[Milton-L] "Ontological superiority"
cbcox at ilstu.edu
Wed Jul 19 18:53:13 EDT 2006
I would modify Richard Strier's claim in the last paragraph of his post.
(I agree with all that precedes.) It is not just hell that is
disgusting: immortality of any variety is offensive. Assume a god who
arranges "for the eventual salvation of all intelligent creatures." Why
create at all then? Human activity, covering a few decades for each
human, becomes pretty trivialized measured against a subsequent
immortality. I suspect that what seems to me the absurdity of testing
for the sake of testing (choice for choice's sake), upon which Milton
puts so much emphasis, flows in part from Milton's nagging concern over
this trivializing of human action by immortality.
Richard Strier wrote:
> Some remarks with limited time:
> To put my final card, for now, on the table: I see no moral
> justification for the permanent damnation of the fallen angels or of
> transgressing humans. Hell is a disgusting notion -- morally
> unintelligible -- and a truly benign omnipotent Being would work for
> the eventual salvation of all intelligent creatures.
More information about the Milton-L