Talk:God/Archive 23
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Picture of God / Gender
I notice dissent about the male pictures of God. I looked back and noticed in mid March someone added the Michelangelo God picture and placed it on the very top of the article without any explanation or debate. This picture suggests a specific interpretation of God. The problem with this is that the very first sentence of the article mentions pantheism as one definition of God, which would obviously not be fairly represented by Michelangelo's male anthropomorphic God. The art picture is beautiful and I am not opposed to it being in the article, but the neutral God box is what should be on top of the article since the word God - even within monotheism/henotheism - is not at all fairly represented by the picture. I would hope editors be careful about allowing someone to put a contentious image on top of the article in the future. I have put the God box back on top and moved down the Michelangelo image to the section regarding Gender (I think it would also be appropriate to place it in the section about anthropomorphism if someone things that's a better fit). Allisgod (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have tried desperately to both highlight and discuss this point, but have been quite frankly bullied out of the debate by two men, Ian Thomson and Charlesdrakew who have targeted me and censored my contributions. It's not as if I have tried to change the main article. These two men not only clearly think the Michelangelo depiction of God you speak of is the right one, but that they - as men - have between set up by God to decide in this instance who can and cannot make a contribution to the Talk element of this page. Because I am a woman, and have made comments alluding to the possible gender of God, they have labelled me "sexist" even though their very patronising and heavy handed ganging up on me is by itslef a working definition of sexism. I am not going to let this matter rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just a couple suggestions: Register with Wikipedia so you can sign your name on posts. It gives you a more credible voice here. Also, better to stick with the issues than to get into personalities because arguments and edit wars do not get anybody anywhere. I am a man and agree the God picture is inappropriate to be the lead picture for this article. Allisgod (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have tried desperately to both highlight and discuss this point, but have been quite frankly bullied out of the debate by two men, Ian Thomson and Charlesdrakew who have targeted me and censored my contributions. It's not as if I have tried to change the main article. These two men not only clearly think the Michelangelo depiction of God you speak of is the right one, but that they - as men - have between set up by God to decide in this instance who can and cannot make a contribution to the Talk element of this page. Because I am a woman, and have made comments alluding to the possible gender of God, they have labelled me "sexist" even though their very patronising and heavy handed ganging up on me is by itslef a working definition of sexism. I am not going to let this matter rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The picture was put up without discussion in March and even without an edit summary, which is inappropriate. Now suddenly users want a discussion to preserve the "status quo", despite recent objections to the picture. Well, here are the problems with the picture being the lead: 1) The lead picture shows a representation of the Catholic version of God. 2) The lead picture shows a male God 3) The lead picture is an anthropomorphic or personal version of God 4) There was no lead picture in prior years 5) The God box (on the Wikipedia God page of all pages) is being demoted below a highly biased male Christian personal God picture. What's going on here? Allisgod (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
86.159.180.31, for the hundredth time, this has nothing to do with you being a woman! Actually read my posts instead of assuming that I'm only disagreeing because I have a penis! YOU are the only sexist here! Your posts were removed because they did nothing but make sexist attacks on other editors and had nothing to do with article improvement! You also did not make the same argument that Allisgod originally made about the pics, you started off by calling everyone a sexist opperating the sexist and idiotic assumption that if you're a woman, everyone else must be evil. That was sexism on your part, not others. I pointed out that the Christian bashing was wildly innacurate, and that Judeo-Christian mysticism had more feminine theology than the new age claims you were making, and you have the gall to call me sexist and continue to insist that Christianity is sexist? Drop the bullshit, grow the fuck up, and examine your own words and actions, you genital-obsessed bigot.
As for the move of the picture, when a reasonable explanation was provided, notice that Charlesdrakew and I made no objections! "This represents a specific sectarian view of God" is a perfectly acceptable reason. "I'm a (whatever gender, doesn't matter), so everyone else must be stupid and evil" is something only a bigot looking for a fight would say. Notice also that Allisgod did not suggest including pics of figures that he cannot demonstrate were historically worshiped! Quit trying to use a persecution complex to get your way. Argue actual issues, present reasons, and you'll be treated like an adult. This has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with you acting like a spoiled child. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Drop the bullshit, grow the fuck up, and examine your own words and actions, you genital-obsessed bigot." This is how you actually communicate on a public page that will be read by many people, including children? And you tell other people to grow up? You set yourself up as a self-styled editor and moderator here, and you use language like that? And MY opinions get deleted because you disagree with them, but your foul and offensive language is allowed to remain simply because YOU say so? Perhaps, to simplify things, we should just have a picture of YOU on the article as God? I'm not sure what your underlying issue is, but I can assure you that this is one "little lady" you won't be pushing around. My voice *will* be heard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk • contribs)
- My underlying issue is that you keep telling baldfaced lies about what I've said, despite the damn obvious evidence to the contrary. Nowhere have I claimed to be a moderator. If I removed stuff just because I disagreed with it, I'd've removed far more, but I did not. I did not ever suggest that my word was divine, simply pointed out that your word was mortal. I did not make this about gender, you did, and you are the one continuing to make it about gender. I suppose there's no point in arguing with a blind psycho like you. I hope you get the help you need. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do not have strong views about whether that image goes at the top or lower down but as God has historically been portrayed as male for thousands of years it is perfectly reasonable to have it there. 20th/21st century modifications to the nature of God are a minor part of the overall article and should not be given undue weight. That would be WP:Recentism. The behaviour of the IP is however totally unacceptable and is likely to end in blocking if it continues. The IP must learn to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks on other editors.--Charles (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- My underlying issue is that you keep telling baldfaced lies about what I've said, despite the damn obvious evidence to the contrary. Nowhere have I claimed to be a moderator. If I removed stuff just because I disagreed with it, I'd've removed far more, but I did not. I did not ever suggest that my word was divine, simply pointed out that your word was mortal. I did not make this about gender, you did, and you are the one continuing to make it about gender. I suppose there's no point in arguing with a blind psycho like you. I hope you get the help you need. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Drop the bullshit, grow the fuck up, and examine your own words and actions, you genital-obsessed bigot." This is how you actually communicate on a public page that will be read by many people, including children? And you tell other people to grow up? You set yourself up as a self-styled editor and moderator here, and you use language like that? And MY opinions get deleted because you disagree with them, but your foul and offensive language is allowed to remain simply because YOU say so? Perhaps, to simplify things, we should just have a picture of YOU on the article as God? I'm not sure what your underlying issue is, but I can assure you that this is one "little lady" you won't be pushing around. My voice *will* be heard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk • contribs)
- You both (Ian and IP) need to dial it back a little, IMO. The answer to the question regarding why the image is of a man is answered at least as far back as 2009, had you bothered to read the archives. The answer is that this is the God article and not the Goddess article. See Talk:God/Archive_21#Goddess Now, it is certainly true that the English word for Goddess is a derivative of the word for God, and that's a crying shame, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Wikipedia reports what is, as it is covered in reliable sources, not what should be, and we cover it according to the weight it is given in the real world. It is plain to anyone not a complete imbecile that this is a man's world, and has been for all of recorded history, with a very few pockets like Hawaii before the Europeans came and screwed them up. Sorry, but that's how it is. Not how it should be, maybe, but as I said, we don't write how it should be. See WP:NPOV. Now, that's the answer, and I hope we're now done. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- While it's convenient to view my assertiveness as "aggression" and being out of place because I am a woman (I notice that Charlesdrakew has threatened to "block" me after the earlier censorship he deployed, not really sure why the heavty-handedness is aimed at me, or what his problem is but I can assure him that if he blocks me he won't hear the end of it) my only aim was to try to get a little bit of balance in this article, which - everyone can agree I think - mainly reflects the western Christian view of God. It's the first thing anyone coming to the page will see - a picture of an old white man with a beard - which is not only a cliche but a phallocentric reinforcement of the kind of thing which Wikipedia should be ironing out over time. The Internet does reach beyond the white, male dominated West. It's not about righting wrongs, its about trying to portray a simple, balanced truth. My own recent research on this leads me to believe that throughout 99% of human history and pre-history the concept of (lets loosely call it) the Earth Mother was a far more common belief than a paternal, male God. My own experience and beliefs in the Great She Wolf have been passed down to me through millenia and predate not only Christianity but every trace of the paternalistic Abrahamic religions and indeed the pagan gods of the earliest civilisations. Is it too much to ask that the nature of God on Wikipedia is not decided simply by the fact that the overwhelming majority of editors are men, mainly pushy, "snippy" men who use Wiki as an outlet for their own sense of powerlessness and whose instinctive response to an independently minded woman is to gang up on her and try to shout her out? Even a gender neutral God - a God of energy and light - would be less of a slap in the face than the old man with the beard. It's like something out of Star Trek V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any specific suggestions for an alternative? A female God picture would probably not be the best replacement, while a "God of energy and light" is a little hard to portray in an image. Also, the Michelangelo may or may not be "cliche'", but if it is, that is not sufficient reason to remove it. Wikipedia by nature follows other sources. It does not spearhead agendas or ideas, regardless of whether or not they are good, right, or true. If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. (See WP:FLAT) If other sources use the Michelangelo to portray God, Wikipedia should probably follow suit. (I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with what other depictions of God exist.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are religions - the Jewish and Islamic faiths spring to mind - where it is taboo to even portray an image of God (which is logical when you think about it, why should people decide what God looks like if they are his/her creations and not the other way round). The very depiction of the face of God in this article is probably offensive to them, but that's not my battle. I know I have been portrayed as some hysterical, screaming militant feminist by certain contributors on here, but even I am not actually requesting a God of either gender. I no more insist that God is a woman than I accpet that God has to be a man. In putting together an article about a person (or entity) who is both unknown and unknowable, it is surely meaningless and unhelpful to post a picture of something or someone which is almost certainly not accurate. The man in the picture is a painting. It is not God. If you have an article on the Empire State Building, it is perfectly proper to show a photo of the Empire State Building. But no one knows what God looks like. To further propagate the view of people who think they know what God looks like (again, an old white man with a beard) is simply wrong. And I shouldn't be asked to accept it just because men and the Church have been in charge for centuries. Can you imagine how the men castigating me on here for complaining about a male God have reacted if they'd clicked on the article and found a picture of a black God at the top of the page? They would have had kittens. So perhaps no picture of God is the best option? My own belief in the Great She Wolf doesn't involve a picture of an actual wolf - it's concept wherein pictorial representation is unhelpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- So your suggestion is to replace it with nothing? One of requirements for being a "Good article" is that the subject is illustrated with images. Do you have any other specific suggestions for replacement? (The Arabic script for Allah might be one possible option, but I doubt we could get consensus for that.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- A few questions about the Good article requirement - 1) where does this requirement come from? 2) is it necessary for the picture to be on top? 3) can this really apply to abstract concepts where pictures are unhelpful or convey a bias? Just to reiterate, my suggestion is the God box as a replacement and for the picture to remain but be brought down some. Allisgod (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good article criteria is found here, but it is not terribly specific; and GA is often not a high bar to shoot for. Featured article (which is the gold standard on Wikipedia) criteria is found here. Images and other media are required "where appropriate". There is no requirement for an image in the lead; however, those who watch FA know that an image in the lead is virtually a requirement in order to gain FA status. Back in 2006, there were a group of us who had hopes of making God a featured article, but we all eventually gave up. Too much partisan bickering here; too many POV pushers, too few who are dispassionate about the subject. Still, it is a question to ask oneself when editing; Will this edit move the article closer to FA? KillerChihuahua 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed that some sort of image is probably all but required for possible, eventual, FP candidacy, and that all articles which could remotely be seen as ever qualifying for such status should be edited in such a way as to make that ultimate possibility more likely. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, one thing which might be useful would be to consult the relevant most highly regarded reference sources which discuss this topic and to an extent try to determine content of this article. We would also, of course, have to take into account any direct subarticles either those sources or wikipedia have relating to the topic of "God", which might be itself a bit difficult, but that is a bit of a different matter. I do have to agree that there is good cause to believe that the inclusion of some such image would be required for FP status, and I think that is sufficient cause for inclusion of an image. Acknowledging that there are individual faith traditions which object to any form of representative images of some subjects, the religious beliefs of those comparatively small number of traditions to specific images is not I think considered sufficient basis for not including such images in content in general, or necessarily for determining where such images are placed in articles. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good article criteria is found here, but it is not terribly specific; and GA is often not a high bar to shoot for. Featured article (which is the gold standard on Wikipedia) criteria is found here. Images and other media are required "where appropriate". There is no requirement for an image in the lead; however, those who watch FA know that an image in the lead is virtually a requirement in order to gain FA status. Back in 2006, there were a group of us who had hopes of making God a featured article, but we all eventually gave up. Too much partisan bickering here; too many POV pushers, too few who are dispassionate about the subject. Still, it is a question to ask oneself when editing; Will this edit move the article closer to FA? KillerChihuahua 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- A few questions about the Good article requirement - 1) where does this requirement come from? 2) is it necessary for the picture to be on top? 3) can this really apply to abstract concepts where pictures are unhelpful or convey a bias? Just to reiterate, my suggestion is the God box as a replacement and for the picture to remain but be brought down some. Allisgod (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- So your suggestion is to replace it with nothing? One of requirements for being a "Good article" is that the subject is illustrated with images. Do you have any other specific suggestions for replacement? (The Arabic script for Allah might be one possible option, but I doubt we could get consensus for that.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are religions - the Jewish and Islamic faiths spring to mind - where it is taboo to even portray an image of God (which is logical when you think about it, why should people decide what God looks like if they are his/her creations and not the other way round). The very depiction of the face of God in this article is probably offensive to them, but that's not my battle. I know I have been portrayed as some hysterical, screaming militant feminist by certain contributors on here, but even I am not actually requesting a God of either gender. I no more insist that God is a woman than I accpet that God has to be a man. In putting together an article about a person (or entity) who is both unknown and unknowable, it is surely meaningless and unhelpful to post a picture of something or someone which is almost certainly not accurate. The man in the picture is a painting. It is not God. If you have an article on the Empire State Building, it is perfectly proper to show a photo of the Empire State Building. But no one knows what God looks like. To further propagate the view of people who think they know what God looks like (again, an old white man with a beard) is simply wrong. And I shouldn't be asked to accept it just because men and the Church have been in charge for centuries. Can you imagine how the men castigating me on here for complaining about a male God have reacted if they'd clicked on the article and found a picture of a black God at the top of the page? They would have had kittens. So perhaps no picture of God is the best option? My own belief in the Great She Wolf doesn't involve a picture of an actual wolf - it's concept wherein pictorial representation is unhelpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any specific suggestions for an alternative? A female God picture would probably not be the best replacement, while a "God of energy and light" is a little hard to portray in an image. Also, the Michelangelo may or may not be "cliche'", but if it is, that is not sufficient reason to remove it. Wikipedia by nature follows other sources. It does not spearhead agendas or ideas, regardless of whether or not they are good, right, or true. If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. (See WP:FLAT) If other sources use the Michelangelo to portray God, Wikipedia should probably follow suit. (I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with what other depictions of God exist.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- While it's convenient to view my assertiveness as "aggression" and being out of place because I am a woman (I notice that Charlesdrakew has threatened to "block" me after the earlier censorship he deployed, not really sure why the heavty-handedness is aimed at me, or what his problem is but I can assure him that if he blocks me he won't hear the end of it) my only aim was to try to get a little bit of balance in this article, which - everyone can agree I think - mainly reflects the western Christian view of God. It's the first thing anyone coming to the page will see - a picture of an old white man with a beard - which is not only a cliche but a phallocentric reinforcement of the kind of thing which Wikipedia should be ironing out over time. The Internet does reach beyond the white, male dominated West. It's not about righting wrongs, its about trying to portray a simple, balanced truth. My own recent research on this leads me to believe that throughout 99% of human history and pre-history the concept of (lets loosely call it) the Earth Mother was a far more common belief than a paternal, male God. My own experience and beliefs in the Great She Wolf have been passed down to me through millenia and predate not only Christianity but every trace of the paternalistic Abrahamic religions and indeed the pagan gods of the earliest civilisations. Is it too much to ask that the nature of God on Wikipedia is not decided simply by the fact that the overwhelming majority of editors are men, mainly pushy, "snippy" men who use Wiki as an outlet for their own sense of powerlessness and whose instinctive response to an independently minded woman is to gang up on her and try to shout her out? Even a gender neutral God - a God of energy and light - would be less of a slap in the face than the old man with the beard. It's like something out of Star Trek V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Offensive to Muslims
I'm giving Allisgod's argument that the image might be found offensive to Muslims its own section. We rarely have the subject come up, however, we've had arguments about images of Muhammad on Wikipedia for years. It seemed settled in 2008. In 2009, it was brought up on the Village Pump again. This past year, it has gone up to ArbCom, who topic banned a couple of editors and ordered an Rfc. The links go to the specific discussions, not the general pages. The consensus is that as Wikipedia is not censored, we do not worry overmuch about people who are offended by images of Muhammed, except that we offer a method for them to hide images if they don't want to see them. The same logic applies to images of God, or images of the human form, of Angels, of any sentient life, which is also prohibited by Islam. Human has images of people, for example, as do almost all biographies. You will be unable to gain traction for not having an image with the argument that it offends someone for a religious reason. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia; we ignore Islamic prohibitions on images. And finally, the image, as has been noted by Allisgod his/herself, is in a Catholic church, and is meant to be a representation of the Christian view of the Abrahamic God. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Again, you're making yet another straw man argument. The image being in the article is not at issue. Having a picture of God in itself being offensive to Muslims is not the issue. Having a Christian God as a lead picture of the article IS the issue. Allisgod (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then you should stop using it as an argument. You said specifically "That picture as a representation of God offends Muslims" [1] and this is a direct response to your concern. I fail to see how replying directly to what you said is in any way a "straw man argument" but I suppose you might use the term "straw man" differently than I have ever heard. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- @Allisgod: So basically the point you make is that if we put up a picture of the Muslim God that would be ok with you and would not be offensive to Muslims? Please provide such a picture with a similarly iconic value as the Michelangelo painting and I am sure we can discuss. Arnoutf (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then you should stop using it as an argument. You said specifically "That picture as a representation of God offends Muslims" [1] and this is a direct response to your concern. I fail to see how replying directly to what you said is in any way a "straw man argument" but I suppose you might use the term "straw man" differently than I have ever heard. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Care to explain why not? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Puppy is right. The RfC and ArbCom have established that point. Some people might disagree, understandably. But those individual disagreements, based on individual POV, are not and never have been sufficient grounds to change content. As KC indicated, the image is a representation of the Christian view of God, not of the concept of "God" in general. I do think that consultation of the most recent Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Jones will help establish taht there are, in fact, sufficient grounds for an almost incredible number of articles on the concept of God (the single omni-everything direct creator of the universe) as well as individual deities (which, apparently, is the term used in academia to specifically describe those divinities who do not meet the criteria of the previous parenthetical clause). Inclusion of specific images in those subarticles is another matter entirely, and best addressed at those pages. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Revision
It says, "Other religions have names for God...", but it would be more enlightening to word this as, "Other religions have names for their perception of God". --173.63.254.74 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- The names are their names for God, not for their perceptions of God. I disagree your suggested edit would be an improvement; IMO it would conflict with the neutral point of view policy. KillerChihuahua 22:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Other "languages" have other words for God. --E4024 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- An English-speaking Muslim would say Allah, an English speaking Christian would say God, and an English speaking Sikh might say Waheguru or Ik Onkar, and English speaking (conservative) Jews won't say "God" at all, they say Adonai which means "lord" or they might simply use a euphemism; and so on. It isn't a language difference so much as it is a religion difference. While different languages do have different words, that isn't what this sentence is talking about. Generally speaking the word for God travels with the religion, and does not change with the language. KillerChihuahua 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a bit more complicated than that: I've known many English-speaking Muslims who say 'God' in everyday conversation, and conversely, I'm aware that Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as Allah. But I agree with you that the proposed change does not help. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- An English-speaking Muslim would say Allah, an English speaking Christian would say God, and an English speaking Sikh might say Waheguru or Ik Onkar, and English speaking (conservative) Jews won't say "God" at all, they say Adonai which means "lord" or they might simply use a euphemism; and so on. It isn't a language difference so much as it is a religion difference. While different languages do have different words, that isn't what this sentence is talking about. Generally speaking the word for God travels with the religion, and does not change with the language. KillerChihuahua 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Other "languages" have other words for God. --E4024 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Summary
There are some faiths in the lede of monotheism which are also monotheistic. Also, the first paragraph mentions God is all-seeing and omnipotent, although deists (who are generally monotheistic) do not believe that. Pass a Method talk 11:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I put a qualifier in the previous sentence. I think that solves this issue. NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Reverted by KillerCh with reasoning: "added distinction is between theologians who study God, & who study ?" ... the answer is *theist* theologians who study God versus deist and pantheist theologians (which are actually commonly referred to as philosophers). In any case, I added the qualifier "theistic" conceptions of God as an alternative even though I think the first edit is more relevant to the issue, but I have no energy to get into an edit war with this person. NaturaNaturans (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- NaturaNaturans: Please either say KC or KillerChihuahua or Puppy; I find KillerCh very annoying, thank you.
- Regarding the edit: theologians study God(s), Theist and Theology come from the same root. Saying, on an article about a singular deity, "theologic view of theistic concept" or "theologians who identify as theists" is not only wrong, it's wrong twice. One, since they're theologians, they study God. They don't have to be theists to do so. Secondly, having theologic or theist to describe what they do is like saying wet water. As opposed, I suppose, to the dry kind? So whichever of the two meanings you were trying to convey with your edits, it doesn't work. KillerChihuahua 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pass a method's original point above is valid. The descriptions of God as "the most common" do not apply to deism nor do they apply to pantheistic eastern traditions. Instead of challenging the idea that those versions of God are "the most common" (says who?) I thought it would be prudent to qualify the statement that we are talking about conceptions arising from those who are speaking of theism. NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pass a method has excellent points; your edit addressed none of them. You left in "most common" and instead tried to add qualifiers to theologian. I suggest we modify "the most common" to "common" or "some of the", which would address the issues. I look forward to feedback here. KillerChihuahua 12:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, just trying to help. If it works for pass a method, it works for me. NaturaNaturans (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pass a method has excellent points; your edit addressed none of them. You left in "most common" and instead tried to add qualifiers to theologian. I suggest we modify "the most common" to "common" or "some of the", which would address the issues. I look forward to feedback here. KillerChihuahua 12:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pass a method's original point above is valid. The descriptions of God as "the most common" do not apply to deism nor do they apply to pantheistic eastern traditions. Instead of challenging the idea that those versions of God are "the most common" (says who?) I thought it would be prudent to qualify the statement that we are talking about conceptions arising from those who are speaking of theism. NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Ismism (philosophy) and the lead sentence
The lede sentence has problem and has been discussed many times in the talk page, it goes like this: God is a "deity", in the page deity, deity is defined as a "being", in the page being, being is defined as "an extremely broad concept"! the article is written by philosophers with many "ism"s and is impossible to understand. at least we can have a simple, intelligent, readable leading sentence. Kiatdd (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a problem. However, we need to make sure that whatever definition we put up is actually found in the source we attribute it to. I'd be happy with a first sentence that omits both 'deity' and various -isms, providing that (a) it does at least clearly use some expression like 'supreme being', (b) it avoids saying whether or not such a being really exists, and (c) it avoids the 'refers to' problem. I'm happy to discuss. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- ...
