Difference between revisions of "Talk:God"
ColoSprings (Talk | contribs) m |
(Undo revision 510856 by ColoSprings (Talk)You'll find out God certainly does exsist in good time...) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | + | ||
==Neutrality== | ==Neutrality== | ||
Revision as of 03:02, September 5, 2008
| ! | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | 
|
I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --Elamdri 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--Elamdri
Fixed a vandal.--Elamdri 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Contents
- 1 Neutrality
- 2 Many are skeptical of which idea?
- 3 Note
- 4 Errors
- 5 Omnibenevolence
- 6 Conservapedia is not open
- 7 Conservatives
- 8 Attributes of God
- 9 Bad sentence
- 10 Capitalization Concerns
- 11 other views of god
- 12 Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference
- 13 God's Evidence
- 14 Breach of commandments?
- 15 Suggestion
- 16 Question
- 17 Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?
Neutrality
Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.MatteeNeutra 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --NVConservative 16:00, 12 March 2007
- Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. Opacic 09:42, 22 March 2007
- Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called Conservapedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. MatteeNeutra 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --TrueGrit 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?
- Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? Is 48:6
- For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made Rm 1:20 RobS 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you. Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --GarbageMan 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)
Many are skeptical of which idea?
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? NousEpirrhytos 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Note
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--Ronnyreg 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Errors
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative Christian views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining which God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a personal lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --Petrus 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Omnibenevolence
Is god omnibenevolent? Zed 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservapedia is not open
How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--Golden
- Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. Qc 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Conservatives
I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "god" and "jesus" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.
I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative
Attributes of God
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. Zed 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --RexMundane 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.
I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thingNobodyyouareawareof 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
- I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.
- Regards, Aziraphale 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) <-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...
Bad sentence
In "notes" the phrase a ritualized 'adoption' ritual appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? Totnesmartin 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I dont believe in god.
Capitalization Concerns
If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized. Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized. [1]
- Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
- I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! Karajou 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
other views of god
The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by Nobodyyouareawareof
- Take a look at Allah. User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
| “ | James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. | ” |
Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007
God's Evidence
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to choose to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.Dandus 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to choose to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. Philip J. Rayment 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven Dandus 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
- I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. Philip J. Rayment 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven Dandus 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Breach of commandments?
"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."
I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being
"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."
How is this even remotely verifiable?Qc 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
- By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. Philip J. Rayment 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? Qc 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? Philip J. Rayment 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? Qc 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. Qc 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. Philip J. Rayment 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. Qc 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. Qc 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Suggestion
- Add to the start of the article:
- This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see Other gods.
- My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -CSGuy 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
- There's already a link to Other gods. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. Philip J. Rayment 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Question
Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --GeorgeO 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
- My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a masculine term, but a term used for a person, i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms also have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. Philip J. Rayment 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?
Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --Jhan 6 August 2008
- Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves?
- Often times dealing with infinite elements has a tendency to appear to be contradictory, even in nature. If two objects are approaching each other with each going the speed of light, then how fast are they approaching? 1+1=2, but not in this case. The answer is the speed of light. 1+1=1
- If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late?
- Not intervening is not the same as not seeing
- If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
- Yes. But this is more of an exercise in absurdity than anything having to do with God. It's basically taking a nonsensical statement and then putting God into it. Example: Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?
- If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain?
- Taking the story of Adam and Eve that you reference above, our original moral compass has been skewed, but He has still given us a way to know Him personally.
- And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god?
- Jealous has a different meaning there than we usually ascribe to it. Learn together 14:36, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
