T
tonyrey
Guest
The famous atheist Sartre believed we cannot be persons if we are not free. That is what distinguishes us from all other forms of life on earth.
- Status
F
friardchips
Guest
F
friardchips
Guest
So would abortion, euthanasia, and genetically scrambled-with children (underlying depair due to lack of wisdom).You are wrong because if the Catholic Church believed that having children is evil, birth control would be allowed and encouraged.
Lou
I read recently that the world’s problems are theological - if the despairing outlook of nations was not rooted in ignorance to LOVE then the answer would not be found in the “poor Church” (which we know it is!) and our participation wouldn’t have to involve humble prayer (which we know it does!)…
…placed into the hands of a certain Mother (I think we know who!).
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is also unbounded in the sense that it never comes to an end. God doesn’t do things by halves! We are made in His image and never cease to exist. That is why Hell exists to the extent that individuals choose to be independent.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Of course not! It would be a sad loss, but not a total waste of time since at least a few people (hopefully) derived some benefit.
Now, if the moderators were to come to each of our houses and proceed to violently torture us for the next, oh say, month, then it would have been evil to start this thread!
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
tonyrey,
Thank you for your efforts. You clearly have invested much time and effort into your understanding of this problem. I won’t respond to each of your points because it will just be us going round again getting nowhere. I must say that I believe your soteriological view is not consonant with Roman Catholicism. I think your view depends on the following:
When going for a run, I thought of another example. This is to respond to the idea that it isn’t ever immoral to allow others to make a choice. ProdigalArchitect brought this up and I didn’t respond because I forgot.
Consider the debate about Nuclear proliferation. There are many people who would like to see all nuclear weapons dismantled and never rebuilt. Why? Because completely destroying all nuclear weapons is the only way to guarantee they won’t be used.
Nuclear weapons are horrifically destructive and cause tremendous evil. Right now as we sit at our computers, any one of a dozen countries could start a war that would utterly annihilate all life on the planet and destroy our environment for centuries afterward.
Is it “good” that these countries have a choice or the “freedom” to use nuclear weapons? Is it good that such a tremendous evil is available to certain people? I submit that, no, it would have been better if no nuclear weapons had ever existed. It would be better if we did not have the freedom to choose to utterly destroy our world.
Similarly, it would be better if we did not have the freedom to “choose hell.” I submit that hell is actually more evil than a total thermo-nuclear war because hell involves limitless suffering and torment, where a nuclear war is still a limited evil. Nuclear war is a “this too shall pass” kind of evil, but hell lasts forever.
Do you want your children to have the freedom to die in a nuclear war? If not, why would you want to give them the freedom to experience something ever so much worse?
Yes, we benefit from nuclear power, but we don’t have to build the weapons. Similarly, being alive and having some amount of freedom is a good thing, but there is no reason we must be tormented for eternity.
However, for one who insists that we must “build the weapons” or that eternal hell must be believed, then I submit that it is evil to have children since, by having them, you are complicit in their eternal torment. And, those who support the building and stockpiling of nuclear weapons are similarly complicit if there were ever to be a catastrophic nuclear war.
The case of nuclear weapons is different, obviously, because none of us have the power to choose to dismantle the weapons. We’re not the leaders of the nuclear nations, and we can’t change this. However, we have much more control over whether or not we will have children. It would be like if we were the presidents/PM’s/dictators of all the nuclear power countries simultaneously, and we could choose not to build the weapons. I submit that if we went ahead and built the weapons, knowing that they could be used, we would shoulder enormous guilt if they ever were used.
Also, I thought of another comparison.
Roman Catholic schools, hospitals, agencies, etc are upset because they don’t even want to sign a paper which would allow a third party insurer to pay for contraceptives for their employees. They reason (and I agree!) that they would be morally complicit in an intrinsic evil if they were to even so much as approve of another person’s funding a contraceptive. I believe I am employing a similar line of moral reasoning here. Many people would call this a ridiculously expanded “locus” of moral liability, but I disagree. I think RCC organizations really would be complicit to a limited extent if they even so much as approve of a third party exchange of money for an intrinsic evil.
