Do you agree with the author’s argument regarding the purpose of man’s eternal soul?

[Melisa Jane]

BOOK WEBSITE: https://ygodallowsevil.com


Do you agree with the author’s argument regarding the purpose of man’s eternal soul (https://ygodallowsevil.com/soul)?

[Auth Allow]

Here's what it says on the book website about this issue: "Assume that the primary purpose of man’s existence is to experience love with God. Love cannot be experienced unless one first exists as a being. Just as our existence in the temporal world is a precondition for the experience of love during our earthly lives, timeless existence is a precondition for the experience of love in a timeless setting. A person must exist as an eternal being in order to have the ability to enter into a timeless, loving relationship with the eternal God. An eternal existence is therefore the first prerequisite for the experience of love with the eternal God."

Makes sense to me.

[Bethel Saint Bright]

The truth is that there are still concepts in this book that I'm yet to know what I think of them. The same way I am trying to understand why the reason for suffering is only love, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the author's assertion about the eternal purpose of the soul.

[Neha Panikar]

I don't believe/agree with this fully. To experience love, man's soul doesn't need to be eternal. What if the realisation itself is enough to attain Moksha? What if he attains it in one life itself?

[Isaac Chiso]

Yes I agree, the author is right in his assertion that the soul of humanity is eternal and it was created for the purpose of loving God through faith, which is in tune with the Christian understanding of love as a relation.

[Justin Christensen]

I always have a hard time "disagreeing" with philosophy, because it ultimately represents someone's opinion and perspective so it does not feel valid for me to say "no that's wrong." That being said, I don't think an eternal existence is a prerequisite for experiencing the love of an eternal being. If I can't experience God's love without being an eternal being, that implies that God cannot cause a non-eternal being to experience his love, which would contradict His omnipotence. It is essentially a circular argument.

I think a better way to phrase the same idea is that being an eternal being is a prerequisite to experience love eternally (as in, unendingly).

[Esther-David]

This is a difficult topic to address. I agree with the above that it is hard to "disagree" with someone's point of view as that is just their opinion. I struggled with this idea when reading the book. I don't think someone needs to be around for eternity to experience the love of an eternal being. I think the Bible and people's testimonies make it clear that God's love is abundant and present already. Maybe the author meant eternal, true, pure, unwavering love can only be experienced by an eternal being like God.