The Poverty of Wealth

"But what if the parents are poor and they start having to many kids isn't that unfair to the children."

Ok, there are a lot of fundamental issues involved in this question/statement, so it's difficult to know where to begin. I think I'll have to start by asking what is a greater poverty, lack of material possessions, or lack of selfless love and giving of life?

Before we can address the issue of fairness, we have to address this issue concerning the true nature of poverty. Westerners, and particularly Americans, live in the most powerful, affluent, decadent society ever created by Mankind. Only the Roman Empire could compete in terms of relative affluence, and I'd say the average American has vastly more than the average Roman ever did in terms of material wealth. And yet, the vast majority of human history has been dominated by societies which are poorer than American society, while the families within those societies consistently had far more children than industrialized and wealthy nations today have. That's right, the poorest epochs of human history have also involved larger families.

The reasons for this are numerous, and here are some basic utilitarian ones. Agrarian societies that have a more vibrant farm and rural life tend to need more children for the extra hands to man the farm. Early industrial societies likewise involve families flocking to cities and needing more money, so children with income potential were a boon to any family trying to survive in this new environment. Not to mention the fact that while contraceptives and abortions still occurred, they were nowhere near the norm they are at today.

The fact remains that despite poverty, families have historically been able to have more than one or two children, in fact greater numbers of children often was an aid to the family, not a problem. It's only relatively recent child labor laws that have altered that in many respects, and the artificial construct of a "childhood" in the modern world which never existed before. By this I mean that children were only children for a short while, the things people now write off as childish behavior in teenagers being acceptable would never have been two hundred years ago, let alone two thousand years ago. Human persons have the ability to live adult lives much earlier than they now are expected to, now they are expected to be immature and hedonistic for at least 20 years before they grow up. Which of course feeds into the problem, which is not poverty, it's selfishness.

The reason the richest societies in the world have stopped having children isn't because they can't afford them. This is a myth perpetuated by those who would rather not face the truth. And the truth is that these societies have become more enamored of material wealth and possessions than they have of family and children. The question people ask themselves, and the excuse they rationalize to allow for their behavior is whether they can afford to have children and maintain the same level of pure selfish materialism that they have enjoyed prior to having children. Families used to exist and function just fine with half a dozen kids and their parents living in two room homes. Now mansions are virtually empty and devoid of life because the people who live in them cannot sacrifice their comforts for children, or they have one "designer baby," and stop there, spoiling their child rotten and condemning that child to the same expected level of wealth.

We have constructed a world in which material wealth is all that matters, and having children gets in the way of amassing more of it. Children mean sacrifice, they mean loving someone more than you love the things in your life, the luxuries and pleasures. And children, as joyous and pleasurable as they are can also be big, messy pains. They break things, they keep you up at night, they get sick and require you to stay home, etc. The converse, in a world where contraceptives and abortions are plentiful is far more attractive to people used to living in perpetual pleasure and wealth. So they do. And in so doing they've created a new poverty, a poverty that involves the loss of one of the greatest joys of existence, which is sharing in the Creator's joy, and self giving in love. The real question we need to start asking ourselves is not whether we can afford to have kids, it's whether we can afford NOT to.

Now, there was a concern in your question addressing the subject of fairness. The fundamental problem with any question of the fairness of a given action is that fairness itself is non-existent. The belief in something being fair is based on a human sense of entitlement to a given thing or action. If we believe ourselves entitled to something, and yet we do not receive it, we believe ourselves victims of unfairness. The fact of the matter, however, is that upon examination it must be admitted that humans are entitled to virtually nothing in this life. Our very existence is, if one is a theist, a GIFT from God, not an entitlement. And even if one is an atheist, it still has to be admitted that our existence can be nothing more than accident, it is certainly not something we are entitled to. So what does fairness really mean, since it cannot mean we're entitled to something?

If it is to mean anything valuable at all, fairness must refer to whether something is Just or not. Which means that having children is probably not part of it to begin with. God, who is Just, has blessed human kind and desires us to be fruitful and multiply and share in the ability to give life and create. Anyone making the argument that giving the highest good is unjust is going to have a difficult time.

So when you ask whether it would be somehow unfair to children whose parents have lots of children as opposed to a few, even when they are poor and cannot provide all the material comforts of modern Western society, I have to say no. Children, indeed human beings, are not entitled to material comfort, and the act of procreation is in fact giving someone the great gift of existence, the highest good there is. Therefore, it certainly cannot be said to be unfair to the child or children born into a large, poor family. If anything, I'd be more worried about the children born to wealthy parents who are not taught the joys of family life, of the value of large families and sharing in Creation with God. They are the ones most likely to grow up spoiled, selfish, and weak. Children who live lives with the great wealth of a strong, vibrant family, seem far likelier to be less spoiled, less worried about material things, more interested in the value of family, etc. They're vastly more lucky than those born into the poverty of materialism.

On Natural Family Planning

"What exactly is Natural Family Planning and how is that better than using the above [contraception]."

Natural family planning, in basic terms, is a means of spacing out the birth of children using methods that are natural instead of artificial, part of our sexual reproductive nature, more respectful of our human persons, open to life consistently and involves a higher discipline and love. I would say it is better for all of the above, and this is why:

When I say that the methods are natural, instead of artificial, I mean that there is nothing involved in the process save the married couple themselves. Nothing foreign is inserted into the relationship to try and keep procreation from occurring. No pills, no condoms, no surgeries, no spermicides, etc. Nothing artificial comes between the two people, no barriers are present, no forced with-holding during the sexual act occurs. Natural family planning also does not follow a mere calendar in regards to a woman's fertility, it's not like you have sex during two weeks of the month and you don't have sex the other two weeks, which would be a fairly faulty system.

