 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Meph Has An IMPORTANT Question! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/8/2005 6:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom:
So on the one hand (if Talbott is right) freely choosing eternal hell with eyes wide open is incoherent and meaningless while on the other hand I feel as strongly that God’s finagling (by whatever means, it doesn’t matter) a chain of events that effectively determines that sinners in hell ultimately choose him is incoherent and meaningless. So what do we do?
Something meaningFUL => A chain of events that produces influential circumstances such that it is VERY, VERY highly probable (over time, the probability APPROACHES 1, but is NOT 1) that sinners in hell will enact an initial loving act and/or loving inclination towards God. Given the very high probability, one could say that it is functionally INEVITABLE.
PLUS, Tom, I really want you to get a chance to respond to Reitan's points, particularly in his critique of Walls' defense. I'm willing to say that Wall's idea of INITIAL (versus ULTIMATE) SENSE of "being fully informed" is sufficient to facilitate the rock-bottom event. (Walls makes no argument why this cannot be the case) This bypasses Walls' idea that a person cannot be "fully informed" in the ultimate sense without an intact love relationship with God. Moreover, Walls is terribly vulnerable to Reitan's critique...pp. 133-134.
With respect both to the choice of ignorance and to the choice of embracing bondage to desire, the perplexity Talbott expresses about freely choosing damnation seems equally appropriate. Why would anyone with the power to make a free choice, and a full understanding of what such a choice involves, freely choose a state of ignorance or a state of bondage to sinful desires? According to Walls' own hypothesis, these choices (if sustained) bring about eternal damnation. Possessing full and accurate information about God is not only in our interests, but of ultimate imporatance to our eternal destiny. Likewise for freedom from bondage to sin. Thus, those who choose ignorance or bondage to desire are choosing something that is, in all respects, immensely harmful to them. Is is really possible to make and sustain such a choice freely? That is, can we imagine someone who is fully capable of choosing otherwise (that is, not in bondage to sinful desires) making one of these choices while knowing that doing so will doom them to eternal alienation from everything of value? If not, then anyone who chooses ignorance or bondage to desire must do so based on some pre-existent ignorance or bondage to desire. For example, they choose to remain ignorant because they do not fully understand what such ignorance entails. Hence, the choice is not free, and God would not be violating human freedom by eliminating such ignorance or bondage to desire.
If Walls tried to move the free choice one further step back (arguing that the choice to be ignorant or in bondage to desire is based on some previous ignorance of bondage to desire that was freely chosen), he would trap himself in an infinite regress. Either the choice to be in one of these states is always based on a previous choice to be in one of these states, ad infinitum, such that we never arrive at a choice that is truly free; or there is some initial ignorance or bondage to desire that is not chosen based on any prior similar state, and hence could not be the result of a free choice. In either case, God can eliminate the ignorance or bondage to desire that blocks his salvific intentions without violating our freedom.
All this is presuming the idea that it is fundamentally IRRATIONAL for a sentient creature who's deliberation is disposed towards self-interest (via self-actualization, enhanced aesthetic appreciation, etc) to make a conscious, fully aware, intelligent decision that is understood to BLATENTLY CONTRADICT that one's self-interest unto ultimate self-destruction. Irrationality of this extent cannot constitute a "free" choice, in the proper sense.
I'm of the mind, Tom, that you are feeling this argument. That the idea of wide-eyed rational deliberation to choose eternal self-destruction is, at best, existential absurdity. Are you?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/9/2005 2:46:08 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/9/2005 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Just putting all this here for the sake of my ease. From page 8 of this thread...
---------------
I think this is a better conception of "Love requires freedom" How about this, Tom.
For contingent creatures, love requires freedom insofar as love requires sentient beings to be the ULTIMATE SOURCE and FINAL REASON of their own moral self-development activity either for or against God. This ability for relatively autonomous self-development REQUIRES libertarian freedom. This is the MORAL aspect of relative ontological autonomy that leads to ontological distinction from God.
What this means is this: It is METAPHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for God to render a sentient creature's particular loving actions or inclinations (including the decision to love) certain at any given time, while the sentient creature is "unsolidified." In other words, at time T, God cannot predict with certainty whether or not Person X will do a particular loving act or have a particular loving disposition at any time T+n before solidification. Moreover, the free agent is a NECESSARY PART of any act or inclination of love. Thus exhaustive determination of any act or inclination of love, by definition, NOT LOVE. Any providential activity that diminishes free agency operation with respect to any act or inclination of love is, by definition, NOT LOVE. Tom, this is backing something that I think both of us would wholeheartedly affirm as just plain being intuitive: The act or inclination of love cannot be genuine if it is not enacted and ultimately consummated by the agent themselves.
This, my good sir, is the kernal that both of us are agreeing upon. It is THIS insight that Greg's "Stepford Wife" idea is arguing for. WE AGREE HERE. Genuine loving action and inclination cannot be programmed, forced, cajoled, whatever...BECAUSE of it's very personal nature. If anyone were to tell us different, we would say that they are speaking incoherently. But we can keep this insight...WHILE affirming universalism. You said:
b) “…nothing outside the agent’s ‘free’ choices can totally determine the end result…” I think so, right. The undetermined agent has to play a “necessary” part. The part is necessary (i.e., the choice), but whether or not they play it “for” God is contingent precisely because it’s undetermined. So the end result is a “mutually determined” or synergistic affair. I don’t see that in Talbott’s (or your) scheme. Talbott just admits that the end result (a person’s ‘destiny’) is unilaterally and unconditionally determined by God. We get to determine for ourselves ‘when’ we get to heaven and ‘what sort of shape we’re in’ when we get there (but even that is wiped away because we get to grow in heaven!), but we don’t determine ‘that’ we get there, and it’s this final ‘that’ which I see undermining the metaphysics of love.
