The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Salvation during "famines"/distortions of the Word

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

Assuming Arminianism, for this wouldn’t be quite the same problem for the Calvinist or determinist (but I don’t know if it is a non-problem either), then it seems necessary for everybody to have fair access to the Gospel in order to be culpable for rejecting it.

Commonly, on at least Arminianism, there is the problem (a subset of the POE) of the eternal destiny of the unevangelized.

Yet, what about the salvation of those who responded to a Gospel, but it was false, or at best confused? For instance, if the church of the middle late ages was riddled with all the difficulties alleged by the Reformers, then it is likely that for hundreds of years, very few, except maybe your Wycliffes, accepted anything like the true Gospel, or actually responded to Jesus Christ’s offer of grace as opposed to sacramentalism and indulgences.

Does this go toward increasing the likelihood of universalism (or calvinism) compared to Arminianism? WLC, a Molinist, has argued that the unevangelized are those that God foreknew would reject Gospel anyhow, so, according to WLC (if I am not distorting his view) it is logically possible that all the people who were historically and geographically isolated from the Gospel are precisely those who would have rejected it anyhow. To me, this is a wild view, perhaps logically possible, but it certainly doesn’t feel right. However, if God’s foreknowledge precludes fair choice and individuals aren’t “providentially” placed as in Molinism but rather considering pure Arminianism, this problem of false Gospels, or “famine of the Word”, seems big.

#2

This has always been a problem, my prince. :wink: Another way of dealing with it (aside from the one you’ve mentioned) is the exemption for the unevangelized. I think I’ve thought through this in just about any direction anyone’s ever taken, trying to figure out how God could justly condemn people to hell. Sure, the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows forth His handiwork, and that which may be known of God is evident to them and all that – but seeing the sky on a starry night, as wonderful as that is, can hardly compare with being raised in a loving Christian family, at least, as regards the dispersal of the knowledge of God.

Then when you consider my current favorite sad example – the child bride given to a man her father’s age when she was nine, dies in childbirth at the age of eleven, lived a Muslim all her short life and didn’t understand the witness of the starry heavens. She’s done her time in hell, imo. Where does her heavenly Father send her when she dies? According to both Arminius and Calvin, He sends her to fiery never-ending torment. God becomes just one more abuser. But of course, she never would have accepted Him anyway, so it’s all right. Still, that isn’t very Arminian, is it?

And what if she heard a preacher on satellite television one afternoon but failed to accept Jesus into her heart when the evangelist prayed? Does that disqualify her from the exemption some evangelicals give for those who’ve never heard? What if instead she’s a young Jewish girl in a concentration camp. The prison guard screams at her as he beats her, telling her that God hates her because she’s a Christ-killer. Yet she doesn’t pray and accept Jesus into her heart in the midst of her death throes. The murderous abuser goes to heaven one day, and she goes before him, to never-ending fire? These are things I mused on, wondering how to make an apologetic for God because clearly, in my mind, He needed an apologetic. Then one day (having done a year as a conditionalist) I realized suddenly and completely out of the blue, that my conditionalism simply was not good enough. God had to be better than that! He HAD to be! (And He is!)

But yes, I agree with you. The lack of an evenly dispersed witness to God throughout the world and throughout time casts a huge shadow over the justice of Arminian infernalism.

#3

But Jesus himself, in Matthew 11:21, contradicts that view of WLC. The people of Tyre and Sidon would have responded favorably to the miracles, but didn’t witness them and died unrepentant.

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

#4

Wow, Lancia! Well spotted. I know that passage, but somehow the synapses never connected. Thanks!

#5

I’m a long-time poster on WLC’s site (the Reasonable Faith Forum), and I have often referred to this verse and other related ones to argue against WLC’s view of transworld damnation.

#6

I personally see no way out of the issue of those who haven’t heard unless some form of universalism is true. People find Christ through different means all over the world in my opinion. They may not call it Christ but once they have undergone a spiritual awakening to where they find inner peace and become a more loving and humble person then they have found Christ. I know for me personally I have to hit bottom before it happens. This seems to be the case with a lot of alcoholics as well. For some people like Bill Wilson (the founder of A.A) the experience can happen suddenly. But for most it comes gradually. Mine was a mixture of both in my spiritual journey. I’ve had those dark nights of the soul to where I was confused about reality. Reality is distorted when I try to fit it together with logic. I like to experience God by getting out of my head and into my heart.

