What the hell is the point of living anyway?

avoidant


Which Personality Disorder Do You Have?
brought to you by Quizilla

BU sucks.

That is all.

Oh, and I am no longer taking PH 300, but rather PS 101. Because BU sucks.

Fall 2003

CAS CL111 C1 Beginning Latin Mon,Wed 1:00pm-2:00pm Fri 1:00pm-3:00pm
CAS PH300 A1 Hist Ancient Ph Mon,Wed,Fri 9:00am-10:00am
CAS RN303 A1 Xian Thought I Tue,Thu 12:30pm 2:00pm Meets w/RN603
CAS RN524 A1 Topics Bibl&lit Tue,Thu 9:30am 11:00amMeets w/STH TO8 24, LL560
CAS RN495 A1 Theory Rn I Wed 6:00pm-9:00pm

18 Credits. Wheeeeee!

I feel like hell. My throat hurts so much and I can hardly talk and when I do, I sound pitiful. Doctor has me on 1,000 mg of Vitamin C every hour. I am going to get sick of these tablets quickly.

And I can't miss class tomorrow. I won;t exactly be believed day after Spring Break begging off sick. But damn, I'm sick.

Thought I would just let you know that. But I do update my LiveJournal. It's a year old today and has 612 entries.

I Nevah Shut Up.

I have a blurty! Oh yeah!

lol

I am combatting a bit of melancholy right now. I'm grasping for something to hold on to. Some thing to stop me from sinking further down into moral relativity. I really want to drink. A lot. But I'm not 21 yet. That's good. Because I would go get smashed. Right now.

I ate chocolate covered coffee beans today. They were disgusting, but the point is that I ate them. Coffee. Coffee. And I feel no closer to Hell. Wheeeee

I'm not Mormon. I am no longer identifying myself that way. But it's so hard, cause I want to be Mormon. I want to be perfect little Molly with 7.3 kids, a minivan and a bread machine.

But I don't want that either. I want to do what is right. Completely.

Here's a scary thought. I want to be a Trappist Nun.

Don't tell anyone. I wouldn't want to ruin my reputation.

Here's my list of Lenten Resolutions.

1. One hour or less of Internet time per day. Email may be checked on Sunday, but no chatting and surfing on the Sabbath.

2. Abstain from food and drink on Wednesdays and Sundays.

3. Abstain from food on Tuesdays and Fridays.

4. Abstain from all snacks and sweets.

5. Abstain from meat, except when it is what Gramma makes for dinner. ( I don't want to put her out).

6. Study scripture for at least an hour a day, two hours on Sundays.

7. Pray a Psalm each morning and each night.

8. Be in bed by 10 when I have class the next morning and 11 otherwise.

9. Abstain from soda/juice/milk, etc. Drink only water.

10. Don't swear at all.

Aren't I just exciting? Tony is afraid I will waste way, but I will be fine!

philokeeper: The person: I used to be a Catholic. What he posted was an out-and-out lie.
My friend: Perhaps if you had known Catholic dogma you might have stayed.

a 4mer fetus: who is the person?
a 4mer fetus: and why is your friend stickin' up for Catholicism?
philokeeper: someone on a delphi forum
philokeeper: cause he's cool :-D
a 4mer fetus: lol ;-)
philokeeper: don't you know that most Mormons love Catholics?
philokeeper: lol
a 4mer fetus: Of course... we're they're biggest suppliers of converts!
a 4mer fetus: lol
philokeeper: hahahha
a 4mer fetus: I think something like 1/3rd of Mormons are ex-Catholics.

Corruption

The 33rd canto of Dante’s Inferno is permeated with imagery of the Sermon on the Mount, Crucifixion and Atonement of Christ, and the Eucharist. These images serve to remind the reader of the complete corruption of anything that would otherwise be good. Those who are in Dante’s Hell have outrightly rejected God, and in so doing, have made mockery, through their actions, the most Holy that God had granted to His creation.

The image most central in Canto 33 is Christ’s crucifixion and the events leading up to it. Prevalent throughout the canticle, the Crucifixion is somehow distorted in order to strongly impart an important message.

