Hilarious!

BTW, I think this says something to the “miracles won’t convince people” argument.

Quite a bit of ground to cover here, but I will highlight three areas:

Incomprehensible God

Here’s where the concept fails. Every single time, the Christian begins by attempting to draw logical conclusions. They use logic form, argument and presentation to make their point. I picked a random quote from you to demonstrate an example:

rfogue: In order to discuss other religions we must first agree that there is absolute truth. If we assume that absolute truth exists, then logically it is possible to assume that there is one truth, meaning one way to God, one revelation to humanity of His character, ways, and interaction with His creation. If that is true, then it is possible to discount other religions as not being absolute in truth.

And, along the way, those of us who have studied the Bible, read it “critically” as you say, are aware of instances which contradict what the Christian is claiming. In our present situation it is the tired defense of “Free Will” to the Problem of Evidentiary Suffering. The claim that God has to allow a bit of evil to seep into the world, because God holds “Free Will” to be a higher priority than evil. There are a number of problems with this defense (like the lack of Free Will in Heaven, as pointed out, or the Fact that evil becomes a necessary component), but one which we have focused on instances in which God clearly interacts with humans and violates their free will.

This is directly contradictory to the claim God can’t impinge on Free Will, because Christians rely upon stories in which he does. When pressed, the Christian coughs up (every time) that God is incomprehensible, unknowable. (Coincidently, this contradicts Job, but another time…)

I asked: If your God cannot be comprehended by humans, then who would we recognize it when we see it?

Now the Christian abandons logic, argument and presentation, and launches into how we CAN’T use these things to understand God. Huh? More quotes from you:

rfogue: There are things that are beyond my comprehension. Why God allows people to choose sometimes and others intervenes to prevent them I don’t know.

I cannot answer your questions. I don’t know why God does what He does or why He seems to be so awful to some. I only know that He is God and I am not. I believe He is good. His ways are beyond my comprehension.

rfogue: Not to our minds. That seems backwards. It seems to be foolishness. Eventually we have to get past the why questions and trust that there are limitations to what we can know and understand. That’s where faith comes in. I know many here have called it a blind faith because they see at as not being based on any external evidence but when you come down to it you have to have faith that God is who He says He is. Faith is being sure of what hope for and certain of what we do not see. It is complete trust that God is sovereign and that whether we live or die He will complete the work that He began in us. Faith defies logic; as much as apologetics try to explain the inner workings of Christianity and “defend the faith” it ultimately comes down to faith.

First you use logic, and when we point out that is contradictory, you fall on faith which “defies logic.” Which is it? Do we use logic or not?

What ends up happening is the Christian must say that logic may or may not point to God. Faith may or may not point to God. THAT is what I mean by an incomprehensible god being unrecognizable—even the Christian admits we can’t know it if we see it!

While I know the reasons claimed for the Tower of Babel, it is still a huge imposition against the idea of Free Will. Yet the conversation has focused on two incidents—let’s stick with them.

Pharaoh

The standard argument of “Pharaoh hardened his heart first.” I listed the verses before, in anticipation of such a claim. (You’d think I’d done this before. *wink*)

There are many problems with this;

1) God predicted he would reach a point where he would harden Pharaoh’s heart prior to Moses asking. If you look back at post #107, where I first mentioned this claim, you will note the first verse I used was Ex. 4:21—chronologically before Moses ever approaches Pharaoh. (By the way—did you know God told Moses to lie? To claim they were only going to the wilderness to sacrifice for three (3) days, whereas in fact they were intending to leave Egypt? Ex. 3:18)

God knew (regardless whether Pharaoh hardened his own heart, Pharaoh’s cat hardened Pharaoh’s heart, or no heart was hardened at all) eventually there would be a point in which Pharaoh would want to let the people go, and God wouldn’t let him! That God would have to deliberately step in and impose on Pharaoh’s will.

2) The plagues were not warnings. Too often we approach the Ten Plagues as if God was trying to change Pharaoh’s mind. He was not! How do we know? Because when Pharaoh became convinced TO change his mind, God wanted to perform more plagues. It is particularly illuminating Pharaoh didn’t even want to chase the Hebrews, but God made him.

The point is moot whether the Egyptians knew the God of Israel. If they did—God was going to demonstrate his power. If they didn’t—God was going to demonstrate his power. Look at the order of events:

Moses: Let my people go!
Pharaoh: Who are you? I think not.
YHWH: Ka-Pow! Zap!