#7

Cindy S:

If God did/does not offer the persecuted in those horrible stories salvation, then we might as well hang up our hats as Christians IMO, and Jesus/God could not be perfect love. Often, I have heard (and I am a hypocrite b/c in an earlier thread I argued for the importance of rationality when weighing arguments, which I don’t retract - completely :smiley: ) that we must not let sentimentalism sell us universalism. But, when “sentimentalism” is clearly the morally obvious emotional response to evil, then rationality aside, even if Cal and Arm are systematic, logical wonders, they are sorely lacking theologies… I think the emotional response to those stories goes a long way, if not the whole way, to proving universalism. (The whole way 4 me would being able to trust that God has a good reason to allow the confusion/suffering now, esp. if God does love universally and save universally)

Have you heard a good Cal or Arm response to stories/examples like that? (other than God=perfectly holy, so whatever God does must b correct)

(BTW, I am merely literature royalty so you don’t have show deference; I am an egalitarian first, prince second :smiley: )

Lancia:

Mt 11:21 does appear prickly for the Molinist. “Transworld damnation” = damnation in all logically possible worlds? Metaphysically possible? I find WLC to be very compelling as an apologist generally - I wish he didn’t dismiss universalism.

#8

I know . . . I was just funnin’ ya. :wink:

I haven’t heard a good Arm or Calv response. And I’ve asked too, when I was struggling with the concept of hell. I’ve asked my friends and they didn’t have answers either. And when others have asked me, all I could come up with was that we know God is good and we must and can trust Him to do the right thing by all those He loves – and He loves the world. Ha! I couldn’t bring myself to go the whole distance and consider the obvious answer to this conundrum, and neither could they. It’s the elephant in the room. What if He really does intend to save them all? But that’s HERESY! (And always unspoken (because we instinctively knew it was gnosticism) was the fear that if we believed in heresy, we’d be damned, too.)

Once when I posited the example of the Jewish child to a young seminary student who I think, looking back, was probably Calvinist, he wrote back and told me that the child would be eternally damned, because she hadn’t received Jesus, and that this was the appropriate justice of God. I was so horrified that I never responded. I knew he had something very wrong with his theology but I wasn’t equipped to argue with him. Maybe someone else will have heard some good answers from Calvs and Arms, but don’t think they will because I don’t think there can be a good answer – aside from God’s unfailing love and faithfulness toward ALL He loves, to eventually persuade even the most reluctant to be reconciled to Him.

The good and evil question is one we’ve discussed so continuously here that I feel I can almost give an answer both satisfactory and brief. The problem is, that it’s likely only satisfactory to those who’ve been reading along through all the discussing. My answer is the classic Arminian one – that If Father does in fact grant us free will (to the extent that we’re capable of being free in our present state), then for Him to countermand that free will every time we decide to do something unloving, would be a contradiction in terms. Free will must of necessity be free, or at least, as free as we’re capable of being in our present state.

Jason points out that Father even allows the environment to be free and to do what it does unhindered for the most part. I like the visual this paints, but I’m not sure it’s needed for the apologetic, even if it’s absolutely correct (which I kind of hope it is). For me, I think I’ll keep it simple and explain that the PoE is the reason I believe in an old earth that came into existence through a series of galactic cataclysms – just as the scientists say. This is apparently the way you create a world; this is the way it’s done and the way it has to be done in order to get the desired results. God wanted daughters and sons, not just automatons, and it’s necessary for us to have a not entirely friendly environment as a foil, to make us find ourselves separate from it, and to give us the motivation to cohere to one another. So the earth and the galaxy do as they will and most of the time Father doesn’t interfere with them.

Maybe, if Adam and Eve had chosen differently (btw, I’m speaking in metaphor as I believe the Genesis authors also were), we could have avoided the last six thousand years of anguish – but they/we didn’t. Instead we said, like petulant children, “No! I do myself!” and refused the guidance of our rightful Father in favor of figuring out how to bring about good all on our own. Could we have tamed the earth by now, with His help? Hmm . . . perhaps. I think really, that things would be a whole lot better at this point if we’d chosen wisely. That doesn’t mean He’s giving up on us though. He can fix it, and when the time comes, He will fix it. Meanwhile, the planet resists us and we resist one another and so we grow. It didn’t have to be this way, but most of us have followed the same pattern in our own lives. We have to do everything the hard way. What we could have learned by cooperation, we’ve learned by conflict. What we could have learned from self-sacrifice, we’ve learned from the bad results of our selfishness. What love could have taught us, pain has stepped in and given the lesson on. Either way, we learn. I think also that either way has to involve some degree of suffering, whether received gladly for the sake of others or imposed by the merciless and unconscious natural world or the hateful deeds of other men.

Well, okay – it’s brief for an apologetic on suffering. Longer than I thought it would be, though. :wink:

Love and blessings, Cindy

#9

Cindy S:

You are right, the classic Arm answer leaves a little to be desired (you conceded that), though it feels right, and faith ought to go a long way in these matters. Logically, though, it seems like the universalist is caught on the horns of a dilemma:

  1. If the universalist is a determinist (which is appears necessary to guarantee universal salvation, else some individuals could theoretically reject it forever), then free will is sacrificed (which is probably a good as great as universal salvation).

  2. If the universalist holds libertarian free will, then universalism can be thwarted.

There is the comptabilist universalist, but they have a tough time avoiding determinism or “Arm” in the end.

Some are “hopeful” universalists, who consider it is logically possible that all might be freely come to God. Yet, that appears very unlikely, though perhaps in the afterlife we are sufficiently disillusioned as to render this plausible. Still, “hopeful” universalism, to me, is a contradiction-in-terms. It may be presumptuous or lacking-in-faith, but most universalists want traditionalists to know that they no longer have to fear Hell. How can the universalist make this claim unless universalism is not just theoretically possible but that God has guaranteed it (in the same way that Calvinism, if comforting at all, is so because of the irrevocability of election.)?

Thanks, I don’t mean to fault you on this since you clearly stated that you were giving the faithful answer rather than the theoretical/logical one. And, obviously, God has made everything paradoxical to undermine our logic :smiley: , I suppose so to leave room for faith. So, I guess I am bordering on the sin of avarice or presumption here, but it seems that universalism, if to be antidote to “infernalism”, needs some element of a guarantee - at least at a theological level.

Would you consider yourself a “hopeful” universalist, or do you think that there is some way that God
preserves free will while guaranteeing universal salvation?

#10

Prince Mishkin,

I feel for you. I was in the same place, oh, a couple of years ago, I suppose. How could God have real children who genuinely love him, and one another, unless He allowed them to fail, and allowed them to (even ultimately) reject Him and each other? I am a convinced universalist. I believe it’s logically inconsistent to suppose that a mentally competent person, given all the knowledge and all the proof he needs of God and of the goodness of God, and of the delightfulness and bliss and joy of His court and the deceitfulness and misery and wretchedness of continuing to cling to sin, will hold out forever against that which is in his own best interests. It’s f-o-r-e-v-e-r. God will not need to force him. All God has to do is wait him out.

It doesn’t seem to me that we do have free will at present. I think we’re growing into a free will, but that we don’t yet have true freedom. Yes, we can choose moment by moment what to do (within the restrictions of what we CAN physically/mentally do). If you look at the development of a human being, you see that he grows in freedom through his life. An infant has practically no free will. It’s a thing that comes to him as he develops and gains in abilities and becomes more and more competent and knowledgeable. Without knowledge we’re not free. Without rationality we’re not free. Without truth, we’re not free.

Jesus had this to say about it:

God does want us free, but we’re not free yet. It’s a thing we have to grow into as we grow in the knowledge of Him, of His world, of truth.

A person fully in possession of his senses, fully rational, fully informed of the truth, possessing full knowledge, all the proofs he requires, as sane as sane can be, will not – cannot – continue to choose that which is keeping him in misery – not for all eternity. I’m sure he can hold on to his hatred or fear or lust or what ever sin he’s in bondage to, for a time – maybe for a very long time – but not forever. He will loathe himself, but he will eventually have to stop sulking in his room and join the party. To do anything else would be insane, but if he’s insane, he’s not free. If he’s irrational, he’s not free. If he has no knowledge, or not enough knowledge to judge, he’s not free. Father, in order to grant him free will, must give him enough knowledge to judge, correct his irrationality and heal his insanity. And if He does THAT, then this wayward son will, completely on his own, come home.

#11

Hey Cindy,

I agree that without truth we are not free. Truth for me is a living person - Christ. Many times I’ve tried to rationalize and figure Christ out but it just confuses me. Now I know why. He’s a paradox and cannot be figured out with either/or logic. Paradoxes are both/and. Yes He is truth but the truths revealed in Christ are experienced in life. Not rationalized. Transformation begins when His truths pierce the heart and transform. I still love Him with the mind but not the rational mind of either/or reasoning. It’s the mystery of faith.

#12

With your heart, soul, mind & strength. :slight_smile: Yes, He is mystery and He is beauty, and He is also the truth and the Word of God made flesh. When He is fully formed in us (as per Romans 8) we will be fully free. This is analogous, I expect, to Jesus’ statement that every student becomes like his teacher – directed toward His disciples at the time and also, I think, with an application for those of us who have come along later.

#13

I agree Cindy. I don’t think I am fully free. Although I’m a whole lot better than I use to be. I haven’t messed up in a long time though.

#14

Cindy S:

Growing in freedom is an interesting (and hopeful I think) notion, esp. as most theologians tend to see it as an either/or.

I understand, that you think that universal salvation is secure b/c it will be impossible, once we’ve reached a certain (or the highest) level of maturity, spiritual enlightenment, to reject God?

Some think that true freedom entails the possiblity for rejection. For instance, I don’t know if you like Kierkegaard, but I think he cited “demonic despair”, which is rejecting God just because one can - a totally, stupid, insane, prideful rejection. What’s more, unlike the other stages of despair, which are less than fully informed, where a person might claim some ignorance, the “demonically” desperate person rejects with absolute knowledge of the truth of God. And I think that K. claimed that people, as opposed to actual demons :smiley: , could reach this despair- some have said that Nietzsche was this type.

Though not all of us are vociferous like Nietzsche against God or charity (though, to be fair to Nietzsche, I don’t think he was capable of the stoicism he theorized), most are fairly regularly tempted I think, and sometimes actually do, quite morally inexplicable things. Like at the store, I am embarassed to admit it, but sometimes I cut in line, in front of people who’ve prob. been waiting 10-20 minutes. Of course, maybe I am the only person who does this, but I do it knowing full well that it is wrong and a shitty thing to do. I even have done this when I am not in a particular hurry; it’s like I just want to do it. People who are driving do this to pedestrians, all impatient b/c somebody is taking a mere 2-3 seconds to walk across the street, and huff and honk. Why? They know they are the lucky in the warm car and not having to walk - its just inexplicably petty.

I have faith that God can deliver us from our bondage to sin, and really, the more we realize we are trapped by sin, the easier it is to see that only the intervention of God can remove it. I buy that. But the more we go with freedom, doesn’t it seem like it could tragically end up like Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”, where despite God’s and other saved people’s best efforts, some, either from weakness, or pride, or fear (if these aren’t inextricably related), prefer Hell, or separation, perhaps forever?

#15

Prince Mishkin said:

I would go with a certain level of freedom. I don’t think we’ll ever reach the highest level of freedom/maturity/spiritual enlightenment. The Father is conforming us to the image of Christ, and that image is the image of God and therefore infinite. I do believe though, that we’ll always be approaching it and that we’ll become more and more and more like Him.

But for the lost, I think that Father has to grant them sufficient sanity and rationality and knowledge in order for them to make a fully free choice. A man who is so mad with despair that he allows pride and willfulness to keep him in a situation of pain (whether psychic or otherwise) for all eternity (when he could be experiencing fulness of joy) can’t (imo) be considered to have truly free will. And then there is the “fire.” Our God is a consuming fire and some are saved “as through fire.” Paul was speaking to the church when he wrote this, but it was, I think, to that part of the church not living in the fulness of the Spirit. Otherwise, why say such a thing? The ones living by the Spirit of God are building with gold, pearl & precious stones already. I think that Father actively works for the salvation of all His children for as long as it takes.

CS Lewis tells us that the gates of hell are locked on the inside. Yet we’re told that the gates of hell cannot stand against the ekklesia, and more than that, Jesus has taken for Himself the keys to death and hell. (Hell isn’t a correct translation here, but that’s another bifurcation.) Lewis also posits a different sort of “hell” than I would suggest. I think scripture suggests that God never stops seeking out the lost, and that we also, who will have gone before (we earnestly hope) and have attained the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus – the ministry of reconciliation – will also be blessed to be permitted to serve the lost in seeking them out in cooperation with our elder Brother. In Lewis’ hell there is only the bus, and in order to take the bus you have to somehow make your own way to the bus stop. Not only that, but it’s a limited-time offer. Once the sun is up, we’re led to suppose that it’s too late for those who remain ghosts. Hell in TGD is infinitesimally small, yet it is still filled with filth and hatred and pettiness and angst, and when all things are summed up in Christ, how can hell remain on that list? How can evil find its permanent sanctuary, however microscopic, in Him?

I don’t find hell to be a tenable solution to the problem of evil. It doesn’t solve it and it doesn’t destroy it. Hell keeps evil alive and increasing for all eternity, and I can’t see that as a victory for our God over evil.

Not sure whether I tied that up as nicely as I’d like, but we have to head out in a couple of minutes. Thanks for the convo, P.Mishkin. :slight_smile: I’m enjoying it.

Blessings, Cindy

#16

Thanks for the clarification on The Great Divorce and- I had forgotten that the clock was ticking there for people to make their decision.

I admit that a person rejecting God, for all eternity, just b/c he/she can, is inexplicable and terrible, but the tragedy of Lewis’ book, I think (I realize it’s not 100% comparable to what we’re discussing), is that the afterlife may harden/crystalize the choices one makes in this life, so that, even tho Heaven and Hell are co-spatial and the damned have countless opportunities to accept salvation, they are so used to going their own way, they just can’t do it. Of course, Scrooge says the same thing when confronted by the ghosts (i.e. “I am too old to change”; “I am too tired”) and by the end of Christmas Carol he is on the right path…

No, I don’t find Hell to be a solution at all either. It is the most terrifying prospect one can conceive, and just thinking about it is hellish :slight_smile: However, I don’t want to be a universalist just out of fear but from truth (though I conceded that our emotions are more reliable in finding T than we might think). I guess what is germane is whether Hell is somehow a metaphysical necessity even God can’t avoid, for not even God can break all the rules :slight_smile: (Though the Trinity comes close.) I think WLC and Talbott debated the whether Hell is metaphysically necessary given libertarian free will; what did you think of their exchange?

#17

Myshkin, I’m trying to find the debate between Talbott and WLC, but not having much success. If you have a link, I’d be interested to see it – I’ve heard people reference it, but never have made an effort to locate it before. I think the question was whether it was possible for God to create a world in which all people would freely choose salvation. Talbott says God is all powerful and therefore it is possible; Craig says some things can’t be done, and what if this is one of those things? If it can’t be done, then even God cannot do it. Do I have that more or less correct?

I’m not sure you can say 100% that creating a world in which every person will eventually be brought to saving faith is a thing that can be done – or that it is a thing that cannot be done. I tend to think that it CAN be done. Father would have infinite possibilities to choose from, and I believe that He could in fact accomplish this. It’s not like the foolish “rock” conundrum – Can He make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it? That’s a logical fallacy because the statement contradicts itself. I don’t believe that the task of creating a world in which every person will freely be reconciled to Him is a logical fallacy of any type, and therefore I believe He can accomplish that task.

I don’t personally have a problem with the possibility question, since I came to believe UR by revelation, and afterward went back to see whether my supposed revelation could be genuinely from God. I’d been thinking about hell for a very long time. I’m 54 and I’ve had a problem with ECT pretty much since the first time I heard of it. I’ve been praying and asking Father to show me the truth about Himself for 3-4 years now – to take away any filters, and any eisegesis I was unconsciously doing while reading the word, etc. and I’ve had some fairly surprising insights – UR being the most surprising, at first troubling, and at length joyous among them. Apart from “just because that’s what He told me,” I’ve found scripture and logic seems to me on the whole to uphold UR far better than either ECT or Anni.