The preceding canto ends, as this one begins, with the sinner gnawing upon the head of a fellow sinner, Archbishop Ruggieri. This is the first in a series of references to the Sermon on the Mount. Says the fourth beatitude, “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6; King James Version). Ugolino certainly hungers, but that hunger is misplaced. Instead of hungering for righteousness, he yearns for vengeance. Perhaps, like Francesca in Canto 5, Ugolino needed to read further. While the Torah preached retributive justice, Christ called for a higher execution of the law. Later, in that same sermon, he said, “I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:44-45). Because Ugolino possesses a misplaced hunger, he can never be filled. His anger is manifested quite viscerally not only in his devouring of Ruggieri, but also in his words to Dante. He says, “Now I will tell you why I am such a neighbor to him. That by effect of his evil thoughts, trusting him, I was taken, and then killed, there is no need to say; but what you could not have heard, that is how cruel my death was, you shall hear, and you shall know if he has injured me” (Inferno 33:14-21). The choice of neighbor to describe Ugolino’s relationship to the archbishop is another reference to the Sermon, wherein Christ instructs his followers to love their neighbors even as they love themselves. Even in Hell, like so many others, Ugolino seems to be blind to his own fault and consumed by the need to condemn whom he believes to be both the worse sinner and the one who has barred his salvation.

In another similarity to Canto 5, it is easy, as Ugolino tells of the suffering of his children, to sympathize with the sinner and get so lost as to forget that in the framework of the Inferno, God’s punishments are just and fully merited. After telling of the boys’ crying out in their sleep for bread, he admonishes, “You are surely cruel if you do not already grieve, thinking what my heart was announcing to me; if you are not weeping, about what do you usually weep?” (33:40-42). But in the relating of events, Ugolino explicitly makes reference to his own insensitivity. He said, “I was not weeping, I so turned to stone within… Therefore I did not shed tears, nor did I reply all that day or the night after, until the next sun came forth into the world” (33:49-54).

His sons, on the other hand, are clearly representative of Christ and reflect the teachings that Ugolino, through his hatred, rejected. The echo of Christ’s words are found in the instance of the children’s speech, starting with the offer of their flesh to eat. They said, “Father it will be much less pain for us if you eat us: you clothed us with this wretched flesh, so do you divest us of it” (33:61-63). One cannot help but think of the Eucharist and Christ saying, “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). While his sons don’t offer him salvation in quite the same manner as Christ did, their meekness and innocent behavior is that which Christ taught. They endure this punishment for sins of which they are innocent, without complaint. When Ugolino tells of the children crying out for bread, he is careful to point out that they are crying out in their sleep.

The children’s words and actions also closely mirror those of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, while Gaddo’s also mirror those of Christ upon the Cross. In relation to the Garden, too, are these lines significant. “Father it will be much less pain for us if you eat us: you clothed us with this wretched flesh, so do you divest us of it” (33:61-63). Wrote Matthew, “Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder… And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:36. 39). As Christ submits to the will of God, as His Father and recognizes that he belongs to the Father, Ugolino’s sons recognize that the keeping and taking of their lives belong to their father.

Ugolino told, “After we had reached the fourth day, Gaddo threw himself stretched out at my feet, saying: ‘My father, why do you not help me?’” Compare that to Christ’s words on the Cross. The Gospel of Matthew records, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). His sons feel forsaken, just as Christ must have felt being forsaken. Ugolino, however is blind and powerless to help his sons, in sharp contrast to the Father, whom sees all and holds all power.

Ugolino’s account ends rather ambiguously, with, “Then fasting had more power than grief” (Canto 33:75). Wrote Durling:

“Much ink has been spilled on the question of whether line 75 implies cannibalism on Ugolino’s part, an idea that surfaces in the nineteenth century… In support of the cannibalism hypothesis can be adduced the Theibad reference, the repeated emphasis on eating and teeth, the cannibalism of the punishment itself, the punishment of Judas, Cassius, and Brutus in Satan’s mouths (also a kind of parody of the Eucharist), and the many references to the myth of Saturn (as in the figure of Satan), who ate his children until his wife substituted stones… As Contini said, accepting the idea ‘may add horror, but not the poetry of horror,’ and does not perhaps much affect the basic significance of the episode” (Durling p. 579).

