A king wanted to demonstrate his great majesty and power. He came up with a plan. All of the future citizens of his kingdom (while they were still in the womb) would be presented to him. The pregnant mothers would walk into his thrown room and he would assign her future baby a color: either red or blue. Only a small few received blue. The rest received red. The king ordained that, one day, whenever he pleased, he would throw the individuals marked with the color red into a burning fire. Only the people with a blue mark would be spared and would be left to live a long life. ALL of the people marked with red would be thrown into the fire to burn regardless of their quality of life, morality or contributions to the kingdom. And it was so. He tossed more than 1/2 the kingdom into the fire and listened to them burn. He did this to demonstrate his great power.
Would you consider him to be a good king or a egotistical villan?
how this is any different from god in Romans 9:13
2007-10-24 12:39:31 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Romans 9:13 - 29
2007-10-24 12:41:59 · update #1
Notice I never referenced the word "hate" in my story. It was merely a story about selection and damnation.
2007-10-24 12:47:05 · update #2
I would consider him a king that needs to be overthrown. This king has no caring nor compassion, and he is violent and compulsive. I see the obvious metaphor for the god in which some christians believe in- "we are all going to hell unless we repent to jesus". I personally don't believe in that god. There are many other christians who agree that if there is a god, he would not be a sadistic, powermongaring tyrant. Rather, he would be concerned for the good of all and so on. Sadly, there are those who are convinced that there is undoubtedly a god, and this god is one who is unafraid to throw the multitude of our being into hell. Which, by my belief, is nonsense.
2007-10-24 12:48:26 · answer #1 · answered by φοίνικας 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Does not sound remotely like anything I have read about before. Perhaps you thinking of the The ‘passing through the fire’ to Molech The view has been advanced that the Molech to whom children were sacrificed had the form of a man but the head of a bull. The image is said to have been heated red hot and the children cast into its outstretched arms, thus to fall into the flaming furnace below.
Your Connection between this and Rom 9:13 is Lost on me...
The Almighty, All-Wise God had a right to do this ( Rom 9:13).. Not the above " Story" according to his purpose for the blessing of all mankind. Regarding this, a first-century Bible commentator wrote: “When Rebekah conceived twins from the one man, Isaac our forefather: for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls, it was said to her: ‘The older will be the slave of the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated.
Certainly the Almighty, All-Wise God did not make a bad choice. Doubtless He, being able to read the genetic pattern of the twins in Rebekah’s womb, foresaw how the two boys would work out the direction of their lives. So He chose the right twin, even though this one happened to be the younger twin. Despite his choice according to his purpose, Jehovah did not force matters. He did not plan for the older Esau to sell his birthright for a mere bowl of lentil stew to his younger brother Jacob on a critical day of decision. . Evidently, however, Jehovah foresaw that the unborn Esau would not have the appreciation and love for spiritual things such as Jacob would have.
2007-10-24 12:56:25 · answer #2 · answered by conundrum 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the ethical teachings have benefit, yet so do lots of the ethical coaching in Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism. Gandhi's satyagraha is a simpler and cutting-edge occasion and demands no perception in divinity. of course, your occasion has a intense falsehood, an wrong linkage. "would you rejoice with the parables, and allow that God would desire to exist, or would you call for evidence?" there isn't any dependence upon divinity interior the morality. The linkage would not artwork in opposite the two.
2016-12-18 16:33:56 · answer #3 · answered by tedesco 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Taking a single text from the bible and declaring you understand the character of God is no different than taking a single piece of a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and declaring you know the subject matter of the puzzle. Perhaps you need a broader perspective.
2007-10-24 12:59:41 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. E 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm pretty sure that the all knowing God knows what He's doing. Its all a part of his grand plan. The king in your story has killed & commited sin, because it goes against God's plan
2007-10-24 12:47:23 · answer #5 · answered by freefromthecircuitry 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You misunderstand the application of the word "hate" in the Bible, which as Bible scholars have agreed, have various degrees of aversion. The God that you exemplify with this King does not exist in the Bible.
2007-10-24 12:44:53 · answer #6 · answered by dspcfi 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He sounds a little bad, but he could make up for it all if he would have his only son tortured and murdered on a cross.
That would make him "The Loving King"
2007-10-24 12:51:33 · answer #7 · answered by Honest Opinion 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Utterly different from the actual message of Romans.
2007-10-24 12:49:07 · answer #8 · answered by Hoosier Daddy 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I deduce you are hung-up on the word 'hated'.
First, God had good reason.
Second, 'hated' simply means second place ....behind Jacob.
2007-10-24 12:45:06 · answer #9 · answered by Uncle Thesis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