Religion Discussion (Second Rebuttal)

Worry not, I completely understand lacking the time or the right words to complete a debate. Feel free in the future to take as much time as you need. I'm glad that you didn't have any doubts that Christians had teachings, that's a good point to agree on.

You challenge that there were teachings that exist and say that Christ was not God prior to the 4th Century, but again, as I've already demonstrated and argued, the mere existence of a contrary opinion doesn't invalidate or render nonexistent the orthodox belief and teaching. It would be no better were I to argue that because there were those at the time of Muhammed who didn't believe he was a prophet, we cannot trust any teaching now that says Muhammed was a prophet. That someone disagreed back then only means that people disagreed.

Now as to the teachings regarding Christ's divinity, as far as I'm aware there was no formal challenge to the notion prior to Arius, which is why his heresy was such a big deal. And again, the Church works off of the teachings of Christ Himself through the Apostles, that is the deposit of faith from which inerrant teachings come. Whether individual humans, who I'm sure you can agree are fallen and fallible, taught something is less important than what Christ taught and what the Church taught. If they even did teach it, which again, I'm not aware of. The major heresies before Arianism had to do with gnosticism and were actually a rejection of the material universe, not Christ's divinity.

And it seems to be implied that there were written teachings, a la Scripture, that declared Christ to be not divine, prior to the 4th Century, on the level of the Scriptures that were later approved by the Church for the Biblical Canon. As far as I'm aware, all Scripture comporting this or the idea that the material world was evil (gnosticism), came in the second and third centuries, AD, nowhere near to Christ's life and the lives of the Apostles.

I am also glad we can agree that the early Christians were not playing telephone. As to the idea that the teachings would be changed either because someone intentionally changes them or because someone mistakenly changed them, sure, that happens. It happens now, and it happens then.

The difference, Mr. Diga, is that those are mistakes made by individuals. You'll find no instance wherein the Church itself taught one thing, and then changed its mind and taught something else that contradicted an infallible teaching. The Church never does it in 2000 years of history. The individuals who do it, yes, some made mistakes, and again we have a Church that can teach for very reason of correcting such errors. Those who purposefully corrupted the teachings to suit their own ends or attack Christian can certainly not be called Christian, nor are their teachings Christian. And again, those teachings are known because they are contrary to what the belief of Christianity was. The Church taught, it clarified, it corrected all these errors and assaults, weaving a path along the razor's edge between truth and falsehood, avoiding dozens of theological and philosophical pitfalls throughout the centuries.

Nor does either possibility allow one to conclude, as you did, that, "no teaching could have survived by oral speach." This is a non sequitur, you've concluded it, but without premises which make the conclusion valid.

Your skepticism does you well, Mr. Diga, but I wonder why you haven't applied it to your own religious structure. In your example, you note that Muslims would trace through every scholar the path of a teaching. If this is the case, you've done two things. First is that you've demonstrated that a teaching can survive being passed orally. Second is that you've put implicit faith in those writing that they heard this from someone. How do you know they actually heard it? That it is written down someone doesn't make it either more factually correct, nor more likely to be the actual message, nor more likely to contain revealed, divine truth. It only makes it easier to trace. Your own argumentative style would cause problems for Islam as well. Nothing in the chain of Muslim scholars proves anything in and of itself, nor can claims of goo reputation of trust worthiness demonstrate anything conclusive about their passed down teachings.

As for Christianity, we can see the passing down and maintenance of Christian belief in the writings of the Church Fathers, and we can see orthodox Christian teaching in the authoritative documents of the Church itself. Yes, at a certain point, one chooses to have faith either in a person or an institution. We both fall into this category, and must both concede that we do. The issue is more truly, which of us has selected the right thing to place our faith in, and why.

And yes, there were plenty of Early Christian writings before Nicaea.

I never said that Christianity prior to Nicaea didn't have divisions, Mr. Diga, I noted that the divinity of Christ was not one of them, a point I've reiterated above. The major issues prior to Arianism were the Gnostsic heresies, which focused more on materialism and dualism than Christ's divinity. More importantly, again, the mere presence of disagreement does not render teaching invalid, nor mean that the correct teaching was not passed on. Further non sequitur.

It's interesting that you mention Muslim scholars who were "believers in Christ." Tell me, Mr. Diga, what would you say if I made claims about supposed "Muslims" who believe that Muhammed was not God's prophet? Or believe that Christ is God?

Would they actually be Muslims? Or would their claim to being "Muslim" be false due to the nature of Islam? Based on what I know of Islam, I would wager that their claim would be false, if they don't believe that Muhammed is God's prophet, and Christ was a prophet before him, they cannot be Muslim. Likewise, someone who rejects Christ as God can hardly be called a Christian, and for the same reason.

As for the alleged "gospel" of Barnabas, Mr. Diga, your skepticism again would serve you in better stead were you to direct it at your own claims and beliefs. Let us do so.

