Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pietro
I'm sorry, I assumed that being was preferrable to non-being

It is a common mistake. Nothing is, "just preferrable." It must be preferable for something, some end, or goal, or purpose. There is no such thing as an intrinsic value.

For example, why would one want to "be" in suffering for eternity, or "be" in boredom for eternity. It would be better in those cases not to be.

Hank

184 posted on 10/01/2003 12:08:14 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]


To: Hank Kerchief; Alamo-Girl; RightWhale
"...better in those cases not to be"

Of course, but in the context of my previous post it was implied, I thought, that eternity would be w/ God, obviously eternity in Hell would be the worst of all possible situations.

A-G, I agree that to love God (w/ all of one's heart, mind and soul) is the highest purpose, hence my statement, in an earlier post, that one must walk w/ Christ. I'll take fault in implying a separation of means and ends. In my mind they are not separate; to love God and to be w/ God eternally are both means and end.

RightWhale, 82 years in this world are probably more than enough, but I'm not speaking of this world.

I apologize for the confusion folks, but that's what happens when I throw out glib one-liners in the midst of doing other things. Hank's question deserved a more thoughtful response, hopefully this post clarifies some things a little.

185 posted on 10/01/2003 12:42:05 PM PDT by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson