WEEK 9: Fydor Dostoevsky "Brothers Karamazov"

[Mateo Duque]

I'm starting a thread on Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov." This is supposed to be a continuation of our discussion from last week where I just briefly introduced the novel. We are reading two sections from this Russian Epic: "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor." I want to remind you of the question I left with last week: 

Dostoevsky is known for writing philosophical novels, or “books of ideas.” Our job is to pull the argument from the literature. That is not to say that we will not attend to literary, and stylistic features of writing, but it means that we must be careful and do some work to find and extract the ‘philosophy’ from Dostoevsky’s story. Remember the 3 elements in all persuasive rhetoric according to Aristotle: logos (reason, account, story, ‘logic’); pathos (passions, emotions, sentiments, experiences); and, ethos (character, habit, environment, the ‘ethics’ of a person or people). Try to pinpoint where characters are using or combining the different rhetorical tactics.

[destinycouturee]

"Man is a born a rebel, and can rebels be ever happy?"

Ivan speaks about the temptations presented to Jesus Christ by Satan. Christ was able to reject all of the temptations, and in doing so gave human beings free will. Although, this free will is controversial. The Grand Inquisitor explores how Jesus made the wrong choice when he gave humans free will. One of the main points the Grand Inquisitor makes is that, all men are born rebels.The inquisitor explains that rebels will constantly desire more from life. This desire and ambition will lead us to sin at one point or another. Subsequently, by giving us free will, Jesus dammed us all. Mankind is constantly seduced by sin on a daily basis. We are inclined to sin, which therefore causes us to turn away from God's graces. If we were not given free will than, we wouldn't be sinners/rebels. Subsequently, we would all go to heaven. The Grand Inquisitor gives an alternative: an end to free will. Do you believe that all humans are inclined to sin as some point in their life? If so was the gift of free will given to us more detrimental or advantageous to us?

[raquel.palmas826]

Raquel Palmas
Grand Inquisitor
“Thou wouldst go into the world, and art going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand, which they fear and dread- for nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.”

I found this quote interesting because it speaks to the idea of free will and the nature of mankind. Here the grand inquisitor asserts that human nature is flawed because of concept of free will.  He argues that by giving us free will condemns and liberates humanity all in the same breath. Although the Grand Inquisitor seems to have humanities best interest in mind the thought of not having the ability of choice in our own live I found to be quiet disturbing. Most of us never look at the power of free will as something that enables us to suffer rather something that allows us to grow as human beings. In giving humanity free will the great inquisitor claims that Christ has done wrong by humanity.  His belief in contrast is giving humanity no choice all is  granting everyone safety ands stability.  This idea I found to be the hardest to accept the idea of not being given a choice would eliminates the room for growth within a human being and neglects the idea of the individual. The freedom of choice test the nature of the individual and in essence choices we make, make us who we are. I also believe that the individual cannot exist without free will. His suggestion that human nature is weak and that man is more likely to go astray because of these freedoms only strengthens my belief that free will serves as an assessment of character. This concept of no choice makes me wonder what society would be like if free will only existed as a thought.

[Katrina Castillo]

"People speak sometimes about the 'animal' cruelty of man but that is terribly unjust and offensive to animals, no animal could ever be so cruel as a man, so artfully, so artistically cruel."

I agree with Ivan's statement that animals are not worthy to be associated with the cruelty that man is capable of doing.  While it is true that animals attack or can inflict pain, it is often not prolonged and is more humane. It also does not involve an audience that will endure a psychological type of torture as if the victim's physical abuse was not enough.  One can imagine a cat attacking its prey, with one quick swoop of its paws, it immediately devours it and leaves.  It will never nibble on its prey and allow it to struggle or will it display its prey with the survivors to instill fear.  Man on the other can manage to display violence almost in a theatrical manner. This was displayed in the General's reaction towards the child servant.  I am certain it was not realized in an instant and had to be carefully thought out as to how it can arouse emotions with death as the final act.  If the word 'animal' which refers to man's cruelty is questionable, then shouldn't humane be reconsidered as well?

[T Payne]

Tonia Payne

“Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It’s quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering.”

