|
Author
|
Topic: Definition please
|
tsig
Member (Idle past 2937 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: 04-09-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 164 (181270)
01-28-2005 4:06 AM
|
|
|
While reading the many posts by thiests on this board I have become confused because each one seems to be talking about a different entity, so I have two questions. 1. Can any two believers on this board agree on a definition of god? 2. What moral code is derived from that god?
|
AdminJar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 2 of 164 (181439)
01-28-2005 5:07 PM
|
|
|
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: 01-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 3 of 164 (181527)
01-28-2005 11:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
01-28-2005 4:06 AM
|
|
quote:
1. Can any two believers on this board agree on a definition of god?
There probably are two, but I'm not sure how that or their definition would be useful. For example, we can probably agree that Frodo is the Hobbit that destroyed the One Ring. That ain't saying much, though.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by tsig, posted 01-28-2005 4:06 AM | | tsig has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by tsig, posted 01-29-2005 1:57 AM | | DominionSeraph has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 4 of 164 (181530)
01-29-2005 12:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
01-28-2005 4:06 AM
|
|
2 is dependent on 1, and i suspect the answer to 1 is probably "no."+
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by tsig, posted 01-28-2005 4:06 AM | | tsig has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by tsig, posted 01-29-2005 2:19 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
tsig
Member (Idle past 2937 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: 04-09-2004
|
There probably are two, but I'm not sure how that or their definition would be useful.
For example, we can probably agree that Frodo is the Hobbit that destroyed the One Ring. That ain't saying much, though. Actually Frodo didn't. In the end he couldn't do it and Gollum got the Inadvertent honor. Please don't mess with the word. LOL
|
tsig
Member (Idle past 2937 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: 04-09-2004
|
Whenever two or more are gathered in my name
2 is dependent on 1, and i suspect the answer to 1 is probably "no."+
{added h to whenever} I'm sure you are right. Even if they could agree on 1 they probably would find a way to disagree on 2. You can see the problem this presents for athiests. This message has been edited by Flying Hawk, 01-29-2005 02:28 AM
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 7 of 164 (181577)
01-29-2005 3:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by tsig
01-29-2005 2:19 AM
|
|
Re: Whenever two or more are gathered in my name
precisely.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by tsig, posted 01-29-2005 2:19 AM | | tsig has not replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 8 of 164 (182006)
01-31-2005 7:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
01-28-2005 4:06 AM
|
|
Yourself
Well since everyone is different, and we all need God in a different way, I would expect all that to happen. Again the mistake is that God is God, and man is man, do not confuse the 2. You cannot judge who God is by judging others, you can only look to yourself. You cannot even determine if God exists by looking at the behavior of others, only yourself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by tsig, posted 01-28-2005 4:06 AM | | tsig has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by tsig, posted 02-01-2005 4:31 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
Dr Jack
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 9 of 164 (182008)
01-31-2005 7:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
01-28-2005 4:06 AM
|
|
Surely, if God is, then he cannot be defined - definitions apply to categories not individuals.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by tsig, posted 01-28-2005 4:06 AM | | tsig has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by tsig, posted 02-01-2005 4:27 AM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
|
tsig
Member (Idle past 2937 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: 04-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 10 of 164 (182208)
02-01-2005 4:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
01-31-2005 7:22 AM
|
|
Surely, if God is, then he cannot be defined - definitions apply to categories not individuals. But individuals that actually exist can be defined. A god that cannot be defined looks remarkably nonexistant.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 01-31-2005 7:22 AM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
|
tsig
Member (Idle past 2937 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: 04-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 11 of 164 (182209)
02-01-2005 4:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by riVeRraT
01-31-2005 7:15 AM
|
|
Re: Yourself
Well since everyone is different, and we all need God in a different way, I would expect all that to happen. Again the mistake is that God is God, and man is man, do not confuse the 2. You cannot judge who God is by judging others, you can only look to yourself. You cannot even determine if God exists by looking at the behavior of others, only yourself. So the proof of god's existence is my behavior?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 7:15 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 6:12 AM | | tsig has not replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 12 of 164 (182230)
02-01-2005 6:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by tsig
02-01-2005 4:31 AM
|
|
Re: Yourself
Yes! It's not how your behavior affects others, but how it affects yourself. That is when you can see God. You need not look to others, only to yourself, and Jesus.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by tsig, posted 02-01-2005 4:31 AM | | tsig has not replied |
|
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 534 Joined: 09-02-2004
|
|
|
Message 13 of 164 (182318)
02-01-2005 11:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by riVeRraT
02-01-2005 6:12 AM
|
|
Re: Yourself
The proof of God's existence is the behavior of individuals... but only how it affects themselves? That's inane. Exactly what individual behaviors are evidence of a deity? Which are not? Are all behaviors such evidence or only some? How does one tell the difference? Finally, how exactly is any sort of behavior evidence of a deity? Can you show that a given behavior is indicative of said deity and cannot be explained by the vast variety of human behavior produced naturalistically? Believe what you want, but when you start talking about proof, you better bring something other then personal opinion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 6:12 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6901 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: 04-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 14 of 164 (182321)
02-01-2005 12:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
01-28-2005 4:06 AM
|
|
The definition of God according to Merriam-Webster
quote:
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
I would agree with that. The moral code derived from the Judeo/Christian God is called the Ten Commandments, which are a reflection of his character.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Hey, Albert, I agree!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by tsig, posted 01-28-2005 4:06 AM | | tsig has not replied |
|
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6901 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: 04-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 15 of 164 (182322)
02-01-2005 12:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by mikehager
02-01-2005 11:56 AM
|
|
Re: Yourself
quote:
Believe what you want, but when you start talking about proof, you better bring something other then personal opinion.
There is no proof and never will be of 'a deity'.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by mikehager, posted 02-01-2005 11:56 AM | | mikehager has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2