My view on Buddha

[LaymanX]

Of course faith is a gift I suppose, but I wonder who decides who gets it and who doesn’t. Most everyone would like to believe that the ego they have become so attached to will live forever, but in spite of that many can’t. I wonder what determines who gets it and who doesn’t.

Yes, this one is hard to reconcile with the justice of God. Some would reply that, we being finite creatures are not in a position to judge God’s plan. But intuitively, something does seem wrong with this stance. Especially, if you come from the school of thought that believes evil is merely the absence of good (those influenced by Neo-platonism). If this is so, then Satan presumably is a being with the least goodness, not necessarily an evil being.

Following this thought, Hell must also be a place devoid of goodness. Yet, if God is omnipresent and omnibenevolent, then at an ultimate level, there is only “Absolute Good” (although I really don’t know what we mean by this, since, without evil, ‘good’ as we know it, would not exist as well). This is why Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac of Nineveh, Schleiermacher, Barth, and the Eastern Orthodox’s theme of apocatastasis seems like the only logical conclusion (i.e., universalism). They all believe that all beings and all creation will be “saved” or “reconciled” back to God. This idea has been condemned in Roman Catholicism (although it is only a particular form of this doctrine, so perhaps, a more orthodox version may be made). Anyhow, most in Western Christendom would have to hold to some form of Hell, then focus heavily on purgatory and indulgences so that in all practicality there is no hell (i.e., a sense of agnosticism towards the reality of anyone actually going to hell). Eastern Orthodox seems more congenial to this doctrine of apocatastasis.

My understanding is that ascensions are a bit unique. I am not aware of many of those. It provides a foundation for the idea of the resurrection of the bodies of all the faithful. I have had a hard time getting my head around what people will be doing with those bodies in a few billion years when the earth is gone. Our bodies are uniquely adapted to life on a planet that won’t be around forever, but according to the idea of resurrection of the body, our bodies will be around forever. Our lungs and circulatory systems are all contingent on not only oxygen, but oxygen at a pretty narrow range of acceptable density. Our feet and legs are designed to work in an environment with a particular range of gravity, and the lack of it causes bone loss at a pretty rapid rate. The human body is but a component of an ecosystem that exists for a fraction of a moment on a scale of forever. So where these bodies will be, and what they will be doing is both puzzling and fascinating to think on.

Well, there are passages in Scripture that make a distinction between our natural body now, and the later spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44). Former is the body we have now, and the latter is post-resurrection body. The only requirement of a spiritual body is that it was spatial-temporal in some form, because the Bible seems to say that the disciples were able to “touch” and “see” Jesus’ post-resurrection body. Although even here, the main sources are from the Gospel of John, which is primarily a theological treatise and the words “touch” and “see” could very well have a philosophical meaning rather than a literal one.

This is why many make a distinction between Pauline Christianity and Johannine Christianity with the latter being much more philosophical/theological. Many take the Johannine/Alexandrian School to take precedence over the Pauline/Antiochian School (two major schools of the Early Church) because the Gospel of John may even have been written prior to Mark. Some include the “Jerusalem” School in the tradition of James the Just and the Gospel of Matthew, but I would hardly call this one a “School.” This one is primarily ethical (see “Ebionites”) and resembles the Monotheism of Jews and Muslim.

If you want to look into the Philosophical version of Christianity look up “Johannine Priority” on the internet. This would make Christianity essentially a Philosophical Religion, or at least, on par with the Historical Religion. Either way, the Ecumenical Councils preferred to take the Middle Path and make it a little bit of both. This is where I would agree with you that many religions say the same thing. Buddha, Aristotle, and Mencius all encouraged the Middle Way. So does Christianity. But this is ethics not metaphysics. Metaphysically speaking, the closest triadic religion was Neo-platonism (although there were lots of other mythic, tri-theistic religions, but these lacked the metaphysical precision of Neoplatonism and Christianity), and Christians took a unique take on it with their language of substance and persons (via Tertullian, Cappadocian Fathers, and the medieval Doctors). So even here, I could not say they are talking about the “same” thing metaphysically.