While it may not much affect the basic significance of the episode, the mere suggestion, by way of ambiguity, that Ugolino may have eaten the flesh of his children further distorts the imagery of the Eucharist and draws a sharp distinction between the Father, who gives His Son to the world and commands them to eat His flesh in order to save them, and Ugolino who may have eaten the flesh of his children in order to save himself. Considering that the reader first encounters Ugolino gnawing upon his neighbors head, with that same image also being the reader’s final glimpse of the sinner, it is not unreasonable to infer that Ugolino may have engaged in cannibalism out of desperation.

It is not altogether surprising to find Dante to be denouncing a city in the middle of this canto. Even less surprising is the strong biblical imagery which he invokes, reminiscent of the strong condemnation pronounced by prophets like Jeremiah. “Ah, Pisa, shame of the peoples of the lovely land where si is spoken, since your neighbors are slow to punish you, let Carraia and Gorgona move and make a barrier at the mouth of Arno, so that it may drown every person in you! For if Count Ugolino was reported to have betrayed your fortresses, you should not have put his sons on such a cross” (Canto 33: 79-84). The reference to the Crucifixion is obvious, but more interesting, as Durling points out, are the images familiar to the destruction of Sodom and of the flood (see Durling p. 529). Dante is unmistakably taking on the role of prophetic voice in these lines, but in comparing him with Abraham (in keeping with the image of Sodom), it is striking that whereas Abraham bargained with God, hoping to move Him to greater mercy on behalf of the Sodomites, Dante calls for raw justice to be exacted upon every person in the city. This sets the tone for his boorish courtesy towards Brother Alberigo.

The encounter with Brother Albergio begins with a plea. “O souls so cruel that you are given the last place, lift from my eyes the heard veils, so that I may give vent a little to the anguish that gathers in my heart, before my tears freeze up again” (Canto 33:110-114). Fittingly, Dante’s reply to the traitor is deceitful. He replies, “If you wish me to help you, tell me who you are, and if I do not extricate you may I have to go down to the bottom of the ice” (Canto 33:115-117). The entire interaction between the pilgrim and this sinner is permeated with disbelief and deceit. The sinner reveals his identity and Dante’s reaction is one of surprise. “’Oh,’ said I to him, “now are you already dead?’ And he to me: ‘How my body may fare up in the world, I have no knowledge” (Canto 33:121-123). It is an interesting twist that he have no knowledge of his body’s current state, given that the victims of his sin had no prior knowledge of his deceitful act. Just as the body and soul are meant to function as one, so too are families meant to function as one. It is fitting that part of his punishment be a division of such nature.

The theme of deceit continues as Fra Albergio tells of the possession of bodies by devils, in an effort to get the pilgrim to relieve him of his icy burden. “And that you may more willingly shave the glassy tears from my eyes, know that, as soon as the soul betrays as I did, its body is taken over by a demon, who then governs it until his time has all resolved” (Canto 33:127-132). It seems striking that after committing such a sin as grievous as treachery against one’s own family that the sinner be removed from his body immediately, unable to repent. Just as they are frozen in the ice unable to move, their sin freezes then immediately, making it impossible for them to repent of such wrongs. Albergio then tells the pilgrim of Branca Doria, claiming he has been encased in the ice for years, and while he sees Fra Albergio in Hell not yet dead, he does not take him at his word that it is possible for Doria to already be damned. He says, “I believe… that you are deceiving me, for Branca Doria is not yet dead, and he eats and drinks and sleeps and wears clothes” (Canto 33:139-141). While it seems incredible that Dante would doubt him in this manner, one cannot blame the pilgrim for exercising caution and “Beware to whom [he] entrust [him]self” (Canto 5:20), especially given to whom it is he is speaking.

Perhaps the most disturbing moment of the canto, even more disturbing, arguably, than that moment when Ugolino may or may not have eaten his children, is when Albergio says, “But stretch out your hand to me now, open my eyes.” And Dante records, “And I did not open them for him; and it was courtesy to treat him boorishly” (Canto 33:148-150). As Durling points out, Dante’s behavior is appropriate for the situation. “To have lightened in any way the suffering of this wicked soul would have been a lapse; true cortesia (behavior appropriate to the court of a ruler, in this case, God) here requires what in other circumstances would be its reverse” (Durling p. 532). It serves as a reminder that Hell is devoid of all charity. It is the ultimate corruption of the Good, just as Ugolino’s treatment of his sons is the ultimate corruption of the role of fatherhood.

The canto then ends with Dante’s final denunciation of an Italian city, creating a coherent link to that of Count Ugolino. Both men’s sins were facilitated by their offices. So corrupt is Genoa that men of that city are already damned to Cocytus while demons possess their bodies and go about their day to day business in the city, the townspeople oblivious to it.

Minos’ words in Canto 5 become haunting in light of this one. “Beware how you enter and to whom you entrust yourself” (Canto 5:19-20). The deceivers were truly deceived, both in the context of the text and in their lives. Ugolino continues to be deceived by his own rage in Hell—his pointless rage which eats futily, not only at the Archbishop, but also at himself. In what can only be described as pitiful, Fra Albergio is deceived by the pilgrim, and what is more, this deception is the sanctioned way for Dante to behave, much like Ugolino’s gnawing at Ruggieri is sanctioned. The deceivers have failed to put their trust in Grace and thus have fallen victim to the most horrific of deceptions, frozen in a awful stasis for eternity.

A Catholic boy and a Mormon boy are arguing about which is smarter. The Catholic boy suggests they go to his priest in the Catholic cathedral and ask him to help them resolve the problem.
Upon entering the cathedral, the Catholic boy tells the priest of their problem figuring out who was smarter - to which the priest quickly replied, "Well, the Catholic boy is smarter, of course."

The Mormon boy wasn't convinced, so he asked the priest to prove it. So, the priest pointed up to the large wall in the cathedral where a huge cross with the crucifix stood - also with the two people crucified on either side of Him also on the wall.

The priest asked the Mormon boy who the man in the center was, to which he quickly replied, "That's Jesus on the cross - of course!"

The priest nodded approvingly, then asked, "now who is that on the right of Him?" The Mormon boy didn't know.

"Now who is that on His left?" The Mormon boy didn't know that one either.

The smug priest now questioned the Catholic boy with the same questions - to which he answered all three correctly: "Who is that in the center?" - "Jesus, of course!" answered the catholic boy.

"Who is that on the right?" - "That represents the Pope!" said the boy.

"Who is that on the left?" - "That's the High Priest of the Catholic Church!" answered the boy confidently.

The catholic priest turned and smiled confidently at the little Mormon boy and said, "See? It's clear the Catholics are smarter...", to which the Mormon boy replied, "That's not fair! All we were taught was that Jesus was crucified between a liar and a thief!"

----

It's Show and Tell day in school, and each kid has to bring something that represents their faith.

Little Mary walks to the front and says in a very soft voice, "My name is Mary. I'm Catholic, and this is a rosary."

Little Isaac walks to the front and says, "My name is Isaac. I'm Jewish and this is a dreidel."

Little Nephi walks up and says, "My name is Nephi. I'm LDS and this is a casserole."

----

Fifteen minutes into the flight from Washington D.C. to Salt Lake City, the captain announced, "Ladies and gentlemen, one of our engines has failed. There is nothing to worry about. Our flight will take an hour longer than scheduled, but we still have three engines left."

Thirty minutes later the captain announced, "One more engine has failed and the flight will take an additional two hours. But don't worry . . . we can fly just fine on two engines."

An hour later the captain announced, "One more engine has failed and our arrival will be delayed another three hours. But don't worry . . . we still have one engine left."

A young Mormon missionary turned to the man in the next seat and remarked, "If we lose one more engine, we'll be up here all day!"

----

Q: What do you get when you cross a Mormon with an Atheist?
A: Someone who knocks on your door for no reason.

----

A young LDS lady came home from a date, rather sad. She told her mother, "Jeff proposed to me an hour ago."

"Then why are you so sad?" her mother asked.

"Because he also told me he was an atheist. Mom, he doesn't even believe there's a hell."

Her mother replied, "Marry him anyway. Between the two of us, we'll show him how wrong he is."

----

A Mormon Bishop got on an elevator on the 10th floor, (he was heading to the lobby) on the 8th floor a beautiful woman walked in. (they were alone) On the way to the lobby the gorgeous woman hit the stop button. She turned to the Bishop and said:

"Can you make me feel like a true woman?"

The Bishop said: "I sure can" and excitedly took off all his clothes, he then threw them in the corner of the elevator. He turned to the woman pointed to the clothes and said:

"Now fold them".

----

Q: How many Mormons does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, Mormons don't change the light bulbs, they restore them.

----

Q: How many Mormons does it take to change a light bulb?
A: At least six: One to change the light bulb; one to deny that there was any change made; one to say that we shouldn't focus on the change--only the need for light; one to say we don't teach that the light bulb needed changing in the first place; one to say that the changer was acting for himself and not as an official changer; and one to say "who cares who changed the bulb, don't you feel the burning of the light?"

----

Three LDS men are stranded on one side of a wide river, and don't know how to get across.

The first man prays to God to make him smart enough to figure out how to cross the river, so God turns him into a Catholic and he swims across.

The second man prays to God to make him even smarter, so God turns him into a Born Again Christian and he builds a boat and rows across.

Then the third man prays to God to make him the smartest of all, so God turns him into a woman and he walks across the bridge.

----

The Relief Society President invited some Elders to dinner.

At the table, she turned to their six-year-old daughter and said, Would you like to say the blessing?"

"I wouldn't know what to say," the girl replied.

"Just say what you hear Mommy say," the wife answered.

The daughter bowed her head and said,

"Lord, why on earth did I invite all these missionaries to dinner?"

----

The Dean of Women at BYU was lecturing her students on sexual morality. "We live today in very difficult times for young people. In moments of temptation," she said, "ask yourself just one question: Is an hour of pleasure worth a lifetime of shame?"

A young woman rose in the back of the room and said, "Excuse me, but how do you make it last an hour?"

----

Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Heaven, God went missing for six days. Eventually, Michael the archangel found him, resting on the seventh day. He inquired of God, "Where have you been?" God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look Michael, look what I've made." Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?" "It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put LIFE on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance." "Balance?" inquired Michael, still confused.

God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth, "For example, Northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth while Southern Europe is going to be poor; the Middle East over there will be a hot spot. Over there I've placed a continent of white people and over there is a continent of black people," God continued, pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot and arid while this one will be very cold and covered in ice." The Archangel, impressed by Gods work, then pointed to a large land mass and said "What's that one?" "Ah," said God. "That's Idaho, the most glorious place on Earth. There are beautiful lakes, rivers, streams, and mountains. The people from Idaho are going to be modest, intelligent and humorous and they're going to be found traveling the world. They'll be extremely sociable, hard-working and high-achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace." Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, "What about balance, God? You said there will be BALANCE!" God replied wisely, "Wait until you see the loud-mouth idiots I'm putting next to them in Utah."

----

The local Bishop came across Joe who had stumbled out of the town's tavern.

"Joe," he said, "I'm afraid I'll not be seeing you in the Celestrial Kingdom one day."

"Really, Bishop?" slurred Joe. "What have you done?"

Go away! I have to walk to the bank to get money to ride the T and then ride the T to Quincy and drive home. Bleh. I hate night driving. I hate rain driving. I really really hate rainy night driving. Especially given my current exhaustion.

C'est la...

...if David read this journal, ten to one odds that he'd post a comment reading only 'la.' He doesn't even have to do it, makes me laugh just to think of it. I love my friends.

Going to college in Boston? "Mary-mutha-ah-gawd, you gotta be wicked smaht!"
But we bet you don't know some things. Like, what's a three decka? A packie? How about a rotary? Ever banged a U-ey? Worn dungarees or ordered a frappe? Even a Rhodes scholar would have a tough time deciphering the language Boston calls its own. "New Englanders have had a long and strong tradition of eccentric ways of expressing themselves, especially in Boston," said Boston University Linguistics professor Michael Feldman. "It's very distinctive." Indeed ~ and we'd have a pissah time tryin' to stump ya, then make fun of ya behind ya back . . . but that's wicked mean.

Instead, here's a little primer to take with you on the T,while you're on the Common or in the Gahden, maybe catchin' a Pats game or sipping a regulah coffee at Dunkies.

American Chop Suey ~ Found in school cafeterias, this delightful dish doesn't resemble anything American or Chinese. It's macaroni with meat and tomato sauce.

Bangin' a U-ey ~ This is what you do while driving after you miss a turn and you have to turn around.

Book it ~ To high tail someplace, as in, "I better book it to Stah Mahket before it closes."

Bubblah ~ Spelled bubbler, it's a water fountain.

Der ~ An interjection indicating disdain for someone else's stupidity, as in, "The old Gahden was way betta than the Fleet!

