The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Still here, still looking for answers.

Theology Biblical Theology
#41

Lefein,

I appreciate a lot about what it looks like you’re trying to do. If I’m understanding you rightly, you want to say that the good of the one is implicated in the good of the whole. That is, the good of the one (one baby for example) can only be evaluated in terms of the manner in which it (the one) occasions an instance for the betterment of the whole. If that’s essentially what you’re saying, then I’m not sure that’s so controversial. There are ways in which I’d agree it’s true. No man is an island, and no single person’s ultimate good can be established or understood apart from that person’s relations to the whole. It’s ALL related and interwoven.

But how you apply this to instances of suffering like deceased babies and the like is more difficult to accept. I may not be understanding you on this point. You seem to be saying that since the whole of humanity needs a certain amount of suffering in order to achieve the overall perfection of the race, deceased babies provide a necessary feature of that ‘story’, the story of a race that gets perfected through suffering the loss of its babies. So even though babies die in the womb and never see the light of day or live IN the world, then do play a part in the needed perfection OF the world. So in that sense they’re IN the world.

I’d suggest that if it’s true that the whole is perfected through the contributions of the many, it’s also true that the whole is not perfect until the many are perfected. And this leads Michael and me to keep asking:

a) What do you DO with the many who exit this world without even embarking upon their own individual paths to perfection?

In your view, what happens to deceased babies? Do they remain babies for all eternity? If not, how are they brought to adulthood? More importantly (because this gets at the heart of it): WHY are they brought to adulthood? I’m guessing you agree all deceased babies are eventually brought to adulthood. I agree. But WHY think the perfection of the whole requires the eventual perfection of the many (which is a bit opposite what you’ve been working on)? I agree it does, but because I agree it does is why I’m struggling with how to account for the perfection deceased infants.

Secondly, if the perfection of the whole requires the perfection of the many, and the perfection of a single individual requires progress and development in this world, then:

b) HOW do you suppose deceased babies achieve final maturity and perfection?

Either human beings require (metaphysically require) some appropriate context in which they confront the challenge of socialized becoming and so mature in their choices Godward toward final perfection, or they do not require this sort of context for their perfecting. It seems to me at times you pretty clearly agree we do require temporal becoming, the journey of the will, choosing its way toward self-formation. But in spite of this your main argument and analogies all seem to undermine this same point when you say it’s not about being perfected in this world. If the latter is true—that is, if deceased babies just wake up a moment after their deaths, poof, all fully mature and perfected in heaven—then the question is severe: WHY oh WHY would a loving God wish to drag creation through all this evil and suffering if the perfection he seeks for the many can be achieved instantaneously by divine fiat (which is what you have if God—poof—waves a magic wand and perfects babies into full spiritual maturity upon their unfortunate deaths)?

And if individuals cannot achieve their own final perfection by instantaneous divine fiat but have to choose their way in the journey of life, then where to deceased babies do this journeying and decision making?

I’m trying to find where you actually deal with this but am not having any luck.

Tom

#42

I cannot be sure, but I would speculate that for a baby - it would be the moment he or she is concieved.

The Psalmist said; Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Now, this may have just been a psalmic hyperbole, but I think it is significant and will help us out here in understanding that when a human being is made apparent in this world, or makes its advent into the stage (even unnoticed) it does so “in iniquity”; that is, it enters the fallen stage, and so becomes subject to it, even to death - as many do indeed die, and that shows the child’s subjection to the fallen state of this current age.

The child is only little, and so it bears only a little, but this little may be enough; afterall his or her role may be to overcome Death through Christ, and so play a part in helping the Whole to overcome Death through Christ.

Once having done that, the baby’s role is done (as far as this particular scene), and so the baby goes on to his other roles in the places away from here, like all of us must do when our time comes to die.

It is speculation, as I said, but I think that the instilling comes in those brief seconds where the child’s purpose in being here is complete. Everyone must Live, and to do that, we must overcome Death through Life.

How and When? Once the child enters this world, he becomes subject to its fallen issues - Once he dies, and being little and having little to have burnt out of him (no wrath stored up, or else exceedingly little) he overcomes Death (the root of every kind of suffering; the sting of Death is sin, and the wages of sin is death) then he has in overcoming it through the Master; been instilled with that immunity to Death.