Ivan argues that it is impossible to believe in a God that will allow children to suffer. He can reason with adults suffering to pay for their sins, but feel children are too young to sin. If God supposedly love children, how can he allow them to be tormented? Therefore, if there is a God he must not like man kind. I agree. As much as we want to believe in God it is hard when so many horrible things happen in life especially to innocent children. Yes some children are mean, may tell a lie, or even take something that does not belong to them, but until taught by a parent they do not understand the consequences. Some people may believe "There is evil in all good" or "You have to take the good with the bad". But at what age should children begin to pay for their own sins?

[giazkhan]

“I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise again, for it all happens without me, it will be too unfair.”
This quote is from The Rebellion by Ivan and what he is basically saying here is that he wants to see punishment for the earthly sins committed to be taken on earth. Not by throwing people in hell for the actions that they had taken on earth since that is an infinite time and space. He believes that he has to witness the punishment. What Ivan is saying here is logical, he basically wants revenge for all the sins on earth because then true justice would be achieved. But a religious person like Aloysha can argue this by saying that is the justice taken on earth a bigger punishment or the punishment that is an infinite like the one they would face in hell a bigger one? This seems to put doubts on how strong truly are Ivan’s beliefs in religion. He seems to be not concerned with the afterlife as much as he is with the present one. Is he doubting there ever being a hell or heaven that is infinite thus feeling that true justice and punishment must be the earthly one? I think he does have doubts about religion and should be consider a skeptic. He does not reject religion throughout his writings but isn’t completely blinded by them either.
I liked how in The Grand Inquisitor part towards the end he said how the powerful people are ones who are the biggest atheists because they do not want there to be something powerful than them like the cardinal who told Jesus to leave people alone.

[Yaakov Bressler]

Yaakov Bressler

Friday’s discussion got me thinking.

I’m not sure if everyone knows about the sinful city of “Sodom”, it is written in the Torah that the people living in Sodom were wicked sinful. Similar to what we were talking about on Friday. They were especially cruel to non-residents; here are three stories of their cruelties:

1) A visitor came and someone offered him a bed that only came to his waist. Since there was nowhere else to stay he had no choice but to stay there. That night the people of Sodom came and sawed off his legs until his waist.

2) A woman offered a visitor a honey (some say as an act of promiscuity). The people of Sodom took her and strung her naked in the town square and released killer bees. She was eaten alive.

3) Sodom was a promiscuous city, a place where adultery existed in the open. Visitors would be kidnapped and sodomized so impoverished fortune seekers would be kept away (Rashi, Ibn Ezra).

So I’ll insert the implied question of Dostoevsky’s: “How can such cruelty exist if there’s a god?”

“So Hashem said, “Because the outcry* of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great…(Genesis, Vayerah 18:20).”

*outcry = rebellion. (Gomorrah was the adjoining city of Sodom.)

 

What did Sodom do that was so bad that they rebelled against god. It seems like they were just being cruel and selfish…

This cruelty stemmed from the attitude of “What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours (Avos 5:10).”

This level of selfishness is much more extreme than what is seems. It doesn’t mean “I don’t want to lend anyone anything.” It means “if I lend you a quarter, you have a quarter that I earned. Why should I have less and you have more.” As if doing someone a favor is losing something that you rightfully own.

This is what the people of Sodom did. It’s as if they told god “God, you exist up in the sky, we exist down here. You stay up there and rule up there. We’ll rule over here.” It was as if the earth belonged to them, and god had no business down here.

We’ve seen this before with the thought experiment Ivan proposed, where the rich landowner tortured the boy who hurt his hunting dog. When men take their authority and say “this is mine” and “god’s authority doesn’t rule here. “ This is cruelty. This is the absence of a God.

The answer I would give to Ivan (through my Jewish scope) is that the boy deserved it from another life. The landowner will be punished after death. So god is maintaining order, but not mandating such cruelty.

So no, cruelty does not exist in the absence of God. It exists only when a higher sense of order  is set forward that rationalizes God’s order and Man’s order.