Regarding the lost being so accustomed to going their own way (ie: in a rut) that they can’t get out of it, I can certainly see that being a problem on the human level. That said, being compelled to remain in that rut indicates to me that the person isn’t free and therefore cannot be said to be freely choosing hell. I think that taking them out of the rut and setting their feet on level ground is part of what Father must do for them in order to give them a genuinely free choice. The process of getting them out of the rut isn’t likely to be pleasant, granted, and they do have to be induced to leave the rut by a process of purification perhaps – or maybe deprogramming. But leaving them in a prison of their own mind, even if they put themselves there of their own free will, is not an act of granting freedom. I truly believe (especially as UR is shored up by many other evidences) that Father is capable of bringing any person to a state of sufficient freedom to allow that person to choose to be free. In other words, Jesus really does have the keys. We might lock our bedroom door on the inside and sit there and sulk, but Daddy can always get in anyhow, when He decides it’s time. Eventually you really do have to come out and have something good to eat. It’s too terrible to just sit in there forever.

Love, Cindy

#18

Cindy:

The links to the Craig/Talbott exchanges are:
reasonablefaith.org/talbotts-universalism
reasonablefaith.org/talbotts … -once-more
willamette.edu/~ttalbott/CRAIG4.pdf

I think that is a good analogy and I hope that God really loves us that much! (Well, maybe that he doesn’t break down the door - I’d come out of my room for a plate of fettuccine alfredo or something :smiley: ). Seriously, though, I agree: God wouldn’t be much of a parent if He just let us do whatever regardless of the consequences - Calvinists can miss that when depicting God as basically “holy” and “just”.

Pax

#19

Cindy, just want to say your post on the problem of evil was beautiful. it helps me make a bit of sense of a thought (sorry this is off topic) i had about evolution. i accept evolution, but what seemed harsh was that it was a process of death and dead ends that was extremely lossy. it seems odd that God would use that before the first truly self-aware creatures even came to be. but if He was allowing an environment to come into being that was free, it makes more sense.
i don’t know what He’ll do with all the “dead end” animals and plants when He is All in All (i believe non-human organisms must be included in this), but now i think of it: God is a God of those who reach dead ends and suffer in hopelessness.

To be more on topic, i was taught a mix of Calvinism and Arminianism: Salvation is freely chosen, but once in, you can never get out. [size=50]Unless of course you do…in which case your conversion just must not have been sincere[/size] :wink:

I was taught a modified theoretical idea that if those who had not heard the Gospel died, they’d get a chance post-mortem (or the last second pre-mortem) to accept Christ. Actually, i’m not sure if i was taught that, but it came up a lot. It may have just been us extrapolating. Anyway, i think this is more or less supported by Paul who said (in Romans??) that those who die outside Christ (or was it the Law?) get judged by their own laws as that is their only revelation. He also said no one had excuses when it came to believing in A God, but it’s trickier to also say there’s no excuse to not believe in Christ. And i’d debate him on the first point anyway, if i could. There are many honest Atheists, whom i respect for being honest, and from whom i may have much to learn (hopefully and vice versa).

In my head i felt that maybe the New Covenant spread over the world gradually as it was preached. Later i started to think about those who had a twisted form of the Gospel preached to them…and i realised that right here in my city, there are many like that. If that’s the case, they haven’t yet been covered by the New Covenant and are not bound by it (in my old theory).

I have modified this slightly in light of my staunch Universalism, but in principal it is the same. However the Gospel is spread and the Kingdom of God properly built, we spread that covenant and people come to Him. This is in contrast to most of Church history of course, which has been the violent men who took the Kingdom of God by force, rather than the sowers that Christ wanted. But it’s not so simple now…ie i can’t say that those tribes in the Amazon that only recently (if ever) saw a white missionary are yet to experience that New Covenant wash over them, and in fact they may already have a portion of it, and will certainly get all of it later…but people in our own cities will not yet have felt that grace wash over them either, simply because they have been exposed to such an impoverished gospel that has no real relevance to their lives and offers scant hope for them and their loved ones.

#20

Thanks for posting those, Myshkin! I’ll definitely have a look. :smiley: I think I did stumble across the first of those – I just didn’t realize that was the thing I was looking for. Happens a lot, now that I think of it. :laughing:

Hey! If fettuccine alfredo is what it takes, well, I’ll bet we’ll have noodles of all shapes and sizes in the age to come. :wink: Wouldn’t bother me a bit.