In my view, the final 'that' you are mentioning does NOT have to be there, Tom. Not if we are the ultimate source of what SPECIFIC loving actions and inclinations that lead us towards enhancing our relationships with God. The "rock-bottom" point is NOT a moral self-development activity, but a UNFREE existential realization of truth. This is why I kept saying that the "rock-bottom" point is NOT love.
Just try this out, Tom. It SUFFICES for why LFW is necessary for this creation. It's intuitively on point. And it allows for universalism.
***********************
It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for post-rock-bottom people to leap into utter irrationality and choose against God forever. The probability for a sentient being solidifying against God is NOT zero. However, the odds are vastly against that because it's INCREDIBLY IMPROBABLE, existentially speaking...such that it is functionally INEVITABLE that all people will end up with God.
********************
I would argue that LFW is no longer needed when there is NO MORE moral self-development activity for or against God needed. This would be at the point of self-solidification.
********************************
If it is obvious that a sentient creature is making choices out of a dysfunctional, compulsive frame of mind just prior to complete self-solidification against God such that...
1) sound, reality-based rational and moral deliberation is not present (they are trapped in self-deceit and erroneous cognitive maps)
2) their own qualitative ultimate harm (total solidification against God) is an imminent risk, and
3) all non-forceful persuasion is not working...
then it is in alignment with God's perfect loving and moral character for God to try to assertively INTERVENE on that person's behalf, even to the point of heavily restricting their freedom to choose against God, in order to help them discover their dysfunction for themselves, to help them discover their TRUE motivations, and to empower them to replace their old life-denying thoughts/interpreations with life-affirming mental frameworks that help them make the best choice possible.
**********************
Step 1: A sentient being is almost completely solidified against God
Step 2: God decreases epistemic distance
Step 3: God reveals Godself to be the TRUE means and end of all sentient being dispositional desire and longing.
Step 4: At the "rock bottom" experience, the sentient being has a deep understanding and belief of what God reveals about Godself...and God's relation to the dispositional desires and longing within itself. The sentient being also realizes the utter futility of what it's already done up to now.
Step 5: A unchangeable desire for sustained pursuit of a loving relationship with God emerges from a RATIONAL, yet UNFREE understanding of God. This is because the sentient being realizes that actualization of it's own dispositional desires CANNOT be fulfilled without a love relationship with God. Unidirectionality is set, because of the empowered rationality of the sentient being. (Remember, true moral freedom ASSUMES rationality)
Step 6: God increases epistemic distance significantly as to not unilaterally determine all movement of the sentient being.
Step 7: The sentient being FREELY lives out it's new DEEP, rational understanding about God, itself, and their relation by beginning to actualize the sustained pursuit of loving relationship with God that is being unchangably desired. Consistent love of God may NOT be instantaneous. Mostly likely, it won't be.
Step 8: Over time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, it moves from primarily consciously pursuing the love relationship with God because of one's OWN dispositional actualization...to also consciously pursuing the love relationship for it's own sake.
Step 9: Over more time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, moves from Step 7 to consciously pursuing the love relationship with God for God's sake.
Step 10: Over Steps 8 through 9, solidification towards God is taking place, as the character gets more and more developed towards God. Finally, completely solidification in God takes place.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/9/2005 3:13:35 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/9/2005 4:37 AM (GMT -6) | | TWT 1: Love Require Freedom
For contingent creatures, love requires freedom insofar as love requires sentient beings to be the ULTIMATE SOURCE and FINAL REASON of their own moral self-development activity either for or against God.
One thing that I love about this reconstruction is that it affirms something that compatibilism or any type of exhaustive theological determinism CANNOT affirm: the power of self-determining agency. The agent...and the agent ALONE...is ultimately responsible for the ACTIVITY of linking possibility to actuality in concretizing either acts or inclinations when it comes to loving God. This holds for the moral self-development made through said activity (or activities). That's why I say that it is the MORAL aspect of relative ontological autonomy that leads to ontological distinction from God.
Another good thing that I like about my reconstruction (or I'd say clarification) of TWT 1 is that it fully validates our intuition about INTERVENING on behalf of incredibly self-deceived or deceived persons that are in danger of immanent ultimate harm. It says that ONLY THE PERSONS IN DANGER can truly make the decisions necessary to bring themselves out of the danger...but persons who love them can, inasmuch as it is genuinely possible for them, EMPOWER those people to make positive decisions for themselves that move them away from ultimate harm.
As we'd both agree, we CAN'T live anyone's life for them, nor can we make decisions for them. However, we CAN empower them via helping them see the TRUTH of there situation. I love what Reitan says on page 131-132 of the "Universal Salvation" book: (bolded emphases mine)
Now, Walls might well insist that the truth they confront is eventually so overwhelming that they are no longer free to deceive themselves. But to claim that this is a wrongful violation of their freedom would be like claiming that my freedom is violated by the fact that I have clear eyesight. Because my eyesight is clear, I am not free to impose upon myself the false belief that the rangy mutt sitting on my front lawn is my long-lost greyhound Sophie. Would that God would blur my eyesight in order to increase my freedom to deceive myself!
The point is this: even if we admit that our freedom to deceive ourselves is limited in the face of reality, it does not follow that God is violating our freedom when he simply allows us to face the reality that reveals our self-deception for the lie that it is. In order for the damned to persist forever in their self-deception, God would have to shield them from reality. He would have to blur their vision, in effect, thereby aiding in their self-deception. But it seems that a God would helps to hide the truth from his creatures is actually interfering with their freedom, by helping to conceal the knowledge necessary to make a fully informed choice. But even if we don't go this far, we may ask whether it is really loving to help others perpetuate a profoundly damaging self-deception, simply in order to protect their freedom to deceive themselves. It does not seem so. In fact, on this picture it would seem that God is actively taking part in the damnation of the damned, helping them along the path to hell. But surely a perfect God would refuse to play any part in such sinful and self-destructive behavior.
