Posts by Cold Steel

92

How could you justify that God killed all firstborn children in Egypt?

by Mr Fool in

was it necessary for god to kill all innocent firstborn children?

no other way out for the almighty god?.

Cold Steel

Murdering those innocent children in Egypt is nothing to what he did during Noah's flood, there he murdered all living human beings innocent or not, [except] for one family.

Murder?? And what do you know of murder? Murder isn’t something God does. Murder is a sin, and God is incapable of committing it. According to the Hebrew term, murder is the shedding of innocent blood in violation of the law of God. It’s not “killing,” as many Bibles mistranslate it in the Ten Commandments.

There was no malice in God’s heart. He took the firstborn of Egypt to a far better place, and the only ones to suffer were their loved ones who were left behind. We all come into this world to die, and God decides when we have stayed long enough. In short, living on Earth, getting sick, working and striving in an inhospitable environment isn’t exactly something to look forward to as I see it. By accusing God of murder, you assume and presume that remaining in mortality is better than death. And you seek to judge God without knowing where those He “murdered” went. In short, you judge Him in complete ignorance! In most near death experiences, people who die (unless they’re very wicked people) don’t want to come back and many are angry when they’re told they have to.

A much more reasonable approach, as believers see it, is: we don’t know what happened to the firstborn of Egypt, but God is just and merciful, and His ways are just. So we must have faith that what He does is ultimately for our own good, though we can’t see it now.

According to Peter, when Jesus died in the flesh, his spirit went and preached to those who are dead — specifically, those who perished in the flood. Why would he preach to them if he planned to annihilate them? The creeds of men say, “He descended into Hell.” But he told the repentant malefactor, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”

And Peter wrote, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18-20) In the very next chapter, he writes, “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

So, because of the Lord’s sense of justice and mercy He provided those who have never had the opportunity of hearing the gospel with the chance of having it preached in the spirit world. Thus, even the spirits of the firstborn of Egypt and those who perished in the flood will have the gospel preached to them there. But, again, in the days of the flood, Noah warned the people repeatedly of what would happen to them if they did not turn from evil and abide the words of God’s prophets.

.

92

How could you justify that God killed all firstborn children in Egypt?

by Mr Fool in

was it necessary for god to kill all innocent firstborn children?

no other way out for the almighty god?.

Cold Steel

There is one serious problem with this, the bible encourages to learn from things past (Romans 15:4) to imitate God (Ephesians 5:1). …to do this, one must [evaluate] His actions and discern how to apply the idea and attitude behind them.

Well, I think you’re reading into the text something that isn’t there, for nowhere are we told to evaluate Him or His actions in the way He deals with others. The scripture you cite states: “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” The scriptures point to Christ and the Atonement, and Paul is telling the saints to learn this through the scriptures and become One, even as the Father and Jesus are one. He continues: “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”

From what is said, we see that Paul saw God as having the attributes of patience, consolation, unity and glory. What is glory? It is the brilliance in which God dwells, and which no man can approach and live without first being changed to endure it.

Even if we are not anymore encouraged to take up a weapon and kill, we should certainly hate what God hates. In this example, God must have hated the innocent children of the Egyptians, otherwise why would he have killed them? So we also must hate children of opposers?

That is a non-sequitur. Nowhere does it state that God “hated” the firstborn in Egypt. Also, it wasn’t just children who died. All the firstborn of Egypt died, both animals and humans, young and old. But they didn’t cease to exist; they lived on in the spirit whereas the previous day they had lived in the flesh. But in Egypt, parents of all ages mourned for their children, including the Pharaoh.

What is the moral lesson for us in this then?

The moral lesson is as stated in my previous post. The Pharaoh represented the people of Egypt. God warned him and forewarned him. When Joseph of old ruled Egypt, the Israelites came there for food. As they continued on in the land, their numbers grew, and like the Spartans and the Helots, they enslaved the Israelites — and this God allowed because they had become an idolatrous people. Still, there were prophecies that foretold of a deliverer. Another relevant question is, do you condone slavery? Do you believe that the Egyptians had the right to keep the Israelites in bondage? The Pharaoh could have prevented all the evils that befell Egypt, but he didn’t. It wasn’t God that hardened Pharaoh’s heart; it was Pharaoh, himself, and the Adversary. And most likely, the people of Egypt who profited from the slave labor. Even in a dictatorship, where the tyrant proclaims himself to be a god, he must ultimately seek to do that which is popular in the eyes of the people. When Moses and his people left Egypt, their god (Pharaoh) had just been bested by the Hebrew God. And in their absence, the people most likely began to rethink how they viewed Pharaoh. In fact, the mood might have been dangerous enough to compel him to recover the slaves they had lost. Perhaps their God, being successful in freeing the people, went off somewhere else and would not trouble them again. Trapped between his armies and the Red Sea, the Israelites would have no choice except to surrender. And even when the sea parted for Moses, perhaps he thought that his power as chief god of Egypt would be enough to keep the waters parted while his army pursued them. So again, whatever happened, it was upon Pharaoh’s head, not God’s. That’s the lesson.

And the argument, that God can fix everything, like their spirits are with him, or as JW would say, the resurrection, would mean, that he can act however he pleases, and again no moral lesson for us in there. Reminds me of the slogan of the crusaders: kill everyone, God will know his own anyway. Quite dangerous actually.

As you read the account, God’s actions were not arbitrary. At every step He warned the Egyptians of the consequences of their actions. You do this, and this will happen. You do that, and that will happen. The Crusaders, as you stated, killed everyone. And they weren’t authorized by God to do that. Had He wished to, He could have left Egypt a smoldering pile of rubble. But He didn’t. Think of it as an extraction, only God was much more fair with the Egyptians than He needed to be.

.

92

How could you justify that God killed all firstborn children in Egypt?

by Mr Fool in

was it necessary for god to kill all innocent firstborn children?

no other way out for the almighty god?.

Cold Steel

Jehovah hardened Pharoah's heart to keep the Israelites enslaved......then punished him for doing so. If the story is real, and that is a big IF, then Jehovah is an a#$hat!

Yes, quite so. But I believe that is in error. The Bible didn't come to us in perfect form and there are numerous errrors. Jesus prayed to the Father that He would not lead us into temptation, but later the scriptures state: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13) So why did the Lord allegedly say, "...lead us not into temptation"?

God would not be JUST if He hardened someone else's heart and caused them to do evil, for it is not in His nature to tempt men to do such.

.

92

How could you justify that God killed all firstborn children in Egypt?

by Mr Fool in

was it necessary for god to kill all innocent firstborn children?

no other way out for the almighty god?.

Cold Steel

This seems to be a recurring theme here. I just keep wondering why (mostly atheists) keep thinking that believers need to justify anything that God does. Counting myself as a believer in God, and in the scriptures, I never even ask myself these questions. And certainly God doesn’t need to justify His actions to us anymore than our earthly fathers need to justify themselves to their young children in paying their taxes or making them eat broccoli instead of cake. The only difference is that God gives us more free agency than our earthly parents. Which brings us to Pharaoh.

Pharaoh had the free agency and the obligation to free the Israelites. God could have forced him to, but He didn’t. And if he and his court refused to release the Israelites from their forced labor, then the Lord chose to turn up the proverbial heat. As my dear old dad used to say, “You can lead a horse to water, and you can’t make him drink; but you can hold his head under the water until he damn well wish he had!”

When people and animals die, they simply move on to a different location. It’s only the grief of loss for those who remain behind that makes it so unbearable. And the Egyptians had it coming. The Lord warned them and forewarned them. It was only when they saw the southernmost part of the Israelites’ anatomies did they wish they had drunk the water rather than in refusing it. And they didn’t remain humble for long.

Now if there’s no God, all of this is undoubtedly fiction. In that case, the deaths of the eldest are as meaningless as the deaths of the youngest, so in that case there’s no argument to be made. But if the God of the Bible lives, then He has provided a way for all of us to find fulfillment in this life, and in the next. And don’t buy into that JW nonsense about when you’re dead, you’re dead; that the Lord resurrects people only to blow them to smithereens. Charles Taze Russell and the other leaders of the WTBTS simply bought into that miserable doctrine because when it was coined by the Adventists, they didn’t know any better. If God exists, then He is merciful, kind, just, all knowing, all powerful. Anytime the doctrines of men violate that, they either don’t know the details in why God does what He does, or they’ve got it wrong. In regard to the firstborn in Egypt, I believe it’s much more of the former than the latter. The spirits of those who passed on are now in the same place as those who were passed over. And it’s the perceived injustice of God that angers many of His critics today. And that misperception comes from an ignorance of all the details surrounding the event and/or the false teachings of men. And the WTBTS is responsible for its share in the latter. That’s why the scriptures state that when all of this is over, and we know all the facts, that “every knee shall bend and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.”

No one can change the minds of those who are determined to accuse God, but to those we have to justify nothing. Time will take care of that.

.

26

Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!

by Coded Logic in

when did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?

how did it affect you?.

.

Cold Steel

TaleSin: Oh, that's a much more loving picture of the Flood story. Desperate people clawing at the Ark, holding their infants above water as they slowly drown... of course, they are already weakened by the savagery of the lioness who attacked them ...

You’re just not going to give God a break, are you?

Who said the lioness attacked them? As for the infants, do you think their deaths resulted in their destruction? There’s either a God or there isn’t, right? If there isn’t, then all life and all death is meaningless. It doesn’t matter if we’re babies or crabby old people with canes, bad breath and hemorrhoids.

If our spirits come from God, we aren’t infants when we inhabit the bodies born into mortality. In fact, there are numerous cases where people who have lost infants visit the spirit world and are surprised to see the spirits of their little children as adults in the realm of the spirits. Once they are born and die, they return to God and are fully entitled to be resurrected in the first resurrection and inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

So either way it works out. In fact, infants not only die in a state of complete innocence, they don’t have to endure the hardships of mortality and they inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. But whether infants live or pass on is strictly God’s decision. We’re not to make it, either through sacrifice or through abortions.

Defender_Of_Truth: Adding one ridiculous fairy tale on top of another makes it MORE plausible? This 'account' only makes God seem worse.

The key word, here, is “seem.” But you really don’t know, do you? Either God is a “fairy tale” or He’s a bloodthirsty murderer; and you’re qualified to judge the entire matter on nothing but snapshots of events we only have the faintest knowledge of. But if He is a fairy tale, then all this debate is meaningless. One monster can murder a thousand infants in this life and do it with the most malicious hate imaginable and it’s meaningless, just as all our lives are meaningless.

He callously used these creatures, that were about to be murdered by Him for no reason at all...to prevent people from trying to escape the slaughter with their families?

Murder is a strong word there, chief. If we’re going to use it, perhaps we ought to define it. In your opinion, what is murder? If there is a God, then he must be a murderer, you say. My own beliefs, of course, vary. If we all existed before we came to this world as mortals, it stands to reason that we did not come as a result of force. Believe it or not, God respects peoples’ free agency, and Satan was denied that opportunity because he rebelled, and he took a third of our brethren with him. When we come to this earth, we thereby agree to the terms of His judgment. And when we depart this earth, we immediately return and all of our sufferings become moot. In fact, the scriptures say that the Lord wipes the tears from every eye and that not a hair of our heads will be lost. Everyone, no matter how miserable or hideous he or she may have been during mortality, will be resurrected. And as Origen said, “everything we did in life [or on earth] will be made clear [or plain] to us.” But if all this is correct, then you are making judgments you are not qualified to make. And if you don’t know for a fact that you’re correct, then you’re just taking pot shots at believers, and nothing they can say will mitigate the actions of their God. And of course believers don’t all believe the same thing. But what we do agree on is that God is Just, Kind, Loving and Merciful. If He condemns infants to Hell for eternity, then He’s not any of the above. And if He arbitrarily forces His creations to undergo a torturous life for nothing other than His own selfish desires, He can’t honor a person’s free agency.

