Judgment City's treatment of children

the only only think I can thank
is that the kids what get popped
or what ever what ever
auto-matically go 2 some where what
they get a different kind of "test"
so like if u like live a long time & have no
"fear"
U like go 2 one place
& if u get off'd 2 soon u don't go back "here"
but u don't go on to like where ever it is they go 2 if they
have no fear
the little childrens go some where elles



so so
kinda dig the whole
after thang

I think it was Tommy Robbins who intr0-duced me 2 the concept of weighing the heart against a feather
think it was "skinny legs & all"
if yer heart is heavy u go back
if yer heart is as light as a feather . . .

very moving

O & like
my other
other other fav is like
the preacher from
"Quiet little sheeps"
"all the little childrens
they come out & say
come in side
Jezzuz is waitin' on ya"

thought I was gonna die

I could just watch it again & again

jim roche video

the guy is a gawd
not "the" gawd
a gawd
rilly


scissors 2 banjo
banjo scissoroo

uhhh.. yeah.. ok.. moving on from whatever the hell ^that guy^ was talking about???

it was my guess that if you die as a kid, then youve already died as an adult many times, and dying as a kid makes getting over that last fear(maybe the fear of death?) a lot easier.

that is, no young souls die in young bodies, only kids with old souls die young.

That struck me too last time I watched it. The only explanation I can think of is that it was Brooks' answer to the old Christian purgatory question (i.e., that those who die before baptism were sent to limbo instead of heaven. I believe the the Church has dropped this notion, however). The concept of limbo does not strike many as particularly merciful.

Granted, Albert is Jewish, so I'm not sure if there's an equivalent doctrine or if it's an idea that interested him. But in his universe of multiple lifetimes, it doesn't seem to matter. Why wouldn't a child just be sent back to begin a new childhood? This is not the same as holding a child responsible for not understanding the nature of their fears, but instead a byproduct of freewill (in a world of freewill, unfortunate deaths will occur).

On the other hand, the idea may simply reflect the protective stance society has increasingly taken towards children.....some might argue over-protective. For example, American children today are usually guaranteed a trophy when playing organized sports, regardless of how well they performed. In the past, a trophy was something earned, a prize for exceptional performance on the field.

I agree that providing a child automatic advancement in Albert's world seems to cut against the grain of the rules he creates. Here, childhood is a virtue in itself which always trumps the criteria of overcoming fears used to judge adults. But advancing a child on this basis does not ensure that they possess the wisdom ordinarily required to do so, nor does it speak to the age of their souls (i.e., it could be their first lifetime, or the thirtieth for all we know).

I think I may have a way of answering this, I know this is a old topic but was watching this movie last night and I think the reasoning behind why Children do not have to defend themselves Is there in the movie itself if you know what to look for.

One of the things Diamond says is that everyone on earth DEALS with Fear,now in my view the whole point of being "put on trial for being Afraid" as Daniel puts it is not so much about being afraid,it's about proving that you have gotten over your fears. Bob Diamond even said that's what he did when he Finally advanced and moved forward he "got over his fears". We see this point again later when Diamond says that he feels Daniel has surpassed the key fears and recommends full onward movement.

What does this have to do with Children you ask? Everything! In the case of a child their lifetime would have been very short,so they would not have had the opportunity to not only devlop fear (of anything) let alone be able to overcome that fear. The whole point of being sent back to earth is to work on "overcoming fear" over another lifetime. A child would not have had a full lifetime to devlop and overcome their fears as a adult. Therefore they shouldn't have to defend themselves just because they died a child with fears with no opportunity over the course of a lifetime to overcome fear. Daniel even eludes to this himself when he said he was taken very young and still had a few fears he felt he could have conquered,as a reasoning behind why they should allow him to move forward.

You then must equate the trial system to that of us here in America wjhere you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thus you cannot prove a child has not surpassed fear satisfactorily if they haven't had the intended "opportunity of a lifetime" to be able to do so,hence why they do not have to defend themselves.

Not sure if this is completely related, but I remember as a kid hearing the expression that only the good die young, and thinking that they had be through many lives before, but only needed a bit more "hell on Earth" to have finally paid their dues. Since they were close to being pure enough souls to move on at birth, only the good ones would be taken early as they had finished their penance.

It is bad to drink Jobus rum. Very bad.