What it does involve is both the husband and the wife learning a lot more about their bodies and their reproductive nature, and working with each other instead of just erecting barriers between themselves. Natural Family Planning simply will not work if there is a lack of respect between a couple, or a lack of closeness or interest. It will not work with a lazy love. Instead, the couple must both actively study their bodies and know when they are most fertile and least fertile, using means that are scientifically proven and again natural, like the quality of vaginal mucus. I have heard that learning and following the NFP system brings husbands and wives closer together, and I believe it. It involves a far greater degree of mutual understanding than any artificial form of birth control.

NFP also involves the practice of abstinence, instead of barriers or other artificial contraceptives. So during those periods when use of NFP methods has brought the couple to be aware that they would be most likely to conceive, they abstain from sexual intercourse. This is where a lot of people have a problem with NFP, they do not want to abstain. But abstinence as a sacrifice for the person you love has a lot of merit, any sacrifice for love does. It shows a depth of commitment, and a strong will for the other's good. This is also, by the way, part of the reason why the Church only allows for the practice of NFP when the couple has grave reasons for not wanting to have a child at that time, like a true lack of the resources to provide for him or her. It's only a sacrifice for the other's good if selfish motivations are not present.

Abstinence also promotes more interior discipline, something necessary to every Christian's spiritual life. Discipline better enables us to accept the sufferings of this life that Christ has promised us, and also aids us in performing charity even when our natural inclination or feelings try to steer us away from it. Practices which promote interior discipline (discipline of our inner lives and selves, as opposed to our superficial lives) should never be shied from, and we should always examine what makes us uncomfortable when we come face to face with them and wish to not follow them. Christianity does not, after all, promise an easy life, or one free of trials and pain. Discipline is part of our defense in these instances. If we are shying away from it, we must wonder why, and how we will persist in difficult times if we cannot make sacrifices now.

This is in basic terms how it comprises part of our sexual nature. A woman's period of fertility has certain indicators and lasts a certain amount of time, and the time a man's sperm will remain viable in the uterus also lasts a certain amount of time. As human persons, we have the will to abstain or to have sex, we have a choice. We are not merely animals following rote instinct. Our sexual nature is part of our human nature, and thus intimately connected to our wills, and so to love, our will to bring good.

NFP unites all of these factors through closer union and understanding of each other's sexuality, the practice of abstinence when a woman is more fertile, and closer union in love making when she is less fertile. It takes our sexual nature, and instead of denying it, or separating an aspect, or trying to change it, which all natural contraceptives attempt to do, it embraces them and works within their boundaries. Thus NFP never completely closes the act of love making to the possibility and potential for life. God is never barred, nothing is ever denied by barriers or a refusal to give part of one's self. The system is admittedly not "perfect" as a result, the successful practice of NFP means about a 97% chance of not conceiving, and this perceived imperfection to those who would rather practice artificial forms of conception is actually a sign of its perception to those of us who understand and admit that sexuality is first and foremost about pro-creation, about human beings joining God in the Creative act of new life. We would not deny it, and we proudly admit that NFP is always open to this process. That's really its best point, and why it is acceptable practice at all.

Hopefully that answered your question a bit more fully.

On Contraception

Mr. DeMers has passed along some more questions for me that I will attempt to answer. I intend to answer in a one post to one question ratio, so things don't get too long winded or out of control.

"Why won't the church let married couples use condoms or use birth control."

For a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that condoms and other artificial means of birth control attempt to remove the pro-creative aspect from the sexual act, and also prevent the couple from truly giving themselves to each other in the intimacy of love making.

If we understand existence to be good, and things which enrich or aid existence to also be good, then we have to admit that sex, which allows human people to bring new life into the world, and life facilitates existence in a material universe, is positively awesome. Sex is an extraordinary and amazing good. This, however, doesn't mean that it is always good or that it is always used well, as it was meant to be. Sex, like all other goods, can be abused and mistreated, which deprives it of some facet of the good it is supposed to have. That's evil. The deprivation of a good it should have had.

Condoms and other forms of artificial birth control are sinful primarily because of this deprivation of the good of reproduction. If the Church is right when it teaches that existence and life are good things, then the Church by extension must teach that the sexual act, which has procreation as its first purpose and its highest good, must be open to that good always. Otherwise, what we are doing when we have sex is taking sex and depriving it of its purpose and its good. We're abusing it, most likely just to get pleasure out of it, which is a disordered understanding of the act itself.

The sexual act in the Church's teaching is also an act of perfect self-giving. A husband and a wife are supposed to be giving themselves completely to each other in love, and the sexual act is a physical expression of that. That is why unity is its second purpose, sex is meant to bring and hold a married couple in close congress and union. Human persons were always meant to exist as both spiritual and physical beings, that is the nature of our soul, of our existence. The sexual act is an act of union that is both physical and spiritual, and involves (or should involve) the whole person, not a mere piece or portion of them. Anything less is the essence of objectification. You are taking a human person and objectifying them, using them for your gratification, and reducing them to one piece or portion of the whole that they are to do so.

The conscious decision to use an artificial contraceptive means that one or both of the couple is consciously deciding to hold back a part of themselves, the reproductive part. Since sex is meant to be a union of the WHOLE person to another WHOLE person, voluntarily through love, any with-holding is a rejection of that union. Artificial contraceptives bring people to say, "I love you only enough to use you for my sexual pleasure, but not enough to truly give you my whole self, my whole being." It isn't love, in effect. It's use, which is more truly mis-use, and becomes abuse because it's mis-use of something which should never be mis-used.

Love is the willing of good for another before yourself. The usage of such contraceptives mean that the will of one or both persons is not for the good of the other, their relationship or their future child (they certainly aren't willing for good there, since they're attempting to deny that person the chance to exist, the basis of all goodness).

And these are the primary reasons why the Church does not and cannot allow the usage of artificial forms of birth control. As I said, it's not necessarily limited to this, but they're the most important reasons, others include the fact that many artificial forms of birth control involve an actual, physical barrier being placed between you and your partner, which is a direct rejection of true union. As well as the idea that we need to "protect" ourselves from what is supposed to be an act of love.

A Question on Satan

Having not posted in ages, I figured that it would be a great time to start up again when I got this excellent question from an acquaintance who has written in before, a Mr. DeMers. Sorry to those with questions or comments I hadn't seen because I had been inactive, I'll attend to them soon.

Why did God create Satan/Lucifer to begin with if God knew he would rebel and usher in a rebellion in heaven and tempt and bring sin to mankind? I understand the free will bit. But couldn't God of avoided it altogether since he is all knowing. By creating those who would not rebel since he knows they won't. It almost seems unfair to say "Oh you have free will, but if your not on my side you get sent to everlasting torture in hell and I'm speaking for angels and mankind alike. See we can't say God didn't know Lucifer would rebel because I'm sure as Catholics we believe God knows the future. Anyway if you have time to respond that be great, because the free will, all knowing, always present, throws me off sometimes and answer to this would really help me grow in my faith. I also get asked this question and I think I get kind of a warped logic about that God Simply IS and you cannot be seperate from God because he simply is Life. So if you rebel against Life/Light/Love itself you damn yourself away from his presence which is all of the above. That's the closest answer I've got for myself but I"m not to sure of it. Could you help me out?

You're very close to the answer, so you've done quite well so far I'd say. This is a difficult question for a lot of people, you're not the only one who has struggled with it (as I'm sure you've realized from people asking you about it).

Let's start with a basic issue. Putting aside whether God knows everything about what we would subjectively perceive as the future, and putting aside HOW He knows, which is vastly more important to the present question, let us assume that He knows Satan (his name is not really Lucifer, he certainly is not the bringer of light) will rebel.

You say you understand the free will bit, but if you truly understood it, why would you expect God to avoid it? Were God to only create those who would not rebel, He is in fact not allowing for free will, but actively stopping those who would exercise that freedom to err from being.

Remember that God really IS, that God's essence is existence itself, and that existence is GOOD. You're on course when you note that you cannot exist without God, the entirety of the universe, everything that is, including Satan, can only exist because God wills for it to exist. And willing for existence, willing for that good of existence, this is Love. Love is willing for the good of another, no matter the cost to one's self. And willing means choice and action, not mere desire. It's not that God just wants good for others, it is that God is actively pursuing and creating good for others, He's even creating the others.

Asking God to avoid creating beings, period, is going to run into problems because it is contrary to this fundamental aspect of His nature. And asking God to avoid creating creatures with genuine, real freedom of choice is asking God to create creatures who cannot will to love Him. Remember that the entire point of Creation is to give us, the Created, a chance to love God, to will for His good, no matter the cost to ourselves, and thus have a relationship with Him, as He wills good for us. If God never gives anyone who rebels a chance, well Kasie, you wouldn't be around. Nor would I. We would never have the chance either.

Of course, you and I are a bit different, after all, we can repent, we can change our minds.

Satan, however, cannot change his mind. Angelic reason is perfected to the point that an angel cannot change his mind, he has already completely and perfectly considered his course of action and its consequences prior to making it. And angels are beings that exist outside of our understanding of time, thus not really giving them time to reconsider or change their course of action. Satan's rebellion then, has no hope of repentance, Satan has chosen, has willed, and will never, ever change his mind.

Should God then have prevented this by not creating him? By not willing for Satan's good? God would not be God in such a case. The problem of evil, the problems of evil, are not remedied by a denial of love in any aspect, not the creative, not the redemptive, not the active. God created, creating is good and part of God's nature, do not ask that He stop. Satan rebelled, and God knew he would. Satan cannot be redeemed because he cannot repent and return to God, but this does not mean that no good can come from him.

God's omnipotence, if it means anything, means that He can turn even evil into good, and this is shown to us most plainly in the Passion of Christ. We can never consider murder, torture, betrayal, abandonment and the other sins of the Passion to be good things. They are all objectively evil acts perpetrated against Christ, in some cases by people who were among His closest and best friends. Yet look at their result. Because of these evils, the greatest good in human history blossomed, and salvation became possible for humanity, and true freedom, which we had not known since the Fall. Christ's murder resulted in our redemption. Christ's obedience to the Father to submit to sinful actions resulted in our chance to obey the Father and break the bondage of sin.

The Passion was Satan's great triumph, it was the leading of Man to reject God yet again, to murder Him, to seek His death, just as he had lured us to seek our deaths in the Garden. The Resurrection is the ultimate end of every triumph of Satan, through death to life, through evil to good, through deception to truth. So it will always be for those who let God into their lives. The Enemy will never win.

As for damnation, let us not pretend that God is damning anyone. God does not damn. We damn. We choose whether we wish to be with God or not in our lives by doing the things we do. If we live a life which radiates love and is filled with Grace because we will for God and communion with Him, then we're choosing Heaven. If we live a life which does not radiate this love, and rejects God because we will for our own desires and pleasures and not for God, then we're choosing to reject Him. In rejecting Him, we reject His good, and His offer of salvation, and thus we demand Hell for ourselves, and it really is a demand. God offers, over and over again, to let us come home, to forgive and heal and love. And we, rather like children, demand to have our own way. Well, the ultimate end and challenge of true freedom in the name of love is that we have to be willing to let people make choices. That's why we cannot just seek to prevent their choices because we know their choices will be wrong. That's not true freedom, and thus it is not true love, love cannot be forced.

It's wholly inaccurate to cast God as the petulant child who stamps His feet and sends us to torment and horrors unspeakable because we won't be His friend. We are the spoiled ones, we're the ones who are obsessed with our addictions, our desires, our whims, even when we're aware that they're not good for us at all, and not good for others either. We're the ones who don't give a damn, and don't care about each other. We're the selfish ones, the petulant ones, the whiny ones. Look around you and you'll see it.

And yet God has given us the chance to be, to live, to know the sheer glory that is life, even in this Fallen state. Would you truly ask Him to rescind such good for any being?