Francis

 

[Sufjon]

I think to a degree you are right Sufjon. If energy can’t be destroyed but only displaced, than it would be correct to believe the energy in a human must go somewhere upon death of the flesh, which only exists in unison with the energy. The body certainly isn’t needed for the energy to exist.

Then if we take the mind and how interects with the soul in trauma. The mind is without a doubt able to protect the soul even on an unconscious level. Its not protecting the body, but the soul. In fact it wouldn’t be able to protect the body. So the essense of self preservation is the Soul. So the only question that could remains? Is to what destiny?

At the point of consciousness the flesh has a control over the Soul. On an uncounscious level the mind will ultimately only protect not hurt the body thus soul. No doubt you may do whatever you chose, even if that is to self destruct. Its done daily as we see. And not always in the name of higher deity. Many times in pure over indulgence of toxins or some wanton act.

So in essense it becomes imperative to conquer the “self” and that would be the conscious self which is thinking in regards to many things, but that which it need be thinking of. Often in the realm of “wants”. What you need and what you want are two entirely different concepts. When the self ultimately wins its independence from its own madness or foolishness, for nothing else operates it, all will become clear, and time and space, which are products of action and thought, and are part of the dream, will then disappear

So no-matter how perfect one can perceive their insigificnt world to be. On the larger scale its utterly imperfect until the pure self is found. Yet one might say its a test. A test to conquer the self,and to raise the self to a higher existence is the only significant purpose of man. Which BTW he fails to grasp daily.

Easier said than done, but certainly not as hard as one might have you believe. Its a state of pure thinking, to see what actually exists, not what the mind perceives to exist. So man is held to be a pure on looker entirely unaffected. It is only on that account that he can truly see. Any other sort of seeing would affect the thing seen. Then the seeing of it, thus affected, would be wrong and always is. So anyway it becomes necessary to realize that the body is not conscious, but we are conscious of the body, also that the mind is not conscious but we are conscious of the mind.

Anyway

Harmony is the inlet of God into the mind, so that the mind acts in obedience to a law above mind which exists in the soul - and that law is unity. Unity is the Nature of God, and harmony is its expression in mind and in the works of the mind.

Hi Gary: This is rather insightful, and I do agree with a good deal of what you’re saying.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Yes, this one is hard to reconcile with the justice of God. Some would reply that, we being finite creatures are not in a position to judge God’s plan. But intuitively, something does seem wrong with this stance. Especially, if you come from the school of thought that believes evil is merely the absence of good (those influenced by Neo-platonism). If this is so, then Satan presumably is a being with the least goodness, not necessarily an evil being.

Following this thought, Hell must also be a place devoid of goodness. Yet, if God is omnipresent and omnibenevolent, then at an ultimate level, there is only “Absolute Good” (although I really don’t know what we mean by this, since, without evil, ‘good’ as we know it, would not exist as well). This is why Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac of Nineveh, Schleiermacher, Barth, and the Eastern Orthodox’s theme of apocatastasis seems like the only logical conclusion (i.e., universalism). They all believe that all beings and all creation will be “saved” or “reconciled” back to God. This idea has been condemned in Roman Catholicism (although it is only a particular form of this doctrine, so perhaps, a more orthodox version may be made). Anyhow, most in Western Christendom would have to hold to some form of Hell, then focus heavily on purgatory and indulgences so that in all practicality there is no hell (i.e., a sense of agnosticism towards the reality of anyone actually going to hell). Eastern Orthodox seems more congenial to this doctrine of apocatastasis.

Well, there are passages in Scripture that make a distinction between our natural body now, and the later spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44). Former is the body we have now, and the latter is post-resurrection body. The only requirement of a spiritual body is that it was spatial-temporal in some form, because the Bible seems to say that the disciples were able to “touch” and “see” Jesus’ post-resurrection body. Although even here, the main sources are from the Gospel of John, which is primarily a theological treatise and the words “touch” and “see” could very well have a philosophical meaning rather than a literal one.

