# Creation and God Nicely Summarized For You and Your Kids



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

(Much of this is from a previous post)

Let's say that the universe began with a singularity (the "Big Bang"). This theory isn't proven, but radiological evidence suggests it's the most likely scenario. It's hard to talk about events _before_ this singularity, since time would not have existed; there was no "time" and no "space." What was there? Hell if I know. We can't know; that knowledge is beyond this universe and (with current technology) completely inaccessible to us. At the moment of this singularity, however, we could say that all matter, anti-matter, dark matter and all energy (_and_ whatever else we haven't found yet) came into existence. Extreme temperatures, quarks, fundamental forces, blah blah blah. The universe in which we exist (or seem to) is a strange place, but it had a beginning. Now, either it was created by God or it wasn't, but either way, it was created. So, for the sake of argument, let's call whatever created this place "God," be it a supreme being with a will or a cosmic fart from another dimension.

If (and this is a big "if") we define God as the Creator, He or She or It exists. After that we can't say much. People prayed, weird seemingly inexplicable things happened, lot's of stuff was written, a guy died on a cross, another guy had mystical epileptic fits and produced a beautiful, poetic work called the Qur'an despite being illiterate, etc, etc. Hence the body of theological, philosophical, mythological and ontological doctrines composing many religions. But still, we don't know if this theoretical Creator, God, cares about us.

Science can't prove or disprove most philosophy, but that's all religion is--philosophy mixed with myth, mixed with blind faith, mixed with whatever else your chosen congregation can muster. Nobody agrees on anything and nothing can be proved beyond all doubt. We're cosmically screwed. We don't really know where we came from, where we're going, why we're here (or if we even are)--a total existential hole.

People have two choices. They can a) believe in a benevolent and caring God and thereby provide themselves with some external purpose and meaning or b) they can not. If one chooses God, well then they've got convenient answers to all life's mysteries. The downside is a lot of their chosen beliefs are hard to defend and may sometimes seem to be ungrounded. This can cause frustration towards non-believers and inner cognitive dissonance (the tension created when one holds conflicting ideas). If one chooses not to believe in God, the problem is finding something else to give life meaning. There are plenty of alternatives, many of which may be equally fulfilling, many of which won't. Not believing in God involves a personal quest for purpose that may or may not be more difficult than the personal quest of accepting and serving God.

To sum up my post nicely: the universe was created, I think, and that's all we might know. Whatever created the universe (if something did), we can't know. We could call the creator "God." Sticking with that definition, He (or She or It or [insert your pronoun of choice]) either cares about humanity or He doesn't. There is no Truth and if there is, it is inaccessible. Belief in a benevolent and caring God provides purpose. There are also other ways to find purpose. Maybe, even if one thinks they've found purpose, there still is no purpose. Oh well. We tried. Let's just go have a smoke.

I'd like to end with a quote by Fran?ois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire): "If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
Thank you and good night.

Love,
R

P.S. Feel free to use this to explain God to your kids!


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2009)

egodeath said:


> People have two choices. They can a) believe in a benevolent and caring God and thereby provide themselves with some external purpose and meaning or b) they can not.


There are more options than just those two. It doesnt have to be that black and white.

I like my kids to make their own discoveries and choices about what there beleifs will be.

Today thats all I have, I cant be bothered with a longer detailed reply, sure lets go have a smoke instead. Get lung cancer and possibly die. The end.


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2009)

egodeath said:


> I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.


Hey, I wasnt criticising you. I smoke too. Oh bah! I give up today. Thoroughly.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

Pretty nice post. I agree- either the universe made itself or God made it. Choose whatever makes the most sense to you- for me it's God, although i dont think either option can be proven.


----------



## guitarman (Dec 11, 2008)

Conjurus said:


> Pretty nice post. I agree- either the universe made itself or God made it. Choose whatever makes the most sense to you- for me it's God, although i dont think either option can be proven.