Our metaphysics of love would do well to accommodate this intuition that we have. If TWT 1 is about love, then the definition should reasonably cohere with what we believe about loving action. And one thing that I believe could be universally held as being an implication of love is the following: Love INTERVENES to help desperately endangered people who do not have the ability to help themselves.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/9/2005 3:45:51 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/9/2005 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | I still think there's room to argue that the makeup of human beings, who get a nice taste of freedom pre-mortem, may insist on not being boxed into the choice between God or hell. They might choose, post-mortem, if there were a choice, to continue on in the manner in which they carried about while on earth: freely choosing to live without a relationship with God (at least not one confining their freedom to only loving God).
Hell, in your scenario, Meph, leaves no room for this option. Based on who people are today—I don't feel that everyone is messed up beyond recognizing the reality of the taste of life freedom gives to live for one's self—that everyone is so deceived and screwed up that they cannot see straight.
The very makeup of what it is to be human and the freedom we have as humans to live because of our makeup, either for God or for self, precludes the necessity to posit a love-relationship with God as the only source of life or love. It is simply the case, as I've posted previously, that many people are living wonderful and fulfilled lives without God, and would choose to do so after death if given the opportunity. It is only assumption that revelation, or epistemic closure, would cause someone to say, "Oh, my gosh, there really is no other life to live but one of loving God." That doesn't exist now and it cannot be proven that it will exist post-mortem by boxing all of humanity into a messed-up existence. We are only told that we are all sinners; not that we are all incapable of rationally thinking and living out life, and life quite abundantly, for many who have no relationship with God.
Further...
In view of Meph's massive philosohiphical and theological contribution to this board, and in view of his style of processing philosophy and theology, I'd like to offer a new term to represent what happens when Mephi thinks:
MEPHAPHYSICS! Read it. Learn it. Love it! (and then send him some cash!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/10/2005 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
In true response to Sparknheart...
Soooo...the best possible option is for God to so value our freedom that he will allow us the utterly destroy ourselves, regardless of the rationality or irrationality of the basis.
God gives us the dignity by allowing us the power to commit the ULTIMATE suicide. Moral autonomy and responsibility isn't enough. God wants us to have freedom to the FULL. How WONDERFUL!
This IS what you are saying, right, Spark?
MephEternal said...
Is this REALLY the internal view that you have in mind when you are thinking about my conception of universalism?
MephEternal said...
Why? Because I need to understand WHY you say that the first relationship, all things considered, does NOT amount to rendering the second relationship functionally inevitable.
If I can understand this, then I'll have enough to totally concede your point...and scrap all this universalism stuff. Seriously. I WANT to see what you see, Tom. HELP ME!!
Meph,
In all seriousness, freedom is not some kind of luxury granted to us. Freedom is the paradox of being a slave to Christ. It’s by being in Christ that makes us free. Outside of Christ, we are in bondage to sin, tightly chained to the father of lies.
I have not internalized your theory on universalism. At best, I have tried it on as an outer garment and then shook it off like a dog shakes off mud. Some of the good stuff sticks, so before you “scrap” universalism, I would suggest you salvage a lot of your great ideas, ideas that could prove beneficial in evangelizing to those that have already hit their rock-bottom in this life.
I don’t know you personally, but from what I’ve read you seem like a very bright fellow. With that said, your intellect could also be your weakness. For some reason you seem to believe that man’s problem lies in his epistemic distance, his lack of knowledge of God that leaves him in dire need of some kind of information download. But my friend, the root of the problem is not in the eyes that need to be “wide open”, but in the opening of the heart. See, faith in God does not derive from an intellectual belief of God, this looks more like a form of works or legalism. Faith comes from trust, trusting in God enough to surrender our fragile heart. Its God’s dilemma, for only the owner of the heart has keys to open it - It’s the metaphysics of love with no loopholes.
This “God shaped vacuum” is not some missing knowledge; it’s a spark in our heart that we were all created with. It’s the imago Dai that speaks to us through our God given conscience. We can either choose to suppress it and fade away into dust, or dance off into eternity with the Triune God. It was Pharaohs heart that God solidified not his mind. If a persons character is to be solidified in God’s love, then it starts from inside the will of the heart, its there we begin on the journey to take every thought captive.
Shalom,
Mark
 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/10/2005 2:14:33 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/10/2005 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman:
I still think there's room to argue that the makeup of human beings, who get a nice taste of freedom pre-mortem, may insist on not being boxed into the choice between God or hell. They might choose, post-mortem, if there were a choice, to continue on in the manner in which they carried about while on earth: freely choosing to live without a relationship with God (at least not one confining their freedom to only loving God).
Hell, in your scenario, Meph, leaves no room for this option. Based on who people are today—I don't feel that everyone is messed up beyond recognizing the reality of the taste of life freedom gives to live for one's self—that everyone is so deceived and screwed up that they cannot see straight.
I just believe that we are going to disagree here, Stark. I believe that it is, at best, a highly improbable existential absurdity to say that a person can be completely lucid about themselves and God's reality IN HELL and still continue to choose against God unto self-destruction. There are other people who think the same thing. So, I guess we just disagree. No problem.
*******************************
Sparknheart:(emphasis mine)
This “God shaped vacuum” is not some missing knowledge; it’s a spark in our heart that we were all created with. It’s the imago Dai that speaks to us through our God given conscience. We can either choose to suppress it and fade away into dust, or dance off into eternity with the Triune God.
I agree, Spark, that the God-shaped vacuum is a subjective experience of an ontological reality within all sentient beings. I also agree that we SUPPRESS this subjective experience and perish because of it. Where I disagree is simply that I DON'T believe that God would allow us to supress this unto utter, compulsive self-delusion and self-deception unto the ULTIMATE HARM of eternal self-destruction.
