The Great Debate: I am inviting arachnophilia to partake in a one-on-one debate which will be judged by a moderator here.
I maintain that God does not literally make evil -- that evil is the absense of God. I also maintain that God controls the evil that does come about to bring about the maximum good -- and that God knows evil in contrast to good.
I would like to discuss this further as the Spirit allows, especially in relation to the Scriptural passages which apparently contradict this view.
To the best of my knowledge, arachnophilia seems to be implying that God literally creates both good and evil, and that God may even "do" evil things in order to bring about good things. To this extent, I think that arachnophilia is maintaining that God is either "mostly good but a little bit evil" or else "above good and evil" -- I'm not sure exactly which view he's maintaining.
My view is that God is wholly good -- and I pray that the Spirit will enable me to explain my position clearly so that there will be no ambiguity in this matter.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 07-02-2005 09:16 AM
I'm a terrible person to ask since I have little patience and so make a lousy candidate for most such debates. Generally, all of the details are up to the individuals, all the moderators do is try to chide the participants should they not follow the guidelines that THEY agree to.
Some things you should consider are:
the format (limited number of responses or unlimited).
the time frame (maximum time between post and response, usually set to be reasonably long, several days at least).
whether or not you want a discussion of the subject to go on at the same time (peanut gallery thread in coffee house).
It's up to you two to decide how YOU want this to proceed.
If you should respond arach, I think these might be good starting points...
the scope: the nature of evil and its ultimate origin -- and how God employs evil to bring about good.
the format: unlimited number of responses until we either agree or agree to disagree.
the time frame: maximum time between post and response -- one week.
no parallel discussions of the subject to go on at the same time (such as in coffee house).
Note: The main bulk of the debate sould be concentrated within the framework of the Great Debate thread. If others choose to discuss this same topic within their own spin-off threads, that's their choice to do so. I won't be responding to parallel discussions of the subject anywhere but in the Great Debate thread.
Please note: I noticed your own response to my invitation in your proposed topic here...
Care to debate these ideas in a formal debating area?
no, but a pnt will do just fine. others, such as ringo and riverat would probably like to continue to debate as well, and a great debate will exclude them.
In response to this, I feel that Ringo316 and riVeRraT are doing quite an adequate job debating thier own positions amongst themselves. I also note that neither of them seem to have yet expressed any desire to continue with their personal debate.
For example, riVeRraT said the following after a lengthy discussion with Ringo316:
Well, what do you know, we agree on something.
In addition to this, when I asked Ringo316 about some of his ideas, he said the following:
By the way, this little smilie - :D - means "don't take this toooo seriously".
The smilies might have been a clue that I don't take the discussion as a matter of life or death.
So, apparently, Ringo316 isn't very interested in conducting an in-depth analysis of this subject anyway. It seems to me more of a novel curiousity to him than anything in-depth worth exploring further.
Brian seems to share a similar opinion when he said the following:
When have I said that I looking for answers within scriptures, apart from Genesis through 2 Kings, and even then it has only been in an historical context.
I honestly do not see any point to the New Testament, it doesn't really contribute anything worthwhile at all to society.
So, again, apparently Brian doesn't really see any value to the concept of Christianity -- or even a detailed analysis of where evil comes from in the first place (except in a historical sense).
Brian had mentioned the following to me:
One of the possible outcomes of promoting your faith on a public forum is that you may have to defend that faith. You can choose not to and run the risk of others thinking that you bailed because the questions are too difficult, but that is up to you.
I am actually doing the opposite of this by inviting you to debate this idea further. I've also selected you because you apparently take some of these concepts seriously enough to have invested some time in deeply analyzing them.
Again, if you decline, I won't level the same innuendo that Brian made to me above -- that you are possibly running away from a good debate because you might be afraid to defend your ideas. I realize that you are teaching art over the summer, so you do not have as much time available as some of us do. I also realize that people have lives outside the EvC forum. Where I am a parent of a handicapped child, I realize that one cannot spend their time reputing every person who challenges my thoughts -- especially those that are simply trolling anyway.
However, having said this, I am still honestly interested in your thoughts -- and I would like to formally debate them here at EvC as the Spirit allows.
Again, I hope you reconsider.
You can let me know here when you have a chance...
Since you and Arach are currently discussing the scope of a debate as well as the content and procedures, I'm going to close this thread. Pnce the two of you settle the particulars we can start a PNT based on the results.