An Open Letter to the Church

It's a lonely walk to salvation, or so it seems. Wide and easy is the path to Hell, both in Scripture, and in observation of the world. Many are on their way to Death. And so few seem to walk the path to Life. Something has been missing in recent years even among those who, on the face of it, walk that path. A recent Pope said that what each parish needs is a committed group of orthodox, lay parishioners who would take up a core, leadership role in their communities. I don't know that each parish has this. I know that my parish has it, and still the Church seems weak, unable to accomplish the mission required of her.

I decided this day to ask certain people whom I love in a way new and mysterious to me to walk with me on the road to salvation. It occurred to me that I, despite thinking in the communal terms familiar to Catholics, still primarily viewed my salvation as precisely that. My salvation. I saw salvation as an individual affair. Not to the same degree as so many Protestants seem to, but still to the point where I realized that I was still alone, even when I should have been encompassed. At this I marveled, because I have lately found myself in awe that in my life I know such Saints as I do, slowly suffering martyrs for God and those they encounter. I do not jest when I say that I am surrounded by people whom I can actively see God turning into His next generation of the Elect. Right before my very eyes, though often they cannot or do not see it. Compared to them I count as almost nothing, but each one is like a tiny beacon burning brightly, but alone, in a barren landscape. They talk with me of the encounters they have with others, how people they don't even know come to them with thanks and praise for the hope and guidance they have given.

Why do they walk alone? Why do they shine alone? Why do they speak with me, a man far removed from their lives and situations? Why do others even more removed turn to them for guidance? Why, in rare instances, do they even turn to me?

Where are the people in their lives who are dedicated to walking the path to salvation with them? Not just those who are dedicated to Sainthood, but those who have made a committed effort to joining them in the struggle, so as to have partners and friends, confidants and comrades, a living community of Saints to blaze like the sun instead of scattered stars. They would illuminate the world with their brilliance and draw others to them like moths. Imagine a world where every parish had an ever growing community of such Saints, men and women wholly dedicated to serving God together, as real friends and family, as opposed to the mere distant politeness we observe today in the average parish? I myself am no less guilty, of the most orthodox families and people in my parish, I have met only a few, am friendly with only a handful of individuals, and find myself while polite, still quite distant, from those who should be my greatest allies, people who come up to me after Mass or catechesis to ask me questions, or compliment me (generally quite undeservingly) on a lesson or discussion.

These people should be my allies, there, I have struck the very core. They should be but they aren't, I don't pray with them save in the Mass, I don't know them, speak with them often, know about their families and their individual struggles. Likewise they know nothing of mine. We're politely distant individuals walking the loneliest road to the same place. Why don't we help each other along?

We all feel the need for such aid, in truth. That's the exact reason why people do approach these friends of mine who are living Saints, why some even approach me, weak alternative though I am. People need, instinctively, this aid in their lives. People need to walk the path to God communally, and that means reaching out to others on that path to join together. Consider, however, the methods. Most of these Saints I know from Internet apologetics. They are an entire generation which has learned to seek community not just in their neighborhoods and parishes, but across the globe. Where are the people in their lives who should be providing for them hope, counsel, and succor in spiritual darkness, when the path grows too dim to see? Why are they turning to the anonymity of cyber-space, to complete strangers? Thank God for the weary, happy few who encounter living Saints. Pray to God for the salvation of the deluded many who encounter the charlatans, crack pots and veritable demons of our age, as they prowl about seeking the ruin of souls.

What the world needs, what we need is not just committed groups of lay Catholics in the parishes, it is bringing those running the race to the same course, and letting them chase together the prize, encouraging and instructing each other along the way. We need to stop standing as islands of piety in an ocean of secularism, or fonts of charity in a desert of greed. Instead, we must transform our parishes into cities of God, with each citizen feeling connected to the whole, looking out for the good of the others as well as themselves, that when one stumbles or falls, there are hands ready and waiting to pick him or her up.

The barriers to this transformation are many. The rapid disintegration of the family, which was once the backbone of such a community. The ever decreasing amount of civic society and expanding trends in solitary entertainment as opposed to social connections. The expanding tramp of the work place into the sacred spheres of home and church and family. The cries in crescendo of consumerism, capitalism, even communism and all the other chants of the modern world vie for our attention and distract us from both the path to sanctity and relationships with others. The Internet, which has proven itself a formidable tool in both evangelism and apologetics has also lent itself to the growing lack of connection with real people in a real environment. The importance of basic, local human connections; the value of a well-timed hug or smile; and forthright, person-to-person conversation about who and what truly matters simply cannot be understated. We have less and less of it. Yes, in our digital era, information goes farther and faster, at the cost of all human warmth, familiarity and with the increasing danger of viewing people not as people, but as disembodied voices on which we can vent ourselves without qualm.

These problems, however, are not insurmountable. Starting first with the people we love, and expanding ever outwards so that our love encompasses everyone willing to shelter within it, those of us with both eyes on the coveted crown need to begin building these communities. Like the first monks, we need to find those of like mind, and walk together, work together and will together. It really is that simple, and it truly can be done. As today's Gospel illustrated, even from a seed as tiny as that of the mustard tree, a wonderful bounty can grow. Even from a bare amount of yeast, much dough can be leaven. We are called to this task, to the revitalization of the community of Saints, to the fruition of the Kingdom. Beginning today, I will seek God not alone, but in company. In the fellowship not only of the Communion of Saints in Heaven, but of those on Earth. Never again in the impersonal and immaterial way of this world, or in my previous and shallow understanding of the Church family, but in the way of the Church Triumphant to which we aspire. Together we Rise.

The Creation Myths and Evolution

While I've addressed the Creation myths in earlier posts on this blog, I've been queried specifically as to how in particular one can understand the accounts to be mythical, and where the line is drawn with regard to those myths and the historical narratives found elsewhere in the Old Testament. And the corollary to this issue being the question of how evolution and Creation can possibly co-exist.