There is no need for Christians to prove that God created the universe. That isn't the purpose of the Christian. Christians are merely to carry out and witness to the resurrection and love of Christ as seen by the witnesses of the time of Christ. 
There were a select few in our history that saw the miracle and lessons then the death and resurrection of Christ. Thomas needed to see the nail holes for him self when Christ resurrected. Jesus said "you believe because you have seen. Blessed are those that believe and have not seen". There is no doubt in the mind of those disciples that saw first hand, for themselves that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Christ, Son of God that came to display God's love for all of us. The accounts have been passed down to centuries. But true to our human nature we are skeptical because we weren't there our selves. 
There are some now that deny the holocaust of world war II. Some believe it. There are still others that are alive from that time that witnessed it and its more common that we believe it happenned. But in a couple of centuries most may believe it didn't happen because they weren't there. 
The Bible has the true road map of that part of history. What makes it more compelling is the prophecies that have come true. For example the prophecy in Mathew that the Jews would return to their land. That did happen in our time and it happenned in a most miraculous way world wide and fairly quickly. If you're at all familiar with the prophecy then you might know where that leads. As it was said. That generation will not pass away before the coming of Christ, referring to his second coming. Now its a bit ambiguous as to what constitutes a generation in years and exactly what constituted the actual rebirth of Israel. 
I'm far from perfect and still in many ways have a sinful life of sins that I haven't fully repented. A Christians we don't request you to live any way or restrict you from living your life the way you want to. It was strictly our commission to witness Jesus to the four corners of the earth. Thats it.


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

I miss VinCi again.


----------



## guitarman (Dec 11, 2008)

egodeath said:


> I miss VinCi again.


You miss seeing people get called insulting names and being berated for their opinions and beliefs?
Vinci didn't like anyone that disagreed with how he sees the world.


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

guitarman said:


> egodeath said:
> 
> 
> > I miss VinCi again.
> ...


VinCi was the proselytizer police. I don't care what you believe; it's your life. However, when you start informing everybody that we are sinful and must love and embrace the teachings of Christ to attain some sort of salvation and can back up your position only by using texts written thousands of years ago, that's where I have a problem. You're prescribing a purpose to my life (namely, that I am here solely to bear witness to the divinity of Christ and pay penance for the original sin), that I neither agree with nor like. You can believe that, but be quiet about it. I don't admire VinCi; I simply enjoyed watching him shut the fanatics up.


----------



## guitarman (Dec 11, 2008)

egodeath said:


> guitarman said:
> 
> 
> > egodeath said:
> ...


Who is the fanatic here? I never said one thing about you being sinful or anything even remotely like that. What goes on between you and whatever entity you choose to put your faith in is strictly your business. I simply witness to those who care to listen about Jesus love. I don't shove it down peoples throats. Evey one sings the praises of what they like in life. Some prefer Panasonic over Hitachi some telecasters over les pauls some Toyota over Chevy and some Buddha over Jesus. Because we preach what we like over the other doesn't mean we're forcing it on you. Anyone who feels that way simply by someone preaching what works for them must have a raw nerve and is maybe a bit insecure in their chosen belief. If you are not insecure then you should feel you have nothing to worry about. The only one that attack anything in here was you,by your comment about how I back up my beliefs with thousand year old writings. I guess I just prefer to believe in those that have stood the test of time. I believe Jesus instead of the newest new age phase of the current New age philosophy and I play through Vintage tube technology for guitar amps instead of new technology solid state. Both have stood the test of time and are as real as it gets for me.
As for whether I think your sinful or not, believe me I don't give it a second thought. I believe in "Judge not lest you be judged". Or when Jesus said "don't worry about the spec in your neighbors eye but about the plank in your own". Sometimes I think it is more of a case with some, that they hate the thoughts of a Christian being so darn happy with his God serving life than the fact that it actually threatens them in any way. 
Your post title says it all. It seems you've thought your self able to summarize or put the universe in a box that you can understand. And thats great if you've come up with a way to understand it in your own words. But if you don't want others to post their opinions this post would be better served not in a debate section.


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm all for debate. I'd love to hear opinions.
But the topic in question is whether or not there is a caring God.
Long posts about Jesus' love are great and all, but don't belong in this particular thread.
I guess I'm looking for structured arguments that rely on well-grounded premises that attempt to explain how a caring God and evil can coexist. 
I suppose this is slightly more of a philosophical debate than a religious one, but there is no philosophical debate section.
I'm not jealous of your happy servitude. It's great that you're happy. I'm happy, too, actually.
I go to a Jesuit school and I'm just really tired of having Jesus shoved down my throat.
I apologize if I offended you by invoking he-who-must-not-be-named or suggesting that the Bible is bogus.
I'd be happy to debate the validity of the Bible with you, just not here or now.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2009)

egodeath said:


> guitarman said:
> 
> 
> > egodeath said:
> ...


All threads are open for others to reply to in all sections.
You have expressed what you think very well, you do not need Vinci.

My argument would be the one of personal responsibility. We have a personal responsibility, why give your power away to an external force? I believe God or whatever you wish, the source, the true nature of things etc exists within us. People try to condition that God or put God in a box, but "God" doesnt do that to us. We bring our own suffering, when people see that, then they can do something about it other than hold some neurotic belief that some supposedly holy God is punishing them or hates them. It is when people egotise God into an egotised being, out there somewhere, that we arrive at such conflicting conclusions.


----------



## guitarman (Dec 11, 2008)

egodeath said:


> I'm all for debate. I'd love to hear opinions.
> But the topic in question is whether or not there is a caring God.
> Long posts about Jesus' love are great and all, but don't belong in this particular thread.
> I guess I'm looking for structured arguments that rely on well-grounded premises that attempt to explain how a caring God and evil can coexist.
> ...


You want a debate on whether God cares? Jesus is proof God cares. You don't want Jesus shoved down your throat? Change schools. Lots of room in the public system. If your looking for well structured physical proof that God cares yet you don't want to hear about Jesus then you've created a debate thread that is setup only for you to win at it. If you want a debate you need to make it fair. Yet you want a debate then make up a whole bunch of rules of what people can use to debate. Which is basically nothing but what you've predetermined is a valid argument. That of which doesn't exist.


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

guitarman said:


> You want a debate on whether God cares? Jesus is proof God cares. You don't want Jesus shoved down your throat? Change schools. Lots of room in the public system. If your looking for well structured physical proof that God cares yet you don't want to hear about Jesus then you've created a debate thread that is setup only for you to win at it. If you want a debate you need to make it fair. Yet you want a debate then make up a whole bunch of rules of what people can use to debate. Which is basically nothing but what you've predetermined is a valid argument. That of which doesn't exist.


I'm done with you and I hereby formally retract my apology.

Public schools? What?
I guess I could transfer to Rutgers or something, but I'll deal with the crosses and stay at Georgetown.


----------



## scylla (Nov 5, 2008)

Ahhh!

I thought this discussion had been dead for at least a hundred years, but its good to see that there's things that can actually cause passion, (even if its passionate fights) among dpd'ers.
thruth be said, I also miss vinci, didnt like his personal attacks on people, but he knew how to build a solid argument.
the discussion on wether God (in case he exists) is caring and involved in his creation, was beautifully developed by Leibniz and Spinoza.

Leibniz believed that "the best of all possible worlds" (the one we happen to exist in) would actualize every genuine possibility, and argued in Th?odic?e that this best of all possible worlds will contain all possibilities, with our finite experience of eternity giving no reason to dispute nature's perfection. In that way he says that only God knows the reasons behind evil existing, but it is necessary.

According to Spinoza, reality is perfection. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. While elements of the chain of cause and effect are not beyond the understanding of human reason, human grasp of the infinitely complex whole is limited because of the limits of science to empirically take account of the whole sequence.

Up to this point, both philosophers agree, the difference is that Leibniz, (who plagiarized Spinoza shamelessly) suddenly realized that the logical conclusion of the above theories is that there is no need for God to intervene in the world, if everythung is perfect, and it's there for a reason, all of the basis of Christianism (prayer, repentance, sin) would be absolutely obsolete and non relevant, since everything is predetermined. Then he dedicated the rest of his philosophical career to try and find a way out of this problem (with no success). Spinoza, on the other hand, embraced his conclusion, and was then accused of being a monist, a pantheist, or (by the people who understood him thoroughly) an atheist.