[tenzin choetso]

Tenzin Choetso

"The question is whether this comes from bad qualities in people, or is inherent in their nature. In my opinion, Christ's love for people is in its kind a miracle impossible on earth."

In this quote, Ivan is saying that the love Christ has for people in a way is a miracle because how can such a perfect being love creatures that are very cruel. I agree with much of what Ivan is saying. How can a God who is supposed to be the most kind, perfect, and powerful being in the world in the first place create a world where chaos and cruelty occurs right around the corner? Nevertheless, with every evil deed; a good deed occurs. Humans are easily influenced by evil but on some occasions there are people who take the high road and commit good acts. Maybe that's why Christ loves us. Because there are these little moments when human beings are kind to each other. It's like that little cliche saying "It's the little things that count." It's like that example Yaakov gives. Yes, the Sodom people sawed off his legs until his waist, and yes they ate the lady and those were harsh acts but what about the visitor who offered him bed and the lady offered him honey. How come we don't notice the kind acts? I think that Christ loves humans because he notices the little things while people only focus on the harshness of life and not the beauty of life. So my question is when you read Yaakov's post, did you just focus on the cruel things the Sodom people did or did you notice the kind acts the visitor and lady did? 

    

[mstrose94]

Reply to Katrina Castillo

I agree completely with your notion about the difference between the violence of animals and the violence of humans. I read a work by Stephan Jay Gould Nonmoral Nature that talked about the benevolence of God and his reasoning or rather justification of putting certain creatures on earth. An example was the lion, God put the lion on earth even though it is such a dangerous creature. Its purpose is one thing but the way that it fulfilled such purpose  was just and in a way "humane". Swift and easy straight in the neck on lambs, goats, whatever the creature may be. Keeping the violence to the bear minimum unlike that of us humans. We rather torture our peers than just put a quick end to them. The idea is interesting but at the same time there are always those that don't follow the trend. Just for arguments sake I have witnessed a cat catch mouse and actually sit there and play with it. It doesn't seem like much but in person the sight is really funny, and no, the mouse actually got away. 

[frankie11214]

Reply to Raquel Palmas

I absolutely agree with your points. Free will is definitely something to question about and I believe it has a split-view perspective. Free will can be beneficial in developing an own sense of individualism and allows us to have freedom of making decisions. On the contrary, as you have stated in your post, it can cause suffering to people when bombarded with many choices. For example, a customer in Pinkberry can be flooded with so many frozen yogurt choices that he does not know possibly what item he wants. In a way, what I am trying to say is, limiting on free-will is not entirely bad, but free-will should not be completely taken away. Also, in response to your question, I believe if free-will is to exist only as a thought, I think people would only reason with facts, though emotions would no longer have an influence on their judgments.

[jeanmalabre01]

“…Imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature…would you agree to be the architect on such condition?”(Rebellion, p.245)

 This question of Ivan to his brother Alyosha compels me for its selfishness approach. It invites one to think of the happiness of others. Through this question, Ivan is suggesting that is it inevitable for governments to apply forces when it is necessary, because that would be the only way to establish order for the future civilization. We are usually critic of such method pretending that we are too good to commit any form of atrocities, but somebody has to the job for us. Back home we have an impressive amount of crimes, one day I asked a cousin of mine who is a police officer, how they do not shoot without judgment everyone committing those atrocities (please do not get me wrong, those criminals do worse than Ivan had described)  when caught one in the act? His answer got me thinking a lot, he asked me if I think that I could it if I was the one with the gun. My answer was a rapid NO. We are just enjoying the peace that others have had worked hard to establish for us, most of the time to the price of their lives, are we grateful to them? Plato once said “Si vis pacem, para bellum” which means if you want peace prepare for war; this means that there is always a price to pay for peace. My question is what form of happiness would have its source from the suffering of others? What is happiness in the finale?