Prove that this so-called gospel was written by Barnabas, prove that it came from the 1st Century, prove that it accurately represents Christ's life, and prove that it is not just a corruption of Christian teachings by Muslims in order to prove Islam.

For example, you'll need to overcome certain hurdles. First is the fact that there are no references nor occurrences of this "gospel" before the 16th Century, or possibly the 7th. Second is the fact that none of the canonical Gospels, which all date from the first century in every range given, agree with it. Third is the fact that its trustworthiness is even denied by some Muslim scholars, a telling point given your own claims about determining trustworthiness in the Islamic system.

You are wise indeed not to trust this book, Mr. Diga, since it's not at all trustworthy. It's even less reputable than the Gnostic gospels. You shouldn't see it as confirmation of anything regarding Christ or His teachings, as it is vastly more likely to be a fabrication of Islam used against Christianity, particularly in Spain.

Now, you disagree with my arguments about the Church's authority based on what? Where does God say that He will only give authority to His prophets? I've not seen that in any writing of any prophet that Christians and Muslims agree is legitimate.

And as Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, and Jesus claimed that He was giving authority to a Church, your argument is self-defeating. If God gives authority to prophets, and a prophet gives authority to an institution, the institution would have that same authority. And if Jesus is not just a prophet, but God Himself, then we have an even stronger authority granted the Church.

I understand that you have the ability to disagree, Mr. Diga, I would appreciate it if you'd give slightly more reasoning behind your disagreement. I really do need to know what your basing this on, so I can address it. As I've already said, your claim seems to defeat itself straight off the bat.

As to your questions, first, the Church's authority exists within the Church, it is completely and utterly irrelevant where national borders are. Even the Vatican City is not the Church's authority itself, it's merely the state wherein the Pope resides, so he may not be held hostage by any one nation (which was a major issue in the earlier half of the 20th Century). The Church speaks in three ways. Through Councils. Through the universal teaching of all its Bishops. And through infallible Papal instructions. Again, nations do not come into it.

To the second, slavery exists even now, but slavery died out in Europe in the period spanning from approximately the 500s to the 1500s, which is due precisely to Christianity's influence and the Church's power in Europe at this time. In fact, the Church is on record multiple times in this era decrying the enslavement of free Christians by Muslims, and teaching several times over that the stealing of people for slaves was morally reprehensible. Slavery thrived in the Roman Empire (and earlier), and it burst back onto the scene with colonization and imperialism (aided and abetted by both scientists and religious who saw natives and indigenous peoples as less human or sub human).

Only Christianity began the teaching that all humans were created equal by God, whatever their lot was in life, and only Christianity began the teaching that all humans could be saved by God, that God loved everyone, and that every human person had value, worth and dignity. These ideas are generally the natural antithesis to the institution of slavery, particularly as it is known now. Nor has the Church "stopped" teaching about slavery. The Church never stops saying something is wrong. If the Church has infallibly taught it once, it infallibly teaches it for all time, regardless of whether it is reiterated in Councils. It is up to those of us in the Church to continually follow the Church's teachings, just as Muslims must continually follow the Quran, without waiting for updates to its teachings, nor requiring extra editions, or repetitions.

Your third point is not even worth addressing. You've begged the question. You cannot assume Muhammed was a prophet, and use your assumption to prove that the Church can't have authority. You're begging the question as to whether Muhammed actually IS a prophet. Obviously, I say he is not. So you'll have to prove it.

Shall we debate whether Muhammed is a prophet next? I look forward to your arguments proving this in your next post.

In contention to one of your final points, I did not argue that the Church is right because it is old. I argued that the Church has demonstrated continuity of teaching and belief, wherein it has never contradicted itself, and has been existant without pause. No other religious system can make such a claim. Both Buddhism and Hinduism continually alter and adapt their teachings, the claim that they have orthodoxy which remains consistent is impossible to determine. Islam isn't as old. Most pagan beliefs have died out and been revived at various points both before and after Christianity.

And Arians and Muslims differ in teachings, Mr. Diga, because they're not the exact same religion. Arianism quite probably influenced Islam, but it is not the same thing as Islam, and that plus the gap between Arianism as a corpus of believers and Islam as a corpus of believers puts paid to the notion that this is a contiguous belief of a major religion.

"i disagree, when you look at the christians world and teachings you are right.
but look at islam, the prophet mohamad's teaching and the Quran which is the book of God is enough to get you through any choice without commiting mistakes... in short, the prophet pretty much told us about everything we need. the remaining stuff could be figured out by men. it's as simple as what did the porphet had to say about this."

Is it? So Muslims never make interpretive mistakes? Muslims never disagree as to the meaning of passages in the Quran? Some Muslims don't interpret certain sections to be about, for instance, the conversion of pagans by warfare, while others do not? Some Muslims don't claim that Islam demands war with the West, Jihad, others say this is a misunderstanding of the nature of Jihad. Some Muslims say leadership of the Islamic world should be through the Prophet's family, do they not? Others disagree, yes?

The "prophet" certainly did not tell you everything you need. Islamic scholars have been interpreting the Quran from the very beginning, as well as the Hadith and other important works in Islam. If the remaining stuff could be figured out by men, they've done a rather paltry job of it.

One could equally claim that the Bible is sufficient to get one through any moral choice without doing evil. It's quite clear about most things, after all. But that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of nuance and layers of meaning which need clearer explanation and interpretation. If the Quran is really God's book, I would be amazed if it were so simple as to lack any thing at all which could not be misunderstood or misinterpreted. After all, God Himself is continually misinterpreted and misunderstood.

I hope you enjoyed this portion of our discussion, I look forward to continuing it! I certainly understand that we are both seekers of the truth, and that all our discussion occurs as part of that search, and as part of the testing of conclusions we've arrived at in that search.

Until next time,

Religion Discussion (Second Reply)

"hello Evan,
sorry my response took so long... i just couldnt find the right to do it.

my response to the first point is that i had no doubts there were teachings

before there was the autorised versions in the late 4th century...
however, i must ask what about the teachings that existed and said christ

wasn't God? didnt those exist too?
--------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
second point, i have no doubt they weren't playing telephone... you just have

to admit some stuff get changed on purpose because some would want the

teachings to go bad and some would do it by mistake... whatever the case...

no teaching could have survived by oral speach.

maybe giving you an alternative example would give you a better look at it:
when muslims deal with something that is supposadly said by prophet

muhamad they go through every person that has narrated it.
meaning: how did the author narrate this saying? person a told person b

who told person c who told person d..... who told person x that he heard the

prophet say: ...
the muslim scholar would have to investigate every person that is in that

chain to make sure he was a trustworthy person, this way and only this way

would we know that what we are taught is what was said by the prophet

himself.

where can we find that in the oral teachings of the early christians? what's to

prove they passed everything right?
what's to prove the documents we have that are supposedly writing by the

disciples of christ are trusyworthy.. do we have a chain of trusty ppl passing

it from one to another... or do we have the surfacing version after the nicaea

convention?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third point, i must disagree. the christians were divided before nicaea and

were still divided afterwards. proof, the scholars in the 6th century that

believed in christ as a prophet and were waiting for a new prophet to

come... of course you wouldnt hear of those persons in christian teachings

because they didnt believe in christ as a god. the people that were

believers in christ as a prophet and lived to meet mohamad believed in him

too. i can mention waraqa bin nawfal who has studied scripture and was the

only follower of christ in mecca and salman al farisi who spent time as a

servent among few scholars that told him to follow the prophet to come...

i can give you another example, though i wouldn't consider this source

trustworthy but just to make a point: birnaba's gospel which is said to be

written by birnaba, adresses the idea that Jesus is not God but rather a

prophet and it even talks about Mohamad being a prophet. however,

birnaba's gospel isn't considered divine by muslims. but we look at it as a

comfirmation that christ's teaching were lost.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

your point on church's authority:
though you make some good point however i must disagree... the only

authority God gives is to his prophets, anyone disapproving the prophet

simply has no authority.
another idea which comes to mind is the authority of the church and its

teachings.
number one, where is its authority now if everything is ruled by seperated

countries?
number two, slavery existed all the way up to the 20th century. which means

that at some point the church had the authority to put an end to it and never

did. did christ teach us to take slaves? if no, how do u explain that the

church never ended slavery. if yes, why has the church stopped teaching us

about it?
number three, if the church had a divine authority, we wouldn't have prophet

mohamad (he came because we needed someone to guide the way)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on a seperate point, you talked about the church existing since a long

consistant period of time... this point is doomed to fall because there are religions that date back to more than the church does...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the idea of a gap between the arians and muslim is a good point.. i add to it the fact that the last scholar, whose servent was salman al farisi(someone i mentioned earlier), told him that he knows no one that believed the same things he does, therefore salman should go and try to find the prophet to come...

why do they differ in teachings... i guess the basic idea which is to believe in God and in christ as a prophet would have been enough to say that they had the same basic ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"we need an inspired, authoritative teacher, which is a living institution,

as opposed to a book or set of writings."
i disagree, when you look at the christians world and teachings you are right.
but look at islam, the prophet mohamad's teaching and the Quran which is the book of God is enough to get you through any choice without commiting mistakes... in short, the prophet pretty much told us about everything we need. the remaining stuff could be figured out by men. it's as simple as what did the porphet had to say about this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

i hope you understand that this, the stuff i write are not to prove myself right or just to argue. i am just pointing out stuff and trying to find the right path. i hope it is the same for you. i hope i give your readers something interesting and helpful

may God lighten your path,

DIGA"

Is it Just to punish an innocent man? Pt. 6

"Isn't it possible that the universe had no cause? If not why not?"