The previous lead sentence ,"god is monist diety in pantheism...", is not the best possible introduction. I checked and I am pretty sure that it cannot be found in the reference (the Oxford companion to philosophy by Ted Honderich). Surprisingly, the same source (page 314) mentions: " God is the supreme reality ... generally regarded as a personal being, bodiless, omnipresent, creator and sustainer of any universe there may be ... a source of moral obligation; who exists eternally ... God is the greatest conceivable being ... God is creator and sustainer of any universe..."
Another reference is oxford dictionary [2] which defines "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
if you want to put the previous definition back please write your source first, the name of your source with the page number.Kiatdd (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the previous lead sentence had no reliable source. But to be more precise, I took the attribute, "creator and sustainer of the universe" and applied it specifically to theism in a second sentence, because it leaves out both deism and pantheism. I added a summary of those in following short sentences (deism was previously not included in the lede and the sentence on pantheism's "monist deity" in the previous version had no source and is an obscure description). I think this way provides a better summary arrangement of the sections to come. Allisgod (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Huge improvement overall. I changed the monotheism from "God is considered identical to a single deity according to monotheism." to "God is considered a single deity according to monotheism." as the previous verbiage is recursive. It might be better to reverse the order (Monotheism defines God as...), or change monotheism to monotheists, piping to monotheism. I remind everyone that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and sources are not required in the lead, as the content is sourced in the body. Linked content may be sourced at the target article, such as the definition of monotheism being sourced at that article. KillerChihuahua 15:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- -Just wanted to say that "creator" seems to be more than an "optional" attribute, Alllisgod mentioned that too, and this is why rejecting this aspect proves to the most effective argument for atheism. Kiatdd (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your point. KillerChihuahua 21:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Origin of the term in relation to current linquistic understanding.
The term God, is derived from the old spelling of the term goth, which due linguistic exchanges of letters, is also spelled [goht].
Goht, acoustic goaht:goat, happens to be someone with a goatee (long beared), which is the depiction many provide.
What is the context? Don´t study theology without the required prerequisite courses such as linquistics, history, physics or biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.207.116 (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: Yes, I am a cardinal, but not one from your pretencious theological sedition or subsidy ranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.207.116 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Small error in section: "Existence of God"
I found a small error that needs correction. "[...]that the existence of God is not a question than can be answered using the scientific method.[37][38]" It should be 'that' instead of 'than'. Kelvaron (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"Supreme deity" redirect
Why does supreme deity redirect here? if God as an article is only about the monotheistic figure, then he presides over no hierarchy of deities in which he is "supreme," in the sense that for instance Jupiter is the "supreme deity" of the ancient Romans. Shouldn't "supreme deity" redirect to deity? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just wanted to note that this is a serious question, not intended to be one of those pissy "why's your God so special" openings to combat. I've always wondered why Jews and Christians would call God the supreme deity, since that implies there are others: I've assumed that this is a remnant from antiquity, since the Bible does acknowledge the veneration of other deities. So I repeat my question: shouldn't supreme deity redirect to deity, or better yet, to a section called "Supreme deity" there that would direct to God? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree.94.139.29.110 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for chiming in late here, but I note that the one of the best recent reference sources on religion, the Lindsay Jones/Mircea Eliade Encyclopedia of Religion, has a separate article on "Supreme beings", distinct from its articles on deity, god(s), and the like. Not having hat source right in front of me right now, I don't know what the article says, but I do think that if it is a substantial article there is probably good reason for "Supreme deity" or "Supreme being" to be a separate article here as well. If someone wanted the article, and gave me their e-mail address, I could send it to them, along with any similar articles on clearly virtually identical topics that I can find. But, until then, I tend to think that "supreme deity" as a concept probably more closely relates to "God" than to deity, a term which is generally used for lower-ranking "gods", like most of the Greek gods other than Zeus, for instance. John Carter (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree.94.139.29.110 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Change "God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of faith." to ""God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of a faith."
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of faith." to ""God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of a faith."94.139.29.110 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why? Rivertorch (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done: No justification provided and no consensus for any edit. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 14 April 2013 GOD IS NOT A FICTIONAL CARATER .HE IS REAL .
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
68.58.200.39 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. The article states nothing about fictional characters. – 29611670.x (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the proposition here is that God is a real "carater," which must mean somebody who makes carats. Perhaps our anonymous announcer intended to claim that God is a "carroter," ie, a grower of carrots. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Some capitalization issues.
I see that Deism, Pandeism, and Pantheism, are capitalized here -- I have noted the assertion made as to other articles that these are not to be capitalized. My preference is to capitalize them, but apparently opinions may vary. So what standard to follow? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Signs and 'coincidences' that are viewed as signs in relation to existence of God
- Should it be mentioned that some people view signs and 'coincidences' that are viewed as signs as a prove of Existance of God? For example, a person A met his long forgotten friend B in Chicago for the first time in 3 years. He said hello and went to New York and have met him again a few days since the first meeting. Then he went to Italy and week later met his friend in Milan. And fourth time he met him in Thailand after two weeks.
- Every such consecutive meeting makes it look less and less probable to happen. So some people think that such happenings can prove the existance of God logically and mathematically, because it comes that the total probability of all the meetings (events) is or close to 1/infinity (one divided by infinity). Ryanspir (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, it should not be mentioned. Such coincidences have nothing intrinsically to do with the subject of this article. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think I didn't explain myself enough. Here is more extended explanation. I was talking about the total probability of all such events in the whole of world population since the time of the humanity's creation. And, perhaps that could be expanded even further to the all probability of all events since the Big Bang leading towards appearance of solar system, the earth, life and humans. And, it could have been expanded even more further, past Big Bang to the moment of the creation of everything. And, in case there wasn't a point of creation but everything is eternal than its definately absolutely one divided by infinity. Ryanspir (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- No one is interested to reply? I think signs and probably coincidences should be included in the article. Ryanspir (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- If such a notion were to be included, I would have insist it be spelled "koinkydinks." DeistCosmos (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- More importantly, if such a notion were to be included, you we would need to have a reliable source saying "lots of people think the existance of God can be proven by the fact that the probability of all random events occuring exactly as they did is infintessimal". (Which is not something I've ever seen anyone claim - especially not in the version "if the universe wasn't created, then a God is even more necessary!". 109.149.70.145 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- No one is interested to reply? I think signs and probably coincidences should be included in the article. Ryanspir (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Picture of God
Another user tried to remove the lead picture. In the past year this has happened several times. This issue of having a male anthropomorphic image of God is still unresolved. I believe the picture at lead is inappropriate for a neutral article that is supposed to cover pantheism, deism, Islam, and other monotheistic faiths that do not agree with the Western Christian 'picture' of God. I think a fair compromise is the picture being moved down in the article. It is a bit of a mockery of God to other faiths to have this Judeo Christian picture of God as lead. NaturaNaturans (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Totally agree. I don't even know any serious Christian theologians who are comfortable with the traditional "old beared man" depiction of God. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Myself am a pandeist, but that picture is art, not a photo of God. So I would say keep it for it cannot be mistaken for the real thing. We should not split hairs over other religions being offended by art, since the article Muhammad (the Islamic prophet) includes pictures, although they are offensive to most Muslims. If we are to remove everything that could lead to controversy, we could better terminate Wikipedia, since almost every piece of encyclopedic knowledge is controversial to somebody in the world. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Being offended was not my point, so perhaps I misstated the problem. The problem is that the picture only represents one version of the monotheistic God and does not AT ALL represent the others. 'Others' includes the second largest religious group in the world, 1.3 BILLION Muslims - the fastest growing and most actively involved religion in the world. It includes the majority of the third largest religious group in the world, or hundreds of millions of monotheistic (pantheistic) Hindus. It includes liberal forms of Christianity, Jewish mysticism, Unitarian Universalism, and on and on... this is not a small minority (in fact, I have seen no evidence that worldwide it is not a majority). This picture of god in the lead of this article is a Western artistic conception, yet the article is not about the Western conception of God. Wikipedia should not prominently display bias for Western ways of thinking of an anthropomorphic idea of God in an article that is supposed to be about God in general, which includes massive groups of people who view God as an abstract entity. Putting this picture in the lead is like putting the Republican symbol in the lead of the Political Party page or even the Political parties in the United States page, or putting the U.S. president picture atop the President page. Those pages appropriately do not show this kind of, frankly, ignorant cultural bias on a page about a very broad topic. NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would surely have no objection to a gallery of multiple depictions of 'God' as provided by different faiths and cultures. Perhaps an icon of Vishnu, oft considered in some strains of Hinduism to be the equivalent of Western conceptions of God (as the supreme being in which all things subsist). What other worthwhile depictions may exists, perhaps in abstract art even may be of use as well. And as to a picture being a 'lead' image, perhaps a triptych or collage image? Or generate a gif which rotates between select images representing different views? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your suggestion would be better than the current state of the page, but I would prefer the God box that is below the picture to be in the lead and the picture to be moved down to the Gender or Anthropomorphic sections. Similar to other abstract articles, I don't believe this article should have a lead picture. NaturaNaturans (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would surely have no objection to a gallery of multiple depictions of 'God' as provided by different faiths and cultures. Perhaps an icon of Vishnu, oft considered in some strains of Hinduism to be the equivalent of Western conceptions of God (as the supreme being in which all things subsist). What other worthwhile depictions may exists, perhaps in abstract art even may be of use as well. And as to a picture being a 'lead' image, perhaps a triptych or collage image? Or generate a gif which rotates between select images representing different views? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Being offended was not my point, so perhaps I misstated the problem. The problem is that the picture only represents one version of the monotheistic God and does not AT ALL represent the others. 'Others' includes the second largest religious group in the world, 1.3 BILLION Muslims - the fastest growing and most actively involved religion in the world. It includes the majority of the third largest religious group in the world, or hundreds of millions of monotheistic (pantheistic) Hindus. It includes liberal forms of Christianity, Jewish mysticism, Unitarian Universalism, and on and on... this is not a small minority (in fact, I have seen no evidence that worldwide it is not a majority). This picture of god in the lead of this article is a Western artistic conception, yet the article is not about the Western conception of God. Wikipedia should not prominently display bias for Western ways of thinking of an anthropomorphic idea of God in an article that is supposed to be about God in general, which includes massive groups of people who view God as an abstract entity. Putting this picture in the lead is like putting the Republican symbol in the lead of the Political Party page or even the Political parties in the United States page, or putting the U.S. president picture atop the President page. Those pages appropriately do not show this kind of, frankly, ignorant cultural bias on a page about a very broad topic. NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Myself am a pandeist, but that picture is art, not a photo of God. So I would say keep it for it cannot be mistaken for the real thing. We should not split hairs over other religions being offended by art, since the article Muhammad (the Islamic prophet) includes pictures, although they are offensive to most Muslims. If we are to remove everything that could lead to controversy, we could better terminate Wikipedia, since almost every piece of encyclopedic knowledge is controversial to somebody in the world. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The picture isn't God in the Bible, it's just a figment of an artist's imagination. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- the artist was a Catholic, who painted the image in the Sistine Chapel to represent creation, as depicted in the Bible. This painting was part of a series of paintings of the stories of the Bible. The Sistine Chapel is the residence of the Pope, the leader of the Catholic Church. NaturaNaturans (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a famous piece of art. Most educated people will recognize it as a painting of God, an iconic symbol but not the real thing. I left behind long ago the idea that God is a bearded man in the sky, and I am confident of this to such extent that it no longer bothers me to see God painted as a bearded man. I'm not psychologically insecure about God not being a bearded man. In general, most religious symbols appear weird, even blasphemous, to people which have not been accustomed to them (culturally speaking). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, why not keep the traditional image but incorporate it into a bigger image representing different forms of god or gods beside eachother? Then other gods will be included but we can keep the traditional version too. 82.19.147.59 (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I still don't understand why we don't attach an actual photograph of God. It could clear up a lot of misconceptions. Codenamemary (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Have you considered that the idea that it's possible to take a photograph of God is a misconception? As I said last time, most theistic religions (read all current ones) either teach that God is transcendent (i.e. beyond comprehension, much less photography), and/or is so immanent as to be the ground of all being (and so you would need at least a picture of the entire universe, and that'd still only be incomplete except for the most material of pantheists). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ian, would you object to moving down the picture and bringing up the God box in its place? Thousands of abstract articles on Wikipedia already do this and I believe it would help the article be more neutral in character. The picture will remain in the article and there are plenty of other pictures in the article as well, but the lead, imo, ought to be picture-less given that this article's scope includes many different conceptions of God that are profoundly different than this lead picture representation of God. NaturaNaturans (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- *shrug* We'd have to drop the Conegliano pic, but that one's not as well known, covers the same subject, and is from the same period and culture. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable enough request...I've made the change (I moved the Conegliano further down.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- To make it look a little more natural, I would put the picture as a lead in one of the first sections, for example in "General Conceptions", but it's still much better this way with the God box on top and gives the article a more neutral perception. Thanks NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ian, would you object to moving down the picture and bringing up the God box in its place? Thousands of abstract articles on Wikipedia already do this and I believe it would help the article be more neutral in character. The picture will remain in the article and there are plenty of other pictures in the article as well, but the lead, imo, ought to be picture-less given that this article's scope includes many different conceptions of God that are profoundly different than this lead picture representation of God. NaturaNaturans (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
-blank.png){kind=spacer}
- I'm ok with moving it there, but I'll wait a bit to see if anyone has any objections first. I'd also be ok with adding a depiction of the universe somewhere if people want to do that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Observable universe in the body but not the lede should be fine. Just as not everyone believes in monotheism, not everyone believes in pantheism or panentheism (and panentheists would point out that the pic of the universe would be incomplete at best). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm ok with moving it there, but I'll wait a bit to see if anyone has any objections first. I'd also be ok with adding a depiction of the universe somewhere if people want to do that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
*Thumbs up (not in the middle eastern sense). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Adj and Ian, excellent idea of the universe picture in the "Theism, deism and pantheism" sections. That makes a lot of sense. NaturaNaturans (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: << Have you considered that the idea that it's possible to take a photograph of God is a misconception? As I said last time, most theistic religions (read all current ones) either teach that God is transcendent (i.e. beyond comprehension, much less photography), and/or is so immanent as to be the ground of all being (and so you would need at least a picture of the entire universe, and that'd still only be incomplete except for the most material of pantheists). >> (Ian.thomson)
- You're ignoring that God in the Bible is discussed as a man with hunger, thirst and aching feet:
- Genesis 18 / 1And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; / 2And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, / 3And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: / 4Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: / 5And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. / 6And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. / 7And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. / 8And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat./ 9And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. / 10And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. / 11Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. / 12Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? / 13And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? / 14Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. / 15Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh. / 16And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. / 17And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
- Point Being, that when we combine this with God "walking" through the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8), physically wrestling with Jacob (Genesis 32:24), and allowing Moses to see his backside (Exodus 33:18-34:9), we have a god that is physical and visible. SO....again, why are we settling for second-hand artistic depictions of God when He is physical, and therefor photographable? It just seems like the most direct and clear illustration choice. Codenamemary (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Strange focus on Abrahamic traditions. Article is FAR from neutral.