This is why many make a distinction between Pauline Christianity and Johannine Christianity with the latter being much more philosophical/theological. Many take the Johannine/Alexandrian School to take precedence over the Pauline/Antiochian School (two major schools of the Early Church) because the Gospel of John may even have been written prior to Mark. Some include the “Jerusalem” School in the tradition of James the Just and the Gospel of Matthew, but I would hardly call this one a “School.” This one is primarily ethical (see “Ebionites”) and resembles the Monotheism of Jews and Muslim.

If you want to look into the Philosophical version of Christianity look up “Johannine Priority” on the internet. This would make Christianity essentially a Philosophical Religion, or at least, on par with the Historical Religion. Either way, the Ecumenical Councils preferred to take the Middle Path and make it a little bit of both. This is where I would agree with you that many religions say the same thing. Buddha, Aristotle, and Mencius all encouraged the Middle Way. So does Christianity. But this is ethics not metaphysics. Metaphysically speaking, the closest triadic religion was Neo-platonism (although there were lots of other mythic, tri-theistic religions, but these lacked the metaphysical precision of Neoplatonism and Christianity), and Christians took a unique take on it with their language of substance and persons (via Tertullian, Cappadocian Fathers, and the medieval Doctors). So even here, I could not say they are talking about the “same” thing metaphysically.

Francis

Very well put Francis! I wouldn’t argue with any of that.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus: Very little of anything Jesus said or did was very unique from the religions from the region that Rossum mentioned, and the ideas He expressed already existed before He came about. You mention God incarnate and God revealing Himself among humankind. This idea is not new or exclusive to Jesus either. This is true if you stick to what He actually said and did.

Christianity does take some unique twists and turns in it’s teachings post-Jesus, but that is probably due to the personal agendas and intents of the new religion’s handlers such as Paul, Irenaeus and the like.

Your friend
Sufjon

Did Buddha claim to be God?

Did Buddha claim to be the Truth?

Did Buddha claim to be the Life?

Did Buddha claim to be the Wa?

Buddha said I found Truth not that he is truth.

Buddha said he found a way, not that he is the way.

 

[benedictus2]

And a parable is a fictional story with a moral. The fact that the story is fictional ensures that, looked at narrowly, it is a lie. The fact that it is a lie is irrelevant to the moral.

Fiction is not a lie because we know it is fiction. It would be stupid to call all fictiion writers liars.

You are obviously using a different meaning of ‘paradox’. Here is the one I use:a statement that contradicts itself; "`I always lie’ is a paradox because if it is true it must be false"
– wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

But you’ve just prove me and oneGODoneCHURCH correct. That your statement is false. Which makes it a lie. Go back to your example and you will realize why I say this.

My paradox contains a moral. It appears that you are missing the point.

And what is the moral of your statement. I am probably being very dense here because I cannot see any.

Which is both intentional and precisely the reason it is a paradox, ‘a statement that contradicts itself’. A paradox with a moral. You are getting hung up on the finger while ignoring the moon that it is pointing to.

And if the statement contradicts itself then it is a lie or at the very least illogical so either way has absolutely no value and as oneGODoneCHURCH said contributes nothing to any meaningful discussion.

 

[Sufjon]

Did Buddha claim to be God?

Did Buddha claim to be the Truth?

Did Buddha claim to be the Life?

Did Buddha claim to be the Wa?

Buddha said I found Truth not that he is truth.

Buddha said he found a way, not that he is the way.

I was not talking about Gautama Buddha.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

I was not talking about Gautama Buddha.

Your friend,
Sufjon

What were you referring to then when you said that what Jesus said and did was not new?

 

[benedictus2]

Second, I never liked the story of the blindfolded people touching different parts of a single elephant. The person who tells this story is assuming a superior position from all the other blindfolded people.

But the story teller has a superior position because he sees the entire elephant. That is pretty obvious isn’t it?

This is a very conceited position. The story-teller is basically saying the he or she has the view from heaven and all the other religions are blind people touching some part of an elephant that only the story teller can see.

Well no. Imagine that there are indeed several blind men all giving their interpretation of the elephant and someone who can actually see the elephant. That puts that person in a superior position. It is not conceited to say that one has a better grasp of reality than the other so long as one can prove it.

Would it be conceited of Einstein to say that first graders who have barely made sense of 1 plus 1 have still some way to go towards knowledge?

I’d prefer to say we are all touching different animals, and we should respect the radical varieties in all religions and the unique truths they claim.

But that is ridiculous.

In the example given, it is not true that the elephant is like a fan, it is not true that the elephant is like a sword and it is not true that the elephant is like a wall. Somewhere out there is the truth that the elephant is very far from being all these things that they claim the elephant to be.

Then again if your religion is a unique religion that uniquely believes that everyone is touching the same elephant.

We all have to be attempting to touch on the same truth. We are all trying to make sense of God. We are not trying to touch different Gods.

 

[benedictus2]

The story teller is explaining that each person’s encounter with the elephant is unique as well as true, but none on it’s own contains a whole view of the elephant.

How can each encounter be true when it falls profoundly short of what an elephant is?

How close to the true you would a person be if having grab of a strand of your hair he concludes that you must be a piece of string?

The story teller is saying that it is fruitless for the one touching the tail to argue with the one touching the trunk, or the one touching the feet. Each is having a genuine experience of the same thing, albeit a different component of the same thing. The point is that each of them is correct and each of them becomes blind only when they deny the experience of the other.

A genuine experience may be but hardly the truth.

What is true is that the TUSK of the Elephant is like a sword, but the elephant is not.

The EARS of the elephant is like a fan, but he Elephant is not.

They are correct about parts of the elephant but not about the Elephant.

That tusk is not the elephant, the ear is not the elephant, the foot is not the elephant , and so forth and so on.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, this one is hard to reconcile with the justice of God. Some would reply that, we being finite creatures are not in a position to judge God’s plan. But intuitively, something does seem wrong with this stance. Especially, if you come from the school of thought that believes evil is merely the absence of good (those influenced by Neo-platonism). If this is so, then Satan presumably is a being with the least goodness, not necessarily an evil being.

Huh! If evil is the absence of good, then satan is necessarily an evil being because all good is completely absent from him not just some good.

Following this thought, Hell must also be a place devoid of goodness. Yet, if God is omnipresent and omnibenevolent, then at an ultimate level, there is only “Absolute Good” (although I really don’t know what we mean by this, since, without evil, ‘good’ as we know it, would not exist as well).

I think Fr Barron could help clarify this for you with this:

youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

 

[benedictus2]

My thinking is that Buddha saw God in His creation (nature, the world around). Buddha realized what it takes to be with God, but he is without the benefit of Divine Revelation given to the Jews by the Prophets, and ultimately by Jesus Himself. I don’t have a deep knowledge of Buddhism, but from the little I know there were a lot of things that fits Christian teachings (helping others, denial of attachment to material things) that tells me that Buddha recognized God somewhat but failed to understand fully about God because he didn’t have divine revelation.

I believe many ancient pagan religions are the same way. They somehow feel God in His creation but the lack of Divine Revelation means the understanding of what they feel is incomplete and almost always leads to wrong conclusions. That is why when the gentiles were converted, the Apostles told them this unnamed supreme God they worship is Jesus Christ. Now they received the benefit of Divine Revelation and their beliefs and practices were corrected.

Very good post

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, resurrections are so mundane-almost passe by the standards of truly enlightened ones. In fact, archaic and obscure references to such events are sprinkled here and there throughout various historical literature-I’m certain one is just as valid-or invalid -as another, pretty common place in any case.

:bowdown:Brilliant!

 

[benedictus2]

Well, if resurrections, which already defy the natural abilities of our bodies, are common place, then I suppose that some sort of supernaturally endowed physical body would be no big deal either. In any case somehow I think Gautama would’ve fainted dead away in the face of a real resurrection, mumbling something like, “My Lord and my God” on the way out. But you’re right, faith is a subjective experience that can’t be directly given to anyone, at least not by us human beings.
Excellent !

 

[Sufjon]

How can each encounter be true when it falls profoundly short of what an elephant is?

How close to the true you would a person be if having grab of a strand of your hair he concludes that you must be a piece of string?

A genuine experience may be but hardly the truth.

What is true is that the TUSK of the Elephant is like a sword, but the elephant is not.

The EARS of the elephant is like a fan, but he Elephant is not.

They are correct about parts of the elephant but not about the Elephant.