I appreciate the kudos, though. Seriously. 
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/10/2005 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Summary Post: Libertarian Free Will and Universalism...Together
Givens:
1) Seven points amended:
--God IS love. Not God is "loving" God IS love.
--God is completely omnipotent. God can accomplish whatever God wants to accomplish that doesn't a) violate the laws of logic (including the metaphysics of love) and b) does not go against God's necessary essential existence.
--God REALLY wants display His glorious nature to beings OTHER THAN God and have it represented back to God by that something.
--God REALLY wants those "others" to participate with self-determination in their OWN moral existence.
--God REALLY wants all sentient beings in Creation to embody and reflect God's glorious nature to God and each other forever...extending the "dance of the Trinity"
--God REALLY DOESN'T WANT any sentient being to experience eternal destruction. Not only because it's bad for the sentient beings...but because that would TAKE AWAY from God's own aesthetic experience of contingent reality.
--If there is ANY POSSIBLE WAY that God can actualize God's own divine disposition and intentions, God will do so.
2) The actualization and internalization of loving acts and/or loving intentions are metaphysically impossible without self-determining agency, via libertarian free will (Metaphysics of love)
3) From the perspective of sentient creatures, all loving relationships must be initiated, sustained, and consummated by the actualization of loving acts and/or loving intentions in order to be genuine. (Metaphysics of love)
4) There must be enough epistemic distance to allow for SOME ambiguity on a sentient being's understanding of the God/creature relationship. ("trust" factor)
5) If it is obvious that a sentient creature is making choices out of a dysfunctional, compulsive frame of mind just prior to a point-of-no-return such that...
a) sound, reality-based rational and moral deliberation is not present [they are trapped in self-deceit and erroneous cognitive maps]
b) their own qualitative ultimate harm (whatever that may be) is an imminent risk, and
c) all non-forceful persuasion is not working...
then it is in alignment with perfectly loving character to try to assertively INTERVENE on that person's behalf, even to the point of heavily restricting that person's freedom to choose, in order to help them discover their dysfunction for themselves, to help them discover their TRUE motivations, and to empower them to replace their old life-denying thoughts/interpreations with life-affirming mental frameworks that help them make the best choice possible. (Proposed moral dictum)
--------------------------------
Starting at Step 1:
A sentient being is almost completely solidified against God
At this point, a sentient being is pretty close to the "point of no return" with regard to eternal self-destruction. By this time, they have wasted much of their lives and possibilities in futility. They have contributed hardly anything to themselves, Creation, or God but problems. They may think that they are "happy", but in truth, they are completely bound to sinful desire and their choices are now little more than dysfunctional compulsions acted out. These people are FAR from what God created them to be. If God doesn't intervene, this people will be fit for nothing BUT eternal destruction.
Moving on to Step 2:
Step 2: God decreases epistemic distance
Step 3: God reveals Godself to be the TRUE means and end of all sentient being dispositional desire and longing.
God intervenes and God begins to give the "optimal grace" ala Walls in order to empower the sentient being and free them from their bondage so they can make a choice UNHINDERED by the former bondage to sinful desire and dysfunctional compulsions. (Note: this is NOT the same things as bestowing moral perfection upon them! This is a cognitive reframing of their skewed belief systems that previously made reality-based deliberation impossible) This is ONLY possible because of the dispositional reality created within all creations.
Moving on at Step 4:
Step 4: At the "rock bottom" experience, the sentient being has a deep understanding and belief of what God reveals about Godself...and God's relation to the dispositional desires and longing within itself. The sentient being also realizes the utter futility of what it's already done up to now.
Step 5: A unchangeable desire for sustained pursuit of a loving relationship with God emerges from a RATIONAL, yet UNFREE understanding of God. This is because the sentient being realizes that actualization of it's own dispositional desires CANNOT be fulfilled without a love relationship with God. Unidirectionality is set, because of the empowered rationality of the sentient being. (Remember, true moral freedom ASSUMES rationality)
At Step 5, an interesting type of relationship is created between God and the sentient being. If I can use Walls' language, this would be the point where there is the "initial sense" of being "fully informed" about God. Let's just refer to this as the head-knowledge relationship. Steps 2-4 have provided the being with a SERIOUS reality check...and it now knows without doubt that it's former activity has been utterly futile. It's been shown the extent of it's folly. Not too pretty of a discovery. The being also discovers that the only way to truly fulfill it's own felt ultimate self-interest is in loving relationship with God. All of this is cognitively understood. Head knowledge.
Now, at this point, we have a crucial part! Amid all of this realization, the being has the metaphysical ability to completely negate all of it's desires, all rationality, and all reason, and decide to continue it's trek into utter eternal self-destruction. This being could choose against God, "even though the person sees absolutely no good reason for doing so, has every reason not to do so, and has absolutely no compelling desire to do so." (Reitan, pg 136) To be sure, this would be an existential leap of drastic proportions. So much so, in fact, it would be hard pressed to call it a "free" choice in any meaningful sense. Nevertheless, it IS logically possible.
However, the odds are IMMENSELY against this possibility occuring (odds approaching 0), given the realization that has occured. In line with rationality, the being ends up with an unchangeable desire for a sustained pursuit of a loving relationship with God. This being may not even know HOW to love yet. But it's willing to learn and grow towards that at this point. Again, this is not a LOVE relationship per se, at all. This is a relationship born of awareness, recognition, and in some real sense, repentence. Right now, beings are just acting on what they hold to be true. This relationship with God is one of acknowledgement and response
Then we have Step 7:
Step 7: The sentient being FREELY lives out it's new DEEP, rational understanding about God, itself, and their relation by beginning to actualize the sustained pursuit of loving relationship with God that is being unchangably desired. Consistent love of God may NOT be instantaneous.