However, the choice to have sex isn’t so far removed from a child’s existence! One is directly responsible for the existence of one’s children. If that child chooses hell, then the parent is at least partially guilty. Since hell is such a tremendous evil, the parent is partially guilty of a tremendous evil. That is a lot of guilt! Best avoided, in my opinion.
Thank you for your efforts. You clearly have invested much time and effort into your understanding of this problem. I won’t respond to each of your points because it will just be us going round again getting nowhere. I must say that I believe your soteriological view is not consonant with Roman Catholicism. I think your view depends on the following:
- “Libertarian Free-Will” is the summum bonum for human beings
- Hell is not a punishment inflicted by God
- It is better to exist in hell than to never have been born
When going for a run, I thought of another example. This is to respond to the idea that it isn’t ever immoral to allow others to make a choice. ProdigalArchitect brought this up and I didn’t respond because I forgot.
Consider the debate about Nuclear proliferation. There are many people who would like to see all nuclear weapons dismantled and never rebuilt. Why? Because completely destroying all nuclear weapons is the only way to guarantee they won’t be used.
Nuclear weapons are horrifically destructive and cause tremendous evil. Right now as we sit at our computers, any one of a dozen countries could start a war that would utterly annihilate all life on the planet and destroy our environment for centuries afterward.
Is it “good” that these countries have a choice or the “freedom” to use nuclear weapons? Is it good that such a tremendous evil is available to certain people? I submit that, no, it would have been better if no nuclear weapons had ever existed. It would be better if we did not have the freedom to choose to utterly destroy our world.
Similarly, it would be better if we did not have the freedom to “choose hell.” I submit that hell is actually more evil than a total thermo-nuclear war because hell involves limitless suffering and torment, where a nuclear war is still a limited evil. Nuclear war is a “this too shall pass” kind of evil, but hell lasts forever.
Do you want your children to have the freedom to die in a nuclear war? If not, why would you want to give them the freedom to experience something ever so much worse?
Yes, we benefit from nuclear power, but we don’t have to build the weapons. Similarly, being alive and having some amount of freedom is a good thing, but there is no reason we must be tormented for eternity.
However, for one who insists that we must “build the weapons” or that eternal hell must be believed, then I submit that it is evil to have children since, by having them, you are complicit in their eternal torment. And, those who support the building and stockpiling of nuclear weapons are similarly complicit if there were ever to be a catastrophic nuclear war.
The case of nuclear weapons is different, obviously, because none of us have the power to choose to dismantle the weapons. We’re not the leaders of the nuclear nations, and we can’t change this. However, we have much more control over whether or not we will have children. It would be like if we were the presidents/PM’s/dictators of all the nuclear power countries simultaneously, and we could choose not to build the weapons. I submit that if we went ahead and built the weapons, knowing that they could be used, we would shoulder enormous guilt if they ever were used.
Also, I thought of another comparison.
Roman Catholic schools, hospitals, agencies, etc are upset because they don’t even want to sign a paper which would allow a third party insurer to pay for contraceptives for their employees. They reason (and I agree!) that they would be morally complicit in an intrinsic evil if they were to even so much as approve of another person’s funding a contraceptive. I believe I am employing a similar line of moral reasoning here. Many people would call this a ridiculously expanded “locus” of moral liability, but I disagree. I think RCC organizations really would be complicit to a limited extent if they even so much as approve of a third party exchange of money for an intrinsic evil.
However, the choice to have sex isn’t so far removed from a child’s existence! One is directly responsible for the existence of one’s children. If that child chooses hell, then the parent is at least partially guilty. Since hell is such a tremendous evil, the parent is partially guilty of a tremendous evil. That is a lot of guilt! Best avoided, in my opinion.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
It would seem that this bit is very telling of where PC is coming from and the resistance to enter into serious study of the faith, there is a huge hurtle to get over here I am afraid.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
I would be happy to share with you my serious study of the faith, but I just want to make sure that you are OK with acknowledging that I’m right before we move on to discussing where I’m “coming from.”
Since you aren’t responding to my assertions and countering my objections, and would rather discuss my state of mind and personal background, I take this as a tacit admission that you think I’m right.