It is a shame that religious beliefs can cause people to both ignore those feelings, whilst at the same time inventing a God that embodies such a callous disregard for suffering.

Once one invents a God that is 'just', and yet sees the lives, health and emotions of living creatures as expendable or irrelevant because of the long term benefits (imagined or otherwise)... Then any and all acts of cruelty and murder could be either justified or dismissed as unimportant.

It’s one of the tenets of scripture that the Adversary not only wanted to take power that wasn’t his, he stands as an “accuser” of all things God does and how He does them. Jesus is called “our Advocate with the Father,” and Lucifer is known as the “Accuser of both man and God.” If you are also going to accuse God, then unless you’re able to know His thoughts, intents and purposes, you’re just taking potshots. And it seems no matter what people believe of God, you never lose a chance to come back and make even more accusations.

But let’s face it. You can attack God in any way you wish because you see Him as some sick invention hardwired into man’s brain in his barbaric and curious past. You, too, accuse us of ignorance, beliving the atheist’s creed that science can explain any question, eventually, that might lead us to a belief in God. That way, animals are the mere casualties of chance when they die. What I want to know is what atheists get out of this relentless and visceral hatred of God? No matter what I, or others, may say, He’s always the vicious psychopath in the sky who loves blood and murder, yet preaches peace. And nothing, it seems, will ever change your mind.

.

26

Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!

by Coded Logic in

when did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?

how did it affect you?.

.

Cold Steel

The suffering is still a wrong no matter how much reward is later given.

The question, though, is who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong if there is no God? There is neither, for if there is no punishment there can be no law. Christians and Jews, I suppose, mourn for all that suffer, both men and beasts. There are children who, at around age 10, for no other reason that it pleases them, decides to torture small animals. These psychopaths can later transfer their demented need to cause suffering to other people and they feel nothing. We understand that God can weep, and Jesus wept frequently. Thus, it would be wrong to say that either was a psychopath (and heaven help us if they are!).

I've never believed in the Evangelical bent that we're all depraved sinners who deserve Hell, but that accepting Jesus will deliver us. I recently heard one of these people who gave a parable about two people, neighbors. One is a horrible person who beats his wife and children and frequently comes home drunk. The other is a good, decent, honorable person who isn't saved and isn't much interested in religion, nor Jesus. One day an asteroid hits and kills them both, but, said the Evangelical, the horrible person prayed to God that morning, acknowledged that he was a vile sinner and begged Jesus to save him.

"Guess which one goes to heaven?" he said, smugly. In his view, the good guy could have been a great guy, a wonderful father and husband, a loyal friend and a caring person who gave several hours a week at a soup kitchen -- but he fell short of the glory of God and is damned. As in forever and ever, worlds without end. An eternity in Hell, where his flesh is seared day in and day out, ever burning but never consumed. So the former Evangelical, to me, makes a fair amount of sense when he denounces his religion. To me, only a fool would believe that doctrine. It's kind of like the Jehovah's Witnesses who call themselves "slaves." It just ranckles me. I'd be his servant, but never His slave. He can call me SERVANT or SON or FRIEND, but not "slave."

Once one conceives of a just God, the suffering is just something we have to go with for now. There's a reason we're here, I think, and it isn't just that man is a sinner, trying to work himself back into God's good graces.

But until the journey's end, judging God is an unwise option. Not that you'll go to Hell for it, but because it's self evident that we're walking in darkness and don't know enough to judge. Still, some people will.

.

26

Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!

by Coded Logic in

when did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?

how did it affect you?.

.

Cold Steel

It sounds callous to say now, but our sufferings are but a moment. The animals that died in the flood did not suffer horrible deaths, and there are many others that have suffered much more than the ones in the flood. And people. My point is that we don't know enough to judge God, and we'll later think it was the height of foolishness to try. In the extra-biblical Book of Jasher, it was the animals who formed a protective ring around the ark once it was loaded. The people wanted to break into the ark, but the lions and other predators prevented them. Yet they, themselves, would later die in the flood. I'd always wondered how Noah kept the people away once the ship was complete and loaded. It's a plausible account, I think.

26

Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!

by Coded Logic in

when did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?

how did it affect you?.

.

Cold Steel

Defender: As stated above, one cannot judge God without knowing what He knows. Regarding the animals and the flood, you assume, without knowing, that God destroyed innocent animals. I'm an ardent lover of animals, and I believe God is as well. Like us, I believe animals have spirits and are co-beneficiaries with us in the Atonement. As such, after death, I believe animals are happy and will partake, with us, in the resurrection. Thus God is just, for what we go through in life cannot readily be understood. The apostle Peter said that when Jesus was dead in the flesh, he was made alive in the spirit, by which he went and "preached to the spirits in prison, which sometimes were disobedient in the days of Noah." Thus the saying in the creeds of men, "He descended into hell." But to the malefactor, he said, "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise."

Many think Paradise is Heaven, but that's not the case, for man cannot be saved in ignorance. Even the malefactor. It was Origen who sought to remember the teachings of the early church. "Paradise, I think, is a place of learning or school of the spirits," he said, "in which everything they learned on Earth would be made clear to them." This has been bourne out by many people who have had near-death experiences. They undergo what's come to be called "life reviews," where they learn from their experiences during life; and sometimes the reviews are not pleasant. People talk about the beautiful colors and the sights and sounds -- and many have mentioned animals and their ability to communicate. Perhaps God has a working knowledge of this place, and perhaps He also knows His animals are at peace and are happy; and that those who never had a chance to hear the gospel here can perhaps have it preached to them after they pass on. Then, as Peter said, they can "be judged according to men in the flesh, but live, according to God, in the spirit."

Bottom line is, again, we cannot judge God. He knows the most complex secrets of the Universe, and yet He accounts us as His children, not merely His creations. I also suspect He highly regards His animals and delights in their existence and immortality. In the flesh they serve us as food, beasts of burden and, yes, as sacrifices pointing the way to the greatest of all sacrifices. But, ultimately, they will all have a place in the resurrection and be happy throughout the eternities.

Why God does what He does is a mystery. If He could "speak the world into existence out of nothing," as some say, why did it take six "days" (or eras)? Who knows? Until we know these things, can we second guess Him? If the day comes when "every knee shall bend and every tongue confess Christ," I think it safe to say well know a lot more then.

11

Satan, perfection, new world, and being s***ted on again

by Tenacious in

according to the bible man was created a little lower in abilities to that of angels.

this means that angels are a tad higher in regards to their perfection.

perhaps they have a word for it in the spirit realm as we mere mortals do not.

Cold Steel

Actually, the word isn’t “angel,” but “gods.” Man made man a little lower than the gods, or “holy ones.” Satan rebelled as an angel and took a third of the angels with him. The remaining angels, I think, were those of us who were born into mortality. Witness John, who spoke about falling down before one of the angels showing him his vision. The angel replied, “See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (Rev. 22:9) In other words, the angel once lived on Earth as a prophet.

That’s why I’m convinced that God doesn’t create evil beings. People become evil, and, I think, some are born evil. Even though two thirds of us kept our first estate, I believe some were more developed than others. Some of the more wicked spirits may not have rebelled because they knew Lucifer could not possibly win, or they may have had other selfish motives. Certainly, premortality was a popular doctrine in first century Christianity. The apostles asked Jesus, “Lord, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” (See John 9) And Jeremiah wrote, “Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, ‘Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.’” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

I just watched the entire series of interviews with Richard Kuklinski, the “Iceman,” who committed over 200 (by his count) murders, many of them for hire. Then I read Ezekiel 38-39, where the Lord speaks to a man not even born. As I get older, I believe that some people (perhaps all of us) bring a certain amount of baggage into this world. Why do some kids seem to be kind, generous and caring, while others are torturing animals by the time they’re ten years old? Kuklinski said he was beaten up as a kid. Well, so was my dad, but he didn’t turn into a psychopathic killer (that I know of). He was a Type A aviator, whose father was a mean drunk. He definitely carried baggage, but it showed itself in other ways. Still, he was a good, decent, honest man who knew how to make friends and keep them for a lifetime. Kuklinski? Well, he killed all his friends, and anyone who “made me mad.”

Just my view. Having known many kids, and having been one, I know that all men are only equal in the eyes of the law. So where does the evil come from? This isn’t to say that some children are not born innocent. They all are until they reach an age of reason. But as they reach that age, they are capable of great goodness or evil. I can’t believe they just appeared that way.

The apostle Peter, according to the Clementine Homilies, argued:

Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have. (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.1, in ANF, 2:271)

This is significantly different than the soul-sleeping beliefs of the Adventists (including JWs), but despite their holding on to that doctrine, it just isn't long-lived. According to very old non-canonical Christian literature, it's quite clear that the ancient Christians absolutely and without question belived that men had eternal spirits. It was not a Greek intervention.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXgi72W2H7U

26

Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!

by Coded Logic in

when did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?

how did it affect you?.

.

Cold Steel

Most people who assume that the God of the Old Testament is a barbaric and cruel entity, and that, as Jesus, He suddenly was this theological pushover, simply don't have the relevant background to make a good judgment...in my opinion. If one accepts, as a premise, that God knows the thoughts and intents of all men, and that he knows their deeds, then one must assume that His judgments are based in the knowledge of all things. We, however, do not know their hearts or deeds, or the evil within. One can only judge God if one knows what He knows, or if that one assumes the writers of the Old Testament conceptualized a god that would justify their heinous acts.

But we cannot accept both. The patristic church envisioned a God who could do anything. He could "speak" the universe into being, and the very elements themselves. He is an infinite and eternal being. But the early Hebrews had some different views. If God could speak things into existence, why did it take Him seven "days," or eras? Couldn't He just utter a word and the world appear? Their view of God is a being that created the earth out of existing materials and over a period of time. He was loving, compassionate, merciful, but He also knew the evil in the hearts of men and their secret deeds.

In one extra-biblical event, Enoch, in vision, beholds God weeping and asks Him why. The Lord then shows him the coming flood and the people who would die. At first, Enoch entreats God to spare humanity, but then the Lord shows him the wickedness of the people and their deeds. When Enoch sees this, he does a complete turnaround and proclaims that God should rid the earth of them. What Enoch initially lacked -- insight -- completely changed his mind.

Many of those whom the Lord slew, or ordered slain, were horribly profligate people -- people who sacrificed infants and who practiced the most debased sexual rituals imaginable. God knew these people would have a corrupt influence on His people, and later, when these cults infiltrated His people, He often either withdrew from the people and left them in a state of apostasy, or He took measures to surgically remove it. And though this may sound harsh to some today, from the Lord's perspective He's simply moving people to penalty boxes, where they will await the time when the Lord opens the gates of the prison and they will have their chance to hear the gospel and have their chance for redemption. "For for this cause was the gospel preached unto them who are dead," Peter wrote, "that they may be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

The day will come when every knee will bend and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. Why? Because, like Enoch, you will have the same insight that the Lord had and realize that He did what had to be done in the context it was done.