Sometime in the post-rock-bottom process, the sentient being begins to actually receive (rather than reject) God's love...internalizing it. For some beings, PERHAPS for the first time in a very long time. Then, the being makes the "leap" and freely actualizes a loving act or loving inclination towards God. It is HERE that the relationship TRANSFORMS and a God/creature love relationship actually begins. This actualization comes solely from the self-determining sentient being...and therefore qualifies as genuine love. Remember, this would not occur without libertarian free will. It must be said. It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that this initial decision to love would never take place, because of libertarian free will. However, as before, the odds against this, all things considered, are SO REMOTE at this point, they become quite negligible and not a concern.
Anyways, from this point, a NEW type of knowledge emerges: lived, experiential knowledge. This knowledge formulation is growing towards what Walls' calls the "ultimate sense" of being fully informed about God where..."it means to know with profound clarity in the depths of our being and at all levels of our character that God is perfectly good and wise and that he is the indispensable source of our happiness and fulfillment."(page 117) This can ONLY be done by self-determining agents actualization loving activity with God. Only after concretely experiencing the internalization and reciprocation of God's love is growth in this area possible. A type of knowledge spiral forms. A snowball effect, if you will. To know God is to love God is to know God, etc. The beings, at this point, not only know at a cognitive level that their ways were futile, they know it know on an even deeper level...as they experience more and more love sharing with God.
Over time, we get to steps 8 through 10:
Step 8: Over time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, it moves from primarily consciously pursuing the love relationship with God because of one's OWN dispositional actualization...to also consciously pursuing the love relationship for it's own sake.
Step 9: Over more time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, moves from Step 7 to consciously pursuing the love relationship with God for God's sake.
Step 10: Over Steps 8 through 9, solidification towards God is taking place, as the character gets more and more developed towards God. Finally, completely solidification in God takes place.
The culmination of this whole thing is a sentient being who has learned and grown in love to the point of solidification in God's love. This being would be a Johnny-come-lately par excellence...with little to show from it's earthly existence...but it's reconciled nonetheless.
Now, from what I'm gathering here, the ONLY aspect in this whole thing that might be objectionable to a libertarian free willer would be what occurs in Step 5 (as Tom has already done). A libertarian free willer may say that unless the very DESIRE to want a loving relationship with God is a product of "free" choice, the entire enterprise cannot be called a genuine love relationship. At this point, I would raise Reitan's very good arguments about what a "free" decision requires...and theorize that it may be not be possible for God to LIBERATE a person's ability to choose WITHOUT making things so "overwhelming" that sentient beings are no longer able to deceive themselves concerning their need for God. The level of self-deception, may be so powerful in the sentient being that, even though they are not yet solidified against God, they are not able to break themselves out of the grip of lies. If it's not possible, then I submit that God would perform the "liberating" activity anyway, because people of loving character INTERVENE to help desperately endangered people who do not have the ability to help themselves, insofar as they are able...and God is a loving being. Because Step 5 does NOT 1) remove the metaphysical ability of the person to solidify against God [the probability remains between 0 and 1] and 2) constitute a loving act or loving inclination, it is NOT a violation of the metaphysics of love.
If all this is acceptable then we can say the following:
God views our ultimate harm via eternal self-destruction as so UNACCEPTABLE to God's divine purposes, that he has made a way such that the mere possibility of any sentient being experiencing eternal self-destruction does exist...but is rendered EXTREMELY REMOTE, to the point of being negligible for all intents and purposes. This leads to the idea of inevitable universal reconcilation.
This is it. This is all I got. I gots no more. If this ain't convincing about the philosophical and theological viability of universalism, it just ain't. Please, PLEASE, don't try to evaluate this by scripture JUST YET. I just want to see if this WORKS at all. If this really is a incoherent, inconsistent view, I'll have to give it up. That simple. But, now that I've gotten away from that "hardwiring" idea, it just might work.
If it doesn't work, screw it.
Let 'em all eternally languish in hell railin' at God 
or let God put em out of their misery 
I'm done for now.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/12/2005 5:21:43 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
AtTheWell
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 133
| Posted 3/11/2005 2:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Steps 3 and 4 sound like this to me:
  One day every tongue will confess you are God,
One day every knee shall bow.
Still the greatest treasure remains for those who gladly choose you now!
love and prayers like a laser beam man. can you feel the heat? 
Peace,
ATW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Viator
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 3/11/2005 2:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings. I am new to your discussion board. Very interersting and well thought out posts. I will need time to review. I am one that hopes for "all to be ultimately saved". I am one that hopes that annihilation would be provided for those who would reject God's love and therefore live in wrath of God throughout eternity. I believe that God is omnipotent and therefore able to withstand the anguish of the loss of one that he has provided salvation for throughout eternity. We serve a mighty God! Justice is not served for me by eternal punishment of those who willfully choose against God/Jesus. And, I trust that God will do what is required by who he is in relation to our/this creation.
When I look to the New Testament scriptures I see the message of the Gospel being received most readily by the poor in spirit, those who mourn, those who are meek/humble, those whose greatest desire is to do what God requires, those who are merciful, those who are pure in heart, those who work for peace, those who are persecuted for the sake of the kingdom of God. The Gospel finds good soil particularly among the poor, the widows, the orphans, the outcasts, the non-religious.
While I am interested in the final state of those who reject the Gospel in this life I am far more focused on those who are receptive and open to God's previent grace calling them to peace with God and the peace of God through Christ. Perhaps those who live in the wrath of God that is the result of not choosing his love are yet able to enter into the work that awaits us following our death and resurrection....Perhaps God has made a way. I am content to leave this with God...I don't believe I can KNOW in my present state of being.
And so I listen to thoughts and questions of others...and respect them as best I am able. And continue to ask the question and share the message of Jesus crucified and risen from the dead.