Is that a safe assumption? Why not?
meltzerboy
New member
Please don’t give them any ideas!
Of course not! It would be a sad loss, but not a total waste of time since at least a few people (hopefully) derived some benefit.
Now, if the moderators were to come to each of our houses and proceed to violently torture us for the next, oh say, month, then it would have been evil to start this thread!
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Didn’t mean to! 
meltzerboy, thank you for the levity!Also, when I said:
I meant to say: Yes, we benefit from nuclear power, but we don’t have to build the weapons. Similarly, being alive and having some amount of freedom is a good thing, but there is no reason we must have the ability to choose to be tormented for eternity.
Sorry for the error.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Responding to any assertions that the Church originated from any other source than The Incarnation is beyond my ability due to the foreign nature that such an assertion is to the “nature” of the Faith.I would be happy to share with you my serious study of the faith, but I just want to make sure that you are OK with acknowledging that I’m right before we move on to discussing where I’m “coming from.”
Since you aren’t responding to my assertions and countering my objections, and would rather discuss my state of mind and personal background, I take this as a tacit admission that you think I’m right.
Is that a safe assumption? Why not?
Please note that neither “your state of mind” nor your “personal background” were brought up in my post, I am sorry that you assumed this, it was not my intent to upset you.
The post was intended toward your other interlocutors so as to warn them that any arguments concerning The Faith are directed toward one who is in no way a believer and does not have a clear understanding of The Church, based on the statement that I highlighted in red.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Right, so by this statement I hear you saying that my “personal background” and “state of mind” are such that:
- I am not a believer in Roman Catholicism (true)
- I do “not have a clear understanding of The Church.” (false, in my opinion)
I’m OK with going there as long as you publicly admit that you suspect that my thesis is true. If not, please explain why my thesis is wrong. Simply stating “my faith tells me you’re wrong, so you are” isn’t sufficient because it isn’t reasonable. This is the philosophy forum, not the “blind faith” forum. If “blind faith” were the best way to find truth, then I guess there would be no discussion about…well…anything at all really. The point of philosophy, in my opinion (based on Socrates’ opinion) is to find truth through dialogue. If you want to dialogue about me personally that is OK, but it isn’t philosophy!
That said, I won’t be able to reply for a comparatively long time. I have several long days of work scheduled back to back. I will be back if necessary sometime next week. Best wishes–PC
D
DCNBILL
Guest
No I am not addressing your personal background or your state of mind. Yes I was addressing your statement as to the origins of the Church. They clearly are from one who does not believe, the beliefs of Catholic Chuurch, which you affirm above. I was also clearly stating that I thought that you did not have a clear understanding of the Church based on your statement as well, once again I was not addressing your own personal knowledge/background/state of mind or any such thing I was addressing your post, I have no clue as to why you are trying to make this argument.
I know that your thesis has no truth in any way and will explain why presently but please be aware that my explanation may not be sufficient to you due to a faith element that you will deny but is also based on philosophical rational that a non believer would also deny.
Yes this is a philosophy forum but it is on a Catholic forum site, so in posting here you may want to expect answers from a Catholic perspective. From your initial posts I had thought that you were aware of the belief system of the Christian faith. From the portion of that post that I commented on it occurred to me that you neither believed nor understood our Faith.
That being said it would have been more productive, from my point of view, If you had made your OP a bit clearer. It would have been better, from my point of view, if you had stated that you did not believe in the God of Christianity, then stated your understanding of the afterlife in what ever view you hold and then made your statement about hell and babies and such.
To this my answer would have been, Love.
I will be off the boards for a while as well, hope to cont. discussion then.That said, I won’t be able to reply for a comparatively long time. I have several long days of work scheduled back to back. I will be back if necessary sometime next week. Best wishes–PC
Blessings,
S
simpleas
Guest
This is an interesting write up, by a priest I read today, and which I think could be some peoples way of thinking. Not everyone will agree I’m sure…
As we explored yesterday, hell is not what we’ve pictured it to be but simply a much-needed metaphor (found in most religions) for the ultimate tragedy of not choosing life and love. If all will be saved by the unconditional victory of God, then why does Jesus tell stories that show harsh judgment, casting the rejected into “outer darkness” and “eternal punishment,” in places like Matthew 25:46? Ending an important parable with this final damning line seems to undo all the mercy and forgiveness Jesus demonstrates throughout the rest of his life and teaching. Let me explain how I see it.
Clear-headed dualistic thinking must precede any further movement into non-dual or mystical consciousness, especially about issues that people want to avoid, as in this case. Note that Jesus reserves his most damning and dualistic statements for issues of social justice where humanity and power is most resistant: “You cannot serve both God and Mammon” (Matthew 6:24); “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24); or the dichotomy in Matthew 25 between sheep (who feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned) and goats (who don’t). The context is important. Jesus’ foundational and even dualistic bias is against false power and in favor of the powerless–and yet it still has had very little effect in Christian history. If you do not make such points absolutely clear (and even if you do, as Jesus did), history shows that humans will almost always compromise on issues of justice, money, and inclusion. Let’s bring it home: the United States always has all the money it needs for war, armaments, and military bases, but never enough for good schools, low cost housing, universal health care, or the humane care of immigrants. No wonder Jesus dared to be dualistic and damning first! Our capacity for blindness here seems infinite.
But the problem with such dualistic statements is that any call to change is aimed at the lowest level of motivation–threat and fear–even vengeful and eternal threats. This does not create loving people, but fearful people, which is an entirely different game. The New Testament passages about Gehenna (Jerusalem’s smoldering dump), Sheol (the place of the dead, with no intimation of punishment), and “eternal punishment” are mostly found in Matthew and seem to be his way of making dramatic and contrasting statements about issues of ultimate significance, which does call the reader to choice and decision. The trouble is that the threat in the last line becomes the lasting memory and message instead of the primary invitation and promise of the whole previous text. The real message of the parable is a call to a transformed mind and heart. Matthew, as an effective communicator, dramatically contrasts eternal life with eternal death and surely had no idea that we’d take it so literally, morphing his words into the medieval notion of God as an eternal torturer. This view is clearly anti-Gospel. Even the conservative Pope John Paul II said that heaven and hell were not geographical places, but primarily states of consciousness–which are in themselves very real and lasting.[1]
Perhaps upon reading passages such as Matthew 25 or the vengeful Psalms calling for God’s wrath, we might do well to follow the Eastern Orthodox Saint Silouan’s advice [2]:
"I remember a conversation between [Staretz Silouan] and a certain hermit, who declared with evident satisfaction, ‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’
"Obviously upset, the Staretz said, ‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell-fire–would you feel happy?’
"‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.
"The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance:
“‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’”
As we explored yesterday, hell is not what we’ve pictured it to be but simply a much-needed metaphor (found in most religions) for the ultimate tragedy of not choosing life and love. If all will be saved by the unconditional victory of God, then why does Jesus tell stories that show harsh judgment, casting the rejected into “outer darkness” and “eternal punishment,” in places like Matthew 25:46? Ending an important parable with this final damning line seems to undo all the mercy and forgiveness Jesus demonstrates throughout the rest of his life and teaching. Let me explain how I see it.
Clear-headed dualistic thinking must precede any further movement into non-dual or mystical consciousness, especially about issues that people want to avoid, as in this case. Note that Jesus reserves his most damning and dualistic statements for issues of social justice where humanity and power is most resistant: “You cannot serve both God and Mammon” (Matthew 6:24); “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24); or the dichotomy in Matthew 25 between sheep (who feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned) and goats (who don’t). The context is important. Jesus’ foundational and even dualistic bias is against false power and in favor of the powerless–and yet it still has had very little effect in Christian history. If you do not make such points absolutely clear (and even if you do, as Jesus did), history shows that humans will almost always compromise on issues of justice, money, and inclusion. Let’s bring it home: the United States always has all the money it needs for war, armaments, and military bases, but never enough for good schools, low cost housing, universal health care, or the humane care of immigrants. No wonder Jesus dared to be dualistic and damning first! Our capacity for blindness here seems infinite.
