""No sight so sad as that of a naughty child," he began, "especially a naughty little girl. Do you know where the wicked go after death?"
"They go to hell," was my ready and orthodox answer.
"And what is hell? Can you tell me that?"
"A pit full of fire."
"And should you like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there for ever?"
"No, sir."
"What must you do to avoid it?"
I deliberated a moment; my answer, when it did come, was objectionable: "I must keep in good health, and not die."
"How can you keep in good health? Children younger than you die daily. I buried a little child of five years old only a day or two since, — a good little child, whose soul is now in heaven. It is to be feared the same could not be said of you were you to be called hence."
Not being in a condition to remove his doubt, I only cast my eyes down on the two large feet planted on the rug, and sighed, wishing myself far enough away.
"I hope that sigh is from the heart, and that you repent of ever having been the occasion of discomfort to your excellent benefactress."
*********
"And the Psalms? I hope you like them?"
"No, sir."
"No? oh, shocking! I have a little boy, younger than you, who knows six Psalms by heart: and when you ask him which he would rather have, a gingerbread-nut to eat or a verse of a Psalm to learn, he says: 'Oh! the verse of a Psalm! angels sing Psalms;' says he, 'I wish to be a little angel here below;' he then gets two nuts in recompense for his infant piety."
Hum, looking around at the enlightened world of the last few decades & the way folks are and act today, maybe instilling fear of hellfire again wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Atheism and theism are both matters of faith, can't be tested, no rational proofs either way. Of course a Deist would argue such but as far as I can tell, all their proofs are premises and their arguments circular.
Theist, it's logical to do right, else you'll burn in hell forever and ever.
Atheist, situational morality, in other words, don't get caught doing wrong.
Agnosticism, damnedifIknow, hedge your bets just in case, is, in my opinion the only rational position.
Back to my first sentence; seems to me it's rational and logical for the agnostic to support the theist view as such keeps many doing the right things. Also it would be in the best interests of the atheist to at least pay lip service to such.
So, no little Suzie, you mustn't shake your baby brother like that else you're spend forever and ever in the third dungeon with the red hot floor!
Fascinating subject. Thank you for you insight into this unusual document.
sorry, but it reminded me so:
""No sight so sad as that of a naughty child," he began, "especially a naughty little girl. Do you know where the wicked go after death?"
"They go to hell," was my ready and orthodox answer.
"And what is hell? Can you tell me that?"
"A pit full of fire."
"And should you like to fall into that pit, and to be burning there for ever?"
"No, sir."
"What must you do to avoid it?"
I deliberated a moment; my answer, when it did come, was objectionable: "I must keep in good health, and not die."
"How can you keep in good health? Children younger than you die daily. I buried a little child of five years old only a day or two since, — a good little child, whose soul is now in heaven. It is to be feared the same could not be said of you were you to be called hence."
Not being in a condition to remove his doubt, I only cast my eyes down on the two large feet planted on the rug, and sighed, wishing myself far enough away.
"I hope that sigh is from the heart, and that you repent of ever having been the occasion of discomfort to your excellent benefactress."
*********
"And the Psalms? I hope you like them?"
"No, sir."
"No? oh, shocking! I have a little boy, younger than you, who knows six Psalms by heart: and when you ask him which he would rather have, a gingerbread-nut to eat or a verse of a Psalm to learn, he says: 'Oh! the verse of a Psalm! angels sing Psalms;' says he, 'I wish to be a little angel here below;' he then gets two nuts in recompense for his infant piety."
Hum, looking around at the enlightened world of the last few decades & the way folks are and act today, maybe instilling fear of hellfire again wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Atheism and theism are both matters of faith, can't be tested, no rational proofs either way. Of course a Deist would argue such but as far as I can tell, all their proofs are premises and their arguments circular.
Theist, it's logical to do right, else you'll burn in hell forever and ever.
Atheist, situational morality, in other words, don't get caught doing wrong.
Agnosticism, damnedifIknow, hedge your bets just in case, is, in my opinion the only rational position.
Back to my first sentence; seems to me it's rational and logical for the agnostic to support the theist view as such keeps many doing the right things. Also it would be in the best interests of the atheist to at least pay lip service to such.
So, no little Suzie, you mustn't shake your baby brother like that else you're spend forever and ever in the third dungeon with the red hot floor!
Gotta love those amazing Victorians!
Thanks for unveiling this strange old work!