On this path I find peace.
Joy to you in Christ Jesus,
Viator | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/12/2005 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Some Points: Meph's Universalism and Post-Mortem Evangelism
Yo, I've been thinking and we HAVE to deal with this. Especially before we get into the scripture aspect of this whole thing. I'll try to make this quick. But it's very important.
As I'm seeing it, the free will defense (which is held by pretty much ALL Arminian Christians, including open view theists) is built upon the premise that hell exists because of the God's dignification of the creaturely freedom. Basically, when it comes to separation of God (forget the duration), sentient creatures are allowed to have their chosen way. In my opinion, TWT 1 is a sub-idea under the larger free will defense. However, this philosophical idea has interesting ramifications upon ideas existence after death. If final states are really crucially LINKED to the decisions of free willed beings, what if certain beings die in a state of INDECISION? Doc picks this issue up and deals with it in Satan and the Problem of Evil in Appendix 3: On Incomplete Probationary Periods. Pp.380-385. I'd advise everyone who has the book to read that section. But here I'm going to place some quotes. From Across the Spectrum, page 187. It's Doc and Paul Eddy's main argumentation for the view. (emphasis mine)
2. The freewill defense. Among evangelicals, the most common explanation for the problem of evil is the freewill defense. In essence, this argument states that evil exists in the world because creatures must have the freedom to choos evil if they are to have the freedom to choose love. If this view is accepted, then it follows that no one can enter into God's love without choosing for it, and no one can be excluded from God's love without choosing against it. If even one person could automatically go to heaven without choosing it, the entire freewill defense falls to the ground. Yet many people obviously die without having made a resolved choice for or against God. The post-mortem evangelism position is the most natural way of reconciling the need for choice with the fact that in this life choice is often unavailable to people.
Quote from SATPOE, Appendix 3. Underline is Boyd's emphasis. Bold mine.
Though the point is rarely made and even less frequently discussed, the fate of infants and mentally incapacitated people is crucial to anyone who holds to a free-will defense. The most fundamental claim of this defense is that love requires choice and that choice entails the possibility of evil. But if love indeed requires choice, and if heaven is defined as participating in God's love, then it follows by logical necessity that people who never made a choice for love cannot participate in heaven, regardless of why it is that they did not or could not make that choice. Nor can such individuals participate in hell, for the state of rejecting love also must be chosen.
Most contemporary Christians assume that all deceased infants and mentally incapacitated persons automatically go to heaven. But this assumption undermines the free will defense. The conception of self-determining freedom as a precondition for love only explains the reality of evil in the world if it is a necessary precondition and is therefore applied universally to all persons--including infants and mentally incapacitated people.
Hence, though I would never propose that this conclusion be regarded as anything more than speculation, I argue that those who hold ot the free-will defense should logically consider the possibility that those who were unable responsibly and decisively to choose for or against God's Kingdom before death must somehow be given an opportunity to do so after death. This view is often called the "future probation" or "probation after death" position.
Given the current prevalence of the free-will defense, it is somewhat surprising that the concept of future probation is rarely given serious consideration among evangelicals. The central reason for this, I suspect, is that scripture does not explicitly address this matter, and where scripture is silent, conservative evangelicals often assume that we must also remain silent. The reverence for the authority of scripture embodied in this position is laudable. But three considerations reveal it to be somewhat misguided in this case.
Doc goes on to talk about how things like the destiny of babies has historically be DEDUCED from logical implications from scriptural assertions. And how these things have not necessarily been EXPLICITLY spelled out in scripture. Later, he states it plainly again. Very brief quote from SATPOE, Appendix 3, page 383-384. Emphasis mine.
I thus contend that the view that certain individuals will somehow be given a post-mortem opportunity to accept or reject Christ must stand or fall on the basis of whether or not one accepts the argument that love and moral responsibility require choice. If this is indeed a metaphysical truth, then people who have not chosen must somehow be given the opportunity to do so.
This is how the issue of hell is dealt with when it comes to the death of...
--people of inadequate mental or rational capacity (mental retardation, etc)
--children under the so-called "age of accountability"
--people who haven't been exposed to the Gospel
--people who are undecided on Christ.
Now, why is all of this a big deal, you may ask. Glad you asked. Two main things...
1) scriptural backing vs philosophical deliberation
One thing that I've noticed is that post-mortem evangelism (like the destiny of babies OR the idea of "age of accountability") has relatively scant direct biblical evidence about it. It actually seems to be INFERRED logically from certain presuppositions and biblically validated ideas more than anything else. There are MANY, MANY people that I know of that believe in the idea of the "age of accountability." Even the most conservative! When you bring up the fact that there is absolutely NO scripture passage or set of passages that explicitly or implicitly back this perspective, I've pretty much got the same answers everytime. Some type of deduction about this from God being just, God doing what's right, etc, etc. But NO explicit scriptural claims. What I'm very interested in is this: When it comes to things like "the age or accountability", explicit statements by Jesus, Paul or whoever else is not necessary at all to validate it as being viable. ONLY logical inductions and deductions from interpreted biblical themes are necessary. Why is this the case for that subject, but when we talk about universalism, it gets criticized for having supposedly "weak" scriptural data backing it?? I truly am utterly confused about that. Talk about universalism...get pounded for EXPLICIT scripture about it. Talk about the "age of accountability"...nuthin'! I smell a BIAS!
And when we deal with the concept of post-mortem evangelism, there are AT BEST a few controversial scriptural texts used to supported this idea from the New Testament. But the ultimate grounding of the post-mortem evangelism thought isn't as much BIBLICAL as it is PHILOSOPHICAL. You all just saw that. The contemportary idea of post-mortem evangelism is a MORE NATURAL way of dealing with the integration of the free will defense into Christian theology. Doc, being the oft-consistent person he is, picks this up and deals with it forthrightly (to his credit). Interestingly enough, there are some conservative evangelicals who will DISS the idea of post-mortem evangelism...but AFFIRM both the free will defense AND the "age of accountability idea"! Talk about inconsistent!