I would almost wonder at the purpose of a person living to Adulthood, and what they must overcome in the grander theme, since it seems like those who are children and die young (though it is very sad) in an odd sort of way, seem to have the advantage, rather than the disadvantage. Maybe it is the “adults” who actually have the “disadvantage”…but I’ll have to sit down and think about that one day.

By providing the necessary ingredient in ultimately overcoming imperfection; A villain.

Children in the womb experience more than we think. They hear, for example. They aren’t “alive” just because they take their first breath. They are alive because they are alive, and so experience - even if it isn’t what we might call “experience”.

But for the role of Christ; Christ is, whether we know anything about him or not. And his sacrifice, and his experiences are valid whether we know anything about them or not. Salvation was a covenant between Him, and His Father, before it was ever a promise between Him and us (I believe). But the child will know about God, because he too will experience him in The Life. There is not much difference between a baby who is still-born, and an old 100 year old illiterate native in the middle of China who never even heard of Christ.

Yet, salvation is for everyone; and it is universal. Everyone will know him, and that is what is important - not specifically “where” they learn about him, or “when”; just that they “do”.

As for it being helpful - the child still overcomes Death which only really “exists” in this world, that is what is important.

“All in All” seems to be the commonly used phrase. So basically, the manifestation is when God is all in all.

Well, the child is an individual, but he is still a part of Creation - and so when something beneficial occurs of which he is a part (like overcoming Death) it ultimately benefits all of Creation.

Through several mediums. There is the material exchange between the mother and the child through the cord for example. What the baby hears in the womb, is another. And then there is the mere touch of Death itself, which is something that is very much a part of our current world, the last enemy to be destroyed.

Creation, both the fallen part of it, and the good part of it - still touches the child. Death touches it certainly, or else it wouldn’t even be an issue of discussion, but so does Life, because it was alive once (and certainly because it will live again).

By being a part of it, even for a few seconds. It still goes through it, even if it is relatively quick, and its scope was limited.

It is not all that different from someone who never leaves their house, or their hometown. They still go through this world, they don’t have to explore every inch of it to have been a part of it. Its just that instead of a house, or hometown - it is a womb.

For that I would have to know his specific destiny, or purpose in glory. But I would think that in overcoming - and being perfect and playing his part in helping his Father make everything Perfect through the Son (even though he didn’t know it at the time) - he was prepared.

In essence; by going through Death and overcoming the great enemy of Man, he became immune to it, and so was prepared to live immune, and live The Life.

Exactly. :slight_smile: I agree.

And that is what I hope to somehow answer, because I too have to think about this at times. :slight_smile: Even if I have to speculate about it. I just hope my answers or thoughts have been helpful.

As said above.

When: the child enters into the world through conception (at what ever point it is a human being, if it were to “die” before being a human being, then it did not ultimately matter - but I myself believe they are human being at conception; just added this note to clarify my position, and leave options open for others to think about, if they do not believe that life is at conception)

How: the child enters alive, goes through death, overcomes the heart of everything “wrong” and “sinful” with this world, and so becomes immune to it. The immunity comes because of Christ, who is the Saviour of All - even the unborn, who are “in the womb conceived in iniquity”, just as adults “live their lives in iniquity”; both parties being saved go through some form of the state of being in iniquity.

Overcoming it, is immunity to it. Immunity to it, is His Perfection. If that makes sense.

And I hope I’ve given them. :slight_smile: If not, I will be sure to try and think about it to provide a better answer. Though I can only provide what I believe, based on what I’ve read (though I can’t quote the verses) and discussed with God in prayer times.

You are very welcome. ^^

Tom, I shall answer your post soon. I just need to read it and prepare my response. :slight_smile:

#43

Lefein: I would almost wonder at the purpose of a person living to Adulthood, and what they must overcome in the grander theme, since it seems like those who are children and die young (though it is very sad) in an odd sort of way, seem to have the advantage, rather than the disadvantage. Maybe it is the “adults” who actually have the “disadvantage”…but I’ll have to sit down and think about that one day.