That tusk is not the elephant, the ear is not the elephant, the foot is not the elephant , and so forth and so on.

The point is that all of the experiences are true. They do not encompass the larger whole, but each individual experience is nonetheless genuine, and an accurate of the component that was experienced. Because Christians are seeing only part of the story, does not make their experience invalid. A small very glimpse of Christianity relates to the larger context can be seen here:

youtube.com/watch?v=hhef6wa2Mpc&feature=related

It’s in 11 parts. Also this lightly touches on what I was referring to as to what other incarnations of God.

Your friend
Sufjon

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

The point is that all of the experiences are true. They do not encompass the larger whole, but each individual experience is nonetheless genuine,

The experience is genuine but the conclusion is false. So what does that add our knowledge about God? Nothing.

and an accurate of the component that was experienced.

Yes, but the aim of the exercise was not to get a reasonable approximation of the component but to come up with the truth about the whole. The blind men were not there to ascertain the truth about parts of an animal but the truth about this animal.

Because Christians are seeing only part of the story, does not make their experience invalid.

The pre-Christians are seeing only part of the story, the Christians are seeing the whole story.

Here’s how it compares. The pre-Christians may be likened to the blind man grasping and coming up with the conclusions about the parts. The Chrisitian sees the whole elephant. It may not be a very clear picture of the elephant, it may be blurry and details may not be pronounced, but the Christian sees the Elephant.

A small very glimpse of Christianity relates to the larger context can be seen here:

Some does have a corrupt view of Christianity.

 

[rossum]

Fiction is not a lie because we know it is fiction. It would be stupid to call all fictiion writers liars.

Paradox is not a lie because we know it is a paradox. It would be stupid to call all paradox writers liars.

But you’ve just prove me and oneGODoneCHURCH correct. That your statement is false. Which makes it a lie. Go back to your example and you will realize why I say this.

Your parable is false and a lie as well. You are trying to create a difference where there is no real difference. A paradox has a moral hidden behind its words, just as a parable has a moral hidden behind its words. You are getting hung up on the words and missing the moral.

And what is the moral of your statement. I am probably being very dense here because I cannot see any.

All words that we use are ordinary, contingent. None of them are ultimate. How can we describe the ultimate if we do not have any ultimate words available to describe it? Siderits’ paradox is a summary of Nagarjuna’s approach to describing the ultimate in words.The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

And if the statement contradicts itself then it is a lie or at the very least illogical so either way has absolutely no value and as oneGODoneCHURCH said contributes nothing to any meaningful discussion.

Then all parables are also lies. You are applying a very narrow interpretation here.

rossum

 

[GaryTaylor]

My Tea is simply the best Tea ever brewed and most will agree it is a Master Blend. Yet I haven’t tasted yours?

 

[Contarini]

Huh! If evil is the absence of good, then satan is necessarily an evil being because all good is completely absent from him not just some good.
%between%

Existence is a good. If all good were absent from Satan, Satan would not exist.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, this one is hard to reconcile with the justice of God. Some would reply that, we being finite creatures are not in a position to judge God’s plan. But intuitively, something does seem wrong with this stance. Especially, if you come from the school of thought that believes evil is merely the absence of good (those influenced by Neo-platonism).

The mainstream, historic Christian stance is that evil is a privation of good. Not just absence, but absence of that which ought to be there, which creates a distortion in what is there.

If this is so, then Satan presumably is a being with the least goodness, not necessarily an evil being.

Moral evil is the absence from the will of the particular good called love for God.

Thus, Satan is an evil being, although he retains certain goods, such as existence and power. These goods work for evil because of the absence of love for God in Satan’s will.

Following this thought, Hell must also be a place devoid of goodness.

No. If Hell were absolute evil, then it would be.

Yet, if God is omnipresent and omnibenevolent, then at an ultimate level

But the “ultimate level” is what we call “heaven” or the “Beatific Vision.” God is present everywhere, but not present everywhere in the same way.

there is only “Absolute Good” (although I really don’t know what we mean by this, since, without evil, ‘good’ as we know it, would not exist as well).