At any rate, I just wanted to bring this up to those of you who hold to the free will defense (which I pretty much believe to be MOST of the people reading this right now!) If you believe in TWT 1 and the free will defense...and you want to be consistent...chances are you are going to hold to post-mortem evangelism. And that's cool. But I just want y'all to know that in doing so, you guys are NOT being biblically adequate in the conservative evangelical sense. Basically, I want you guys to treat my argumentation for universalism with the SAME RESPECT AND MANNER that you treat your argumentation for post-mortem evangelism (if you hold it) Don't ask me for a truckload of EXPLICIT scriptures dealing with every point of my universalism...and then turn around and accept either "age of accountability" or post-mortem evangelism on a wink and a smile. Forget that. Be consistent. That's all I ask.
2) The "rock-bottom experience" is a FORM OF post-mortem evangelism!
From a philosophical standpoint, I wanted to note this. At base, All post-mortem evangelism essentially says is that some type of divine revelation is made to UNSOLIDIFIED PEOPLE after death that leads them towards resolution through choice. THAT'S IT. To be sure, many post-mortem evangelism people want to say that this happens BEFORE the judgement...and that's cool. However, what I'd like to note is the CONCEPT. From what I'm gathering, certain evangelicals think that the concept has MEANING and is theologically viable. If the post-mortem evangelism concept DOES have meaning, I cannot understand why people would have a PHILOSOPHICAL or THEOLOGICAL problem with my view of the "rock bottom experience" that leads to inevitable universal reconciliation. As a matter of fact, I would argue that the rock-bottom experience is the ULTIMATE CULMINATION of the post-mortem evangelism! Check out the elegance of this model, y'all. The post-mortem evangelism occurs after death before AND during judgement. It's all one activity! The same divine activity that precipitates the evangelism of deceased babies and the mentally incapacitated is the SAME activity that judges ALL beings...is the same activity that PUNISHES and "DESTROYS" God's enemies...is the SAME activity that elicits the "rock-bottom experience" unto eventual reconciliation! Friggin SWEET!
Basically, what I want to say here is this: My view may be a lot easier for some of you to swallow if you see it as a FORM of post-mortem evangelism...because it is.
*********************************
Well, y'all, I just wanted to get this off my chest at 5 somethin' in the morning. I think it's VERY important to the discussion at hand. Hopefully, this has been clear enough so that you can see how. In short, if you buy post-mortem evangelism, it's plausibility and it's justifications...think about all that when you examine my argumentation. Ok?
Later,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/12/2005 5:35:14 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/12/2005 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | | One more thing.
I'm going to take a crazy position.
I propose that my view of inevitable universal reconciliation is the coherent integration of critical elements found in the major doctrines of final states (ie. eternal conscious punishment, annihiliationism or conditionalism, and universalism)
As I see it, these are the things that have to be reconciled in a biblically adequate doctrine of final states:
Eternal existence of sentient beings
Dignity of sentient beings preserved via eternal ramifications for "earthly" decisions.
Conscious suffering in divine punishment
Destruction of the ungodly "person" in hell
Elimination of all wickedness and sin
In the end, all things reconciled under God in Christ
I'm just looney enough to think that my view holds all of these in a fairly nice way such that I can assert the following...
In the end, God's love and justice are consummated by God's divine elimination of everything in Creation that is against the nature and being of God...and the purification of everything that can be redeemed to God. God, by his wisdom, in His love, and for His glorious purposes, has made Creation such that there is SOMETHING inherent in ALL sentient beings that can be redeemed. How MUCH of sentient beings that will be redeemed or eliminated...and the duration of the process...is genuinely up to the beings themselves. In other words, God is the SOLE agent of judgment (Judge) and redemption (Savior), while we genuinely affect how this agency will SUBJECTIVELY affect us, though the power of our decisions. In the end, God will be all-in-all.
Yeah. Crazy. I know...heh...
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/12/2005 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
You've DEFINITELY given me personally some seriously excellent stuff to think about and to consider toward a reworking of my theology. But if you have done nothing more here, you have presented an educational setting that has made this thread as "real world" as it can possibly get without the face-to-face. I value that. I value that more than you can imagine, because it's CONVERSATIONS like this, where cyberspace cannot stop the real world from encroaching its realty, that I grab food that will benefit my spiritual walk right into eternity. I can't get that just anywhere, because I'm not able to find many around where I live who, though they are smarter than me, are willing to talk like this. So, thanks. Thanks very much.
I posted earlier that I have a HARD time confining those to hell who died without ever hearing the gospel, much less those who can't even make a decision for or against God. What I hadn't thought of, though, until you made note of it, was the necessity to be consistent with regard to the high pillar of value many of us have placed on freedom. The most I had concluded was that if anyone who has never heard the gospel does get into heaven, you can bet he didn't get there without the shedded blood of Christ over him; which begs the question with regard to freedom: how did they decide if that is what they wanted.
What I sure hope we do—and I'm STILL waiting for those books you mentioned about universalism to arrive at my library—is get into this from your perspective of scripture. See, I want to dialog with you now about this from your framework, from a bigger framework than I've had. This is going to be challenging, but I want a discussion about our views of scripture now (and this couldn't have happened without you summing up things and hitting on some other issues) in regard to those traditionally-contexted passages about the destiny of souls as well as the broader aspects. We talked about this briefly once when Doc asked some questions along these lines, but I have no idea how to find that thread.
Anyway, I'm definitely ready to rework, rethink and be challenged...again! What say ye (and the rest of ya'll)?
