Difference between revisions of "Talk:God"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Conservatives)
(other views of god)
Line 74: Line 74:
  
 
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.
 
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.
 +
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
 +
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

Revision as of 06:17, 26 July 2007

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)

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)
The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --Luke-Jr 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
you have a source for that definition? RobS 17:42, 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)
I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be Bumba. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--Liberal 14:16, 14 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


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.

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.

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.
  1. http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms