I just had a very frustrating but interesting conversation with my Spanish professor. That class has me so confused lately, but in a good way I guess. It makes me think.

We're reading an existentialist novel. It's not really even a novel... the author, Miguel de Unamuno, created his own genre of literature, the nivola, so that he'd be able to break the rules of a typical novel. I asked my professor what rules Unamuno was breaking that called for a new genre, because I couldn't really tell what's keeping this from being a novel. He said that Unamuno's idea is to not interfere with his characters. He lets them progress through the novel...sorry, nivola...on their own. So I asked how that's completely possible, since Unamuno's still writing the book. He said that was the point. I got more confused because any author of a novel could "leave the characters alone" and just not be so obvious (Unamuno talks about it directly within the book).

This somehow turned into a question of free will. Existentialists bring up a lot of questions about and issues with free will. My professor asked me if I believe that God knows what's going to happen and who will go to heaven or hell. I said that God is outside of time and does know but doesn't interfere, so we still have free will. My professor said the "outside of time" argument comes up every year and asked how it can be free will if the future is basically written out already. I don't believe the future is "written out" perse. I mentioned that if someone thinks that what he or she does doesn't matter and starts acting upon that, God already knows that's going to happen. I felt like I was making valid arguments, but my professor kept asking the same question. He wasn't arguing my argument exactly... I think he was just trying to get me to think. It worked. Honestly though, when it's a question about how we can know what God thinks or knows, there will never be an answer. You can't solidly support either side. Existentialists have their way of explaining the world and how they perceive things to be, and Christians have their faith and what they believe to be true. My professor told me that every argument I was making matched arguments made in the past. I pointed out that that's what we've learned. We've learned that God is outside of time. We've learned that God knows all that happens and will happen. We've learned that we have free will. And we accept it. I personally never stopped to consider how these concepts might contradict each other. I still don't see why they have to.

I think we act on our own free will. I also believe God knows what will happen. I know it seems to be a conflict, but I don't really see it as one. What's really frustrating is that I don't really have a way of explaining why I think the ideas can work together...or at least coexist. Right now it's a deep feeling. I don't know if it's because I believe it that strongly or if it's because it's a result of blind faith or if it's just because it's a basic principle I've been taught my whole life in religion classes.

A lot of similar thoughts and ideas have been coming up lately... things that seem to question beliefs I've always known to be true and ideas I've been taught my entire life. I've always just accepted these things because I was told to. It seems wrong even considering the opposing arguments. Not considering in the sense of believing as much as just thinking about them. I still feel like I'm betraying my faith by thinking about these things though. It's just frustrating because faith is such an irrational thing. You kind of have to go into it blindly. It can't be explained. It contradicts the things you can think through and make sense of, and I'm one to really try to make sense of things. I'm the kind of person that needs to understand things fully. I need answers to my questions. I need reasons. (Good thing I'm going to be a journalist, right?) A lot of things just don't make sense to me. I know they're not supposed to, but I still try to make them make sense. The more I try though, the less sense it makes. I still seem to be convinced that I'll be able to find some sort of argument to support my beliefs... something solid that I can really fall back on. So far I haven't really had much luck. It's just hard for me to have to explain things by saying I just have to trust in and believe them. I know that's the point, but it's really hard now, when all I really seem to do is think about life.

I'm determined to have my thoughts at least sort of figured out by the time we talk about this in class. I'm determined to bring in a new idea or argument... something my professor hasn't heard before. The seminarians will be saying what I already said... I want to bring in a new argument, a new idea. I'm just not sure what that new idea would be...

I think I need to figure out what I personally think first.