For a bigger picture,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/12/2005 9:29 PM (GMT -6) | |
Meph said...
One thing that I've noticed is that post-mortem evangelism (like the destiny of babies OR the idea of "age of accountability") has relatively scant direct biblical evidence about it. It actually seems to be INFERRED logically from certain presuppositions and biblically validated ideas more than anything else. There are MANY, MANY people that I know of that believe in the idea of the "age of accountability." Even the most conservative! When you bring up the fact that there is absolutely NO scripture passage or set of passages that explicitly or implicitly back this perspective, I've pretty much got the same answers everytime. Some type of deduction about this from God being just, God doing what's right, etc, etc. But NO explicit scriptural claims. What I'm very interested in is this: When it comes to things like "the age or accountability", explicit statements by Jesus, Paul or whoever else is not necessary at all to validate it as being viable. ONLY logical inductions and deductions from interpreted biblical themes are necessary. Why is this the case for that subject, but when we talk about universalism, it gets criticized for having supposedly "weak" scriptural data backing it?? I truly am utterly confused about that. Talk about universalism...get pounded for EXPLICIT scripture about it. Talk about the "age of accountability"...nuthin'! I smell a BIAS!
I've known about three conservative Christians who felt the need to believe in the "age of accountability" while they believed in eternal torment. After they converted to a belief in an unconscious second death, they were no longer certain of the "age of accountability." I agree that it is only the belief in eternal torment that makes the "age of accountability" seem so compelling.
Imagine a person 6 months beyond the age of accountability dying and going to a hell of eternal torment. Isn't that problematic, too? The whole notion is alleviated if there is no eternal torment.
And since there is nothing in the OT that indicates such a condition, it would seem that Christ's statements about "aionion" (age-abiding) torment were to be taken in a an eschatological context - that it was about torment for those who refused to repent even during the MANIFEST day of judgement before the parousia. Where much is given, much is required. And those who don't repent during that day are guilty of the greatest hardness of heart imaginable.
I
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/13/2005 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | |
John,
The wages of sin is death. But I don't know that all sin results in a judgement of works. Maybe becoming unclean accidentally would not result in a Jew being judged in the judgement of works.
I think Romans makes it clear that the unborn do neither good or evil. How long this lasts outside of the womb I don't pretend to know. But if infants only die and receive no judgement of works, we don't have the problem of reconciling a benevolent God with the seemingly extreme punishment of eternal torment for infants. That was my point. Thus, Meph's argument of trying to make analogous the need for universalism with the need for an "age of accountability" depends on what the text actually says. There is no escaping the need of text to build sound theology IMO.
1 Cor. 13 tells what love does. Plug the word "God" into that chapter everywhere the word "love" occurs and see if you can deduce the necessity of universalism from what results therefrom. I can't. So if "God is love" isn't sufficient, you need more text IMO.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 3/13/2005 10:46:30 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/13/2005 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
I wasn't trying to derail your focus. I was just saying that all philosophical approaches have to deal with the text to be considered plausible. I think very good textual arguments can be made for the view that God unilaterally saves some people. Hence, I have NO problem with the possibility of universalism. All depends on the text to me, as does the question of whether the age of accountability is relevant to this discussion - for the reasons I stated above. You may differ, but I think it's a point worth making. Sorry if it distracts.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 3/13/2005 5:38:28 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
AtTheWell
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 133
| Posted 3/14/2005 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | and since we're all clarifying points here....
I wasn't really expecting there to be much (if any) scripture that directly disagrees with the "age of accountability"  (though I am very open to any correction of my possible lack of knowledge here) however, I expect there will be some quotes coming forth (actually already have in past posts) that possibly do conflict with universalism, so I was in direct response to this....
_______________________
MEPH said: There are MANY, MANY people that I know of that believe in the idea of the "age of accountability." Even the most conservative! When you bring up the fact that there is absolutely NO scripture passage or set of passages that explicitly or implicitly back this perspective, I've pretty much got the same answers everytime. Some type of deduction about this from God being just, God doing what's right, etc, etc. But NO explicit scriptural claims. What I'm very interested in is this: When it comes to things like "the age or accountability", explicit statements by Jesus, Paul or whoever else is not necessary at all to validate it as being viable. ONLY logical inductions and deductions from interpreted biblical themes are necessary. Why is this the case for that subject, but when we talk about universalism, it gets criticized for having supposedly "weak" scriptural data backing it?? I truly am utterly confused about that. Talk about universalism...get pounded for EXPLICIT scripture about it. Talk about the "age of accountability"...nuthin'! I smell a BIAS!
___________________________
I don't think it's a problem of searching for explicit scripture FOR universalism, it's more about reconciling the explicit scripture disagreeing with it, isn't it???? See the difference?
Though, in total fairness here, I obviously haven't sat down and tested each possible verse with your definition of universalism, so until that happens, it's time to be quiet...
Anyway, I wasn't intending to get you off track either.
Blessings to you!!! 
Peace, ATW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/17/2005 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
Meph,
You've DEFINITELY given me personally some seriously excellent stuff to think about and to consider toward a reworking of my theology. But if you have done nothing more here, you have presented an educational setting that has made this thread as "real world" as it can possibly get without the face-to-face. I value that. I value that more than you can imagine, because it's CONVERSATIONS like this, where cyberspace cannot stop the real world from encroaching its realty, that I grab food that will benefit my spiritual walk right into eternity. I can't get that just anywhere, because I'm not able to find many around where I live who, though they are smarter than me, are willing to talk like this. So, thanks. Thanks very much.
As the weight of the night fell upon him, Faust Starkman sold his soul to Sir Mephistopheles, making a compact with the devil because of his desire to extend the boundaries of his knowledge. Yes, he bartered his soul for illusory knowledge.
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." | | Back to Top | | |
| 259 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|