Tom: Yep, that’s what we’re thinking about. If babies who die wake up in heaven fully mature and perfected, then (a) they definitely have the advantage because they don’t RISK turning into hateful wicked persons who reject the gospel, AND as Greg Boyd asks, what REALLY would be so horrible about infanticide in that case? And b) what the heck is THIS world about and why does God put us through it IF God can get human beings perfected and fulfilled by divine fiat? Why have this stage at all? Why not just create the world perfect from the beginning—for that is precisely what occurs in the case of babies who die and wake up perfected in haven without ever participating in the formation of their selves through the exercise of their wills. But if babies don’t just—presto—wake up in heaven all “finished” but still have to shape their destiny through some minimal exercise of their own wills, then where and how’s that happen post-mortem? In the end it comes down to the required ROLE or PURPOSE living in this world plays and how to relate deceased infants to that purpose.

Tom

#44

Thank you.

I’ve speculated that such souls might

1.) Be reincarnated

2.) Be resurrected to mortal life (or some kind of pre-perfect, growing condition that leads to immortality)

Or

3.) Be metephysically connected to this material world (perhaps thru something like Jung’s hypothetical collective unconscious.)

What are your thoughts Tom?

Do you have any speculation to offer?

#45

Lefein, I am really enjoying your answers. I, too, see it more about “the whole” body than the “individual” members that make up that one body (that we are all a part of). Though we all play a role in the functioning of the body, as it is being made perfect and being brought to full stature of a perfect man (Christ), we do not all play the same role. We do not all acquire the same knowledge or the same skills, we do not all share the same experiences or endure the same amount of suffering, we do not all have to overcome the same obstacles in life, nor do we all live for the same number of years… but that doesn’t mean that we are not all connected together, nor does it mean that that which impacts one part of the body doesn’t impact the rest of the body in some way or that the whole does not benefit from the various experiences of the individual members of the body.

The author of Hebrews wrote:

Heb 11:39-40 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

It is not the individual members of the body that are being made perfect, but the whole! the whole creation groans, waiting for its deliverance from death and corruption!

#46

I am very tired at the moment (long day), and there are a great deal of complicated issues for me to answer in both the presented posts, that may require me making a restatement post, so that I can clarify my position in what has become an untidy presentation of my beliefs, where I think I haven’t presented my point as well as I had hoped or as thoroughly. I will need some time to think, and clean up, and properly answer. I apologise for the inconvenience, or delay.

May I have a list of the questions at hand again? It will help me to be more precise, and more tidy about my explanations of my abstract idea…which is always a difficult thing to present being abstract afterall. Being a visual person, it might be easier to make a graph, or illustration…lol, words sometimes prove difficult when explaining ideas.

#47

My basic questions is very simple ( and not at all abstract to me.)

You say we’re all connected, and that even an infant (who lives only a moment) benefits from “the whole.”

My question is “how”?

My mother lived (in the flesh here)) for 86 years, lost my sister, greived the loss of her mother and father for decades, was crippled for over ten years, and suffered in ICU for three months.

She learned to think of others before herself, and was patient and chereful (even when she was in pain.)

My sister was here and gone.

She never knew the mother and father who greived her loss, never greived their loss, and I can only assume she never knew what pain was.

If she just skipped it all (and went straight to heaven), how is any of this necessary?

If she only appeared to skip it all, how, when, and where does it touch her?

How, when, and where does she bebefit from this world?

(Hypothesis and speculation welcome.)

#48

By playing a part in the greater theme of “Life Overcoming Death” I suppose. There are most likely other purposes and impacts that the child had in his or her short time here on those around.

If I recall correctly, children feel empathy for emotions that they do not often understand, even in the womb.
Perhaps she did experience pain, worse so because she did not know what it was.

But whether or not she experienced “pain” is not “relevant” (which is not to say that it is garbage) if her role did not involve the pre-requisite of experiencing it; not everyone is an amputee or goes through cancer treatment for example, but this does not mean that they haven’t experienced enough to go to Heaven.

None the less, she still experienced the bite of Death, as far as the baby’s role (as I can only speculate, not knowing God’s purpose for her) in this world, and this in itself was enough, I think, for her to obtain spiritual maturity - considering that there is very little she could have possibly done to require the dross being burned out of her; and it is Death which causes Sin/Spiritual immaturity, Separation from God, etc. Pain, suffering, these are just the symptoms of that greater disease which infects us, to which we must be made immune through he who is Life.

She didn’t skip anything that was not hers to go through in fulfilling her purpose. If her auxilliary roles in life did not involve the necessity of growing to adulthood, then she need to have grown to it - and inevitable experienced the issues of the fallen world that adults experience.

Not everyone’s auxilliary roles (roles that are significant, but not the primary purposes one has in life, if that makes sense) are the same. Just as not everyone in the Body is a hand, or a mouth, or a foot; and of course these different organs grow different, and require different nutrients. In essence, we all have commonality - but individuality also in our various roles and the things we inevitably go through to fulfill them. Different organs go through different things, a heart doesn’t deal with stomach acid, and a kidney doesn’t deal with having a sunburn. A red blood cell does not do the job of a white blood cell.

By entering into the world at what ever point she was human enough to be human (I believe at conception) - where she became then subject to the fallen state of the world she entered. This is where it touched her, and again touched her at Death. If she were untouched by this world, if she had “skipped” it then she would not have existed here to die in the first place.

The fact she died is proof that she was touched by this fallen world, subject to it, and had entered it enough to be touched. It is also proof that she shall (through him who is Life, the Saviour of All) overcome that very fallen world, and the enemy of Man; Death.

She benefits by being blessed to exist. Existing is one of the primary requirements for experiencing Eternal Life.

If this isn’t a benefit, beneficiance does not exist.

I don’t think I have all the answers, as this has to do with the “what is my purpose? why am I here?” question, and the questions of life are difficult to answer.

But, for little ones like your sister I think that it is not such a black and white, cut and dry matter of trying to figure out if she “suffered enough” to be eligable for Eternity. To me, the promise that she overcame Death, which is the very cause of spiritual immaturity to begin with, is enough to make her eligable to Live.

This world is necessary for two points; A. it is the stage where human beings are brought “into existence” (provided that pre-existence is untrue) and B. it is the stage where everyone plays their roles in God’s theme, little or long. And also, this world is going through the process of overcoming Death as well, in which it too has become subjected.

When it comes to the purposes of those who do infact, grow through adulthood. I think that it is not a matter of the adulthood being for the purpose of going through suffering, rather than the idea that suffering is an inevitable part of growing to adulthood in a fallen world. Growing to adulthood is for purposes other than obtaining spiritual maturity “in and of itself” though that may be part of it for a particular individual’s roles. But I believe that growing to adulthood is for the purpose of being a means to an end for manifesting the fulfillment of the other aspects that make up a person’s destiny.

If it is a person’s destiny, that they should bear children - they will need to grow old enough by default to bear children. If that makes sense.

Though I myself do not believe in the idea of “applied calvinism” a term I use to describe the idea that man has no choice in the matter but follows a predestined program of what he’s going to do; Puppetry rather than Free-will. But what I am really trying to express here, is that everyone has a purpose, which is a whole bunch of little purposes interwoven together, for which certain factors are required to be able to fulfill that purpose; such as growing to adulthood for those that need to in order to fulfill their destiny. But for others, their purposes might not require growing to adulthood, but may only require a short stay long enough to exist, and overcome Death, as far as their purposes towards themselves go. Their purposes towards the rest of us - maybe their purposes does not require as a factor - actually being here.

But I can really only speculate, as I said. I’m not sure how to comfort you other than saying that this world is necessary, but that it is not necessary in a “legalistic” application. And neither is adulthood.

But this lack of legalistic necessity does not in itself imply that God is unloving for keeping us here, because for many of us our purposes require staying, while for others, it does not. In the end, we all face Death, and we all overcome it through he who is Life, and then we all proceed to Live - and fulfill our truer destinies in the world to come.

I believe that everyone in this world has a purpose, both for themselves and for the benefit of the Whole, since what benefits the Whole benefits the Individual, and vice versa.

Defeating Death is the threshold purpose for a person to fulfill their Life-destiny, for the rest of a person’s purpose, and whether or not such things require certain factors like adulthood…I cannot be certain. I do not know. I just think that, it seems odd for a baby to have to go through adulthood in order to be spiritually mature just because we make that sacrifice on our journey towards it.

It is still difficult for me to express what I am trying to say, as this is a very big issue with a lot involved. But this is the best I can do for now. I hope it helps somewhat.

#49

Mike,

It’s impossible to say what a post-mortem context appropriate for the sufficient self-formation of deceased infants (and the mentally handicapped too, etc.) would look like. But then again, those who think infants wake up the other side of death instantaneously mature can hardly know what THAT looks like.

In the end, this view (and Lefein’s as well, as far as I can tell) empties this present material world of any shared metaphysical necessity relative to human fulfilment in terms of human constitution. It’s really not enough to say that an infant’s surviving for a few months in the womb before she’s aborted is sufficient enough an experience for that infant to progress as God intended toward her telos. That doesn’t get it, in my view. At least I can’t see how that’s possible. In my view, it is the exercise of one’s WILL—and this is what Lefein may be missing or doesn’t appreicate—that shapes and forms the self that ‘becomes’ mature; i.e., become mature through choice. Remember, Mike, I’m a synergist. And by that I mean the synergy of the divine and human WILLS. So I’m extremely reluctant to consider the possibility of deceased babies waking up in heaven instantaneously matured by divine fiat. You appear to be on the money—if human perfection is possible by the divine fiat of a perfectly loving God, then surely we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in. In the end, surviving for a few weeks in the womb doesn’t equip THE INFANT for entry upon a final human fulfilment, regardless of what lessons the suffering parents may learn from losing their baby.

I have a hard time seeing the appeal of reincarnation. I think it’s difficult to see how reincarnation is compatible with redemption in Christ. If babies are reincarnated, why stop there? Why not the unevangelized? Why not the evangelized whose history of abuse makes their choosing Christ psychologically impossible? In other words, if reincarnation is true, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that reincarnation is sufficient to produce finally purified souls. We just keep coming back until we get it right. But the ‘finality’ of the work of Christ and of its verdict upon the human condition suggests to me an equal finality to a person’s sojourn through/in this world. The whole “to die once and then judgment” thing. In spite of the slimmest of possibilities that reincarnation is a biblical doctrine, it’s just not convincing. I’m far more inclined to see in the progress of redemption and human perfection something akin to the ‘arrow of time’ in physics. Life is a one-way trip (however LONG it may take), not a metaphysical cul-de-sac, if you know what I mean. Evil has conflicted a great many aspects of this trip and made it into something God didn’t intend it to be (like babies dying, say), but whatever adjustments God has to make to accommodate this aspect, I prefer to locate them at the end of a single life-span drawn in one direction.

But like I (and others) have said before, Bro, NONE of the comfort and assurance you seek with regard to your sister can be gotten from theological speculations (whether mine or yours or Lefein’s). The concrete demonstration of the infinite and unconditional love of God on the Cross is ALL you need to rest finally secure in the knowledge that your sister will, with you, share in the divine life. Done deal.

Do you feel like your peace of mind regarding your sister requires continued speculating about post-mortem scenarios or reincarnation?

Tom

#50

Maybe we’d never get it right without the Grace of God available in Christ.

Because they never really lived in this world.

Let’s take actor Viv Marrow, and the little Vietamese boy he was carrying when he died.

Let’s assume he was evangelized, and the boy wasn’t.

Now let’s take Mother Theresa, and Adolf Hitler.

What do they all have in common?

They all lived in this world.

They all had some experience of it’s good (candy, ice cream, a sunny day, a cool breeze) and it’s evil (a slap in the face, a skinned knee, a headach, a fiery death.)

They all made some choices.

They all did things in the flesh that they can justly be repaid for.

And they all left this world with enough experience to appreciate Lefien’s play, and to put it all (and the roles they played in it) in context.

I don’t see how any of this can be said of an infant who never lived outside the womb.

Funny you should use that term, because another possibility I suggested was that my sister might be raised to mortal life, and Segie Bulgakov had something to say about how the synergism of human and Divine wills might relate to the topic of the resurrection.

“All resurrected bodies will rise incorruptible and spirit-bearing, but how is this spirituality realized with regard to human creatureliness and creaturely freedom? Does the principle of synergism operate here? Yes, it does…incorruptibility and glorification are given to him (man) by God in resurrection ex opere operato (from the work done), so to speak, and enter into life as an irresistible force, as a higher reality from which man cannot hide. But the manner in which every human being receives this incorruptibilty and glorification remains propper to him, corresponding to the ex opere operantis (through the disposition of the receiver) of the sacrament.” (The Bride of the Lamb, page 457.)

In other words, all the resurrected receive incorruption and immortality as a potential, but it requires their own individual effort and co-operation to make it a reality (and yes, he was a universalist–and he was talking about the just, the innocent, and the unjust here.)

He also makes an interesting statement on page 363 (concerning a third possibility–that of some metephysical conection between a disembodied soul in the intermediate state, and every human soul.)

Any thoughts?

#51

You didn’t answer my question though: Do you feel like your peace of mind regarding your sister requires continued speculating about post-mortem scenarios or reincarnation? Is not the unconditional and infinite love of God revealed in Christ enough to settle this issue apart from speculation about the afterlife?

I don’t have any definite thoughts beyond the assurance that the comfort we need regarding such questions is available in what we CAN know about the love of God in Christ. Once the question of your sister’s fate rests in what we DO know, continued speculation is academic at best. I’ve already registered my suspicions re: reincarnation. I’d have to be under extreme pressure to consider it–pressure created by having to answer questions that can’t be answered by more orthodox means which reincarnation addresses, and I don’t see any such questions.

Hugs,
Tom

#52

What do you think of Bulgakov’s thoughts?

#53

I gotta get Bride of the Lamb! Good stuff.

T

#54

So what do you think of the idea that receiving a spiritual body involves a synergism between human and Divine wills?

That glory and incorruptibility are given ex opere operato, but must be individually appropriated ex opere operantis?

I think he’s saying that my sister may grow, develope, and make choices in a body that’s initially very much like our own (or at least like that of our first parents.)

What do you think of that?

#55

Answer my question first:

Do you feel like your peace of mind regarding your sister requires continued speculations about post-mortem scenarios or reincarnation? Is not the unconditional and infinite love of God revealed in Christ enough to settle this issue apart from speculation about the afterlife?

Tom

#56

But to quickly answer…

I think human choices require some sort of embodied state, and if you posit that post-mortem (perhaps even post-resurrection), then yes, you have a quasi-material/pre-glorified body that moves toward fuller redemption as agents exercise their wills. I’m less sure about post-mortem PRE-resurrection encounters with God since I tend to see embodiment as the MEANS by which our wills are exercised.

Tom

#57

You yourself have pressed the questions raised by infant mortality as strongly as I have, and if I believed the Christian Faith left no room for any possible answers, I’d have to question the truth of the Christian Faith (and the existence of the Christian God.)

#58

Yeah, I think it’s more or less just the way that things happened, not necessarily necessary for them to happen in such-and-such a way.

In my larger theory of how this world has developed, I believe that part of the reason for our conception into being is to fight the forces of entropy that occur because of the influence of the dark one in this universe. But ultimately the purpose is for us to join in an everlasting relationship with the Father.

For that matter, how could John the Baptist be filled with the Spirit in the womb if absolutely free will must be observed? Where was his ‘free will’ then, and would he have been transported to heaven upon death?

I think there are so many things we just don’t understand.

#59

Thank you.

That’s much more helpful (and after pressing the questions as hard as you did here, it’s only right that you should try to suggest some kind of answer.)

#60

Michael: …it’s only right that you should try to suggest some kind of answer.

Tom: I’m glad you find it helpful, but I don’t myself find it very helpful. But maybe we’re on different pages. Not sure.

At some point pure speculation outruns its usefullness. I don’t find it that helpful myself and I don’t think that if we have convincing reasons for believing the exercise of the human will is indespensible to human perfection and fulfillment that it’s only right that we speculate on HOW such a thing would look in the afterlife. We can know that X is necessary to Y without owing anybody an explanation of how Y fulfills its role in EVERY conceivable world.

If a PLAUSIBLE explanation is possible, then by all means. That’s useful. But how plausible an explanation the operations of Hotel Postmortem can any of us really come up with?

What I “press” this issue of babies for is the ROLE of the WILL in human perfection and fulfillment. That’s it. If the exercise of the will is not necessary (because God can produce fulfilled human being by divine fiat), THAT is a big deal. If it IS necessary, that’s a big deal too. But knowing which it is may be all we’re able to say with confidence. And that’s all I’m really looking for. HOW would God accomplish it in the afterword? You got me. On that point, Mike, the Cross is enough of an explanation.

I was only seeking to encourage you to place the whole issue of your sister’s fate in what we DO know about God from the Cross and not in the plausibility of what the postmortem world might look like. I didn’t mean to upset you (if I did).

Peace,
Tom