OK, I'm not asking this to offend or glibly throw these comparisons around as people tend to do, I'm making a serious point:
There was a leader of a country. This leader had absolute power in his country. In one medium sized-city in his land, 200 men offended the leader. After thinking about an appropriate response, the leader had the city destroyed along with every man, woman, and child in it by dropping fire-bombs from the sky.
Who was this leader?
A) Saddam Hussein
B) Adolf Hitler
C) God
D) All of the above
(Hitler may not be a perfect comparison, but look at how many men, women, and children he slaughtered in his own country, and please give me a little lee-way)
Think about this and perhaps explain why, even if it is D, this act is irrelevant to god being all-good with not one drop of evil in him. BTW, I personally define evil as an egotism so strong that one doesn't care who is hurt or how badly in the pursuit of one's own goals.
2006-09-20
09:03:23
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
To everyone who wrote that the cities were pure evil:
So the infants and toddlers need to be put to death? God engages in preemptive strikes? Why weren't these children given the opportunity for redpemption? Today, if god knows a kid will grow up to be unsaved, is it ok for him to just slaughter that kid?
2006-09-22
02:40:12 ·
update #1