It is not possible that the universe had no cause, because the universe exhibits motion in terms of existence. It's expanding, and as far as we can tell, it did not exist as it does now before the Big Bang. If it moves to exist, something else must already have existed for it to be able to do so.

"How? I see no reason to think that the uncaused cause is God."

Well, I didn't want to drop a massive amount of information on you all at once. We'll go step by step, if that's alright with you.

So let's say, for argument's sake, that we've agreed there is no uncaused cause, and we now must examine what that uncaused cause is. My first argument after that would be that we know the Uncaused Cause is a being, since only a being could have chosen to create, and there's no other way an Uncaused Cause would create. As it cannot be caused to create, and thus cannot be forced to do anything, it must choose to do so.

We'll progress from there at the next juncture.

"Why?"

Because if we are correct that something caused the universe, then the universe is not an accident. It exists the way it exists because something created it to exist that way. Instead of an accident with neither reason nor purpose, it is a work of art with both.

"Wait a second, maybe science can't prove a deistic God, one that doesn't interact with the physical world and is above it like you say. But a theistic one, that does interact with the physical world like the Bible and Christianity says should have some sort of evidence."

No, science cannot prove any sort of God, because science depends on repeatable, testable, empirical evidence. Miracles, particularly historical ones, do not fall into any category of scientific analysis. And they do not generally leave very much hard evidence for scientists now to examine. Those that do, and there are a few, cannot be treated conclusively, since a skeptic can always find reasons to doubt.

"For instance the story in 1 Kings 18, where Elijah prays to have God burn his sacrifice. If that happened every time, that could be explored via the senses and be capable of repeated observation. But for some reason it doesn't happen every time. Why doesn't it?"

Because miracles are not natural phenomenon. They are supernatural events, there is absolutely no reason why they would, or even should, occur in laboratory conditions where they can be repeated and tested and observed. God acts as He wills, not as we do.

"I changed my view of the entire universe and my place in it, it was an incredibly humbling experience."

Except, of course, that the experience of going from a positive belief to a position of skeptical disbelief is not the same as going from a position of skeptical belief to one of positive belief. For the first, what is required is not evidence, it is anything that makes you doubt in such a way that your mind at the time cannot cope. For the second, what is required is not only a vast building up of evidence, but a movement in your interior, a conversion of the heart which is brought about by God.

So I ask again, how is this comparable?

"It's not pure subjectivity. I believe in things that can be proven through the scientific method. If I believed in voices that only I can hear that would be subjective."

No, you believe in things that have what you deem to be strong evidence, as you said before. You depend on your own subjective analysis to determine what is strong or not. That you believe empiricism proves anything means that you believe in pure subjectivity. Empiricism itself is purely subjective. Empiricism depends on the input of the senses, which are dependent on each individuals brain. They're as subjective as the "voices" example you provided. Each are stimuli interpreted by a brain, and frankly as legitimate as the other.

Moreover, your dependence on empiricism is only partial. Have you performed the experiments yourself? Have you gone through the whole corpus of modern science and tested it all yourself? No? Then what you're really relying on isn't even your senses, it's your personal trust for a system which you, in all likelihood, will never examine completely, nor truly test. You choose to believe it and accept it, which is why it's subjective.

"Because there would be evidence that there is a god."

There's evidence here that there is a God. But do all convert? People suffer on Earth, do they all convert? People are spoken to by God here on Earth, do they all convert? I'm telling you right now that God exists and loves you, are you going to convert as a result? Again, you seem to think you're entitled to as many opportunities as it takes, and this type of thinking only makes it impossible for you to actually love God. You're own attitude would make conversion, at any point, impossible. If you think yourself entitled to it, you'll never get it.

"The reason I don't believe in God is not because I hate God or because I only want to care about myself."

We're not talking about belief anymore. We're talking about conversion, which is more than belief, it's love. People cannot love God in the self-sacrificing way in which He loves them if they are selfish and believe themselves entitled.

"It is because there is no evidence of God."

Interesting claim. Can you prove it?

"And that is not the only reason. Sometimes the only thing people need to change their mind is time."

If it's not the only reason, what are the others?

The thing people need to change their mind is God.

"Maybe I misspoke when I said "should." It would not be just to constantly get another chance."

But then it must end at some point. If it ends at some point, why not death, when it would logically end anyway, since there's no more time left for decision making?

"But constantly giving another chance is something that an infinitely loving god would do."

That's an assertion, one I've already shown to be false. An infinitely loving God would want people to be with Him, out of their own love for Him. If they choose to not love Him, that's that. If it would not be to just constantly give them more chances, what would it be?

If you're just going to make these claims, you need to back them up.

"And it's something I hope I would do myself."

I don't think you've thought that through particularly well.

"Also, although it would not be just to always be given another chance, it would also not be just to have someone be tortured for eternity for any reason."

Who said anything about torturing people, or about there being no reason? Don't project your own false preconceptions onto Christian theology. Hell is neither about being tortured, nor do people go there without reason.

"Why couldn't God make an afterlife that's temporal and then once we chose to go to Heaven and accept God we go there and if we choose Hell we go there and if we choose nonexistence we can cease to exist?"

Why would God make an afterlife that is just like life? What is the point? At some point, we still have to be allowed to make a decision, why extend it? If a person didn't choose God in this life, despite all the myriad opportunities, why would they choose Him in the next? Again, what you seem to misunderstand is that the attitude of entitlement you're speaking from is the very attitude that prevents self-sacrificing love of God. A person who loved God wouldn't need such an afterlife. A person who didn't love God could never benefit from it, since they would still not love God. If this life was not enough, there's no EVIDENCE to believe another one would be.

And again, non-existence is not an option. Ending our existence would be evil. God is Good. Ergo, God will not allow our existence to end. And as only God can end it, God would have to directly act to end them. Thus our existences will not end.

"Why is our existence continually willed by God, but our life not? Why does God put our life in our control but not our existence?"

Because we have to be able to choose to love Him or not love Him, of course. Suicide is the ultimate rejection of good, the most potent and eternal sin. It is the sin that makes all other sins impossible, to paraphrase Chesterton. It's the fullest rejection of God we can make.

Our existence is willed by God because our existence is the very base line of goodness. In that we exist, we are still good, albeit corrupted, and we can be redeemed. If we cease to exist, we cannot be redeemed. Not only would our telos be unfulfilled, but the very good of our existence would be lost.

Now, our lives are willed for by God. God wills us to live, but allows us free choice. That only extends to the realm of our souls, ie the realm in which we live. Our choices then, can effect our lives, but our existence itself is metaphysical, it's beyond just this life that we live.

"It wouldn't be taken from us, we would be giving it away."

No, it would still be being taken away. You do not own your existence. You do not own your life. You do not own your body. Everything you are is a gift, or more accurately, a loan. God is the source of your existence, your life and your body, they were His first, and He is their author and origin. You get to use them, but you do not own them. You'd be taking from yourself, and from Him.

There is, after all, a reason why suicides are said to take their own lives. They're stealing from the one who gave them.

"God wouldn't be the one doing it, we would if we chose to."

God is the only being capable of doing so, so you're quite wrong there. God is the act of existence itself. Only God can choose for existence to end for a particular being.

"It's our choice, in the same way it's not God's fault if we choose Hell over eternity with him, wouldn't it not be God's fault if we chose nonexistence over eternity with him?"

Fault is irrelevant. We don't have that power, nor can we, as we are caused and contingent beings.

"Does that mean it is better to exist in Hell than not exist at all?"

It means existence itself is the first and foremost good we can know, and that to end existence would be the most paramount act of evil.

So yes, existence in whatever state is morally higher than to stop a being from taking part in the act of existence.

Is it Just to punish an innocent man? Pt. 5

"Well give me some examples."

Ok. In metaphysics, for instance, we'd examine the nature of being. Everything that is, including the universe itself, demonstrates a movement from potential to actual existence. Ie, everything begins and changes. This leads us to question what allows this movement from potential to actual existence, for what reason do these things exist, what most people think of as a cause. In the case of the universe itself, when we ask this question, we have three possible answers, the universe caused itself, the universe's causes regress infinitely into the past, or something outside the universe caused it.

In the first case, nothing can cause itself, this is a logical impossibility, since something would have to exist before it exists to cause itself.

In the second case, infinite regression is another logical impossibility, as without a starting point from which to begin progressing, we could never exist at this moment. Our existence in the now requires a definitive starting point from which the universe can begin the progression through its causes and eventually reach us. Otherwise there's an infinite wait until now, and so we'd never reach it.

The third case is logically possible. Due to our rejection of the first two possibilities, it's the only logically viable solution, making it the one we choose via argumentum ad absurdum reasoning. There is also the possibility of some unconsidered option, so we leave that open to consideration as well. However, I've never thought of one, and no one else in the last 4,000 years has either, so I don't worry about it so much.

That third option dictates that something outside of the universe caused the universe. We must ask again why that thing exists, whatever it is. Again, because nothing can regress infinitely, and because nothing can cause itself, we must conclude eventually that some being outside the universe is uncaused, ie it exists without causes, eternally. No beginning, no ending. This being's essence then would be equal to its existence, such that instead of having potential existence and actual existence, (like everything else that begins and changes), it would be purely actual existence, pure act of existence (thus eternal and immutable).

From there we go further to reach the conclusion that this is God, but I don't want to get too far ahead of our discussion.

"I think that a reasonable standard would be the same standards we hold for gravity and electricity. Can you offer as much evidence that God exists as there is that electricity and gravity exist. If so what?"

That gravity and electricity exist are evidence that God exists. All of science is evidence of a rational Creator. The simple fact of the matter is that the universe does not have to operate along rationally intelligible principles that we can understand and follow to conclusions like the theory of gravitation. As the anthropic principle notes, the only reason we can even ask these questions is because the universe is the way it is. But the reason WHY it is that way can be answered in only one of two ways. Either it's pure accident, or it's rational design.

If I am correct that the universe is neither self-caused nor infinitely regressing in naturalistic causes, but caused by something else, the idea of it being accidental becomes exceedingly improbable, possibly even impossible.

Now, regarding your notion concerning the "standards" of gravity and electricity, these are both empirical standards, neither of which offers definitive proof, and neither of which are logically applicable to a being which is extra-natural or super natural. Empiricism measures only what can be explored via the senses and repeated observation. It's quite useless here.

"Christianity to atheism, I was a Christian for about 18 years, then for a I started really questioning my beliefs and about a year later I became an atheist."

Then how precisely is this the same as converting to Christianity?

"Evidence as strong or stronger than other things I believe in."

IE, pure subjectivity. Evidence stronger than other things YOU believe. Again, the problem of evidence is that it's all subjective.

"What I meant was I think everyone should be given the opportunity, even after they die."

Why? Why should they? This sort of mentality, again, just demonstrates a self-centeredness. If their life wasn't enough, why would they convert in the afterlife? If they are selfish enough to believe they SHOULD always get another chance, then they're never going to be selfless enough to love God.

"That's my point, the afterlife should exist in time."

Except you're running into a logical problem. If the afterlife is to be Heaven or Hell, they cannot be temporal. It's only states that are not those two that can have temporal aspects, since both those states are contingent upon one's relationship with an atemporal being. God could make some seperate afterlife that's temporal, but if the end God desires for us, teleologically, is HEAVEN, then eventually He has to say we've had our shot and we go where we've chosen to go. Infinite progression would thwart the entire purpose of Creation.

"Why?"

I have already explained this. Our existence is continually willed by God, and thus outside our control. This is the metaphysics of our being, being stems from the being which is pure act. So long as it causes us to have actual existence, we will have it. Our physical body, and thus our physical life, is contingent upon certain material points, not just metaphysical being. Thus our physical bodies can be killed, thus ending our lives. And it so happens that we as individuals have that ability, though we shouldn't exercise it.

"You're right. What I meant when I said assume was make a logical conclusion."

Then I agree, as you probably gathered.

"Why will he allow us to die if we want, but not stop ourselves from existing?"

Because God will not allow for our existence to be taken from us, it is the greatest gift He has given us, and only He could remove it. And He will not because such an act, existence being the principle good, would be evil. And God will not do evil, as His nature is good.

"Why is it so important to be able to claim to be independent?"

I'm not sure I've ever understood why it has been so important to humanity to be free. What I do know is that observing us, it does seem to be the case, even among Christians. And it's not just independence but a seeming equality with God.

"Where did Satan come from?"

He's an angel who, when the angels were presented with the ability to choose to serve God or themselves at their creation, chose to serve himself. He was the greatest of all the angels, reflecting most fully God, and it was through this, and the same desire for equality and independence that he choose to go his own way.

Is it Just to punish an innocent man? Pt. 4

"What evidence is there?"

All kinds. Everything from nature itself to metaphysics. As I was discussing with John, the problem is that the nature of evidence is quite subjective. What one person accepts, another may not.

"They might have had the opportunity, but no reason to. And now that they have a reason to believe in God they don't have an opportunity."

That's never true, there are always reasons to believe. And I rather doubt experiencing horrific agony and separation from God would leave them to LOVE God. It is about more than just belief that God exists, after all. It is about loving Him and following Him. Mere belief guarantees nothing.

"I did it through research and thought, looking at the evidence."

You changed your mind from what, to what, after how long a period of time?

"If there was strong evidence, yes."

That doesn't answer the question. I could present tons of evidence, but there's no guarantee that any evidence is strong. A skeptic can shoot down ANYTHING, any sort of evidence, whether it be empirical, metaphysical, experiential, etc.

"I think I should be given the opportunity, even after I die."

Why should you? Sounds pretty self-centered to me. And if you're that self-centered, there's no reason to believe you'd convert no matter the chances you're given.

And logically, how could you? You're not going to exist in time as you do now, no matter what, after you die.

"How do you know which ones are heretical?"

By examining history, Church Tradition, Scripture, logic, etc. It's easy to trace the historical Church, and it's easy to note the points at which heresies sprang up, and what they rebelled against and whether it was believed prior to that time.

"But you also said that existence is good, thus the rejection of good entails and ending to existence which is good."

And I ALSO noted that it is not within our power to end our existence, as that is continuously maintained by God. Our lives are within our ability to end, our existence is not.

"Assuming is necessary in life, the best course of action is to only make logical assumptions and not illogical ones."

Depends on what you mean by logical assumptions. It's logical to believe certain things, like that you need to eat and drink and sleep. But those aren't assumptions so much as conclusions based on axioms. Now the acceptance of those axioms should be done with good reason still, not just assumed.

"What if we wanted to stop existing?"

Too bad. You can't stop your existence, and God won't stop your existence.

"Is pride good? If not then how did humanity have it when humanity was good?"

No, pride isn't good. When humanity was good, humanity still had the ability to make choices, as we do now. According to the spiritual truths presented by the Bible concerning the Fall, what is perhaps the most important aspect of the Fall was the temptation of Man to be like to God, in the sense that by rebelling against God, it was the only way humanity could claim to be independent the way God is. In the pride of seeking equality with God, we fell, and so lost God's Grace and corrupted the good of our lives.

"Is that desire good? If not then how did humanity have it?"

Humanity has always had the ability to choose. And the temptation arose through the influence of an entity most know as Satan.

"Is selfishness good? if not how did humanity have it?"

Humanity always had the influences of its animal nature because humanity has always been the commingling of body and spirit, called the soul. Animal instinct may in part have contributed to this selfishness. But again, the initial temptation sprang from Satan, and was received well by humanity.

"Maybe in your discussions, but pretty much every person I have met defines God differently."

Ahh, but do they have ACTUAL philosophical discussions, or are they just chatting about God?

"I don't think I understand, could you clarify?"

Ok. Have you ever heard the arguments regarding the Uncaused Cause?

"Does the fact that these religions are younger than Christianity change the fact that these people happily sacrificed themselves?"

You haven't demonstrated that they did. Moreover, the fact that they're all related to Christianity undermines your point, since it could be that very Christian influence which caused it.

"I don't see why the fact that Christianity was the first (but not only) religion to have happy martyrs is convincing."

It's not meant to convince you completely. It's merely one point among many small points which build up to a gradual understanding of Christianity. It was also meant to illustrate a specific point in our discussion, as I recall.

Is it Just to punish an innocent man? Pt. 3

"Come on, this whole conversation, heck, all of religion is pure conjecture. There is no evidence for any of it."

Depending on one's usage, certainly. If we speak of conjecture in terms of drawing conclusions based upon evidence, but not evidence which is proof, and we consider proof to be of an infallible sort, then yes, it is conjecture. But by the same definition, science is conjecture, religion is conjecture, philosophy is conjecture, and every thing else in existence is conjecture, since a skeptical person can find reason to doubt EVERY thing.

You, however, seem to think there's no evidence for religion. You're mistaken. That you don't accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which is the entire problem with evidence of any sort. So your understanding of conjecture refers to how I was using it, drawing conclusions without evidence or solid grounds, even if being rational. Religion doesn't fall into the same category as this sort.

"It seems incredibly cruel not to. By keeping the afterlife out of time God is robbing people of being able to make a choice. Not only that, he is robbing them from choosing him."

Robbing? No. It is not robbery to give a person a gift that only lasts a certain period of time and then expires. Don't presume to entitlement of choice, none of us is entitled to anything.

As for robbing them from choosing Him, nothing could be farther from the truth. Did they not have ample opportunities to choose while alive? I find the words of Abraham to the rich man in Christ's parable quite fitting,

"And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead."

By what means do you think people would change their minds after the whole of their lives have been spent in denial? Do you think it easy to convert? To deny and sacrifice everything you were before, to sacrifice your very self for God? A God who promises you not riches, or comfort, but pain in this life and an ethereal salvation in the next? Or for the one in Hell, the God most likely to be blamed for one's present circumstances?

Do you think you could repent under such circumstances? Forgive me, for I rather doubt it.

"Okay, so it only occurs when we reject him as completely as we can?"

That is the nature of mortal sin. Mortal sin is sin which engenders a complete rejection of God. It requires that we commit a gravely evil act, fully aware of that evil and choosing it as freely as humans are capable of choosing anything. Failing to meet one or more of these characteristics, it would be a venial sin, which doesn't entail a complete rejection. Of course, build up enough venial sins, and you'll arrive in the same state of separation.

"Which church?"

Your question doesn't make sense. There's only one Christian Church, of which there are multiple schismatic sects and heretical sects. Those which are schismatic may be called Churches in as much as they possess valid authority from Christ, but as they share common belief in dogmatic principles, they are united in belief. Those which are heretical lack valid authority and lack common belief with the Church, hence their nature as heretical as opposed to orthodox.

If you desire a name, the Church would be called Catholic because of its nature as a universal institution.

"Just because Life is good does not necessarily mean that good is life."

You are thinking in terms that are exceedingly minute. Life is NOT the same as existence. Rock exists, rock doesn't live. The universe exists, the universe doesn't live. Existence is good, the principle good in fact, the only objective good we can know. Life, as an expression of existence is also good. But not the principle good of existence.

"It's like how all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs."

No. No, it's not. Your analogy refers to one set which is a member of another set. Life and goodness are two sets that are not members of the other.

"Now you seem to be saying that good is life, otherwise the whole rejection of good means death would not be a valid argument."

I am saying that life is good, thus the rejection of good entails an ending to life which is good. If that which is good is corrupted, some measure of it is lost. Do not draw conclusions which do not follow from my statements. That's not solid reasoning.

"But you also said that existence is good, which, I'm assuming means good is existence."

You shouldn't assume, assuming is unwise, particularly in logical discourse.

"So then, that means that rejection of good means non-existence. Which means you can't be in hell. Because in order to be in hell you have to be."

The only problem with your conclusion is that you neither understand hell, nor understand existence.

Humans exist because God wills for us to exist. We were created for a teleological purpose which is Love, just as everything else was created for that teleological purpose. Taking part in the act of existence requires the continuous willing of the being whose nature is existence itself. We completely lack the power, through choice or anything else, to end our own existence because our existence is utterly dependent upon this entity. We can commit suicide, but that only ends our Earthly life. We can commit suicide because our physical life is contingent upon our physical body's survival, which is within our power. Our metaphysical existence is contingent upon God's will, which is not without our power to alter, as it is immutable.

While we rejected God in sin, and Fell, and thus brought about the corruption of the good of our lives that is death, no human action or choice can alter the immutable will of God that we exist. Only God could possibly end our existence, and God will not do so since, as you've no doubt realized, God is Good, God does not do evil, and stripping us of our very existence would be the evilest of acts.

"Why did it do that?"

Plenty of answers to that. Pride, for one. A desire to be equal to God, for another. Of course, those are rather related. At the most basic, I suppose we'd have to say that humanity decided to follow a selfish desire as opposed to a self-sacrificing desire.

"Did God's plan change?"

God's "plan" does not refer to a blueprint or chart of the acts in time that God wants us to go through or plans on us reaching. What is meant by this expression is that God possesses all knowledge that can be possessed, and God exists outside of Time, such that all moments in time for us are one eternal moment to Him. At the moment of Creation from our perspective, God not only created but brought to its teleological conclusion everything. So no, no changes in the plan. The "plan," like God, is.

I also posted for my debating partner the essay on the Trap of Heaven and Hell, since she seemed to have a rather dichotomous view of the subject, as did others present, to which she replied:

"This brings up an interesting question."

I enjoy interesting questions. :-)

"If God were evil would you follow Him?"

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense. The word "God" has a specific meaning in philosophical and theological discussion, which is what we're having. It refers to that Being whose essence is equal to its own existence, and nothing else. If I'm right that existence is good, then this being logically cannot be evil. Asking a hypothetical question that entails a logical contradiction is meaningless and can't be answered legitimately.

For God to be evil, existence would have to be evil, and then I would be logically brought to suicide or whatever means I could think of to terminate my existence, beyond my abilities as I may know it to be.

"That's not true, martyrdom is much older than Christianity and is seen throughout history in many religions including Islam, Bahá'í, Sikhism, etc."

Islam, Baha'i and Sikhism are not only younger than Christianity, but greatly influenced by Christianity. Islam is a resurgence of the Arian heresy mixed with elements of Arabic paganism. Sikhism is a movement from the 16th Century in India that coincidentally (or not so much) arose out of a region that had both Christian missionary influences and Islamic aggression. If you study its teachings, you'll see quite a few adaptations towards the Christian/Islamic position. And Baha'i is even younger as I understand it, and is yet another syncretic religion. Hardly examples which demonstrate your desired point.

Now, martyrdom is, indeed, older than Christianity. People were willing to die for causes, certainly.

But you've missed two key points. First, is that I am talking about joyous martyrdoms. IE people who were happy to be brutally murdered, and for the reason of the love they had for God. Second, is that I'm referring specifically to a comparison with the Roman religion(s).

It is completely true that Christians were happy to be made into human candles for God, something that the Romans did not understand, as they had no notion of it within their own religion. Name the glorious martyrs for Jupiter, why don't you? Or the martyrs to Diana and Apollo among the Greeks? Where are the martyrs for Moloch, all we have for him are murders.

If you can provide evidence of a history and tradition of joyous martyrdom among pagan religious traditions prior to Christianity, I'd be happy to examine it. But as far as I'm aware, such a tradition doesn't exist. The closest I expect you'd get is Judaism.