Why does the article completely ignore the fact that other cultures have beliefs about God? Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs each get a passing mention, but the article totally excludes other Asian cultures and the entire hemisphere of the Americas. (The entire hemisphere!) This is exceedingly biased, and it breaks the NPOV rule. The article gives the impression that the Abrahamic religions are "right." Ojibwa, Yazidi, Nahuatl, Navajo, Yoruba, Dravidian, Mandaean, and Wiccan readers might disagree with that sentiment. 50.1.63.66 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well I surely and unequivocally agree with that assessment, my friend!! Please do help by adding reference to these varies God-beliefs. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Giving many of the small religions you mention more weight would be violating neutrality by giving them undue coverage, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- But they are presently given no weight at all, making this page deceptively uninformative as to the breadth of God-notions. And how small are we talking here? Judaism is comparatively tiny but gets extensive coverage because of its past significance -- and yet many of these now tiny religions have significant histories and populations in the past. Conversely, it must be asked, if Christianity continues its trajectory of bleeding converts until it shrinks to a few thousand or is lost altogether in practice, must we then erase its traces from this page to avoid undue coverage? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, Judaism gets extensive coverage because of past significance, that is fully expected in assigning it WP:DUE weight. Due weight is assigned based on coverage in reliable sources, and the past significance gives it much weight. Other small religions not so much. The weight is so small that we don't even need to mention them, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- This has all been brought up before, and I'll do what I did then and break down the article by section and cover mention of each ideas:
- Lede: The first paragraph discusses the concept in general without touching any particular religious belief. The second paragraph has one general sentence, three sentences covering Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and two covering non-Christian religions. The Abrahamic religions make up about half the world's population.
- Etymology and usage: As with last year, discusses proto-Germanic language (general), Jewish terms, Islamic terms, and Hindu terms.
- General conceptions: Discusses Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist views
- Oneness: Discusses the general idea, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and mentions the Islamic repudition of Christian doctrine (rather than elaborating on the Christian view of that doctrine).
- Theism, deism and pantheism: This section's views on pandeism have been expanded since my last assesment, but otherwise my assessment from then stands - "Discusses the general idea, and mentions in a sentence (out of the entire first paragraph) the Catholic church's rejection of certain ideas, as an example that not all the ideas discussed are universal. The deism section is secular, while the pantheism section only mentions the Liberal Catholic Church for any Christian groups, but does mention Theosophy, Hinduism, Sikhism, Neopaganism, Taoism, Kabbalah and its acceptance within Hasidic Judaism."
- Other concepts: Discusses dystheism and nontheism without really discussing organized religions except for an offhand mention of Theistic Satanism as an example of dystheism and a single sentence discussing some Abrahamic views of God as a concept rather than a person. The section also mentions some philosophies which are accepted by a minority of Christians, but these philosophies are not Christ-centric and are applicable to most other theistic religions as well (replace any mention of "Christ" with Allah or Brahma). A few writers who happen to be Christian are mentioned, but any Christian nature of their ideas is not discussed.
- Existence of God: This section has become less general and more specific since last year. Still, though it cites some Christian and Jewish authors, their cited ideas are not specifically Christian or Jewish but merely theistic (I have removed Lewis's Lord, Lunatic, or Liar trilemma as it is specifically Christological, but not his Argument from Desire as it requires no real modification to be applicable to other religions). A plug for Dawkins was removed, but otherwise the section still covers atheism.
- Gender: This section cites authors who happen to be Christian, but does not get into their specifically Christian views (merely their broader theistic views). The last sentence is rather specifically Biblical, which is the basis for Judaism and Christianity and highly influential on Islam (and from there Baha'i). Again, over half the world's population, one sentence out of six is not undue
- Epitheta: Discusses Jewish, Islamic, and Vaishnavist Hindu ideas.
- Relationship with creation: Discusses Christian, Islamic, and general ideas. The first sentence is specifically Christian, while the second (from the actual source) actually ends up being more general to any theist who believes in a personal deity. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences are specifically Islamic. The following nine-paragraph sentence mentions one Christian example of a broader concept (it also used to identify universalism as specifically Christian despite the existence of non-Christian universalism, and I have remedied this).
- Theological approaches: There were two "see also" links that are explicitly Christian that I have removed. As I said last year: "Mentions Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers in the first paragraph, but goes with ideas that most religions agree upon. Discusses medieval philosophy (hey, Jews and Muslims were present in Europe then, too!). Eventually discusses more secular discussion, including skeptical views. Any bias present is Eurocentric, but not Christian-centric. (This is perhaps a result of most of the editors only being able to use sources written in English)." The Abrahamic religions are only specifically mentioned in a couple of sentences out of many paragraphs.
- Non-theistic views of God (including the new section Anthropomorphism): Covers only atheistic, agnostic, and secular views.
- Distribution of belief in God: Just gives the figures for different religious beliefs. Reality isn't a bias.
- Just like last year, I have to conclude that the assumption that there's undue weight for the major Abrahamic religions results from a combination of not recognizing the weight due to those religions, and not understanding that those religions do share general concepts with other religions.
- If that's not good enough, I've counted all the sentences. and all those that are , and those that are specifically about other religions. Out of the 146-ish sentences in the article, only roughly 29 were rather specifically about the major Abrahamic religions (not merely broad concepts applicable to most theistic religions for which we happened to cite a Christian or Jewish author), while 14 were about other religions. In other words, the article is about 20% Abrahamic, 9% other religions, and 71% general concepts that apply to the majority of beliefs concerning God. If you count strong atheism or even rejection of the Abrahamic religions, it goes up to 22 non-Abrahamic sentences, or 14%.
- Conclusion: the article is not dominated by the Abrahamic religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- This conclusion is defective in its failure to weigh what is utterly missing from this page. It is unfathomable that a scholarly explanation of the concept of "God" should make NO mention whatsoever of Zoroastrianism and its uniquely novel proposition for its era that there was in fact one transcendent and benevolent Creator deity from which all that was good came, and from which nothing came that was evil; NO mention of Atenism and its prodigious effort to turn a polytheistic faith towards monotheism; NO mention of the evolution of theological thought originating with the mythos of Marduk as a sort of God-amongst-gods who vanquishes all who would oppose him amongst other gods and then creates man to bear the burden of mortality; and venturing further into the philosophical, NO mention of the propositions of Heraclitus and other philosophers of the Milesian school from which the very concept of the Logos is drawn, NO mention of Plotinus and his unique conception of the oneness of deity itself, all of which are elements formative to the Abrahamic mythos and to nonAbrahamic monotheistic conceptions, as well as to deistic/pandeistic and (especially in the example of Heraclititus) pantheistic conceptions. To read this article would be to derive a very, very wrong notion of the origins of modern theological thought, imagining them to have sprung forth wholesale in Abrahamic belief instead of slowly evolving from animism and spiritism into polytheism, into variations of polytheism with stronger and stronger central deities and weaker and less significant peripheral deities, until those peripheral deities are redesignated as demons and devils, and saints and prophets, or reconfigured as aspects of the central deity, as a son or a spouse or a holy spirit. And lastly it is equally worth noting that this trajectory is evidenced in the continuous male ego-projection of genderfication of the deity. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article cannot be too long, there are other articles which handle the subjects pointed by DeistCosmos. E.g. in the article Yahweh the NPOV accusation from the talk page is that it relies too much on contemporary secular historians, instead of say biblical literalism or maximalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is a difference in giving undue weight to the Abrahamic religiobs and not giving enough due weight to its antecedents. I too would like to see more coverage for other God-centered religions (Tengriism, Yezidiism, Chinese Heaven Worship, and Tenrikyo for example), but at this point that's a separate issue from undue weight on the Abrahamic religions. The Abrahamic religions coverage is not detracting from other religions coverage, they are receiving at most due weight. Other religions may not be receiving enough coverage, but accusing the Abrahamic religion coverage of that is a false conclusion that mixes up problems and imagines biases where there are none. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article cannot be too long, there are other articles which handle the subjects pointed by DeistCosmos. E.g. in the article Yahweh the NPOV accusation from the talk page is that it relies too much on contemporary secular historians, instead of say biblical literalism or maximalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Side note: the streamlined animism > polytheism > monotheism thinking is outdated and rooted in European colonialism's assumption "Of course we're the most advanced!" See Malinowski, also China, which went monotheism to polytheism).~ Ian.thomson (talk)
- well then, allow me to respond. @Adjwilley, thanks for linking that I suppose, but I need only modify my statement to point out that this page still provides no information about the formative innovations introduced to theology by Zoroastrianism. And, @Tgeorgescu, I don't know what sort of page limits there are for these pages but I have seen many longer ones; and one would imagine that for as fundamental a concept as "God" there'd be some allowance for a page to be as long as it needs to be to fully expound upon the topic. But granting that, this is like having an article on George Washington which has several paragraphs worth of information weighing his religious beliefs, and only one passing mention that he was "involved in a war." Which leads me right back to @Ian.thomson: a scholarly work which is thorough in discussing one phase of a thing while failing to discuss significant other phases leading to that phase can not credibly claim to be an article about the thing. It is simply a deception, possibly unwittingly so, but still a deception. The weight given to those portions which are covered is inherently undue because it gives the false impression that their relative coverage is appropriate. As to Malinowski, recall that he was influenced by Frazer, who led science in placing the Abrahamic mythos in the category of mythos, and demonstrating that it indeed assembled elements common to prior faith narratives. But Malinowski was a theorist. His speculations do nothing to uproot the equally valid speculation that religion progressed from animism through polytheism to monotheism, and indeed that is exactly what Atenism incipiently shows as having happened. And indeed, that is what Karen Armstrong's A History of God shows as having happened to the Jews, influenced by the traditions of their Babylonian and Canaanite neighbors to focus their worship on their highest god until all others essentially fell into disuse, and their domains were reattributed to that one high god, so that history was rewritten to have it be the only one which had ever been, and all others simply lesser spirit beings of some sort. Whatever may have happened differently in China or Africa or elsewhere, there is proof enough of the Abrahamic deity having evolved out of polytheism.