In addressing the first issue, we have to understand the historical context of the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis is not a single book. Think of it as a microcosm of the Bible itself. While we call the Bible, the "Book" essentially, we all know and understand that it's made up of dozens of books from various times and places, and with varied influences and styles of literature. It even involves different original languages for its different texts (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic). We know, therefore, that approaching the Bible as a monolithic work is a flawed basis for any sort of exegesis. Proper hermeneutics really begins with a grounding in the historical context of the work in question. The "Book" of Genesis leaves us with a similar issue. Unlike many of the other Books of the Bible, it doesn't exist as a whole piece of literature written for a specific purpose. For example, Exodus was written to relate the details of the escape of the Hebrew people from the Egyptians and their subsequent trials in the desert, etc. Leviticus and Deuteronomy tend to focus on the legal and societal regulations for the Hebrews. The later books tell the history of the Hebrew state, and show its frequent apostosization and repentance through the eyes of the prophets, and then its eventual destruction. Genesis, however, does not confine itself to one story, one pair of eyes, one main character or even one segment of a story. It's not just the story of Abraham, as Exodus was really the story of Moses, and it's not the story of Adam, even while Adam's lament is more potent than Isaiah's. Like the Bible, Genesis tells several stories, through the mouths of several authors and voices.

Historically, Genesis was written at a later date than the rest of the Pentateuch. But the stories of Genesis are much older even than Exodus. Genesis is essentially the written compilation of an oral tradition that stretched back not only thousands of years to Abraham, but to the dawn of the human collective memory with "Adam" whose name is not only "dust" but also "Mankind," and Eve, who is the Mother of the World. Which is precisely wherein we can see and draw the line between the portions of Genesis that comprise myths of the Hebrews, and those parts which are more historical narration, and we can see in the Hebrew psychology the very necessary connection between them.

Before proceeding, we have to understand what myths are, and what they are not. Myths are stories designed to relate a truth or truths to the audience. They are most often used to explain natural phenomena or unexplainable events. They may be and often are based on historical persons or events, but they do not have to be. They generally refer to the past. They are not lies, they are not history, they are not scientific accounts. They do not relate scientific facts. They are not textbooks.

To fully appreciate this, we have to understand the difference between facts and truth. A fact, for the purpose of our discussion here, is a thing which is demonstrably and verifiably, particularly through science, to be true. It is a fact that apples fall from trees in our experience, it is a fact that Evan is writing this article, it is a fact that water is a molecule comprised of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. All facts are true. But not all truths are facts. I claim that it is true that there was an event in primordial antiquity wherein the whole of humanity as represented by its progenitors "Adam" and "Eve" Fell from Grace with God and into the imperfection we know today. But I do not claim that the names "Adam" and "Eve" were the factual, ie actual, names of those progenitors. The names are, as already noted, as symbolic as they are anything else, for all of humanity at its beginnings. Nor will I claim it factual that the first sin was the eating of a particular fruit, nor that there was necessarily a talking serpent, even while it is true that the first sin was one of disobedience and a desire to be like unto God, and the first temptation had at its root Satan, who is the oldest pretender to that particular throne. I claim that it is true that God imbued humanity with a unique spirit, creating a soul which is a commingling of the material and the spiritual such that we can never be complete as either one alone. But I will not say it is a fact that we were molded out of clay. These are examples of the truths taught by the Creation myths that cannot be treated as factual stories or claims.

So how do we know where the line is drawn between history and myth? It is simple. The Book of Genesis relates multiple stories, the figures in which are either easily identifiable as mythic in proportion and stature, or historical. Abraham, for instance, is an historic figure. We know that when Abraham's story begins, we're dealing with a narrative of the history of the Hebrew people. We also know that Adam and Eve's story exists particularly to explain certain truths understood by the Hebrews (the Fall, the Soul, etc.) while not being necessarily entirely factual. So what about the materials in between Adam and Abraham, and the persistent geneologies presented that would seem to indicate factual history?

The Hebrew people placed a tremendous importance on family, and upon lines of relations and relatives. Part of this importance can be seen in the very first historical Hebrew, Abraham, to whom God promised a family which would have more members than there are stars, while he and his wife were so old as to make natural conception impossible. Complex and all encompassing geneologies were important to the Hebrews in likely many ways, but the way which this author is most confident of is in their ability to link each Hebrew to another Hebrew, and so propogate the belief of their nation as a whole family, fostering a stronger sense of community. Then there is the notion of descent and kinship, particularly in the case of the descendents of David and the promised Messiah. The Prophets knew that the savior of the Jews would come through the line of David, who was the greatest of their Kings. It was important to the Hebrews that their first great King be connected to their last and greatest King, and likewise that David's line should stretch back to Abraham, father of their people, and that Abraham's line should stretch back to Noah, whose line stretches back to Adam and Eve. It's a contiguous union of humanity, and it's the human part which is most important, for the Hebrews, and for Christians now.

Remember the two principle truths of the Creation myths already discussed? The Fall, and the Soul. Both of these things were things common to all humanity, ie all the descendents of Adam and Eve. It is important to have a direct connection, even one that is mythical, with those original humans, both for the purposes of theology concerning Christ's redemptive sacrifice, but also in understanding our own nature as fallen Creatures with unique souls.

The Patriarchs of the Hebrews prior to Abraham are largely mythic persons. In ancient days, these names were related via story telling, not from written records of any factual reliability. This isn't to say it's not true that there's an ancient connection, indeed all current science that I've seen indicates that humanity had a common origin point, it's to say that the names and supposed ages are matters of story and myth. They explain the relationship of the Hebrews to Adam, they explain the Hebrews' place in the world, and particularly for them, their unique relationship with God. Why the Hebrews for all the covenants and promises? If you asked them back then, you'd likely see that they believed their connections to Adam and Eve were part of it, and the stubborn Godliness of their forebears.

A quick note on Hebrew numerology before we continue. Remember that numbers for the Hebrews were not merely means of counting, they were highly symbolic references to other things. Three and seven, for instance, were numbers relating to God. Forty is another powerful number, as is twelve, and of course twelve times twelve, or seven times seven, etc. are even more powerful. They refer to things like God Himself, or God's time, or all of time, and a complex study of them must be taken into account when examining the numbers used in the Bible. The numbers are not always meant to be facts, but they do have hidden truths. Seven days of Creation is not factual, but that doesn't mean the use of the number seven doesn't have particular meaning and importance that is true. So too the numbers of years and ages of the mythical Patriarchs should be taken into account, though I admit I lack the education in Hebrew numerology to tell the meanings and possible interpretations therein.

