ellauri106.html on line 524: Reduced to a life of isolation amid a decrepit apartment in which her only possession is the stained pallet on which she sleeps, Merry, the precious daughter of All-American Swede Levov, is “disgusting. His daughter is a human mess stinking of human waste. Her smell is the smell of everything organic breaking down. It is the smell of no coherence. It is the smell of all she’s become”.
ellauri336.html on line 634: While there are some indicators of a slowdown in the growth rate, Chevron’s president of North American exploration and production, Steve Green, told an industry event in October that the oil major sees a “boom boom boom kind of economy” with a “long, healthy pace of activity in the Permian and Texas for decades to come”, Bloomberg reported.
ellauri488.html on line 539: 4) It can also reflect character flaws or denial Depending on context, that kind of line can signal denial (“I can’t accept this outcome”)
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 174: Your reaction is coherent: if God can do anything, then why create beings who can definitively choose against him, and why not create “happy animals” instead. In Christian philosophy (including Aquinas-adjacent lines), the standard response is essentially: God isn’t choosing between “happiness with no freedom” and “chaos,” but between kinds of goods. A common version goes like this:     Freedom is a real good. Created persons can love, obey, worship, and genuinely choose. “No free choice” trades away not just the possibility of sin, but also the possibility of love and moral/covenant relationship.     Omnipotence doesn’t mean “make any set of values compatible.” The classic view is that there are realities like “created agency” and “definitive choices” that can’t both be preserved while also guaranteeing that no creature ever chooses wrongly.     The “circus” is not trial-and-error but a created order with intelligible consequences. God permits the misuse of freedom rather than coercing away misuse, because coercion would undermine the kind of relationship and moral order being created. That still leaves the emotional/ethical punch of your last line (“I’d rather have no freedom than sin-capable freedom”), and many people who find the metaphysics unpersuasive land there: freedom is too expensive. If you’re open to it, I can answer in the most direct way by taking your preference seriously: do you want the argument for why “no freedom” is worse than it sounds, or do you want the argument for why God’s omnipotence allows more than “could have prevented this one outcome” (i.e., a deeper take on the “why create at all” question)?
4