Moses: Let my people go!
Pharaoh: So what! My magicians can do that too.
YHWH: Ka-Pow! Zap!

Moses: Let my people go!
Pharaoh: O.K. You win.
YHWH: Ka…er…what? He said, ‘O.K.’? That’s not right. Ziggity-Ziggity-Zap. Pharaoh–change your mind back.
Pharaoh: Oh. I guess you can’t go.
YHWH: Yipee. Ka-Pow! Zap!

Moses: Let my people go!
Pharaoh: O.K. You win.
YHWH: Ka…er…what? He said, ‘O.K.’ again? Sigh. Ziggity-Ziggity-Zap. Pharaoh–change your mind back.
Pharaoh: Oh. I guess you can’t go.
YHWH: Yipee. Ka-Pow! Zap!

3) How do the New Testament writers handle Pharaoh? Read Rom. 9:17-24. (*cough, cough* Also mentioned in my previous post.) Notice verse 19 in particular where Paul is addressing the argument: “But who then can be held at fault? For who has resisted his will?” Understand that question would never even come up if the readers felt Pharaoh was to blame for Pharaoh’s own actions. The only way that question comes up is if God was the one forcing Pharaoh to do some thing. Look at it from these two different perspectives:

a) Pharaoh did something wrong. “Oh yeah? Then how can Pharaoh be held at fault? For who can resist God’s will?”

OR

b) God made Pharaoh do something wrong. “Oh yeah? Then how can Pharaoh be held at fault? For who can resist God’s will?”

In which of those two perspectives does the question make any sense?

How can you explain Romans 9 in light of the claim Pharaoh is at fault for hardening his heart first? Explain how the question of vs. 19 could ever arise.

Mark 4:11-12

OneSmallStep addressed this very well. I would only highlight the point regardless of what you claim the others had already seen (Miracles, John the Baptist, claims of Jesus), so had the disciples and even THEY had to have the parable explained. More importantly, Jesus knew the disciples needed the parable explained, and knew the crowd needed the parable explained, yet deliberated only choose one group to explain it too.

And another point which should be noted is that this was a crowd. Not just the Pharisees. Not just the Herodians, or Sadducees, or the “bad guys.” This was a crowd of peasants, and workers and people who wanted to hear Jesus, and Jesus deliberately kept this to an “insider group.”

(There is a reason for it, but unimportant on the issue of Free Will.)

In your future responses, could you find some way of seperating the paragraphs you’re responding to compared to your responses themselves? Even if it’s something like using paranthesis, it would be helpful.

In addition, He had performed several miracles up to this point and is not only healing people but forgiving sin. Look specifically at Chapter 2 the story of the paralytic, specifically vs. 7. That sets him apart from other prophets and gives Him a different kind of authority that would have been recognized by other people. Even the demons that were driven out called him the Son of God.

Being called the son of God is not the same as being called God. Adam was referred to as the son of God in Luke, in the geneology portion. I believe others are referred to as sons of God in the Tanakh. Not only that, but from what I understand, saying someone’s sins are forgiven is not blasphemy. I quote: “In the Prayer of Nabonius from the Dead Sea Scrolls, it says “I was afflicted with an evil ulcer for seven years…and a gazer [exorcist? healer?] pardoned my sins. He was a Jew.” (Vermes 1981, p66-7). The relationship between sin and sickness was well established in ancient Judaism (Fredriksen 1988, p105). ”

I got this from the link: http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark02.html#2.p.1.12

I disagree. God chose to reveal the secrets of the kingdom of God to the disciples at this time.

But the Mark quote we’re specifically talking about doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say that he’s choosing to reveal the secrets at this time, and will reveal at a later time. It says that he’s not revealing it to others so that they can’t be forgiven.

Plus, I don’t think the idea that events were clearly laid out works. There were healings, there was forgiveness, yes. Many were drawn to those, and accepted those. But I believe in Mark, this is the first time Jesus spoke in a parable, and no one understood it. Where did the large crowd (we’re leaving out the Pharisees for the moment) reject the teachings? Or clearly want nothing to do with Jesus? In fact, they believe him so much that they take people to him to be healed — Mark 2, and great multitudes follow him. Don’t the events leading up to Mark 4 incidate that the crowd — minues the Pharisees — would’ve been receptive?