Thus we come to Noah. Are we still in the mythical portions of Genesis? Noah is major confirmation of this, for his story is yet another story of explanation. Buried in the communal memory of Man is this idea of a Flood as cleansing as Baptism. Particularly it is buried in the minds of Mesopotamia, and is referenced in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian mythic figure who was said to have met the man who survived the Flood. What's the historical context? The Tigris and Euphrates rivers, Mesopotamia, is the ancient cradle of human civilization, and the region from which Abraham and the Hebrews originally hailed. It is an area wherein the yearly flooding of the rivers was both a cause of tragic death, and the means by which the river plains were saturated with nutrients allowing farmers to bring about crops and keep the population sustained and even growing. Floods were conceivably and quite justifiably the perfect symbol of death and rebirth to those people, and the story of Noah not only explains the horrors of the great Flood which cleansed the Earth and gave Man a second chance, but also grants the hope of God's promise that floods would never again destroy Man. A promise very much needed by those peoples.

Not only that, of course, but we can see in Adam, and in Noah, and in many other Patriarchs of the Hebrews some reflection of Christ, who was the new Adam, Christ who saved Humanity from an even greater peril and turned the waters from destruction to salvation, etc.

And finally we come to Genesis 11, the story of Babel. Still myth? Well, is it a story which attempts to explain some natural riddle or event which was not otherwise understandable? Yes. It does. Placing oneself into the Hebrew family at the time of the telling of such stories, one of the first questions might be why it is that people, if all are descended from Noah in a fairly short stretch of time, have so many differing languages and customs. Remember that the Hebrews were often a people apart, and would encounter many other nomadic and settled peoples in the Mesopotamian region. Every area would have different customs and languages. Why so different? The story of the Tower of Babel attempts to explain the sundering of Mankind into so many confused and distinct fiefdoms. Does it do so factually? No. We can all likely agree that no tower could ever threaten to enter the actual Heaven, and certainly we could never actually threaten God. But is it true? Is it at all conceivable that humans had the arrogance in the depths of our past when we all lived closer together to challenge God, or that human pride encompassed trying to build massive monuments to our own glory, and so we estranged ourselves from our brothers? Why yes, I do believe these are quite conceivable. In fact, I'd say the past is riddled with examples of human leaders mad with their own legends and building massive monuments to themselves. The Pyramids, the gardens of Babylon, the tomb of the first Chinese Emperor, Chiang Shi Huang (might have mis-spelled that one), etc.

And so chapter eleven closes with more geneologies, linking up humanity's scattered remains with one particular man. A man named Abram. And at that point we not only see that we're no longer working with stories designed to explain problems and answer questions, but that we're looking at a fairly detailed historical description of one man's life, family and covenant. The style of writing changes, the voice of the author changes, the length and details of the narrative itself become longer and more in depth. There's a marked change in literary style between chapter eleven and chapter twelve, and that's not even getting into the theological distinctions of the small stories versus the main story of the age.

Now, as already mentioned, the corollary to all this is the question of Evolution and Creation, and how the two can possibly co-exist. When understanding the Creation accounts as myths, it is possible to be both a Christian who believes that God created everything, and also an Evolutionist who believes that the current theory of evolution offers the most reasonable and simple scientific solution to the specification of life. Science doesn't contradict Genesis, nor Genesis science, because the myths in Genesis, like all myths, were never meant to relate scientific facts. They relate truths, principally spiritual truths about our relationship with God. There is no reason why God, who is outside of time, could not or would not create slowly as compared with quickly. In fact, there's a great deal to be said for God allowing the universe to develop based on a rational scheme, simply because He Himself is Rational, and created us to be rational and wants us to understand His Creation to the best of our abilities.

The only major caveats to understanding the co-existence of Evolution and Creation are in the two principle truths already discussed. We must admit, as Christians, that humans are specially created souls, ie that they are physical entities commingled with a unique spirit given from God, and that our Creation was the highest of God's Creation, that we are Stewards of the whole Earth. This is something that science, necessarily, cannot comment on. Science can no more measure the soul than it can offer moral or philosophical comments on whether we are "higher" or "better" than anything else. And we must admit as Christians that as those special Creations of God, we chose to reject Him and so Fell and changed the world. What the world was like before that Fall, we have only glimpses and dreams to tell us, and one ancient story. What it is like afterwards, we have all of modern science and religion to describe.

"Why did Jesus have to die and why is it so meaningful?"

(Click the title to see the original Facebook thread this is from. There may be contextual issues of understanding and references that do not make sense otherwise. I will attempt a long version at some point so that such points become moot, but for now, enjoy!)

As promised, I'm going to attempt to answer this for you. It's something I've written on several times, each time adding a bit more as I understood more, so I should be able to give you a fair amount. My only concern is length. I could write, if not a whole book, then a decent sized chapter in a book, on this very question. My purpose here will be to give you a basic overview in Christian philosophical and theological understanding of these issues, so that you can lay the groundwork for understanding the details, should you choose to go into them further.

As Pamela has already begun with the notion that God meant for man to be happy, I will begin there as well, for continuity's sake, if nothing else.

And to do that, I'll have to address some differences between what we mean when we say, "happy" as opposed to what is commonly understood by happiness. Christians understand happiness to be the teleological end of Man, in that Man's nature and purpose is happiness, and that happiness is achieved through communion with God, who made Man, in a loving relationship. Happiness to Christian theology is NOT an emotion, nor is it related to pleasure and suffering, the two emotions most commonly related to it.

Which is why Bob would object that if we're meant to be happy, why is there suffering, while Pamela would respond that plenty of suffering people have been happy. Both are responding with equally valid points given their world views. The issue is that they see the world so differently that they will talk right past each other.

Bob's objection, however, is the one that most concerns us, because it's the most relevant to Christ's sacrifice, and thus to YOUR questions. Why is there so much suffering on Earth if we were meant to be happy, and presumably that pleasure would be a part of that (which is hardly an unsafe assumption, all things considered)?

The Christian response is that Adam and Eve, who are not only the first two humans, but also representatives of all of humanity (even in the ancient Hebrew, the word Adam means simultaneously "dust" and "Mankind," while Eve means, "Mother of Nations"). The characters in the second Creation myth are to be understood not only as two actual people (though all the events may not have happened literally, as they are myths) but even more importantly as the entirety of humanity. And the point of the story, more than anything else, is that humanity fell.

The Christian belief is that humans were created completely and totally good, and that there was no sin in the created world. The Christian belief is STILL that humans and all created things are baseline good, something we will return to shortly. The Fall, without getting into too much detail, was the result of humans choosing through their own wills to go against God's will, and this is often described to have occurred through pride and a desire to be independent, as well as temptation from the Devil, ha-satannah. Prior to the Fall, the Earth was perfect. No suffering, no spiritual death (damnation), not even physical death. No natural disasters, no calamities, etc.

The Fall is considered an event which is atemporal. In other words, while it occurred within the flow of time, its consequences were felt both before it and after it, in such a way as to distort reality itself. Pam offered a computer program analogy, and it really is the best possible one currently for explaining it.

Imagine that a brilliant computer programmer creates a program which is a virtual Eden, and places within it actors who have the ability to affect their program, a la the One in the Matrix, for instance. This is Creation 1.0. The actors within the program who have the ability to alter the program then do something drastically against the original programming of the system.

If the original programming of the system was designed so that these actors and the original programmer could interact in a meaningful way through their mutual assent, then this action on the part of the actors in the program would be something contrary to that programming, such that it alters the entire program. With the alteration of the program, Creation version 2.0, everything changes, and nothing changes, from the perspective of the entities within the program. To their best ability to perceive, the world never changes. When a computer program is changed, like Facebook, for example, the old materials that accumulated before the update don't remain in the old format, they take on the new format. Someone joining Facebook for the first time would never know there was an old format that was over written. Someone using Facebook through the updates would notice the changes, but never be able to go back to the original, and never be able to show others what it was like, because despite the update happening at a finite moment in time, the effects apply to the memory cache and to future usage.

It's the same for us. The Fall "updated" our reality, such that Adam and Eve went from being sinless and living in paradise to living in a world with suffering and disasters, death and disease and corruption of every good thing. And everyone coming after them, coming after the "update" has always and only known the updated version, never the original. And as they look back on history, all they'll ever see is the effects of the update on the original materials, never the original materials as they were supposed to be and once were.

Now, the first question I would ask here is why? Why did the Fall do this, and what was the most important ramification?

So we have Creation 1.0, wherein no one ever dies, everything is perfect, etc. Remember how I said Christian believe humans and everything else is baseline good? That is because Christianity believes that things, ie entities which participate in the act of existence, are good because the act of existing is good. Anything that exists = good. This is largely because all goodness requires that a thing exist in order to apply.

The reason we believe God is Good, is because we conclude that God is the act of existence itself, (the arguments for this I won't go into, as I'm trying to be as brief as I can). Because God is the act of existence itself, we believe that every thing that exists, exists because God wills for it to exist, and that only God could end that existence.

This means that Goodness, for Christianity, entails every thing in the world, and the world itself. Evil, on the other hand, is the negation of goodness. Which means that THINGS are always good, but actions and choices can be good or evil. I can choose to deny something good, for example by taking someone's life, a good thing, and destroying it. That's evil, the act itself. And I am injured by it, but I remain existent and thus baseline good. I can also choose to embrace something good, like having a child, and nurture a new existence, which is good. The act is good, and it's good for me.

Now humans exist, but we're not quite that simple. Christians believe that entities can exist but not be physical, like God and angels and demons. These are entities which exist, yet are not physical. They have no physical life, but still exist. Humans, however, have both an existence, and a physical life.

So we exist in Creation 1.0, and we have physical bodies. Our existence, as I've noted, is solely dependent on God's will. But our lives, as they are not our actual existence, but the, shall we say, manifestation of our existence here, are within our own power. In Creation 1.0, our lives are neither ending nor corrupted by any sickness or problems. We have perfect physical bodies to go with our untainted spirits, and that commingling of body and spirit is what we call the soul, which is the true human nature, spirit and body together.

Back to Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve disobey God. Remember for a moment the elements of the myth: They eat of a tree which has a particular kind of knowledge, knowledge of good and evil, as its fruit, and which they are told they will die if they eat of it. This is a myth, it's not necessary to believe that there was an actual tree or a talking serpent, etc., but the lessons and truths are still intact, even if we don't believe the alleged facts. The truth is that humanity at the very edge of its collective distant memory, passed on a story, even then very old, about how things were once better, and then changed, and that that fall involved disobedience against God, which gave to us a knowledge of good and evil which we didn't have before, and brought the consequence of evil, death, into the world.

What is this knowledge of good and evil? Good question! It's not the ability to morally evaluate something, as some interpret the story, because Adam and Eve in their dialog with the snake clearly seem to know that it isn't right to eat the apple, even if they don't understand why God has commanded it. That knowledge is more likely the experiential knowledge of evil, and the realization of the loss of good that that knowledge would entail necessarily through the eating of the apple they weren't supposed to eat. In other words, it was knowledge of evil because it was the only evil thing they could choose to do, and again, it probably wasn't literally the eating of an apple. The true rebellion was in disobedience, it was in the desire to be "like God," that the snake awoke in humanity, the act itself could have been any number of things.

Why is death the consequence? Death is the consequence because life is the greatest good of humanity which is directly within humanity's power to alter. In other words, the entities in Creation 1.0 have the ability to alter the entire code of the software, they can change anything in the program itself, but they can't change the hardware, and they can't delete the program. So they can destroy their own existence within the program, but only the Programmer can destroy the computer itself and delete the program itself. Which means that humans can deny the second greatest good, life, but that they can never assault their own existence, because their existence is willed for constantly by God, and for Him to remove that willing would be for God to do evil, which He logically cannot do.

Thus God always wills for us to exist, and when we rewrote the program such that all the good things in the world were corrupted, we altered everything that existed save our own basic existence. Life itself ended in death, and everything in the world changed to reflect it, with natural disasters and tragedies, disease, famine, war, etc. Death, like all evils, is not a thing in and of itself, but the negation of a good, life. We have life, a good, and then it ends, because we corrupted the original programming.

Thus we have why the Fall did this, and what it's mosts important ramification was. The Fall did it because disobedience to God, who is the source of Good, thus entailed that all good things in our world came under assault and corruption, and the most important ramification of this is our own loss of immortality.

What we often call this is the fall from Grace, meaning that prior to the Fall, we had a nature which was focused upon Love, selflessly, with God and each other, and afterwards we not only became more selfish with each other, we became selfish towards God, and turned away from Him, so losing His Grace, which helps guide us towards goodness.

That, btw Bob, is why all humans are accountable for Original Sin. It doesn't mean we are all GUILTY of that sin, it means that that sin affected the relationship of the entirety of humanity with God. We became deprived of the Grace we need to have our end in God, and thus happiness in the Christian world view. While we're not individually guilty for that first sin, we are guilty of our own sins, and we've all been a part of that sundered relationship.

Which brings us to Christ. Why do we NEED Christ, and what was so momentous about what He did?

We need Christ to bridge the gap that developed between God and Man, so that Man could return to God and no longer be deprived of God's Grace. This bridging would allow Mankind to once again have its telos fulfilled, we could commune with God in Love, and have that happiness.

Now, Pamela has already touched somewhat on this subject, in that there is an apparent contradiction between mercy and justice.

Humans are still good, remember. We exist, and so are good. But we're deprived of Grace and we do evil things, making our relationship with God antagonistic. And our actions are evil, which means that as a Just entity, God cannot allow them to go without redress. But because we are still good, God still loves us, and desires for us to have our end be with Him. So Justice demands that evil be redressed and addressed, but Mercy pleas that humanity be brought back to God.

As Pamela said, the solution to this is that God Himself must address and redress the grievances of evil in the relationship, since humanity is simply incapable of restoring the relationship and curing itself. And this isn't a "snap the divine fingers, all is forgiven, humans can come home" sort of deal. Justice DEMANDS that the consequence of sin, ie Death, be met, it's the logically necessary effect of the actions we committed. Now, God, being Loving, cannot ask a member of His Creation to die for this, even if one of us were capable in our nature of taking on the consequences of the entirety of our species.

Which leaves God as the one who has to do it. And as Pamela noted, Justice also demands that a HUMAN meet the consequences, as it was humans who entailed them. So God had to become a human to do it.

That is where Christ enters the picture, the God-Man, the being who is 100% God and 100% Man, and so can bridge the gap between humanity and the Divine.

Skipping then a huge amount of material, we will fast forward to the end of Christ's life, and the momentous events of the Passion.

What happens? The God-Man, according to both ancient prophecies of the Hebrew people whom God prepared exactly for the purpose of His eventual coming, and according to His own words and statements, was executed for crimes He didn't commit, in an expression of many of the worst sins we're capable of. He was murdered, plain and simple, the sin in which the consequences of Death are most obviously and keenly realized, and murdered in an exquisitely brutal fashion.

And so Christ, the God-Man, did what He came to Earth in the first place to do, He came to die at the murderous hands of His own Creation. He had to die, He had to die at human hands, and He had to die unjustly, and He used that to His advantage to deliver His final lesson on pain, that we must embrace it to meet God, not flee from it, and thus find our happiness with God. For God Himself suffered horribly, and that is where we will first encounter Him. And that, Bob, brings you full circle. Why is there less happiness and how can Pamela speak of Joy in suffering? Because humans chose for evil and so brought about the corruption of pleasure and the proliferation of suffering, and God Himself embraced suffering so that we might come back to Him.

Christ dies upon the Cross, and His last words are words of forgiveness. And all of Creation 2.0 shudders, the sky goes black, the earth quakes, etc., for the program has literally killed the Programmer. God-Man died and the whole of humanity's sins were laid upon His shoulders in those hours of evil, so that He took upon Himself the punishment of every person who would turn away from Evil and come back to God throughout all of human history, both before and after. For the Passion and the subsequent Resurrection are also events that are timeless. Like the Fall, they rewrote Creation, beginning at the Passion and ending at the Resurrection.

And that's where we answer the final branch of the question. Why is it so meaningful? Not only is it meaningful because Christ takes our sin upon Himself and its consequences, thus allowing us to be re-united with God, but because of what happens AFTER the Death of the God-Man. Remember, Death was the consequence of Human sin, Human rejection of God. Death came into the world through human hands. But the God-Man who died also Rose. Death itself, which had conquered all life and corrupted all physical existence, was conquered in turn by the God-Man, and Creation 2.0 became Creation 3.0, the Earth entered into a new program. And Creation 3.0 existence such that Humanity's will was respect, it's choices remained, and the world yet knew the consequences of human sins, yet humanity could, if it willed to join with God, return to Him and His Good, and know the happiness it was meant for, which would end, ultimately, in the conquest of Death for all those who joined the God-Man, and in the perfection of all that was once perfect and then Fell, the New Earth that will occur after the Last Judgment.

It is meaningful because not only do we now have hope of coming to know God as we never had before (at least from our perspective) but because we also have the hope of a world and an existence as we were meant to have it all along. For humanity was always meant to be both body and spirit, united as I said in the human soul. It is our greatest hope to be united with God and have our spirits with Him united again with the perfected Bodies that were once ours.

And that is the short version, haha.

PS: Another twist in the Justice/Mercy issue is humans doing penance, but we can address that later.

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.