And so, the two most amazing minds in the history of philosophy found that there is no logical way (logical as understood in philosophy) that there could be a world where there is a CARING God, and evil coexisting. One tried to retract his arguments, the other lived according to them and wrote probably the most admirable book on Ethics ever writen, Leibniz became the court's whore, Spinoza was excommunicated, persecuted, and treated likea pariah for the rest of his short life.

DISCLAIMER: I copied/pasted the Leibniz and Spinoza excerpts because if I tried to explain them myself it would have probably been impossible to understand :wink:


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

scylla said:


> Ahhh!
> 
> I thought this discussion had been dead for at least a hundred years, but its good to see that there's things that can actually cause passion, (even if its passionate fights) among dpd'ers.
> thruth be said, I also miss vinci, didnt like his personal attacks on people, but he knew how to build a solid argument.
> ...


Yep. Spinoza also had all sorts of ideas about reinterpreting revealed texts in terms of history and their original language. He was, in fact, "excommunicated" by the Jewish authority.

My favorite is Epicurus. He concluded that moral hedonism was the only way to go since there could be no caring God.


----------



## scylla (Nov 5, 2008)

egodeath said:


> My favorite is Epicurus


  So we're at opposite sides of the coin. I'm into stoics, Seneca and Spinoza. 8)

Anyway, I found bits of Spinoza's excommunication. Wether God/gods exists or not, wether he/she/it is caringor not somebody rids us from his/her/its representatives on earth! :

On the 6th of the month of Av, 5416, July 27, 1656, the excommunication of Baruch de Spinoza was proclaimed from the Ark in the synagogue of Talmud Torah, the united congregation of the Portuguese Jews in Amsterdam.

"_The Lords of the Ma'amad_", i.e. the governing body of six parnassim and the gabbai, announce that

"_having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza, they have endeavored by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of this matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable hakhamim, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel..." _

The "hakhamim," namely the official rabbis of the community, with whose consent the resolution was made to excommunicate the "said Espinoza," were familiar with thetraditional wording of the proclamations of excommunication and excerpts of these onventional formulations were incorporated in the announcement of Spinoza's excommunication:

"_By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day." _

The proclamation of the excommunication concludes with the following famous lines of the actual warning:

_"That no one should communicate with him neither in writing nor accord him any favor nor stay with him under the same roof nor within four cubits in his vicinity; nor shall he read any treatise composed or written by him." _


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2009)

egodeath said:


> If (and this is a big "if") we define God as the Creator, He or She or It exists. After that we can't say much. People prayed, weird seemingly inexplicable things happened, lot's of stuff was written, a guy died on a cross, another guy had mystical epileptic fits and produced a beautiful, poetic work called the Qur'an despite being illiterate, etc, etc. Hence the body of theological, philosophical, mythological and ontological doctrines composing many religions. But still, we don't know if this theoretical Creator, God, cares about us.


Some of us do know that what we define as God cares about us a great deal. God has'nt forsaken anybody, humanity is forsaking God. The truth is that those who know, just know and those who don't know, maybe hav'nt seeked hard enough. Half of the people who complain that they can't find God or say that God does'nt care do not live a life required to let God come into their lives. They live a life which creates suffering for themselves and then say that God has fosaken them. Did you ever ask God to show their self to you? Did you ever ask God right from your heart to enter your life and change it? Did you ever ask God to show you who you really are and to see yourself perfect and healed as he sees you? You put yourself down, you hav'nt fallen from God, you have fallen from yourself.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

Amber-on-a-crucifix said:


> egodeath said:
> 
> 
> > If (and this is a big "if") we define God as the Creator, He or She or It exists. After that we can't say much. People prayed, weird seemingly inexplicable things happened, lot's of stuff was written, a guy died on a cross, another guy had mystical epileptic fits and produced a beautiful, poetic work called the Qur'an despite being illiterate, etc, etc. Hence the body of theological, philosophical, mythological and ontological doctrines composing many religions. But still, we don't know if this theoretical Creator, God, cares about us.
> ...


I've lived straight as an arrow according to how the Bible says I should. I did everything I possibly could to live as I thought the Bible taught and for what? I had to go through everything I normally would have to go through. Nothing in my life changed at all. I do believe in God, but it's stupid to wait around for him to do something for you. He's given us the tools to accomplish anything we could desire on our own. The real power is within us.


----------



## SistA HazeL (Aug 10, 2008)

Conjurus said:


> I do believe in God, but it's stupid to wait around for him to do something for you. He's given us the tools to accomplish anything we could desire on our own. The real power is within us.


Faith without works is dead.


----------



## SistA HazeL (Aug 10, 2008)

deleted by me


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

Amber-on-a-crucifix said:


> egodeath said:
> 
> 
> > If (and this is a big "if") we define God as the Creator, He or She or It exists. After that we can't say much. People prayed, weird seemingly inexplicable things happened, lot's of stuff was written, a guy died on a cross, another guy had mystical epileptic fits and produced a beautiful, poetic work called the Qur'an despite being illiterate, etc, etc. Hence the body of theological, philosophical, mythological and ontological doctrines composing many religions. But still, we don't know if this theoretical Creator, God, cares about us.
> ...


De-loooo-shun


----------



## stephanie3 (Nov 5, 2008)

egodeath said:


> guitarman said:
> 
> 
> > egodeath said:
> ...


im not here to debate and im not judging anyone or anything like that because we all sin and blah blah blah. i just came across this and had to clear something up:

if we believe it is our responsibility NOT to be quiet about it! being quiet is like being shameful. im not saying you have to rub it in any and everyones face but if the topic of Jesus or God comes up you definately cannot simply be quiet about it. for those of us that do believe we know that we should always it be known that God, Jesus was/is/and will be. i mean isnt that what everyone here is doing? not being shameful of what they believe in? if not how could you be having this debate? how could anyone ever debate anything.


----------



## SistA HazeL (Aug 10, 2008)

Right on, Stephanie!

*stands up and claps, cheers*

No mo' shame fo' my SAVIOUR!! Hallelujah!


----------



## SistA HazeL (Aug 10, 2008)

deleted again by me


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2009)

Conjurus said:


> I've lived straight as an arrow according to how the Bible says I should. I did everything I possibly could to live as I thought the Bible taught and for what? I had to go through everything I normally would have to go through. Nothing in my life changed at all. I do believe in God, but it's stupid to wait around for him to do something for you. He's given us the tools to accomplish anything we could desire on our own. The real power is within us.


Dear Conjurus, I was'nt judging anyone, sorry to anyone if it appeared that I was. I think I could have explained what I meant a bit better. I love Jesus completely, he has worked through my life and done great wonderful things to it. I don't really call myself a christian, I'm a stigmatic. I think the bible is a very beautiful book if one reads it correctly, it has many layers, the real truth of it can be found within the heart. Absolutely everyone has to go through trials but we are the ones who judge ourselves during our trials, not God. Gods judgment is perfect and merciful. Conjurus you sound like you have lost your faith a little bit. I absolutely agree that it is idol to wait for God to do everything for us and I don't think I suggested doing such a thing. God is within us yet foolishly we seek God elsewhere and in doing that we push God away.
Gods works are greater than anything we can achieve alone unless we surrender our ego, that is the moment when we are born into Gods family. Surrender to God totally. Love God with your every breath and action and cell in your body. Everything in the material world appears to be outside of us but everything radiates from within us and within us lies a source that is pure and whole and perfect, a doorway to Gods infinite power. I hav'nt read all of the bible, I prefer to let the experience of God work through me rather than ME trying to imitate it with an ignorant human mind. Just KNOW that God loves you and that you are already perfect as he sees you and let that experience happen. Its not about trying to be anything.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

Amber-on-a-crucifix said:


> Dear Conjurus, I was'nt judging anyone, sorry to anyone if it appeared that I was. I think I could have explained what I meant a bit better. I love Jesus completely, he has worked through my life and done great wonderful things to it. I don't really call myself a christian, I'm a stigmatic. I think the bible is a very beautiful book if one reads it correctly, it has many layers, the real truth of it can be found within the heart. Absolutely everyone has to go through trials but we are the ones who judge ourselves during our trials, not God. Gods judgment is perfect and merciful. Conjurus you sound like you have lost your faith a little bit. I absolutely agree that it is idol to wait for God to do everything for us and I don't think I suggested doing such a thing. God is within us yet foolishly we seek God elsewhere and in doing that we push God away.
> Gods works are greater than anything we can achieve alone unless we surrender our ego, that is the moment when we are born into Gods family. Surrender to God totally. Love God with your every breath and action and cell in your body. Everything in the material world appears to be outside of us but everything radiates from within us and within us lies a source that is pure and whole and perfect, a doorway to Gods infinite power. I hav'nt read all of the bible, I prefer to let the experience of God work through me rather than ME trying to imitate it with an ignorant human mind. Just KNOW that God loves you and that you are already perfect as he sees you and let that experience happen. Its not about trying to be anything.


I havnt lost my faith at all; on the contrary my faith is stronger than ever before. God has done more for me than anyone ever could- he sent his son to live the perfect life that I could not and to pay the debt of sin. It would be arrogant for me to assume he's then going to give me a perfect life and grant me everything I desire. When people pray to God for something, then hope for the best, they limit themselves. I will not place those limits on myself- if I want something I'll go get it and I'll be damned if anything can slow me down.

Surrender to God? I suppose I did that when I admitted I could not live a sinless life and accepted the gift of salvation.

It's perfectly fine to judge someone by the way. Look that verse up and study the entire thing.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2009)

Conjurus said:


> I havnt lost my faith at all; on the contrary my faith is stronger than ever before. God has done more for me than anyone ever could- he sent his son to live the perfect life that I could not and to pay the debt of sin. It would be arrogant for me to assume he's then going to give me a perfect life and grant me everything I desire. When people pray to God for something, then hope for the best, they limit themselves. I will not place those limits on myself- if I want something I'll go get it and I'll be damned if anything can slow me down.
> 
> Surrender to God? I suppose I did that when I admitted I could not live a sinless life and accepted the gift of salvation.
> 
> It's perfectly fine to judge someone by the way. Look that verse up and study the entire thing.


I don't know why you're being so defensive when none of posts are aimed at anyone in particular. I'm very happy to hear you hav'nt lost your faith. I Personally don't like it when people enjoy that Jesus suffered for their sake but we all have our own spiritual path and beliefs. One of mine is to not judge others, that is mine, I don't need a verse from a book to tell me its not okay for me, I'm not alive to judge others but if its ok for you then thats your POV. I agree prayers should'nt be limiting because God is'nt. Btw, I sin to when I have sex before marriage etc..according to the bible. But I know God does'nt judge me, I ask according to whom am I sinful? Rather than following some commandments that were written thousands of years ago by people who were only passing on their own experience of God, their experience is'nt mine. Its our definitions that are different. The bible is not useful as a guide to living in this day and age because times change. Its whats in your heart thats important and your personal relationship with God.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

Im not trying to be defensive, Im merely stating how I see things. I disagree with many of your points in your last post, but I hate debating as I think it is pointless.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2009)

I quite like Ambers views but I know you also arent like other christians Jesse . I think people turn things into a debate on here when they dont really need to. We are all free to share our ideas and views, there is no need for hostility and arguing, its so depressing.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

Spirit said:


> I quite like Ambers views but I know you also arent like other christians Jesse . I think people turn things into a debate on here when they dont really need to. We are all free to share our ideas and views, there is no need for hostility and arguing, its so depressing.


True, and Amber I apologize if you felt I was being hostile to you. I do respect your views, I just disagree with them.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2009)

That's okay, I like it when people disagree with me, I like having my own views and its my path as your path is your own.


----------



## SistA HazeL (Aug 10, 2008)

egodeath said:


> Amber-on-a-crucifix said:
> 
> 
> > egodeath said:
> ...


Ego, you just think it is.


----------



## scylla (Nov 5, 2008)

> I'm all for debate. I'd love to hear opinions.
> But the topic in question is whether or not there is a caring God.