Absolute good is precisely that good (God) which is uneffected by evil. Lesser, relative goods, such as the courage of the martyrs, could not exist without evil, which is one of the reasons historically given for God’s permission of evil.

This is why Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac of Nineveh, Schleiermacher, Barth, and the Eastern Orthodox’s theme of apocatastasis seems like the only logical conclusion (i.e., universalism). They all believe that all beings and all creation will be “saved” or “reconciled” back to God. This idea has been condemned in Roman Catholicism (although it is only a particular form of this doctrine, so perhaps, a more orthodox version may be made).

Hans Urs von Balthasar believed that the apocatastasis is possible and that we should hope for it, but that we cannot insist that it is inevitable. This position has not been condemned, and since the present Pope is a great admirer of von Balthasar’s work, I think there are good grounds for considering it very much a live option in contemporary Roman Catholicism.

Although even here, the main sources are from the Gospel of John, which is primarily a theological treatise and the words “touch” and “see” could very well have a philosophical meaning rather than a literal one.

I don’t find that plausible–ironically in part because of the “priority of John” scholarship to which you allude below.

This is why many make a distinction between Pauline Christianity and Johannine Christianity with the latter being much more philosophical/theological. Many take the Johannine/Alexandrian School to take precedence over the Pauline/Antiochian School (two major schools of the Early Church) because the Gospel of John may even have been written prior to Mark. Some include the “Jerusalem” School in the tradition of James the Just and the Gospel of Matthew, but I would hardly call this one a “School.” This one is primarily ethical (see “Ebionites”) and resembles the Monotheism of Jews and Muslim.

If you want to look into the Philosophical version of Christianity look up “Johannine Priority” on the internet. This would make Christianity essentially a Philosophical Religion, or at least, on par with the Historical Religion.

I did, and I did not find much to support this way of talking about it. The scholars who argue for Johannine priority are generally emphasizing that John is historically reliable, and at the same time that the other Gospels also have strong theological/philosophical elements, breaking down the dichotomy you are attempting to construct.

Either way, the Ecumenical Councils preferred to take the Middle Path and make it a little bit of both.

I think that this “middle path” existed long before the Councils–in the Gospels themselves. In fact, I think it’s odd to set the two things over against each other in the first place.

Christianity makes theological claims on the basis of historical events interpreted against an explicit or implicit philosophical background. I don’t think that there are separate “philosophical” and “historical” versions of Christianity, though certainly Origen and other early Christian Platonists emphasized the philosophical sometimes at the expense of the historical.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[LaymanX]

Huh! If evil is the absence of good, then satan is necessarily an evil being because all good is completely absent from him not just some good.

I think Fr Barron could help clarify this for you with this:

youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

Yeah, that is why I wonder if we can even say Satan “exists” in the absolute sense. Evil is absence of good, and in an absolute sense God is all good and all present. Satan becomes what he is by virtue of the Fall in which things have become relatively not good.

In short, I wonder if Satan is a temporary being necessarily co-existent with the Fall. In theory, once there is full redemption or reconciliation of all things in Christ in the Last Days, there should be only Absolute Goodness. What does that do to the idea of Satan as complete deprivation of the good? Did God, post-creation, perpetually permit a dialectical tension in “heaven” between good and evil in order to retain the notion of Hell and Satan? What does that make of God’s promise to bring all thing in Christ? Does the Kingdom of God, under the reign of Christ, necessarily permit a “pocket” of evil in His Kingdom? This may be the case, but that is a weird understanding of God’s eternal presence. It may lead to a Manichean understanding of Eternal Evil in the form of eternal strife. Or if one doesn’t want to allow such a view, then one must claim that God is forever in time post-creation. Then future doesn’t exists in time, and therefore open theism is true.

I’m confused too! I am still trying to work things out as well. I surely don’t want to become a Gnostic or Manichean or Open Theist, so this has been a boggling question for me as an Augustinian. If you hold to libertarian/Kantian freedom, then it will lead one to something closer to Open Theism or Molinism (which are marginally orthodox). I do love that C. S. Lewis idea of Hell. I just don’t like that view of freedom and the kind of theology it can lead to (e.g., open theism, molinism, manicheanism, process theology, pelagianism, etc.).

Francis