(April 13, 2014 at 6:34 pm)professor Wrote: Robby, I gave you my best shot for answers. I don't have them all anyway.
"I give up" does not mean I join you in no man's land.
My point is: the "yes" or "no" answers to those questions both have problems with how Christians typically conceptualize heaven and the problem of evil.
Are you saying that the notions appear contradictory, and regardless, you believe there is no contradiction despite not being able to articulate a reason?
If so, why? Why start at a conclusion that doesn't appear to make sense, then work backward to try to establish a premise that doesn't invalidate itself or the conclusion? Especially, why do so if you admit that you can't even fathom some of the base assumptions, but simply assume they must be there?
No one approaches anything else in life this way. Imagine how disastrous it would be to approach things like planning for retirement, building a house, or running a judicial system in this way.
