Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
184 online now:
14174dm, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 179 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,399 Year: 7,147/23,288 Month: 1,053/1,214 Week: 65/303 Day: 26/39 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition please
tsig
Member (Idle past 1415 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?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by DominionSeraph, posted 01-28-2005 11:54 PM tsig has responded
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2005 12:17 AM tsig has responded
 Message 8 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 7:15 AM tsig has responded
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 01-31-2005 7:22 AM tsig has responded
 Message 14 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-01-2005 12:14 PM tsig has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 02-13-2005 6:24 AM tsig has responded

  
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 3261 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by tsig, posted 01-29-2005 1:57 AM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 484 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by tsig, posted 01-29-2005 2:19 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1415 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 5 of 164 (181545)
01-29-2005 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by DominionSeraph
01-28-2005 11:54 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DominionSeraph, posted 01-28-2005 11:54 PM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1415 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 6 of 164 (181558)
01-29-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
01-29-2005 12:17 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2005 12:17 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2005 3:36 AM tsig has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 484 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 yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 5746
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tsig, posted 02-01-2005 4:31 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by tsig, posted 02-01-2005 4:27 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1415 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 yet responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1415 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 6:12 AM tsig has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 5746
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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mikehager, posted 02-01-2005 11:56 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 16 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-01-2005 12:25 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 4973 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-01-2005 12:17 PM mikehager has not yet responded
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 5:54 PM mikehager has responded

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 5379 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 yet responded

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 5379 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 yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020