But the problem with such dualistic statements is that any call to change is aimed at the lowest level of motivation–threat and fear–even vengeful and eternal threats. This does not create loving people, but fearful people, which is an entirely different game. The New Testament passages about Gehenna (Jerusalem’s smoldering dump), Sheol (the place of the dead, with no intimation of punishment), and “eternal punishment” are mostly found in Matthew and seem to be his way of making dramatic and contrasting statements about issues of ultimate significance, which does call the reader to choice and decision. The trouble is that the threat in the last line becomes the lasting memory and message instead of the primary invitation and promise of the whole previous text. The real message of the parable is a call to a transformed mind and heart. Matthew, as an effective communicator, dramatically contrasts eternal life with eternal death and surely had no idea that we’d take it so literally, morphing his words into the medieval notion of God as an eternal torturer. This view is clearly anti-Gospel. Even the conservative Pope John Paul II said that heaven and hell were not geographical places, but primarily states of consciousness–which are in themselves very real and lasting.[1]
Perhaps upon reading passages such as Matthew 25 or the vengeful Psalms calling for God’s wrath, we might do well to follow the Eastern Orthodox Saint Silouan’s advice [2]:
"I remember a conversation between [Staretz Silouan] and a certain hermit, who declared with evident satisfaction, ‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’
"Obviously upset, the Staretz said, ‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell-fire–would you feel happy?’
"‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.
"The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance:
“‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’”
A
Aloysium
Guest
I suppose I would be ecstatic seeing and knowing God for His infinite love, justice and mercy. God loves those in hell even if they hate Him.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is certainly better to exist in hell than never to have been born, because non-existence offers nothing. Life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities.
The words of Jesus cannot be taken literally because it would mean God shouldn’t have created those persons. It is a case of Jewish hyperbole like “It’s better to cut off your hand rather than sin”. Judas suffered such agony of guilt he hanged himself in utter despair. It doesn’t mean he was damned. How could he be when he was sorry?
Hell is not more evil than nuclear war because in hell suffering is self-inflicted and affects only oneself. Time is irrelevant because in the next life neither time nor space exists. What counts is the decision to accept or reject God’s love. Heaven and hell both have their advantages. Our greatest gift can produce either extreme happiness or extreme misery. By choosing how to exist we are dedicating our entire being to one overriding goal: love - which is the supreme virtue or vice depending on its object. We cannot imagine the sum total of human happiness or human misery - or the heights of sanctity or the depths of depravity. It makes us realise we cannot grasp the full significance of either heaven or hell. Here we hover between the two extremes because we are not in full possession of the facts but when we die we understand the full implications.
The real question is whether we are free to love others (a form of liberation) or free to love ourselves more than others (a form of slavery). We underestimate our attachment to ourselves because we never see ourselves as others see us. That is why Jesus accused the Pharisees of being blind.
Your argument leads to a conclusion you will deeply regret. It means God is responsible for all the unnecessary suffering in this world for which the innocent victims can never be adequately compensated. In the words of Ivan Karamazov the price is too high. Do you believe that? You are not only condemning hell but also condemning God…
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is true that Jesus gives the impression that punishment is inflicted by God and it is but only in the sense that all suffering is ultimately caused by God. It doesn’t follow that it is arbitrary, unnecessary, unjust or directly inflicted. It is absurd to expect Jesus to make such fine distinctions when He was warning everyone about the dangers of being proud, hypocritical, callous and self-righteous. His message was for everyone and it had to be in language uneducated people can understand. He used parables and images to make sure there was no possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of love. He also makes it clear that evil incurs its own punishment.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Matthew 15:18-21
A man makes himself unclean and unfit to live with others. In other words he punishes himself…
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Right, so by saying this, you believe that I don’t have a good understanding of what the RCC teaches? You take my statements as evidence that I basically don’t know what I’m talking about? Is that not a statement about my state of mind or background? If it weren’t, shouldn’t you just explain why my statements are incorrect and support your correction with evidence from what you consider to be Catholic teachings? Instead, it seems like you basically said that I don’t know what I’m talking about. That is OK, but we’re changing the subject here to whether or not I have a correct understanding of RC teachings. We can do that, but maybe you can start a new thread since it will be off-topic for this discussion?No I am not addressing your personal background or your state of mind. Yes I was addressing your statement as to the origins of the Church. They clearly are from one who does not believe, the beliefs of Catholic Chuurch, which you affirm above. I was also clearly stating that I thought that you did not have a clear understanding of the Church based on your statement as well, once again I was not addressing your own personal knowledge/background/state of mind or any such thing I was addressing your post, I have no clue as to why you are trying to make this argument.
