten as this world is today, it seems people then were even worse. (I can barely imagine it!)

As to the children, that is always a difficult topic. The greatest minds have struggled with this throughout the ages. All I can do is give a few things for thought:

- If society really was that far gone, then even the children would have been affected by that. I think of the societies today where children are taught from infancy to hate others and to love death and violence. The adults are responsible for poisoning those young minds. But the damage is done. Some of the most angelic looking faces would easily kill you in your sleep.

- There is also the question of children's souls. There is nothing in the Bible that I know of which addresses this specifically. (That I know of.) But it does seem there is an age of accountability, where the child is aware of what is morally right and wrong and thus held responsible for it. It would seem children under this age are exempt from eternal judgment, even though their physical life was ended.

Again, it's not an easy topic. But one cannot compare two things that seem alike on the surface without also looking at the specific circumstances and reasons for both. It makes a huge amount of difference.

There is a huge difference between a deranged maniac *thinking* others are to be exterminated for whatever reason, and people actually *being* so rotten that they need to be exterminated.

Sure there is. That's why it's not a good analogy.

There are two reasons why I think the comparison was probably made. One is that both cases involve genocide. The other - and this is the arguable one - is that they were both unjust.

Your argument regarding the children is fine as far as it goes, but still does not apply to very young infants - unless you think that children are irreversibly corrupted right from birth.

Just adding my two cents: I believe there is an age of accountability, and if you are below that age, "punishment," in the eternal sense, cannot touch you, if that makes sense. This explains it better than I can:

"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it and they shall possess it" (Deuteronomy 1:39).

That's basically saying that little children and babies, who have no knowledge of good or evil or cannot as of yet take complete responsibility for their actions, are "exempt," you could say, from the punishment and, although their earthly lives have ended, their eternal lives still live on in heaven.

This (http://www.inplainsite.org/html/do_children_go_to_hell_.html) explains it well, but these are their ending statements, which I agree with:

In summary, I think we can conclude the following:

First, that there is some period of "grace" afforded the young before they have developed an understanding to fully comprehend the gospel message and its implications for their lives.

Second, there seems to be good scriptural support that all infants, like David’s little son, go immediately, in their innocence, into the arms of the Lord.

Third, that the likely range of such an age of "accountability " may occur around the time of puberty.

Fourth, that we are not saying children younger than this "accountability age" commit no sin (as sinful tendencies and acts occur quite early in children), and because of their fallen nature, they do these things spontaneously, things which they have definitely NOT learned from their parents or their friends). What we are saying is that up to the point when they reach clear understanding, they do not come under the judgment of the Law.

Does that make it okay to kill them though? By that logic, it would be better to kill all children as quickly as possible - that way they are guaranteed a place in heaven before they grow old enough to run the risk of messing up.

Of course not. It is never right to do wrong in order to do something we feel is good. Murder is still murder, even though it might be doing something we construe as "right." Humans do not reserve the right to take away other lives. That is wrong by anyone's standards.

Also, please keep in mind that God does not take this major step in destroying the human race more than once. He did not and will not destroy all of humanity in a flood again. In all the times he called the Israelites to ruin an entire town, he does so for the same reason: the town was too far gone for anything to bring them back from their injustice. He has never, at least not in my readings of the Bible, killed an entire town/race/whatever it may be in order to bring more people into heaven. That is injustice in its highest form.

Once is surely enough. If it isn't all right to kill children in order to bring more people into heaven, then what does justify it? I don't think the answer can be that every single child, even infants barely a day old, are already corrupted beyond repair. This to me seems clearly false. If you can explain to me how it is true, then please go ahead.

Otherwise, how is it justified?

I'm afraid I don't get what you're asking. Could you please clarify?

I'm asking you to explain to me how God's killing of almost every single infant in the world during the Flood was just.

Thank you for clarifying.

However, to me, this question seems impossible for me to answer without my words either painting me or God in a bad light. I have said why God's actions were just. I have said why the children's lives were still spared, although their earthly lives may have ended. God did not simply bring about the Flood in order to save every single infant in the world. God's actions are justifiable because they stopped the complete enveloping of evil into the world. I still am not sure exactly how to answer your question.

However, to me, this question seems impossible for me to answer without my words either painting me or God in a bad light.

It probably is. That says it all, doesn't it?

I have said why the children's lives were still spared, although their earthly lives may have ended.

Their souls may have been spared, but as you say, their earthly lives were not. Is it not still wrong that the children were robbed of an earthly life? Aren't you diminishing the value of an earthly life by saying it doesn't matter that they were robbed of life since they ended up in heaven? Don't you think there's a tension between that and your beliefs about the absolute sanctity of life?

