Plausibility

[Michael]

IF, however, our believing in UR depended upon knowing the plausibility of this or that route (which it doesn’t), then we’d be required to say something about specific scenarios—and you’ve named a few. They’re possible. They don’t obviously contradict core Christian doctrines. And they shed light on the ‘how’ of postmortem human development which you feel you need. If I needed such scenarios I’d use them. But I don’t feel like I need them, and the theodicy problem you mentioned doesn’t require them either. But as it is you’re doubly secure. You have the greatest possible assurance and basis for trust in Christ’s death and resurrection and you also have the gratuitous plausibility of several post-mortem scenarios that explain more about ‘how’ humans navigate the postmortem journey.

I think you meant to say that the plausibility of these scenarios “explain more about ‘how’ some humans might navigate the postmortem journey,” and I wouldn’t claim more than that for any one scenario we discussed.

All I wanted to know from you was if you thought that any of them were possisble within the parameters of Christian faith, and reasonably plausible within those same parameters.

You seem to now be saying that more than one is, and I find that helpful.

Thank you.