[clhj92]

@TenzinChoetso I wouldn't say I focused on the cruel things the people of Sodom did I would say they made a bigger impact. I think it's because we are wired that way, we seem to have a twisted obsession with pain and suffering and I think its because we use it as a measurement of our own lives it makes us think gosh I'm glad I'm not him/her. It's twisted but I think it's true we are all guilty of doing this I don't know if I would call it joy but more like comfort in knowing that we are not the ones suffering and that there is always some one out there that has it worst then we do

[jeanmalabre01]

“They have put too high a price on harmony; we can’t afford to pay so much for admission. And therefore I hasten to return my ticket. And it is my duty, if only as an honest man, to return it as far ahead of time as possible.” (Rebellion, p. 245)

Some people think that victims should find a way to forgive their victimizers in order to establish a cosmic balance or to deserve God’s grace according to others. This is a very powerful reasoning when we think about it; imagine someone killed your son for no reason and one day you come to the point of saying I forgive you, and you really mean. Ivan rejects the idea that harmony should base on such an unfair condition, the idea that the mother or the killed son if it could be possible to forgive the insensitive criminal for the sole benefit of establishing a cosmic balance or for God’s grace. Ivan thinks that no sponge can erase the harm done to an innocent, and nothing can explain such absurdity. “As an honest man he refuses to be a witness” of a harmony base on this big self sacrifice, because forgiving such a criminal is a self sacrifice. I share Ivan thinking because it is unthinkable to utterly forgive someone who victimize you or someone who is close to you. It is often easy to preach forgiveness to somebody else, but how easy can it be for you to ever forgive someone who killed your kid?

[Harol Jimenez]

Harol JImenez

"People speak sometimes about the 'animal' cruelty of man but that is terribly unjust and offensive to animals, no animal could ever be so cruel as a man, so artfully, so artistically cruel." 

         Ivan could not be any more spot on here. Man creates weapons, diseases, kill each other over territory, or commits genocide because they disagree on others religions or don't like there race, commit rape. When an animal kills it kills to feed or because the other animal is posing a threat. When "Man" kills it does for reasons that sometimes don't make any sense. We think we are the higher beings because we have the ability to speak, walk on two feet and really because if we wanted to we could send every animal into extinction. I think what ivan is saying is true we shouldn't associate ourselves with animals in any way we dont have the right to because we are more backwards then they are. We kill each other for sport or because we just feel like killing. Now we do other things that make us worst if we see someone in pain and we have the ability to help we dont. Why?  Well because were busy, we have somewhere to be or lets be honest because we really dont want to and we truly dont care.      

[szeswitz]

... so i renounce the higher harmony all together. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its tears to 'dear, kind God'!.." - Rebellion p.277

I recently heard a story on This American Life about Carlton Pearson, which reminded me of themes within Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor from the Brothers Karamazov. Pearson was a pentecostal reverend who was labelled a heretic by his peers for questioning the existence of hell as a place of eternal damnation for non-christians. At the peak of his career as an evangelical minister, Pearson began doubting the church's traditional paradigm of hell and suffering after watching a news special on the Rwanadan genocide. The images of suffering children opened his eyes to the absurdities capable of human beings, and he began to doubt his own interpretation that god is a loving sovereign only subservient to followers christianity. Pearson had the epiphany that all human beings were inherently saved, regardless of theological beliefs, and that the concept of hell is a state on earth created by human cruelty. This idea undermined the foundation of the pentecostal church: follow the word of god so you don't eternally suffer in hell. His congregation ultimately fell apart, and accusations of blasphemy and heresy against Pearson ran rampant in the evangelical community.

The pentecostal church's reasoning behind suffering is that those who suffer have not accepted the "word of jesus christ" as their moral foundation. Pearson's concept of hell difficult to accept because it undermines the basis of that moral satisfaction, and removes the retribution of sinners. Both Ivan and Rev. Pearson argue for collective accountability of human suffering. 

[Harol Jimenez]

@szeswits 

When i first read this story i couldnt believe what i was reading. For some reason when i read your quote i was reminded of the book Night by Elie Wiesel specifically a quote from it "Where is God? Where is He?” someone behind me asked. ..