The others, if they did not understand, were provided the opportunity later. Not everyone understands anything the first time they hear it.

I’m sorry, Rachel, but I don’t know what you’re basing this on in Mark itself. Jesus was addressing a very large crowd here, and then later says to the disciples that to them it’s been given, and to those on the outside (such as the large crowd), it hasn’t been. Jesus doesn’t mention a later opportunity. No one understood at that time, and the only reason why the disciples did was because it was explained to them.

I think Pharoah did have reference point for knowing who God was. I replied in more detail in post #139.

I referenced this in a response on post #141 (I’m assuming you meant 135 here). I’ll copy it here.

My response: “Except the text also states that Pharoh was unfamiliar with Jospeh, so if he were unfamiliar with Joseph, how familiar would he be with Israel’s God? Not only that, but considering all the “gods” floating around those times, why would he lend credence to this God over that God? What would he base this on?”

And we still end up with the idea that after Pharoh released the Egyptians, God hardened Pharoh’s heart again, and put the Egyptians in a situation where they were all killed.

Israel had been slaves to the Egyptians for 300 years. Was that just? They murdered Israels sons because they thought they were becoming too powerful and would overthrow their captors. Is that right or fair?

No, it wasn’t. But you seem to saying that because the Egyptians did this, it was perfectly acceptable that they die. We expect behavior like that from rulers of that time. Yet God acts no better and no worse than the Pharoh or the Egyptians.

And what this doesn’t answer is how is it just to deliberatly cause the Egyptians to go after the Israelites, and then kill them?

No, because the fruit of the spirit is supernatural; they can only be developed through God’s work in a person’s life. That’s the point; we are comparing the natural to the supernatural.

I would define them based on a basic definition (by looking in a dictionary), and I would define them in specific contrast to the fruits of the flesh. The opposite of drunkeness and carousing is self-control. The opposite of jealousy, dissensions, factions can be both generosity, love, kindness. In fact, that’s how Paul states it. The fruits of the Spirit contrast the fruits of the flesh.

But the point here is that it seems as though in order to include only Christians in the fruits of the Spirit aspect, the definitions of those fruit has to be incredibly narrow. The same does not apply for the fruits of the flesh. I guess I see you going about this as, “Non-Christiand dont’ display the fruits of the Spirit based on your own definition of what those fruits are.” ONe is straightfoward, the other is not.

If we have someone who loves to get drunk day in and day out, we don’t need to apply a special definition of “drunk” to make that the fruit of the flesh. We can clearly see that it is the fruit of the flesh.

Whereas if we have an atheist displaying great patience with someone who is taunting them, to you, that’s not a fruit of the Spirit, that’s simply a certain definition of patience. We can’t clearly define the fruit based on the act, but on who is doing the act, and why. We don’t do that with the fruits of the flesh. If I see an atheist reacting with patience to taunting, and a Christian not, who is truly displaying the fruits of the Spirit?

If you tell someone that you are joyful, you are going to mean that you are in a state of extreme happiness. If you tell someone that you are patient, it means that you aren’t hasty, that you don’t react quickly to strife, that you are careful and cautious with people, and tolerate bad things that occur. And then suddenly we’re told that the fruit of the Spirit that is patience actually means something relating to Luke 23:34.
Joy suddenly becomes contement and satisfaction with God, but even the Greek word itself doesn’t really support that. It literally means “cheerfulness, calm delight, gladness.” YOu can have joy with God, or be joyful over God, but joy itself is simply a feeling. It can be produced by God in all of his dealings, but it can’t really include what produces it. It’s evoked by something. It can be evoked by contement in God and all of his dealings. But to say that it is contement with God is stripping the word “joy” of its basic meaning.

You seem to be justifying God’s actions against the Egyptians (some were guilty, most were definitely innocent, such as children/infants) by saying that the Egyptians were cruel to the Egyptians. But let me ask you something. Have you ever heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”? Simply because someone slaps you doesn’t mean you should slap them back, you should turn the other cheek and move on. Does that sound familiar?

Simply because the Egyptians (remember, not all of them) were cruel to the Israelites doesn’t make God’s actions any more right or just. As a supreme being, he should keep himself above the level of such petty human dictators and deal with everyone in a just way that is equal to their wrongs. The firstborn infants had nothing to do with the enslavement of Israel, so why did they need to be killed?