- And lastly, interestingly enough, where in this page is their mention of the modernly vital notion that all the different conceptions of "God" from all the monotheistic faiths are in fact simply addressing aspects of the same deity, to which as many paths exist as there are faiths or beliefs? DeistCosmos (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Re deception: let's say someone stocking soda at a store is told to put ten cases up each on the shelves. He stocks eleven cases of Coke, four of Pepsi, and three dozen cases of RC Cola. Is there undue weight for the Coke simply because there's more of that than the Pepsi? No, there isn't. The Abrahamic sections are, *at best* at due weight. It is the general portions that are deproving coverage of non-Abrahamic religions, Re Malinowski and supposed progession: he got off the veranda and did field work to show that the assumptions of the Eurocentric works of Tyler and Frazer said more about those society's conditions than the world at large, and is why Frazer's theories are largely as dismissed as Lamarck is among biologists: important for history of the field, but not what is current consensus in the field. Frazer was the theorist, not Malinowski. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The analogy of a stocker stocking sodas at a store is wonderful here precisely because that store stocker is a seller. His goal has nothing to do with communicating what is true, and only to do with lining his own pockets. If you went to him asking what is the best soda or what will give me a taste of the flavor from which modern sodas developed, he would not off you any empirical truth, but would only try to sell you what is on his shelves -- probably whichever one is most profitable for him, or whichever he is most overstocked in at the moment. And that is precisely the state of this article, as if it were an article on soda which insisted that the Coca Cola bottling company sprung fully grown from the ground, invented carbonation, and immediately began selling something nobody had ever heard of or thought of before, uninfluenced by history or indeed by reality itself. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works by assigning due weight from prominence. We do not, repeat not, aim to balance multiple viewpoints with equal weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- And where is anybody asking for "equal weight" to be given to multiple viewpoints? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- My point still stands that the Abrahamic religions nearly receiving due weight (at most) does not detract from the coverage of other religions. To reduce its current coverage because there isn't enough weight for other religions would be like amputating a perfectly functional foot to fix some broken fingers: The foot needs to be left alone while the broken fingers need to be put in set, put in splints, and eventually exercised to improve the muscles. The Abrahamic sections do not need to be cut at all, but bits on other religions need to be drafted, sourced, and improved over time. There is no unbiased reason to go after the Abrahamic sections. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have looked through the whole of this conversation and see no call to "reduce" the coverage of the Abrahamic religions. From the start the call has been to expand the coverage of neglected positions (you have yourself named several), and to place the Abrahamic faiths in the context of the theological developments which informed the Abrahamic faiths in their own development. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then there is no undue weight on them or strange focus on the Abrahamic religions. There is simply not enough of other material. Different issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Ian.thompson, thank you for that thorough analysis of the article above. I found it quite interesting, and it was helpful.
- @DiestCosmos, expanding the coverage of neglected posoitions and "plac[ing] the Abrahamic faiths in the context of the theological developments..." seems like a good path forward from here. You seem to have a good handle on things, why don't you start coming up with stuff to add? My one request is that you start by working it into the body of the article...it's a pet peeve of mine when people come up with stuff to add to an article but instead of taking the time to work it in properly they just slap it in at the end of the Lead section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then there is no undue weight on them or strange focus on the Abrahamic religions. There is simply not enough of other material. Different issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have looked through the whole of this conversation and see no call to "reduce" the coverage of the Abrahamic religions. From the start the call has been to expand the coverage of neglected positions (you have yourself named several), and to place the Abrahamic faiths in the context of the theological developments which informed the Abrahamic faiths in their own development. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- @ IRWolfie, The way due weight is calculated on science topics and topics related to spirituality should never be treated the same. I think you may be calculating weight based on the population of religions which i disagree with. Pass a Method talk 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works by assigning due weight from prominence. We do not, repeat not, aim to balance multiple viewpoints with equal weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Undue Weight
There are currently two quotes by Richard Dawkins featured in the article in two completely different sections. I propose that this statment: "Others such as Richard Dawkins see the idea of God as entirely pernicious. In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins writes: "God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and as later chapters will show, a pernicious one." be removed first because I think it is totally inappropriate in the 'other conceptions' section under nontheism while his atheist views are also discussed later in the article. Second, because for a topic this big in scope and historical magnitude, I don't think Dawkins' positions warrants mentioning twice. BV talk 04:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that paragraph was about nontheism which was described again in a later section. I moved up that section, merged the material, and removed that extra Dawkins quote. I think that may solve the problem. NaturaNaturans (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
God is the nmae of trust faith....expectation of justice ..fear of punishment of bad committed deal in our life we don't hv a valid proof of it becoze it's a abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.81.64 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added some words about Perennial philosophy to the introductory paragraphs, though to be true I confess I do not know if this is where they best belong. But this ancient notion that the 'true' God is unknown and that the many religions of the world are simply glimpses of it, equally true partial paths, is vital for inclusion in any article about God. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Lead should not be a laundry list of religions
I recently reverted this edit, which seemed to be a continuation of User:Pass a Method's efforts to include a list of small new religious movements in the Lead paragraphs. The consensus came down against that last time (see Talk:God/Archive 22#Should Zeus be in the lede?, Talk:God/Archive_22#Henotheism, Talk:God/Archive 22#Scope of this article, for past discussion). Of course, consensus can change, but the onus is on Pass a Method to start the discussion to change it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- First i amened the title to make it more conducive to diuscussion. Second, there are thousands of religions on earth. My version (which contains 9) can hardly be described as a laundry list. A laundry liat in my view would be something along the line of 20, 50 100. But 9 is a aundry list? Maybe, but thats because there are so many different conceptions of God. By the way, all the religions i listed are mentioned in Adherents.com under the title "major religions of the world" Pass a Method talk 21:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please try to gain consensus before you revert. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why dont you try to gain consensus yourself? Pass a Method talk 21:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Adjwilley - mention of the extra religions seems excessive. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The reason I don't need to try and form consensus here is because there already exists a past consensus that supports the current revision. See WP:CCC, which I linked above and note how I pointed to the past discussions where the consensus was formed. Also see WP:STATUSQUO. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Adjwilley - mention of the extra religions seems excessive. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why dont you try to gain consensus yourself? Pass a Method talk 21:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please try to gain consensus before you revert. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
RfC
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to not include the edit as it is not well sourced, nor is the information included in the body of the article, which is required per WP:LEAD. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do you support or oppose this edit? Asking because i was asked to seek consensus for my edit above. Pass a Method talk 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- This does not seem to be a formal RfC, but oppose. We don't want to list every theistic religion in the lead; that would soon become unwieldy, because their are many, many minor theistic religions. Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should summarise the body. And, of course, material should be sourced. -- 101.119.14.115 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I stated my case in my reverting edit summary and in the section above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support absolutely. Yes, there are many religions, far too many to list all in the introductory materials. But by a number of counts, Tenrikyo and Rastafarianism are both in the top twenty worldwide, with hundreds of thousands to millions of adherents. And so it is even more discongruous to exclude faiths of this stature. DeistCosmos (talk)
- Even if Tenrikyo and Rastafarianism were included, material should be correct and sourced. Jah is not, in fact, a vocalization of YHVH, but a shortened form. Also, going by number of adherents, I'm not sure that Rastafarianism does fall into the "top twenty," and listing twenty religions in the lead would make it very unwieldy, in any case. The statement about Tenrikyo is also poorly worded; that religion has several different names for its deity. -- 101.119.15.113 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I make no suggestion of listing twenty religions in the lead; several of those twenty are religions which lack the sort of 'God' discussed on this page, such as Buddhism and Korean religion Cheondoism. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Even if Tenrikyo and Rastafarianism were included, material should be correct and sourced. Jah is not, in fact, a vocalization of YHVH, but a shortened form. Also, going by number of adherents, I'm not sure that Rastafarianism does fall into the "top twenty," and listing twenty religions in the lead would make it very unwieldy, in any case. The statement about Tenrikyo is also poorly worded; that religion has several different names for its deity. -- 101.119.15.113 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support as the nominator and to clarify my stance. Jah is a vocalization f YHWH and i have provided a source for that. Also the objection above about Tenrikyo having many other names is refuted by the fact the name added is the main name. All the other religions have other names for their deity too so by that logic they should go from the lead too.
- Furthermore, there are thousands of religions on earth. My version (which contains only 9) can hardly be described as a "laundry list" as has been described above. A laundry liat in my view would be something along the line of 20 religions, 50 religions 100 religions or 500 religions. But 9 is a laundry list? Even if that was true, it is an accurate reflection of there being so many different conceptions of God, which go in the thousands. By the way, all the religions i listed are mentioned in Adherents.com under the title "major religions of the world", so at least the largest online source on religion describes these religions as being major religions. Pass a Method talk 09:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're voting on your own edit? In any case, you did not provide a source saying that "Jah is a vocalization of YHWH" (and of course you cannot, because it isn't -- it's a shortened form). The sentence beginning "Other religions have names for God, for instance..." already has 3 examples, which is about the right number for a list of examples in the lead. And all those examples are sourced. I don't think this article needs random bits of unsourced information inserted into existing sentences, especially in the lead. That sort of thing only detracts from article quality. And what on earth do you mean by "mute" in this context? -- 101.119.14.103 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually i did, Check again. As for sourcing, there are plenty of sources inside wikilinks. I see no need to rehash them here. Also reworded my sentence you misunderstood. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a WP:RS for Wikipedia. And you are misrepresenting the source you added to the Jah page, which says "Rastas refer to God as 'Jah,' which is the abbreviated form of Jahweh (Yahweh) a name derived from the 'tetragrammaton' (four-letter word) YHWH of the Hebrew Bible." This is not the same as saying that "Jah is a vocalization of YHWH." Accuracy is important. -- 101.119.15.190 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- And please do not make major edits to comments that have already been responded to, as you did above. It makes following the conversation very confusing. -- 101.119.15.190 (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your knowledge of wikipedia policies are obiously quite flimsy. It appears to me that you're asking me to violate copyright or violate WP:PARAPHRASE. If the wording in the source is different to the content added that is perfectly fine, and in fact encouraged. Also, please look up the definition of the word "misrepresent". Pass a Method talk 13:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Paraphrasing should not alter the meaning of a source. Doing so is misrepresentation. -- 119.225.135.178 (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ought not to be hard to find a dozen sources for Rastas calling on "Jah." DeistCosmos (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, but that's not the issue being discussed. The issue being discussed is whether "Jah" is a vocalisation (not just an abbreviation) of YHWH. -- 101.119.15.79 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ought not to be hard to find a dozen sources for Rastas calling on "Jah." DeistCosmos (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Paraphrasing should not alter the meaning of a source. Doing so is misrepresentation. -- 119.225.135.178 (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your knowledge of wikipedia policies are obiously quite flimsy. It appears to me that you're asking me to violate copyright or violate WP:PARAPHRASE. If the wording in the source is different to the content added that is perfectly fine, and in fact encouraged. Also, please look up the definition of the word "misrepresent". Pass a Method talk 13:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- {out|8}}I don't think it can be. Psalm 68:4 uses 'Jah' in its own right, which given the usual strictures about the Tetragrammaton, would be hard to confuse with YHWH. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this discussion can be put to rest now. Counting the section above which spawned this RfC, there are four editors against various aspects of the edit, and only two editors in favour of it (including the editor who originally made the edit). I think BRD in this case has given a clear consensus not to include the edit. -- 101.119.15.171 (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit request on 19 October 2013
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not sure how this works, but I have painted this scene: http://www.bigdoggalleries.com/art/viewer.asp?pic=30 70.59.3.120 (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you're suggesting that your painting should be added to the article, you'd need to upload it and gain consensus here that it should be added. Neither of the above requires a formal edit request. Rivertorch (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- But great job, though, painting that. DeistCosmos (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
God is a term for something a person respects, idolizes or worships not necessarily a deity.