For more than half an hour [the child in the noose] stayed there, struggling between life and death, dying in slow agony under our eyes. And we had to look him full in the face. He was still alive when I passed in front of him. His tongue was still red, his eyes were not yet glazed. Behind me, I heard the same man asking: “Where is God now?”And I heard a voice within me answer him: “Where is He? Here He is—He is hanging here on this gallows. . . .” . Things like this cause me to question religion and everything man stands for. If god is real and he is all knowing and powerful why would he allow suffering of this magnitude what could he possible gain with letting acts like this happen. I think thats why Ivan wants us to rebel against not just religion but God himself because we shouldn't blame anything on a higher being but instead blame ourselves and our "mans" moral conscience.  

[raquel.palmas826]

Rebellion 

“If the devil does not exist, and man has therefore created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness” (pg. 239)

For some reason in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut this was all that I could think about. Ivan’s focus on the suffering of children because they are innocent and loveable and have not yet experienced anything that would taint their being or as Ivan would say they have not yet "eaten the apple." I found myself thinking in this life there are absurdities we cannot account for although we really wish we could. This lead to a questioning to the nature of man and how inherently selfish we all are because in a week or two this will be forgotten something referred to in passing nothing truly taken from this, even further how there are people suffering all the time and no one cares until it is placed in front of their faces. This thinking then made me extremely upset and understandably so but is this sense of being removed from the horrors of the world necessary for the functionality of man? Ivan is a perfect example of what someone maybe like if thinking, reason or intellect consumed your being. I also found myself thinking that we all want some sort of justice or moral satisfaction for what happen whether that strict gun control or more public discussion of mental illness. Events like these make us question the nature of the world and the nature of mankind. There is no reasoning or something that could justify such a horrific action. After this line Ivan goes on to quote Shakespeare, which furthered my thoughts reminding me of this quote “Hell is empty and all of the devils are here”, another quote by Shakespeare from the tempest as well as one of the opening quotes to one of my favorite movies. Even if these ideas were true I believe there always must be hope for something better, to just sit and allow for these thoughts to consume us would drive us mad. The idea children suffering we all can agree is horrible however if we allow ourselves to solely focus on something negative for too long it begins to effect us in a myriad of ways. When Ivan talks about the suffering of children he begins to feel sick and get a headache. Here we can see the idea that Ivan displays the characteristic of intellect and reason, he is unable to understand the forgiveness because he is so enraptured in the reasoning of it all. This thought sits with him and festers eventually making him believe there is no order or balance in this world.  How then do we justify terrible things should we accept that they happen and just let it go or is there something to be said for thing?

 

Also I know the class is over and most likely no one is reading these but if you get a chance read or listen to this commencement speech that David foster Wallace made at Keyon in 2005 it relates to my post and I promise it wont be a waste of time :

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in-his-own-words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vET9cvlGJQw part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEjVnB7AeBQ part 2

[raquel.palmas826]

* something to things that shouldn't be left unsaid?

[konfeta04]

“Imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature…and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears – would you agree to be the architect on such conditions?” (Page 245)

This is a quote from Ivan where he asks Alyosha if he would be willing to build his plan for eternal salvation for all of humankind on the pain and suffering of a defenseless creature that would turn to him for help but would receive none in return. Ivan is making implies that the way that Alyosha completely refuses to build his plan for eternal salvation is the one that God is using. I agree with Ivan and think that if God was truly the almighty creator of our universe and could change any aspect of it as he desired, he would not allow his plan for eternal salvation and forgiveness be built upon so much pain and suffering. Even if our mortal life on earth is all just a way to be taught a lesson, grow as a person, and then later forgiven in heaven, it still does not justify the suffering that people go through at the hands of others, because the pain and suffering they feel is completely real and it is evil to allow people, especially those that are innocent of any wrongdoings, to go through that.

[konfeta04]

That is precisely the reason that I do not believe in a God as described by most modern religions today, because of the things that I saw happen a long time ago, or even the terrible stuff going on today. If God truly wished the best for us as his creations then he would not allow us to murder, or torture one another, which shows that he either does not wish the best for us or does not have the power to control any of these things in the first place. If he could change the nature of humans and stop the horrible things that happen but chooses not to, then he is not a concept or idea that I respect.