This story points more to the fact that God is merely an entity created by the Israelites to give themselves comfort and a sense of guidance. No supreme being would lower himself to the level of man and act in an unjust way that is equal to the unjust acts that he was punishing the men for in the first place. That makes no sense.

The Mark 4 passage vs. 11-12 is a quote from Isaiah 6:9-10
and is explaining why Jesus presents his truths in parables.

Is there anything in Mark itself, leading up to chapter four, that hints that events were clearly laid out to the non-disciples?

Yes, before Jesus was John the Baptist. Look in Chapter 1 vs. 4-8. There would have been several familiar with John the Baptists teaching. In addition, He had performed several miracles up to this point and is not only healing people but forgiving sin. Look specifically at Chapter 2 the story of the paralytic, specifically vs. 7. That sets him apart from other prophets and gives Him a different kind of authority that would have been recognized by other people. Even the demons that were driven out called him the Son of God.

Jesus specifically says he issues parables in order that people cannot be forgiven.

I disagree. God chose to reveal the secrets of the kingdom of God to the disciples at this time. There were others who heard even through the parables and believed Jesus, Nicodemus for one, the Roman centurion,etc.

Not only that, but you say there’s no indication that these people weren’t later provided an opportunity to respond … but doesn’t that contradict the idea you stated that they didn’t want to respond, yet clearly had God in their midst — as in, it was obvious to them? If they will be given an opporunity later, does that mean that they haven’t yet been given one?

The Pharisees would be the only group I would consider that didn’t want to respond. They knew who Jesus was claiming to be and that is why they tried so hard to trap him and eventually killed him. The others, if they did not understand, were provided the opportunity later. Not everyone understands anything the first time they hear it. I know this applies to me with Algebra. I could not understand those concepts without a special explanation from someone.
Some heard and understood, some did not, but I do think that those (excluding the Pharisees) who did not understand were given a later opportunity.

Well … did the Pharoh have any basis or reference point for knowing what God Aaron and Moses spoke of? Was he familiar with it at all? Or would it be like me telling you that I am the “God” of your car, and you must let your car go. Your understandable response to me would be that you don’t know me, and based on my say-so, you certainly aren’t “freeing” your car. That doesn’t make you arrogant. The warning of punishment probably wouldn’t have made sense to him at the time.

I think Pharoah did have reference point for knowing who God was. I replied in more detail in post #139.

And then when the Pharoh finally does release them, God hardens Pharohs heart, so that the Israelites are pursued, and the Egyptian armies killed. How is that just?
Israel had been slaves to the Egyptians for 300 years. Was that just? They murdered Israels sons because they thought they were becoming too powerful and would overthrow their captors. Is that right or fair?

Why do you need to define the fruits differently for Christians than you do for non-Christians?
I”m not defining them differently I am using how they are defined in scripture. How would you define them?

The fruits of the flesh are very straightforward, and apply across the board, regardless of the religion the person has.

Of course they do because they are natural, basic instincts.

Yet it seems for the fruits of the Spirit, in order to say that only a select few can demonstrate then, you have to define those particular fruits differently, rather than across the board. Shouldn’t the way the standards apply in the both the Spirit/flesh category be uniform?

No, because the fruit of the spirit is supernatural; they can only be developed through God’s work in a person’s life. That’s the point; we are comparing the natural to the supernatural.

For example, I define joy as contentment and satisfaction with God in all of his dealings. (its a little more involved than that but this is the simpler version) Your definition might equate joy and happiness as the same thing. There’s a big difference there. Non-Christians are of course happy and joyful but they would not have contentment and satisfaction with God in all of His dealings.

I find it interesting that you compare God to Stalin who was one of the most evil leaders in history.

The comparison is created because we see the same type of behavior — ruling with an iron fist, and absolutely no freedom granted. For Obi, it looks like there’s no difference between what STalin did, and what Deut. 13 commands. What Stalin did is wrong. Yet what God did is right? It’s the same type of behavior, so why is one wrong and the other right? How is this determined?

Just because they are given freedom of choice doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences.

Then how “free” am I to honestly break those rules? I’m not “free” to steal, because if I do so, I’ll be arrested. My freedom is in fact curtailed by the law.

But the fact is, the idea of stoning someone to death for following another religion is being defended here. I think everyone on this board — yourself included — is appalled when we hear of the Middle East countries stoning someone, especially for following another God. We find that appalling for the same reason Deut 13. is found to be appalling. It’s the same circumstance.