Opening statement on Wikipedia under "God"
This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general concept of "a god", see Deity. For God in the context of specific religions, see an index of pages beginning in "God in". For discussion of the existence of God, see Existence of God. For other uses, see God (disambiguation).”
This does not define God the word or term, The above statement defines God as a Deity and a part of religion. Stating: (“For the general concept of "a god", see Deity.”)I believe you have defined “God a Deity or God Almighty or God the Creator. To be fair will you define the word God before you describe God the Creator the deity?
The Christian definition of “God” is: what a person respects, idolizes or worships. There is no requirement that God be a deity. In the Christian Faith it is also mentioned that people will worship “False Gods”. These False Gods are not deities but idols. Today people worship false Gods, Idolatry, like, Gods of Sports, Gods of Marketing, Gods of Rock and Roll , Gods of Finances, to list a few. There is a God for everything in todays world. 2013, 5th anniversary Golden Gods music awards. If any of these are deities it is because they lived and died a God. Afterwards people still worship their deity.
God and religion
From Wikipedia: Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Because Religion and Organized Religion are two different things, I would reword Organized Religion is a collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
From Wikipedia, Idolatry: In modern society and sociology, some writers have commented on the ways that people no longer simply worship organised religions, but many now also worship consumer brands,[11] sports teams, and other people (celebrities).[12] Sociology therefore extends this argument to suggest that religion and worship is a process whereby society worships itself, as a form of self-valorization and self-preservation.[13]
Hubfree (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- You can't have "gods" with a capital letter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, one could use the word "god" to mean footwear, but that's not what the word means in English. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Adding a Link in "See Also"
Hello there,
In light of differing views on the concept of God, I would like to suggest adding a link in the "See Also" section of this article for "The New Message from God" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Message_from_God
Thank you for your consideration.
Take Care, Jenna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.245.57 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Picture of "observable universe"
I removed this picture, because it has no connection with the article. I read the discussion in the archived talk page, which is not only unconvincing, but lacks any claim of logical connection. (The provenance of the image itself is also not very clear: a "blank map", but it includes lots of little dots? Perhaps it is meant to be a schematic diagram?) I understand that there are people who claim that God "is" the universe, but there are also people who claim that God "is" a beautiful flower, or an act of kindness, and so on and so on. But these are all (really) metaphors: we could include practically any photograph and claim it "illustrated" God to at least someone. But unless there is some text supporting this, the "observable universe" image is just irrelevant. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- In pantheism "God is the Universe" is not a metaphor, it is taken as literally true. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- --
- Aah, i see the confusion.
- If you zoom in on that picture you can just make out numbers. Draw a line between consecutive numbers to see God!
Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014
I want to blank the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.247.35 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct typo in introductory section; exit -> exist
"In atheism, God is purported not to exit, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism."
This should read "In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism."
2606:A000:F401:FF01:38C2:2135:CA9:D514 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is pretty good
Very well done! 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014
| This edit request to God has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Christians believe Jesus is also God and the Son of God; that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that there is no way to the Father but through him; and that The Holy Spirit is also God, the third Person of the Holy Trinity, three Persons in One God. Patzcakes (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 06:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014
no one know the god
so dont add picture -_- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.100.182 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- no one know you say
- so dont bad grammar -_-
- Or, if I'm not going to be a dick about it: no one smart enough to read seriously thinks the picture is God. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Purported?
The word, "purported", in "In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism.", has context. Purported means "claimed, especially within the context of a falsity." Wikipedia is meant to be wholly unbiased in its' descriptions and I think we should replace "purported" with a less suggestive word, such as "believed". 70.36.132.121 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- More to the point, atheism and agnosticism are not "beliefs", they are various degrees of absence of belief. I agree the wording at present is rather odd, but I'm not sure that any of this even belongs at this point in the article. The article is written from a theist perspective (for which there is a very long tradition), so I think this list (from polytheism to atheism) would be better placed in Existence of God for example. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen this argued before. There are plenty of atheists out there who actively proclaim the non-existence of God. That looks like a positive assertion of a negative belief. Agnosticism I'm much more ready to accept as an absence of belief. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes of course, there are many such people, and the distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic" is not in practice very clear cut. But in any case, it is not clear that any of this belongs in this article -- and generally speaking I think this first paragraph is terrible. If you look at Conservapedia:God, the first sentence is a vastly better explanation, if preceded by "In the tradition of the Abrahamic religions" (which is the context of CP). Since the article starts by saying it is discussing God in the context of monotheism, all the other varieties belong under "Deity" or "Existence of God". Imaginatorium (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen this argued before. There are plenty of atheists out there who actively proclaim the non-existence of God. That looks like a positive assertion of a negative belief. Agnosticism I'm much more ready to accept as an absence of belief. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Of course the problem with Conservapedia is that it adopts a position, while Wikipedia tries to be unbiased. In tricky articles like this where the Abrahamic bias of most Wikipedia editors has become intertwined with the word. This causes problems as it would be weird to leave out multiple gods (e.g. the Olympian or Hindu gods) altogether, let alone other monotheistics gods who are not Abrahamic (e.g. Aten). Conservepedia has the easy option here as they go from the position that there is only one true God, the Abrahamic deity. But even if you accept that their introduction heavily emphasizes divine omnipotence and omnipresence in ways that liberal Abrahamic religions and philosophies would not support [3]. Arnoutf (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not speaking from religious context. I simply think the wording should be changed to sturdiness, rather than leaning on one side or another. It's not a preposterously biased sentence, but it could offend some. The article also has several other problems which have been talked about on this page. Something simple, such as "Athiesm is a lack of belief in God, where as Agnosticism leans on neither one side nor the other." Something like that. I wouldn't write that verbatim being that I'm only fifteen, but nonetheless "purported" is a strange word to use.
70.36.132.121 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC) ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.132.121 (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Relationship with Dog?
God is dog backwards. I think we should have a whole separate section on the correlation between the two deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.232.62 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think that would be interesting if we are able to also provide the relation between the words Dnoh Ednuh Neich Orrep and names of God (words are Dog backwards in Dutch, German, French and Spanish). More seriously, random co-occurrence, nothing to it let it be. Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- My former dog used to think he was God, so far as I could tell, and I think other former dog owners might have encountered the same sort of thing, but I don't that topic gets a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
God is not a name, and is not identifier
In any language:- A Word is with meaning but it is not always a noun. A noun is a word but it is not always a name. A name is a noun and it is always identifying a person or a property or a thing, or etc. In English do you call your cat or dog with word "Cat" or Dog", no I don't think so. The word GOD is not a name but each human calls his/her god some name(s). In real life and in the World we have Humans, Animals, and Gods. Each of those when they are intelligent or important or important-to-someone, they have names in the World. Therefore, how can you call your god as "God", it is not reasonable. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- And what point aimed at improving this article do you want to make with this rather convoluted text? Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
God is love, you have a whole article on God and it doesn't mention the most prevalent attribute
Hi there,
Look this is the most agreed upon attribute of God, whatever religion you are talking about.
People define God as Love.
You could easily link this to an article on love.
Sorry if you think I am condemning you or judging you or something.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Most agreed upon attributes" can only be added to this articles if there are reliable (secondary) sources that report on the agreement. So if you think this needs to be added, please provide such sources. Arnoutf (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- "God is love"[1]
- "[God is] the Loving One"[2]
- "Eros is the Greek God of love"[3]
- Here wikipedia shows a long list of gods of love in various mythologies[4]
- "Saint Tirumoolar in his magnum opus Tirumadiram encapsulates this truth when he declares “Anbe Sivam” (Love is the Supreme God)." Hindu faith [5]
- http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/god-s-love Plenty of random quotes there “Here's the paradox. We can fully embrace God's love only when we recognize how completely unworthy of it we are.”[6][7]
- “As God has renounced himself out of love, so we, out of love, should renounce God; for if we do not sacrifice God to love, we sacrifice love to God, and in spite of the predicate of love, we have the God – the evil being – of religious fanaticism.” Atheist identifying God as love even in the context of atheism[8]
- These preliminary links identify God as love in two major world religions, greek mythology, a hindu text, fiction and atheism. As you know Buddhism remains neutral on all things and is about the closest thing you get to any religion saying "God is not love" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant (talk • contribs) 09:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Holy books are not secondary sources, and can not be used without making clear these are primary sources.
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
- The referred to newspaper (the Hindu) quotes a lecture, but does not conclude this itself.
- The goodread quotes are about the love of God, not equating God=love.
- Ann Tatlock's book is a novel not a reliable source and not intended as such, labelled fiction(!)
- Feurerbach's position is probably very outdated, and seems not to be that influential in todays discussion.
References
- ^ the Holy Bible 1 John 4:8, 4:16
- ^ the Koran 11:90, 85:14
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/religion/love-is-god/article4419562.ece
- ^ Ann Tatlock, The Returning
- ^ http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/god-s-love
- ^ Ludwig Feuerbach’s best-known book, The Essence of Christianity (1841)
- Primary sources are not better than secondary??? Sorry, this will have to be a project for someone with genius to understand what you are asking.124.190.56.138 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- A primary source could in principle consist of the opinions of any person on any subject under the sun. A secondary source, at a bare minimum, shows that some other person thought that opinion worth repeating. Even the notion of what constitutes a holy book is determinable due to secondary sources: no-one would consider my high school notebooks to be Holy Writ, even if I had prefaced each exercise with 'God spake all these words and said:'. In a case like this, the sources you (or Gottservant, if you're not them) have produced contradict each other, and aren't all talking about the same thing. For example, the purported existence of love/sex gods like Eros, Amor or Kama directly contradicts theologies which accept a single unified deity in the sense this article generally means. For the Christian - and it is largely Christian - idea that love and God are in some sense identical, you'd want an article on specifically Christian theology, rather than the more general article you've got here. It would be very misleading to introduce a specifically Christian idea as a main plank of an article that's not specific to Christianity. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have nothing against an edit like "The Gospel of John claims that God is love." This way it is clear who says it and who believes it, the edit is a neutral statement. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't either provided it's WP:DUE and other equally noteworthy views are presented. Maybe a section on "diverse or secondary attributes," including "God is everything", "God is the Ground of All Being", "God is inconceivable", "God hates us", and "God is AFK". Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing it.58.6.242.229 (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't either provided it's WP:DUE and other equally noteworthy views are presented. Maybe a section on "diverse or secondary attributes," including "God is everything", "God is the Ground of All Being", "God is inconceivable", "God hates us", and "God is AFK". Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have nothing against an edit like "The Gospel of John claims that God is love." This way it is clear who says it and who believes it, the edit is a neutral statement. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Inaccuracies must be rectified
None of this (except some of the rebuttals) meets the site policies WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:NOR. It is useless to the site.