Der!"

Down Cella ~ The basement. As in; "run down cella and get me a dishtowel outta the drya." Derived from upstairs.

Dungarees ~ Jeans. Hardly heard anymore, unless you're at some sort of
senior citizens event.

Frappe ~ What the rest of the nation calls a milkshake. But in
Boston, a milkshake is just flavored milk; no ice cream allowed.

Fried and Bizaah ~ Weird. "That dude is wicked fried." "Yah, he's
totally bizaah."

Fudge-icle ~ To the rest of the world, a frozen chocolate pop is a
Fudgesicle, but in Boston, the 's' is silent.

Hermits and black and whites ~ Cookies. A hermit is a molasses and
raisin bar. Black and whites, known anywhere else as half moons or
half and halfs, are round, cakelike cookies with chocolate frosting on
one half, vanilla on the other.

Jimmies ~ Sprinkles you put on ice cream.

Packie ~ Liquor Store. You'll have to make a packie run if you want a
kegga (keg party.)

Pissah ~ Good.

Rotary ~ traffic circle. And in Massachusetts, those in the rotary
have the right of way.

Scrod ~ a generic name for white fish. We think it's cod, but no one's
sure. Usually breaded and laden with butter.

So Don't I / So Aren't I ~ So do I, So am I. "I have tickets to

Aerosmith tonight." "Oh my Gawd, so don't I!" "No Suh!" "Yah huh."

"Wicked Pissa!"

Three Decker ~ Pronounced three decka, it's a three story house in
which each story is a separate apartment.

A time ~ A party. "We're going to a time for Sully at McGuire's."

Tonic ~ Soda.

Wicked ~ Extremely. "Nomaaah's a wicked good baseball playa."

Yah huh and no suh ~ Yes and no. Usually heard during an intense
conversation. "I saw Mickey at Castle Island and he was with another
girl." "No SUH!" "Yah huh."

Other tips: Don't say COPEly Square, it's COPley.

Worcester isn't WOOster, it's Wisstah.

Say Commonwealth Avenue, MassachusettsAvenue or
Dorchester Avenue and you'll get pinched. It's Comm. Ave, Mass. Ave and Dot. Ave.

LiveJournal isn't working. Blah! And seeing as how I put the first half in here, here's my Leibniz paper.

-----

Of all the explanations of God’s existence we’ve read, I find Leibniz most convincing that we should not toss out these arguments because of objections that appear to be damning. The eight objections seem to be valid at first glance, but Leibniz refutes each well.

The first objection is that by allowing evil in the world, God has failed to choose the best possible world. Leibniz responds, “I have wished to justify this denial by showing that the best plan is not always that which seeks to avoid evil, since it may happen that evil is accompanied by a greater good.” To support this, the philosopher points out that there are instances in mathematics wherein “an imperfection in the part may be required for a greater perfection in the whole.” Support also comes from Augustine who asserted “that God has permitted evil in order to bring about good, that is, a greater good” and from Thomas Aquinas who asserted “that the permitting of evil tends to the good of the universe.” I find especially compelling the point made that if Adam had not fallen, Christ never would have come into the world, and surely, the coming of Christ into the world and the good He brought into the world far outweighs any of the evil brought on by Adam’s partaking of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The second objection that Leibniz dealt with is the charge that there is more evil than good in intelligent creatures, therefore there is more evil than good in the whole work of God. To dispute this, he asks a question that is quite valid. He asks, “But why may it not be that the surplus of good in non-intelligent creatures which fill the world, compensates for, and even incomparably surpasses, the surplus of evil in the rational creatures?” The objection is based on quantitative factors, but it discounts an enormous sector of God’s work. Sure, as Leibniz grants, intelligent creatures are more valuable than their non-rational counterparts, but that makes them no less God’s creation and their sheer number should more than make up for their devaluation.

Also, Leibniz does not grant that there is more evil than there is good in intelligent creatures. He writes, “There is no need even of granting that there is more evil than good in the human race, because it is possible, and in fact very probable, that the glory and the perfection of the blessed are incomparably greater than the misery and the imperfection of the damned, and that here the excellence of the total good in the smaller number exceeds the total evil in the greater number.” Because Good has no limit and is, in deed, infinite, and evil is limited and finite, there will always be more good in the world than there is bad. Therefore, one cannot object to the existence of God by asserting that there is more evil in the world than there is good. It is intrinsically impossible.

The next objection to which Leibniz answers is the assertion that all that is predetermined is necessary. He rejects this notion out of hand. He says, “That necessity which is contrary to morality and which ought to be rejected, and which would render punishments unjust, is an insurmountable necessity which would make all opposition useless, even if we wished with all our heart to avoid the necessary action, and should make all possible efforts to that end.” Those choices that are punishable are not necessary, but rather are those which one wills to do. Leibniz writes, “These voluntary actions and their consequences will not take place no matter what we do or whether we wish them or not; but, through that which we shall do and through that which we wish to do, which leads to them.” As he argues, the necessity of such actions is merely conditional, because it presupposes the will; even if the consequence of an internal inclination, like hunger, is determined, there is no guarantee that the soul cannot resist this outcome.

The next objection is that because God is all-powerful, he ought to prevent the sin of intelligent creatures, because in being informed of it and not preventing it, God is an accessory to it. This Leibniz also easily refutes. He says, “For it is possible that one could prevent sin, but ought not, because he could not do it without himself committing a sin, or (when God is in question) without performing an unreasonable act.” This can be tied into the philosopher’s response to the first objection. God is bound to act according to reason, and it very well might be the case that after reasoning out all the various consequences of a certain act—of which God is capable, given his omniscience—it would be more in keeping with the demands of reason to allow a sinful act to occur, because the resulting good would far outweigh the avoided evil, were the sin prevented. Here Leibniz makes a distinction between antecedent will and the consequent will. “God, by his antecedent will, wills that men should not sin; and by his consequent or final and decreeing will (that which is always followed by its effect), he wills to permit them to sin, this permission being the result of superior reasons.” Using this premise, Leibniz argues that God follows the best plan available. “The divine consequent or final or total will tends toward the production of as many goods as may be put together, the combination of which becomes in this way determined, and includes also the permission of some evils and the exclusion of some goods, as the best possible plan for the universe demands.” In short, God allows evil in order to bring about the greatest good.

The fifth objection is that because God is the creator of all that is real, God is the cause of sin. This, however, is premised on sin being real, and also that God does not wish to grant the soul all the good that could overcome evil. Leibniz points to Augustine in order to refute this. He writes, “God makes the soul obdurate, not by giving it something evil, but because the effect of his good impression is limited by the soul’s resistance and by the circumstances which contribute to this resistance and by the circumstances which contribute to this resistance, so that he does not give it all the good which would overcome its evil.” An even stronger argument, however, is reminiscent of Descartes’ argument. Leibniz wrote, “There are certain disorders in the parts which marvelously enhance the beauty of the whole; just as certain dissonances, when properly used, render harmony more beautiful.” So, once again, he argues that God permits evil in order to enhance the greater good.

As for the sixth objection, Leibniz simply asserts that God does not punish those who have done as well as was in their power to do, rejecting the notion that unbaptized babies, as well those whom were given a lesser amount of light, are damned.

Leibniz’ response to the final objection does well in summing up why he believes that God did indeed create the best possible world. He wrote, “He created [intelligent creatures] freely; but having proposed to himself an end, which is to exercise his goodness, wisdom has determined him to choose the means best fitted to attain this end.”

Of all the explanations of God’s existence we’ve read, I find Leibniz most convincing that we should not toss out these arguments because of objections that appear to be damning. The eight objections seem to be valid at first glance, but Leibniz refutes each well.

The first objection is that by allowing evil in the world, God has failed to choose the best possible world. Leibniz responds, “I have wished to justify this denial by showing that the best plan is not always that which seeks to avoid evil, since it may happen that evil is accompanied by a greater good.” To support this, the philosopher points out that there are instances in mathematics wherein “an imperfection in the part may be required for a greater perfection in the whole.” Support also comes from Augustine who asserted “that God has permitted evil in order to bring about good, that is, a greater good” and from Thomas Aquinas who asserted “that the permitting of evil tends to the good of the universe.” I find especially compelling the point made that if Adam had not fallen, Christ never would have come into the world, and surely, the coming of Christ into the world and the good He brought into the world far outweighs any of the evil brought on by Adam’s partaking of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The second objection which Leibniz dealt with is the charge that there is more evil than good in intelligent creatures, therefore there is more evil than good in the whole work of God. To dispute this, he asks a question that is quite valid. He asks, “But why may it not be that the surplus of good in nonintelligent creatures which fill the world, compensates for, and even incomparably surpasses, the surplus of evil in the rational cratures?” The objection is based on quantitative factors, but it discounts an enourmous sector of God’s work. Sure, as Leibniz grants, intelligent creatures are more valuable than their non-rational counterparts, but that makes them no less God’s creation and their sheer number should more than make up for their devaluation.

Also, Leibniz does not grant that there is more evil than there is good in intelligent creatures. He writes, “There is no need even of granting that there is more evil than good in the human race, because it is possible, and in fact very probable, that the glory and the perfection of the blessed are incomparably greater than the misery and the imperfection of the damned, and that here the excellence of the total good in the smaller number exceeds the total evil in the greater number.” Because Good has no limit and is, in deed, infinite and Evil is limited and finite, there will always be more good in the world than there is bad. Therefore, one cannot object to the existence of God by asserting that there is more evil in the world than there is good. It is intrisically impossible.

The next objection to which Leibniz answers is the assertation that all which is predetermined is neccesarry. He rejects this notion out of hand. He says, “That neccessity which is contrary to morality and which ought to be rejected, and which would render punishments unjust, is an insurmountable neccessity which would make all opposition useless, even if we wished with all our heart to avoid the neccesary action, and should make all possible efforts to that end.” Those choices which are punishable are not neccesarry, but rather

Even self-imposed punishments suck. They suck even worse when a) you don't have the power to reverse it and b) you deserve it anyway.

lyrics by john mayer

Staying home alone on a Friday
Flat on the floor looking back
On old love
Or lack thereof
After all the crushes are faded
And all my wishful thinking was wrong
I'm jaded
I hate it

I'm tired of being alone
So hurry up and get here
So tired of being alone
So hurry up and get here

Searching all my days just to find you
I'm not sure who I'm looking for
I'll know it
When I see you
Until then, I'll hide in my bedroom
Staying up all night just to write
A love song for no one

I'm tired of being alone
So hurry up and get here
So tired of being alone
So hurry up and get here

I could have met you in a sandbox
I could have passed you on the sidewalk
Could I have missed my chance
And watched you walk away?

I'm tired of being alone
So hurry up and get here
So tired of being alone
So hurry up and get here
You'll be so good
You'll be so good for me

I posted again. F'n moron. lol

I'm sorry, but I can't help myself. I just don't back down. I don't think Adam will last very long at Onerock. Even Martin gave him a warning and Martin is chill.

Eh, I was very sarcastic, but heck, I don't care.

Of course, I am not meaning to talk degeneratively morons whom I hold in high esteem. ;o)

...Hell.

I just passed Canto 17 of the Inferno, that means I am half way through. I'm now only 2 days behind. I have to read Lebniz tomorrow and and write a paper. This paper is pretty undefined, given that I can't get on the web page to read the actual assignment and the page length.

My midterm is due on Tuesday. That means I really have to catch up and write my paper tomorrow. Then I've got that research paper due next Tuesday for my Heresy class. I'm writing it on millenialism and apocalyptic thought. It's five pages written and two bibliography. I have no problem with the five written pages, but two of bibliography... errrr I'm a philo/religion writer. I don't do research papers. heh

I picked a good time to leave Onerock. I have plenty to do to take up my time. Boy, do I feel overwhelmed.

I talked to David. It's time to leave the boards. I can't deal with it anymore. I don't deal well with stuff.

One f'n debate about the Trinity does not mean I think it's ok for people to start in on me for lacking faith or not sticking it out.

I was so upset this morning that I took God's name in vain! I HAVE NOT DONE THAT FOR THREE YEARS. I felt so bad afterwards. I am really glad I caught myself halfway through it. I said G-d and then I stopped in horror. I almost said g-ddamn it. I couldn't even believe I did that.

I had talked to Tim last night anyway about replacing me and he liked my recommendation, so at least I know the forum shall be in good hands. I'm not even saying good bye on the boards, it will make me want to go back. I haven't exactly been a bastion of charity lately, anyway.

I'll still help with the Magazine, but I am going to ask Laura to take over the Welcoming Crew.

Well, I must read some Dante.