It isn’t like the Egyptians would not have been completely unfamiliar with the God of Israel. Pharaoh made his choice.

Except the text also states that Pharoh was unfamiliar with Jospeh, so if he were unfamiliar with Joseph, how familiar would he be with Israel’s God? Not only that, but considering all the “gods” floating around those times, why would he lend credence to this God over that God? What would he base this on?

Keep in mind too that the Egyptians ordered the slaughter of all of the male infants in Israel (Moses being the only one that escaped) because Pharaoh felt that Israel was becoming too strong. Was that fair or right?

No, it wasn’t. But that type of behavior is what we expect from a ruler of that time. The problem comes in when that same type of behavior you say isn’t right — killing all the male infants — is the same behavior displayed by God in killing all the firstborn in Egypt. Pharoh’s behavior is neither fair nor right. Why is God’s? What standard is used to determine why one is fair, and the other is not?

As someone previously stated, Pharaoh was rightfully credulous. Although you say he was “familiar with the god of Israel”, you I take it are “familiar with the god of Islam”, but do you accept it’s authority? Or if not Islam, then Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, et cetera. You acknowledge (I hope) their existence, but do you submit to and acknowledge their gods?

This was Pharaoh’s case. But regardless of this, you seem to accept how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and from then took the chance to send plagues, massacre firstborns, and all sorts of other devastating events upon the Egyptian population when (1) None of them had any say in the matter save for Pharaoh, God could have punished him and him alone, instead of bringing innocents into play. He is supposed to be just. (2) I can’t repeat this enough, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened by God, it was not his free will to hold the Egyptians, as God states himself. It doesn’t matter that this is revealed to us later, because God stated that he had been doing it all along, to prove some sort of a “point”.

This type of God isn’t a just and loving supreme being, it’s merely the projection of this ancient group of people seeking to give themselves some type of importance. He isn’t acting right or just in any sense of the word, mate.

So you think that it’s acceptable to slaughter people (even one’s own family as God in the chapter commands) for unbelief?

No, I don’t. But that is not the issue in the Deut. 13 passage. It specifically addresses those who deliberately disobey a clear directive in God’s law and then deceive others to follow them. They are leading God’s people astray by causing them to follow other gods.

“Freedom of religion is something that’s cherished in this country, and for good reason. Yet you imply that it was somehow just for God to take this right away in these ancient times among the Israelites. Not to mention, why a death penalty? Doesn’t it infringe on the free will that God gave them if he kills them when they’re only exercising their freedom of choice?”

I find it interesting that you compare God to Stalin who was one of the most evil leaders in history.

Freedom of religion had no place in the covenant with God that the Israelites agreed to. That wasn’t even a right that was considered legitimate. God clearly spelled out His expectations when He made His covenant with Israel. They knew what they were agreeing to before they entered Canaan. There were consequences both for obedience and disobedience which are clearly spelled out in Deuteronomy. Israel agreed to give up that right when they agreed to follow God and enter into that covenant.

Just because they are given freedom of choice doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences. They knew what the consequences were for breaking God’s laws just like the citizens of this country know what the consequences are for breaking its laws.

“He [Pharaoh} ignored the warnings not out of his own volition, but because God made him ignore the warnings.

Look again at the first time Aaron and Moses approach Pharaoh. There is no mention of God hardening his heart at this point; that is not even brought up until after that first encounter and seems to me to only apply afterward. Pharaoh had one chance and he decided to ignore their warning. How did Israel become Egypt’s slaves in the first place? Remember the story of Joseph? Joseph became the second in command to the Pharaoh of Egypt some years earlier. after several previous circumstances (famine, sold into slavery, prison, etc.) and then years later his descendants(Hebrew people) were put into slavery. It isn’t like the Egyptians would not have been completely unfamiliar with the God of Israel. Pharaoh made his choice. When we make choices more often than not they affect other peoples lives as well as our own. Keep in mind too that the Egyptians ordered the slaughter of all of the male infants in Israel (Moses being the only one that escaped) because Pharaoh felt that Israel was becoming too strong. Was that fair or right?

So you think that it’s acceptable to slaughter people (even one’s own family as God in the chapter commands) for unbelief?

Think of it this way. During the mid-20th century, Josef Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist. Anyone, I mean anyone with dissenting beliefs was killed, so that he could stay in power. If you didn’t submit to the authority of the state (and the near godhood of Stalin in his self-made cult of personality), you were killed for being a threat to authority.

Let me ask you, do you think what Stalin did was justified, rfogue? I highly doubt you do, so why do you think it’s right for God to do the same thing? Freedom of religion is something that’s cherished in this country, and for good reason. Yet you imply that it was somehow just for God to take this right away in these ancient times among the Israelites. Not to mention, why a death penalty? Doesn’t it infringe on the free will that God gave them if he kills them when they’re only exercising their freedom of choice? He could just as easily have left them to be counseled or spoken to by priests or something of the sort — anything but killing them. And he even commands the destruction of whole cities, along with all of their occupants. I see it as quite gruesome, to be honest.

rfogue said, “As far as Pharaoh goes, God wanted to display His power to the Egyptians. That was His purpose. If you read the accounts of the plagues, Pharaoh had one opportunity to obey. God did not harden his heart the first time they came to him. The first time Aaron and Moses told Him what God commanded notice his statement: Who is the Lord that I should obey Him and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord and I will not let Israel go. ” Do you hear the arrogance in that statement? Even after Aaron and Moses explained that they wanted to take a three day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices and warned what God would do, Pharaoh ignored them and punished Israel more.
He was warned and ignored the warning and God punished the nation of Egypt for his arrogance and for their treatment of Israel.”

He ignored the warnings not out of his own volition, but because God made him ignore the warnings. You yourself acknowledge that God hardened his heart, so where is the justice in that? God makes Pharaoh stubborn, so that he can inflict more unjustified punishment on the Egyptians. And why does God see fit to kill the infants of the nation? What role could they possibly play in the decision of whether or not Pharaoh released the Israelites?

I think OneSmallStep rather nicely laid out a response to the Mark verse, so I’ll stop here to avoid redundancy.

The Mark 4 passage vs. 11-12 is a quote from Isaiah 6:9-10 and is explaining why Jesus presents his truths in parables.

Is there anything in Mark itself, leading up to chapter four, that hints that events were clearly laid out to the non-disciples? I mean, even the disciples had to ask for clarification. Because if we assume that this is very, very early in the ministry, then no one would recognize Jesus as God. It wasn’t part of the criteria or expectation in terms of Israel’s Messiah.

Not only that, but what in the passage or verse itself indicates that they didn’t *want* to see? Jesus specifically says he issues parables in order that people cannot be forgiven. Not only that, but you say there’s no indication that these people weren’t later provided an opporutnity to respond … but doesn’t that contradict the idea you stated that they didn’t want to respond, yet clearly had God in their midst — as in, it was obvious to them? If they will be given an opporunity later, does that mean that they haven’t yet been given one?

The first time Aaron and Moses told Him what God commanded notice his statement: Who is the Lord that I should obey Him and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord and I will not let Israel go. ” Do you hear the arrogance in that statement?

Well … did the Pharoh have any basis or reference point for knowing what God Aaron and Moses spoke of? Was he familiar with it at all? Or would it be like me telling you that I am the “God” of your car, and you must let your car go. Your understandable response to me would be that you don’t know me, and based on my say-so, you certainly aren’t “freeing” your car. That doesn’t make you arrogant. The warning of punishment probably wouldn’t have made sense to him at the time.

And then when the Pharoh finally does release them, God hardens Pharohs heart, so that the Israelites are pursued, and the Egyptian armies killed. How is that just?

God destroyed those nations because they were evil. There was no hope for them; their hearts were hard and they were not going to change.

Even the children? They were also evil? They deserved to die? The response I generally see to this is that the children were “rescued” because they were brought to heaven, but that’s too close to “the ends justifying the means” for me. And it makes killing children a relative evil. It’s not evil in this sense, because where they end up.

Non-Christians may display some things; joy, peace, love, kindness, but I think they are defined differently.

Why do you need to define the fruits differently for Christians than you do for non-Christians? The fruits of the flesh are very straightforward, and apply across the board, regardless of the religion the person has.

Yet it seems for the fruits of the Spirit, in order to say that only a select few can demonstrate then, you have to define those particular fruits differently, rather than across the board. Shouldn’t the way the standards apply in the both the Spirit/flesh category be uniform? You do say that it’s not possible for non-Christians to dispaly all the fruits, but isn’t that because you’re offering your own definitions of what the “fruits” mean?