Wikipedia is not the place for "philosophical discourse," either.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
This page does not address the broadest umbrella that is god. The page is inaccurate. This is not a complete dissertation by far and I would need someone to collaboratively insert the proper hyperlinks and citation bubbles but at the very least the opening statement needs to be addressed and its inaccuracies rectified. I apologize for my apparent sloth; it is not that I am unwilling to do the work it is that I simply haven't the experience required to publish something polished yet.
Properly linked and particularities addressed. I certainly hope I don't have to cite a dictionary. Deism - Oxford "Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe." Origin late 17th century: from Latin deus 'god' + -ism. Please replace X [ God is often conceived ... overlapping concepts or mental images of him. ] with Y [ God is a concept ... depicted in religion. ]
God is a concept espoused by, and oft debated amongst, philosophers. This concept attempts to explain an immeasurable phenomenon, much like our concept of time; just as time is not a fixed, static reality the broad philosophical concept of god is neither fixed or static. God is a symbol that represents human explanation of the universe; its creation, continued existence, and the mechanisms by which the universe continues to be. Each culture has it's own interpretation of god based largely on tradition, heritage, and common mores. Christianity divides god into two opposed concepts, named God and Satan, to explain the nature of existence whereas Native Americans express diverse beliefs concerning the nature of god. Whilst there are, oftentimes, vast differences between interpretations they all abide by the defined idea that god is "the supreme or ultimate truth or reality". Athiests, who deny the validity of theism and its theistic-interpretations based in faith, often adopt a scientific god in their attempts to describe, explain, and ultimately understand the phenomenon we call existence. Jainists, Wiccans, Norse, Greeks, et at. & etc.[1]describe the nature of being differently, though all describe god. Deism (from Latin deus "god", '-ism')[2] embraces the existence of god, inculcated by theism, while rejecting the supernatural influence depicted in religion.
I haven't constrained the definition in that manner at all. God exists with or without religion; upon closer inspection you will see that is what is already written.
You say my content is full of objective errors, then proceed to issue a deluge of subjective opines to support your claim. Cite me any instance where a philosophical thought on the mechanisms of the working universe aren't considered the "supreme or ultimate truth or reality" and I will show why that is, in fact, god. The definition provided is from the 1973 pressing of Websters New Collegiate Dictionary. The definition provided is the most broad, unconstrained definition I am aware of. The definition provided covers all philosophical thought concerning the workings of the universe, which is what we are discussing here. The definition provided is the definition of god; the word 'god' in the English language. Yes I am aware my understanding of Buddishm is lacking but I was hoping someone well-versed in Buddhism would contribute to the article to correct any minor discrepancies. Regardless of any technical error the content I have submitted is, fundamentally, without err. When one attains nirvana has not one achieved an understanding with the universe? If so, and I would wager that is the case, that clearly falls under the definition provided. TheLeopardTree (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Leo
Deleting my comments? How crass. What are you afraid of to take such draconian measures to control the direction of the discourse, rather than allow free expression. I will reiterate the thought you deleted: The citations suggested are valid, necessary, and imperative for any detailed analysis of god respective to a particular school-of-thought, but when regarding the philosophical concept objectively, abstractly, and fully those sorts of citations would not be relevant to an introductory statement. The should be and are necessary for the entirety of the wiki articles, and upon examination and evaluation this site does a sufficient amount of sourcing on most topics to be considered, at the least, adequate. I have bluetexted more of the concepts 'god' broaches, and would request an administrator prevent the abuse being perpetrated by the poster above me. That is not the way to host an educated conversation. Your attacks are meritless, I will hope others in this community hold standards of civility and decency required for discourse, clearly you lack them. TheLeopardTree (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo "My post was opinionated?" Indubitably. "To say that Christianity divides god into God and Satan is not merely your opinion, it is completely wrong, it is the opposite of the doctrines of any church , which is really an offshoot of Scientology) and of every Abrahamic religion except maybe Manichaeism (which is debatably Iranian)."" Your argument is beneath the concept. You are arguing apples to oranges, i am discussing the tree that bears fruit. "That gigantic mistake alone disqualifies you from speaking on the matter" Or, perhaps, you. TheLeopardTree (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo
Opinions aside, none of the evidence you have provided is contrary to the philosophical stance postured by my content. Athiests still disbelieve in God, whom is different than god. I will refer you to "culture, heritage, and common mores" and implore you understand the Christian 'God' is from a Christian perspective, and as the English language was propagated with the mouths of Christians (as well as the compounded confusion of similar names) it is easy to see how we are both (generously) correct in our respective realm. You are discussing individualities, I am discussing the general concept that supercedes Religion. God, the Christian God, is tantamount to Zeus; nirvana, reincarnation, "life is suffering", etc. are not equivalent concepts though all attempt to explain god - that is what unifies this human-thought (one must remember the Greek pantheon, and polytheism, was present long before monotheisms prominence). All describe god. Non-theism falls under this category, as does Science&Physics. They are descriptions of the world around us, based on "culture, heritage, and common mores". They describe the world around us. They describe god; for god, in the broadest sense, is everything there is and the how&why it is the way it is. TheLeopardTree (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo
The citations you require are sourced in the linked words present in my content. More than would ever be necessary. What would you have me source? There is nothing more to source than diction. If you want inclusion of more faiths, I already sourced the most complete list on this website; and already submitted there are too many to name with "et al. & etc.". You appear to be hung up on the technical difficulty of the diction, which I am sad to hear, but that onus is yours not mine. The language is clear. I did not say Christians believe God is both God and Satan. I implied Christians believe the universe was created by God and Satan is his foil. That much is widely evident in any Christian text. I stated Christians divide the entirety of the working universe (that which is named god) into opposing deities God (the Father, or the Trinity) and Satan. Would you have me cite a biblical passage? That would do more harm than good for this introduction as it distracts from general principles to discuss one, particular Religion. If we are to include one Religion in the introduction ethically we must include them all. That is not what introductions are for. As for you calls to the authorities, I am both disheartened by your intransigence and perturbed by your churl. You make valid points for in-depth edits but an introduction is not, and would remind the authorities you struck not just the first blow but many more after without provocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLeopardTree (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You aren't thinking objectively, nor philosophically. You are thinking religiously. Additionally, and most disconcerting, you are asserting claims that are frankly untrue and repeatedly insist my conveyance of thoughts that I (in honest fact) haven't. I apologize for this curt cessation but unless you can constructively contribute please stay until authorities view your complaint. You have offered some valuable criticism and I am still finessing the content after considering your position but I will not tolerate your unchecked, boorish behavior. TheLeopardTree (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo
"You wrote "Christianity divides god into two opposite concepts, named God and Satan," and "Athiests, [...] often adopt a scientific 'god'" -- Both of those are completely wrong." That is your opinion, Ian. Either you cannot understand the concept of god, or you don't understand what a concept is. That is not my err, it is yours. "you think the father is the entire trinity" Your, incorrect, opinion. If you want me to change the link to the trinity they say as much. I thought it more educational/informative to link 'God the Father' towards the purpose of dispelling the confusion present in the diction. TheLeopardTree (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo
You are defining "god" as "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being". That is a religious definition. That term is capitalized, purposefully. I am defining "god" as "the supreme or ultimate truth or reality". That is a philosophical definition. This term isn't capitalized, purposefully. If you break free from the concept, and confinement, there is no qualitative difference between "god" and "God" you will understand how you are nearly correct. Your neighbor John is not a toilet. Your sister Kitty is not a baby feline. The foot on your leg is not a defined unit-of-measure. The White House is not simply a white house. I hope you understand; I am not upset but hopeful. TheLeopardTree (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo
It's not my personal definition, Ian. I made that clear from inception. My content stimulates interest in myriad facets of philosophy, concisely; it also addresses religions role in defining god, culturally. The links you want/require are readily available in any of the linked topics, and also detailed in the remaining entirety of this page. The current introduction does not address the greatest umbrella that is god effectively, nor does it stimulate philosophical thought. It stimulates religious argument. If you are unable to understand the differences, or necessity for rectification, or offer constructive additions, you are not cooperating with anyone. Contribute. To contribute you have to look past your subjective obstacles which apparently is confining god to Religion; no one person can address this topic, regardless of how educated or versed for the topic is too large for any one person. I have removed Buddhism from the introduction in lieu of Native American traditions, as you haven't proffered a substantial amendment. TheLeopardTree (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo
Calling the world flat does not make it flat. Quelling philosophical discourse does not make religious discourse correct. "My content" refers to 'my edit' - it does not attribute ownership or claim. The content is free, as is all information, and well-sourced in any of the linked-topics & other 80+ references made in the existing article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform; the purpose of an academic journal is to publish academic journals. I realize there is a substantial overlap due to the breadth and width of topics on this website but this is an electronic, user-generated encyclopedia and I'm not rewriting the entire page I'm submitting a more concise, precise, and informative introduction to a philosophical topic. The current introduction is a religious one; confined and subjectively inaccurate. I sincerely hope you will leave this proposal open to further discussion lest one, misinformed dissenter stymie something as simple as god for personal reason. TheLeopardTree (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Leo |
God: monotheistic or simply judaic?
The term God seems to be exclusively used by religions stemming from judaism. Why does the article broadly refer to 'monotheism' when the term seems to be used very specifically by a certain group of religions? For instance, the egyptians had a monotheistic religion around Ra. The word God was not invented yet and i have never heared Ra being referenced as God. On the other hand, all religions with judaic roots these days refer to their god as God. So why not explain in the article that this word, in its capitalized form, is intimately related to a certain group of related religions? It's like saying Shiva is a name for deities in polytheistic religions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk • contribs)
- No, the word "God" (upper case G) was originally a title for Odin, and was first used to refer to the transcendent deity in Germanic (Gothic in particular) Christian Bibles. It has since become standard in English for transcendent deities of different religions, such as Brahman in Hinduism, Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, Olodumare in Yoruba religion, Ngai among a number of Kenyan groups, the Tai Di in Chinese religions (be it Taoism's Yu Di or Confucianism's Shang Di), and Tengri in Mongolian shamanism. It's possible to find sources that just refer to those beings as "God in X (religion/culture/language)." The worshipers of the previously mentioned figures will usually just say "God" in common discourse in reference to them when speaking English, and most missionaries for Christianity and Islam accept that (barring some screw up by their religions at least a long ago), converts from those cultures are probably going to continue to use a native term for the Abrahamic God instead of the English word -- which is how we got the word "God" in the first place.
- The idea of a transcendent deity isn't unique to Judaism. Most religions include it at some point, even ones that try to be non-theistic.