I think debating is a great idea. It' good brain excersice and exposure to ideas different from what we usually hold. I also think debate is not poselytisic by nature, none of us will come out as believers (in the case of non believers/agnostics) or atheists, in the opposite case. But it will give us the chance to create appropriate arguments for the point we are defending or representing, and to expose ourselves to the otherness. 

Debate doesnt have to be offensive or frightening to anyone. It is the pure expression of our human capabilities. Whomever may feel threatened or offended by the topic of the debate is free to not go in to the thread.

In order for a debate to be a debate rather than a mutual and angry disqualification of the people involved, there are some basic rules to be observed:

- It should at all times remain respectful, no name calling or personal attacks should be allowed
- Arguments and not personal opinions are to be exposed in the debate
- When argumenting against an opponent's post, if the need for quoting should arise, it should never be taken out of the contex in which it was originally held.
- Post shouldn't reference excessive sources. If a participant has a point to make, he or she may not argue it by saying: Well, read Beyond Good and Evil, and you'll get it.? Nor should a participant link to excessively long articles, or an excessive amount of them. In short, while referencing outside sources has a place, make your own arguments. 
- When referencing a source, any point made by that source which is referenced must be at least summarized. In an argument about the existence of God, for example, if you're speaking about sufficient causality, you may not say: Well, Aristotle proves the existence of a first cause, so therefore we can dispense with this part of the argument as having been reasonably demonstrated.? In essence, if you have a point to make, you must make it yourself. 
- Not everyone will always know what you're talking about, unless you make sure to explain your points and references. So if, for example, you reference Plato's divided line, it might be helpful to give a brief explanation of what that is.
- Ad hominem arguments are fallacies and show the inconsistency of the argument they are trying to prove. 
Examples of ad hominen:
a) _ad hominem ad personam_

- Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false

b) _ ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

- Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests

c) Ad hominem tu quoque refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way.

- You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well.

I cant think of any other rule right now. Maybe someone wants to help me? And is someone interested in really debating at all?

cheers, love to all_


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

The Apology

I apologize for offending anyone's beliefs. I will no longer be participating in any of the Spirituality/Religion/God debates. If the words "God," "Jesus," Mohammed," etc are used elsewhere, I probably won't respond. I will, however, still bash people who think that DPD is not a psychological disorder. That is all.


----------



## scylla (Nov 5, 2008)

Oh my God I killed the thread! (the bastard!)


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2009)

scylla said:


> In order for a debate to be a debate rather than a mutual and angry disqualification of the people involved
> 
> - It should at all times remain respectful, no name calling or personal attacks should be allowed


LOL Scylla.

I dont think we need all of those rules Scylla  , I agree with the above, all people need is respect and that is all, I still think a sticky might be a good idea in this section. Adults can share their views and beliefs without hostility and without resorting to personal attacking. Everybody is capable of this with no exceptions. I agree that just angrily dismissing someone is not necessary, simply expressing that you do not agree is sufficient.

Ego man your attitude sucks, bash that.


----------



## guitarman (Dec 11, 2008)

Conjurus said:


> Im not trying to be defensive, Im merely stating how I see things. I disagree with many of your points in your last post, but I hate debating as I think it is pointless.


Its been my experience that debating conversations take place in a section clearly marked "Debating". The title of this section is underlined by "This section has turned in to a debating section". And there is absolutely nothing wrong with debating. With 6 billion different people on earth it is likely to occur many times through out ones life. Its unfortunate when a debate turns in to an attack, insult or other aggressive measures. 
When someone turns their debate in to an attack (as has been demonstrated by someone that was recently banned) it shows their lack of maturity. It shows the limits of their intellectuality as they have run out of ideas and ways to effectively communicate. As soon as you attack someone's ideas with insults you will lose their attention and that's when debating becomes pointless.


----------



## guitarman (Dec 11, 2008)

egodeath said:


> The Apology
> 
> I will, however, still bash people who think that DPD is not a psychological disorder. That is all.


I agree with you. However, bashing someone who thinks otherwise is counter productive. Its better to present your case, if you have one, and leave it at that.


----------



## guitarman (Dec 11, 2008)

guitarman said:


> egodeath said:
> 
> 
> > The Apology
> ...


----------

