MILESTONE.

[callistahogan]

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*

Comments

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

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.

[wheatear.livejournal.com]

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?

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

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

[wheatear.livejournal.com]

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.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

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.

[wheatear.livejournal.com]

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?

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

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.

[wheatear.livejournal.com]

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?