[Milton-L] "Ontological superiority"
alc at mac.com
Thu Jul 20 01:21:58 EDT 2006
The turn of this discussion reminds me of this poem of Dickinson's:
I know that He exists.
He has hid his rare life
From our gross eyes.
'Tis an instant's play.
'Tis a fond Ambush—
Just to make Bliss
Earn her own surprise!
But—should the play
Prove piercing earnest—
Should the glee—glaze—
Would not the fun
Look too expensive!
Would not the jest—
Have crawled too far!
I acknowledge that Milton's "He" is not so silent.
From my air conditioned heaven,
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> I would modify Richard Strier's claim in the last paragraph of his
> (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."
> 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
> 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.
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Milton-L