OK fair enough, you don’t like my method of debate for this thread. That is OK. I chose this method because I wanted to attempt to show (from the inside) that RC beliefs about hell should fundamentally undermine our will to 1) live, 2) have children, 3) call God “good.” There are many other negative consequences that should result from the belief in eternal hell, and I wanted to argue from the assumption that Roman Catholicism is really the truth of the universe to show that it yields very undesirable results that run counter to some of our most deeply held intuitions. My second purpose is to demonstrate that most RC believers don’t even believe their own teachings, thus further proving my point. Hell is a doctrine that is simply to horrific to be believed.
You mentioned that you thought it would be productive for me to state what I believe about the afterlife. If you care, here is my view of the afterlife:
When we die, we go to the realm of the dead where are…dead. Only those who are truly utterly evil will remain dead. God will resurrect everyone at the end of history and judge all of us. Those who are sort of evil (pretty much everyone) will be punished, purified, and restored. Those who are truly righteous (very, very few in my estimation) will be rewarded and restored. Everyone will have eternal life in peace in the “World to Come” after the coming of the Messiah. I have no idea what the “World to Come” will be like, but I have faith that it will be wonderful, and that God will be there somehow. As I learn more, I’m sure my beliefs will change accordingly.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
To me, eternal hell is much, much worse than “nothing.” I understand your point but simply disagree. If you are right, then your refutation seems to hold.
The argument that Jesus’ statements must be hyperbole because if they weren’t God shouldn’t have created the doomed people is begging the question, in my opinion. One of the corollaries of my thesis is in fact that God shouldn’t have created the people who end up in hell because that would be morally wrong as well.
Again, the RCC does not say that the punishments of hell are self-inflicted. I’m not sure whether an RC believer is “allowed” to hold that position or not. If so, I suppose your refutation holds here as well. Again, please tell me how “bodies” can exist without time or space? The RCC insists that we will have bodies both in heaven and hell. Can you give me an example of a body existing without time or space? Further, is such a thing rationally coherent? Why?
I do not regret this conclusion, and I would in fact believe it (given hell). If eternal hell exists, Ivan Karamazov is exactly right.
However, I am skeptical about the assertion that there is any such thing as “unnecessary suffering” (if eternal hell does not exist). I do believe God is responsible for…absolutely everything, since he is both omniscient and omnipotent. I also recognize that there are evils in this world that seem utterly gratuitous or “unnecessary” but I do not believe that these things actually are unnecessary because I don’t have enough evidence to make that judgment. I believe that this is the argument offered to Job by God. God asks Job a series of questions about his knowledge of nature and Job admits his ignorance before the divine knowledge. I believe that God is showing Job that just as he is ignorant of nature, he is ignorant of the totality of the “moral universe” and thus unable to judge God’s will as “evil.”
Although God is ultimately responsible for absolutely everything, this doesn’t mean that we have no free will at all or that we’re “off the hook” morally speaking. I believe we make real choices and are responsible for our actions (to some extent). Because of this, we do deserve punishments and rewards, both in this life and the next. I think it is God’s job to “harmonize” the moral universe when we put it out of harmony. You know what we call this process of wavering between “consonance” and “dissonance?” Music. I call this wavering and unsteadiness in the moral universe “life.” In the world to come, the music will end in a glorious and continuous harmony. However, maybe that harmonious finality wouldn’t be nearly so beautiful without the contrasting fluctuation of dissonance which preceded it in this world. Just a conjecture, you won’t hear any “infallible truths” issuing from my mouth.
I don’t believe in libertarian free will in the sense that our choices are totally free from any causes other than our pure intent or will. I don’t pretend to know how our will and God’s will interact, but I think it is some kind of co-operation. I need to think more and do more research about this.
- Status