[konfeta04]

@Harol Jimenez 

[T Payne]

Ivan says; “It isn’t God I don’t accept, you see; it’s the world created by Him, the world of God I don’t accept and cannot agree to accept”

This does not mean Ivan is accepting God, he is saying that he have no choice but to deal with the world God created. Ivan stated that if God exists and he really did create the world, he has created humankind with minds according to “Euclidean geometry”. Meaning that we live in a world where two plus two will always equal four and people will think the same. Ivan's response of whether or not God exists is; “I meekly confess that I do not possess the faculties needed to solve such questions”. It is not that Ivan don't want to believe in God's existence, it's that he believes it immoral to partake in any plan that would involve the suffering of children. Like many people today, Ivan is struggling with unanswered questions about God's existence. It is hard for some people to believe and have faith in things with there is no physical proof. He says that he is happy to believe that there may be a God and that there may be an eternal harmony at the end in which “the offensive comedy of human conflict will disappear”. Hence all that to go by is what is in front of him and make sense of it with his Euclidean mind. And what he sees, he cannot accept.

[gabdel7]

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature -- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance -- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."

Alyosha replies to his atheist brother that he would refuse the conditions that are being discussed. But would it be so bad for him to have said, yes? Matyrdom, be it of Christ or this hypothetical baby, is a common theme in religious tradition. And what about all of the babies that will be tortured without the world peace that torturing this one baby would have brought about (isn't this a cheerful discussion) ? The problem is, "the problem of evil". If a God would require the torture of an infant (symbolic of the very existence of unjust suffering) in order to grant everlasting happiness from then on, that would still make him either evil himself, or inferior to the evil of another (presumably the Devil). 

If eternal peace does not justify even one baby's suffering, how could the mass amounts of suffering that all humans endure to get to heaven be justifiable either?

[Dillen Lewis]

I can understand why Ivan sees things the way he does and questions the beliefs of religious people. I also agree with him on the suffering of children not fitting into the moral equation "All things happen for a reason". But even though I agree with him on these things, I don't like the way Ivan demonizes all of humanity based on the suffering of others. I don't know if he realizes that there are people in the world who are trying to make things better, or if he just chooses to ignore that fact. I also don't understand why he restricts his argument only to children. There are adults that seriously screw other adults over while the victim has no option to prepare or fight against them. In the grand inquisitor, I feel he should have blamed the nameless one for not punishing the horrible things people do to others instead of just saying we shouldn't have any free will of our own. Trading our free will for peace is very tempting, but i don't think that is the cure for humanity.  

[Dillen Lewis]

Hello Tonia, to give my own opinion on this topic, why does God allow such horrible things to both children and adults who don't deserve it. For example, one minute a family is walking home from picking up their child from school or something, and the next minute the child and father are dead because of a car accident involving a drunk driver, who survives. Is it fair to the wife who's life was destroyed by one idiot? Where is the justice in that? The drunk driver going to jail? Couldn't God have prevented it since he has all of this amazing power? I mean, what's the point of claiming to be the savior of mankind if you're not actually saving people? 

[simondfchan]

“ I think that if the devil does not exist, and man has therefore created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.”

Ivan set a few cruelty examples to show Alyshoa. I remember one of example the most is how the Turks killed the baby. Ivan compared grow ups and children. He mentioned children is like a blank piece of paper, they may not what is right or wrong thing to do. Children often simulate what grow ups do. However, if grow ups perform any kind of action, they already know how the outcome is. The quote and Ivan 's examples reminded me of the gunman who shot and killed many people at the batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises" in Colorado movie theater. The killer, James Holmes killed many innocents of people that he had never ever met before. He killed many innocent people to satisfy his pleasure. Holmes could have enjoy that batman movie with other audiences at the theater, but he chose to kill the innocents. This is very similar situation as how the Turks killed the harmless baby. Both Killers chose the path to ruin others life.

[simondfchan]

Hey Tonia
I am assuming children should begin to pay for their own sins once they turn 18 years old. Especially, that is when they don't need their parents or guardian to help them to sign any contract because they are not minors anymore. If they sign the contract, they will be stuck with it for the rest of their life. That is how my friend was stuck in my gym because he couldn't cancel his membership!