No, it doesn't really. I just don't want to say anything for fear I'll botch the whole thing up, not because I believe God was somehow unjust. This is simply a difficult topic to answer. People spend their entire lives studying this, and yet they may never come to an adequate conclusion. Theologians don't even have all the answers. I'm 14. I can't have them either. If you'd like, I'll look this up in more detail and then get back to you. There's also lots of information on this topic online as well. I can point you to some links within a couple days (if I'm not too busy writing).

However, I do not believe there are discrepancies or issues between my belief that God was just during the Flood and my belief in the sanctity of life.

Yes, it is difficult. Theologians are more sophisticated at it, but you still get endless contortions in the attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

Thanks for offering, and you can point me to some links if you like, although it probably won't be anything new...

You believe that it was just for God to take away the lives of infants who, let's face it, did nothing to deserve that. You also believe in the sanctity of life. Do you honestly not see any tension there? If life is so precious, why is it okay for God to treat it in such a cavalier fashion?

We will have to part ways on the question of whether God's judgment was just. It is always just for God to do as he wishes with his creation. (And especially when the corruption is to the point it was in this case.)

As to children, yes, we are prone toward evil from birth. Every parent has to teach their child how to do good. They seem to know how to do wrong without any help at all!

It is always just for God to do as he wishes with his creation.

Naturally. The concept of 'just' becomes meaningless when applied in this way, just as the concept of 'good' loses its meaning when anything God might do is always good.

That's a very negative view you have of children. I personally think that we are inclined towards both. Finding out would be a matter of empirical study... there's probably some psychology research somewhere which looks into this.

Naturally. The concept of 'just' becomes meaningless when applied in this way, just as the concept of 'good' loses its meaning when anything God might do is always good.

No, I didn't say that. I gave the reasons why God destroyed the earth at that time.

***

You do not need a degree in psychology to know that children are prone to do wrong things from the youngest ages onward. That's why they need to be taught things like to share, or to stop hitting someone else, or not throw tantrums when they don't get what they want. Anyone who has ever babysat a two year old can see this quality on display. The level of anger they can reach over the simplest things is scary to behold. It's because they are physically incapable of causing much harm that keeps them from doing so.

All kids are like this, regardless of what country they live in or what culture they are raised into. It's just the way we are.

You said that it is always just for God to do as he wishes with his creation. This implies to me that anything God does with his creation is just - which robs the concept of its meaning. Did I misunderstand you? Could you explain what you meant by that?

Regarding children - have you never seen young children being spontaneously nice to each other then? Have you never seen them display sympathy towards others? If we have no altruistic inclinations at all from a young age, then I'm baffled as to how we developed the moral system we have now in the first place.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified - anything that is consistent with the character of God. I'm no theologian, but I think at the most basic level, God is characterized in the Bible as being both just and good. (Leaving aside the question of whether we believe that's true or not.)

***

Oh, of course children can be wonderful. (And every parent wishes they'd behave that way always!) I never fail to marvel at children. The world would be dull and colorless without them.

So I am not saying we are only completely rotten. Of course we have good qualities too. All I'm saying is that we seem to be born with a very strong bent toward wrong - even stronger than the bent toward good.

As hard as everyone tries, the world is still a mess. This is true in every culture, in every age, as far back as civlizations have existed. And since civilizations are made up of individuals, where else can we start looking at this problem but with the individual person?

There seems to be something within the human soul that causes us to screw things up royally. I know that's true in my life, and I don't know anyone who doesn't struggle with that as well.

God is characterized in the Bible as being both just and good. (Leaving aside the question of whether we believe that's true or not.)

But this is the question at issue. Were God's actions during the Flood just? I'll ask you now: can you explain how it was just for God to kill millions of infants during the Flood?

It is not enough to say that God is just; therefore his actions must always be just. That's what I thought you were saying before.

So I am not saying we are only completely rotten.

Well, that's nice to know. XD

I think I've gone as far as I can go with my limited knowledge and ability. Like I said, I am neither philosopher nor theologian. These questions have been pondered by the greatest minds in history and it's always been a difficult topic. I don't know that there is any simple answer.

But if you are interested in thinking about this more, here's a good article from someone way smarter than I could ever hope to be. There is also plenty more info. on that site, on a variety of topics.

Love of God, Judgment of God

Okay. Thank you for the link. :)

You're welcome. It's nice to have an online conversation with differing views that still ends up civilized and respectful.

I don't know about you, but I have moral issues with benefiting from torture, murder, suicide, or execution. And Jesus's death is described by at least two of those four.

I am not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Can you clarify?

Jesus was tortured before he died. There is absolutely no question about that. There's room for debate over whether he was murdered by God, he suicided, he was executed for being a threat to the Roman government of Judea; the truth is at least one of the above. And I have moral issues with benefiting from any of the four. Which is one of the reasons I am no longer Christian and never will be again.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Profile

callistahogan

March 2010

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Page Summary

Style Credit

Base style: Abstractia by chiming
Theme: Abyss by chiming

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jun. 16th, 2025 03:02 pm

Leave a Legacy

MILESTONE.

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags