I believe there were three elements in the discussion that was dismissed as "chit-chat" and deleted. I believe it was done, not because of triviality, but out of fear because it could not be refuted and thus must be suppressed. They are essentials of belief, whether one is Muslim or Christian, or they are wrong and are therefore worth repeating until responded to properly. But it is evil to dismiss them as "chit-chat".
First, is my assertion that for Paradise to be permanent, one must be elevated to God-like perfection. I asked, is it possible for one in Paradise to rebel against God, as Satan was and did? If it is possible, then how could God make an unqualified and unconditional guarantee of eternity in Paradise to believers? The Christian has an explanation for this future perfection. The Muslim does not. I answered this paradox from the Bible with two passages, which Christians do not fear putting in English and which I shall repeat again:
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
1 Corinthians 15:52-54
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
The Muslim says, "God has no son.", and "God is not like His creation.". They say they believe in all the prophets and back-date Islam another 4500+ years to Adam and then they dismiss or contradict most of what they said and did, thus making them irrelevant. It is their right to do so, choosing to believe a more perfect revelation. But that does not absolve one of answering logic with something better than cowardly suppression, evasion or vain repetitions.
The second issue tied directly into the previous discussion of whether a concept has an eternal existence independent of creation. I commented that the greek philosophers, such as Plato, had as the basis of much of their philosophy that there is a perfect ideal of everything and then there is a creation that imitates, but does not equal or live up to the ideal. That ideal is in the mind of God, who knows all, whether or not anyone ever thinks of it, the thoughts of man being part of creation. Good and evil are among those ideals when spoken of as absolutes, even if noone can accurately describe them.
The final issue was the philosophical issue of whether 'God can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it.' My answer was that the question was contradictory and pitted God against God. I compared it to who would win if God played baseball against Himself (ties going to the runner by rule.) It is also similar to the conundrum of the irresistable force against the immovable object. They are one and the same since the object would have to be possessed of infinite inertia (a force) or be able to react oppositely, instantaneously with the same irresisable force. This is less of a religious question than a play of language. Evenstar had a different insight and opinion on this matter, which I respected.
This time I have saved a copy, so at least I will not have to retype it again. :utp1