- Atenism is probably the monotheistic religion you're thinking, since before (and after, and really during) Atenism, most Egyptians were polytheists. Ra was, according to most temples throughout history, the supreme God in the Egyptian pantheon, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can tell you for certain from experience that Hindus will tell you that 'God' is simply the Western name for Brahman, or perhaps Vishnu -- it is important to remember that the various 'gods' of Hinduism are regarded as simply aspects of a single true God. And indeed Hindus will tell you even that Jesus and Yahweh and Allah are simply additional aspects of this same God as it has chosen to reveal itself to people of those cultures, all subsumed within Brahman. Even Deism and Pandeism and Pantheism, which reject any notion of intentional intervention by their respective theological loci, may yet call these loci 'God.' DeistCosmos (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The response actually supports the original criticism. The original article is biased in favor of the contemporary Abrahamic faiths, and portrays a very simplistic view and one that is incorrect. Any basic research will quickly reveal that the Hebrews were originally polytheistic, worshipping more than one god and inclusive of feminine deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.71.86 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The response indicates that you did not read the arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Ian, i'm not sure i can agree that the capitalisation originated from the germanic cultures. I don't think germanic peoples had alphabets with capitals before they were introduced to the christian bible or that their rune systems can be capitalized. Capitalization seems to me to be import, like the greek alphabet, the notion of a single god and the bible. When you talk about brahman you translated the word to God, while the hindi expression is brahman and has no capitalization. I think that this type of capitalisation comes from reflecting the judaic god. You would not have capitalised the word god in reference to brahman if it would not have been common to capitalize the word god in reference to the judaic god. When hindu people tell you the judaic god is another name for brahman they mean that it is only a fraction of what brahman is. They do not litterarily mean it is the same thing, they mean brahman encompasses all gods, including the judaic God. For them, God is just another god, in other words an incarnation of brahman. This is an important distinction, if not from the hindu point of view then certainly from the christian point of view. The christian point of view does not even allow for brahman to exist. The bible makes it very clear that there is no other than God and that people should not worship gods from other religions or traditions. Didn't Moses basically murder off 3000 of his own people for the sole reason they believed in a slightly different god? (Exodus 32) Your notion of 'God in X(religion/culture/language)' is also completely rooted in the cristian culture of western europe. It is a direct comparison of some external god to the judaic god. It's another way of saying 'something similar to the notion of our God' with 'our God' meaning the judaic/christianic/islamic god. You can't escape it, realy. It's embedded in western culture and western languages. Also, the God(word) page you linked to tells us that the capitalisation was invented by christians to differentiate its use from other religions, particularily pagan religions (wich were basically the germanic religions). This is also how i interpret the capitalization. I think that using the capitalized word god implies a reference to the judaic/christian god and that may not be appropriate for a general description. The hindus simply circumvent this by stating that brahman is bigger than the God god so i don't consider it a valid argument.
- Please produce specific sources to support your points. Article talk pages are supposed to be primarily used to improve the article and for good or ill our personal opinions one way or another are insufficient to make any substantive changes to any article.John Carter (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
god versus God
I do consider it a minor edit to update the grammar of the God page, but I understand the concern at my edits. Interestingly, AlexTiefling had this to say when he undid my edits, "This article is about the monotheistic conception (sic) of God. You can't just say 'god' with lowercase g and no article." Ironically, with his own words, he exposes the problem. His sentence does have an article, so why no lowercase "g"? Certainly, the semantic meaning of the sentence is, "the monotheistic concept of a god."
But it makes the point that I should have changed the sentences in the instances where I downsized the case in order to incorporate the necessary article. Indeed, in English speaking, Christian dominated countries, in common speech people are overwhelmingly ungrammatical when they use the term "God" without an article, when referring to the general concept of a god, written or spoken, like Alex did (in fact, I could have written "the general concept of God" and most here would not have noticed the error). I believe this is because of the frequency with which the proper noun is employed to refer to their specific god by Christians. I hope you will give me the go ahead to try these changes. To not do so, leaves the article laden with cultural bias (intentional or not). I will not mark the changes as minor.Kcornwall (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, God is regarded as a proper noun by everyone but you. "Monotheistic conception of" is not an article, "the" or "a" are articles. "Monotheistic conception of" is an adjective-modified noun phrase being used as an adjectival phrase. Your own idiosyncratic grammar is out in line with every work of theology or comparative religion that anyone here cares about, and still not in line with the majority of unacceptable sources.
- That is why MOS:CAPS#Religion (which says to capitalize God when referring to the transcendent deity) was put in place. That is why it is a social contract with the backing of the majority of the site's users.
- Ignore that the two words are homonyms save for capitalization, they are distinct. "God" (uppercase) refers to the transcendent deity shared by a number of religions, while "god" (lowercase) refers to a range of possibilities that includes God but also drastically different figures not shared beyond their proprietary religion.
- Your belief that the capitalization is specifically Christian is not shared with you by Bahais, Deists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Unitarian Universalists, and other religions that believe in a transcendent deity (as well as Freemasonry, which isn't a religion but a compliment to any theistic religion). Except for the most bigoted members of those religions (and Christianity), those religions do generally believe that they more or less are concerned with the same transcendent deity, even if they do not agree at all on Its nature, qualities, or relationship to existence. And in English, "God" (with a capital G) is the term used to refer to that shared transcendent deity. That is the assumption of all but the most fringe theologians, scholars of comparative religion, and even atheist writers.
- Because of your rather specific focus on Christianity (as if it has a monopoly on God and religion, like it's some sort of anti-atheism instead of a distinct belief system), I cannot imagine you even considered those other religions' existence (much less their beliefs). Not considering those religions' beliefs when discussing a shared trait among those religions would leave you about as qualified to edit articles relating to shared theology as Ken Ham is to speak on biology. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, Ian. I have to say that I have come to expect a more thoughtful and balanced reply from editors, especially of serious articles. You speak for everyone but me, do you? For you, even where an article and lower case might be inserted to make the distinction clear when the term IS referring to one of "a range of possibilities," that's out of the question to try?
- When you say "...more or less are concerned with the same transcendent deity," how isn't that exactly part of "a range of possibilities?" This is precisely the kind of fuzzy thinking I am asking this article to disabuse itself of. No doubt it works for those who would like to see their own personal belief validated therein to the extent that it is possible to somehow distort the fact of multiple gods inthe Hindu pantheon into imagining that a common Hindu on the street shares the Christian belief in a single transcendent deity. I am sure that it makes people feel better to gloss that everyone's else's god is just a poor version of their own God. But when it is obvious to everyone else that there is little or no overlap in the way those gods are defined by the believers themselves, then it is self-serving and disingenuous to promote it as otherwise.
- Speaking of self-serving, with your reference to theologians there is little that is neutral, objective or scientific about what they have to say. As this is not an article on theology, why should we care much about what theologians think, except to mention it in passing or in footnotes? On the other hand, there are anthropologists (who you neglect to mention), who absolutely love to study and write about the supernatural beliefs of humans, and yet in all of their writings they NEVER capitalize "god" - unless quoting the natives. So, I guess the question is whether this is going to remain a summary of subjective conceptualizations echoed back and forth between members of the tribe, or is it going to exemplify an objective exploration of the subject?
- I would argue that anthropologists study the human being and their belief in a range of possible deities that includes God ; or in other words that indeed anthropologists study the belief in gods in general not specifically God. So in my view that only supports Ian's comment. Arnoutf (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Kcornwall, you are a biased editor, and you are trying to POV-push. I'm not going to pretend I condone that. MOS:CAPS#Religion is the will of the community. I've never edited that page, and I'm pretty sure it was here before I was, so you can't pretend it's my idea.
- Bringing up common Hindu belief exposes your ignorance on the matter further, provides an additional point, and makes your prior accusations of Christian bias in the article even more ignorant. In Hinduism, all the gods are merely different understandings and aspects of the transcendent being, called Brahman in most Indian languages and God in English.
- If you do not see why one would consult theologians in discussing an article about religion, in other words, if you cannot see the point in consulting the people that believe in something in the article on what they believe, you should not be editing articles relating to religion. To say that theologians have nothing to add to an article on God is just as ignorant (if not bigoted) as saying that philosophers have nothing to add to articles on ethics, art critics in art, or atheist writers on atheism. By the same logic, we might as well cite a physicist on neurology, since we obviously shouldn't self-serving neurologists.
- And please cite some modern anthropologists who, when referring to a transcendent deity, particularly the one worshiped in any of the religions I've mentioned previously or in this article (such as Tengriism and Zoroastrianism), who refers to that figure as only "god" (not "a god," because as already established, "God" is "a god" as well). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I took a look at MOS:CAPS#Religion. It's well done. Unfortunately, it doesn't support your position at all, rather it undercuts it. " Proper names and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. Common nouns not used as titles should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god. In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity... So, "Allah" is listed as a proper name of a god right alongside another god (weirdly) named, "God" Not interchangeable, not synonyms, nothing about whether any of them happen to be transcendent. Moreover, it is only in the context of the Bible to refer to the deity by the name "God" ! It couldn't be clearer that your position and the God article is woefully non-compliant with this.
- Next point. Sorry, science always trumps ideology and opinion (i.e. what theologians and philosophers think without experiment and evidence to sort the crap out amounts to pure speculation). As a matter of fact, neurologists are not scientists, and have no place contributing to an article on neurology (appropriate would be an article on neurologists). It is scientific medical researchers who inform the practice of neurology and should contribute to that article. Thank you, though. With your example, you continue to make my point for me.
- Now to the Hindu god, Brahaman, which has as much in common in it's attributes and actions with Jehovah as a goat does with a trout. Now you may be able to find a few attributes they share. But even then, it requires all of them to achieve an identity match in the world I live in. But that is not the point, the point is that the name of the Hindu's god is not God, nor do they refer to their god with that name or title. So, even if there were any similarity to the Christian god, named "God" (the single proper name or title in the whole article according to MOS ), I am suggesting that when we contribute, we pay due respect to Hindus and readers and write, "the Hindu god, Brahaman," treating all similar references to non-Christian, non-God-named deities, either with their proper name or in lower case, preceded by the appropriate article, of course.
- So. Is Ian the last word here? Anyone? Can I edit this? I'm using MOS as my incontestable reference Kcornwall (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Go and read this. Take its words to heart. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you @AlexTiefling:, for pointing out the inherent problem with KCornwall's claim that MOS:CAPS#Religion supports his position. The bit @KCornwall: highlights is only in discussion regarding articles which mention the Abrahamic deity, like Abraham, but not multiple figures in comparison outside the Abrahamic religions, such as Conceptions of God.
- KCornwall, Wikipedia does not care about "The Truth", it is concerned with what is verifiable. In terms of documenting religious belief, that means checking with sources that document religious belief, which would verifying with sources written by theologians who document common beliefs of their religions. Your problem with theological sources would be a valid objection if someone was trying to cite a theological source on a scientific topic (I've done my share of arguing against Bible-thumpers regarding evolution). Instead, you are complaining about citing theological source for the articles on theology, which reveals you're just an incompetent bigot with an axe to grind. You cannot complain about religion not being scientific while also expecting the articles on religion to be scientifically sourced: either religion is not a scientific topic and so must be described by citing sources merely concerned with documenting belief rather than gauging it, or else religious belief can be somehow be gauged which even I have to object to. By the illogic you present, Ode on a Grecian Urn would not have its Themes or Critical Response sections, if many of the others. Like the Bible-thumping fundamentalist, you have confused your sincere atheistic conviction with being objectively right.
- Allah is used when discussing the Arabic word for God (or, if one prefers, God is used when discussing the English word for Allah), not merely God in Islam. Arabic speaking Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Bahais use the term to refer to God. By the way, I used the term Abrahamic religions earlier because, as I've said before, only the absolute most hateful members of Christianity and Islam do not acknowledge that both religions share the same deity. To pretend that Allah and God, even if they were uniquely Islamic and Christian terms (which they are not), refers to two completely irreconcilably distinct deities only shows that you don't know what you're talking about and should just stay away from articles concerning religion. Brahman is used in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, making it the equivalent in native Indian philosophy.
- Additionally, your comment that neurologists "aren't scientists" and should not be cited on neurology leaves me convinced that you seem to believe that scientists are some sort of atheist priesthood instead of individuals to practice and study scientific pursuits as a career (either theoretical or practical), and are either being contrarian to the point of cutting off your nose to spite your face, or you don't believe that medical science is a thing. If these were your first edits, I'd instead have to assume you were a troll. It amazes me that someone could be so unaware of what the basic beliefs of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam are. I'm not criticizing a lack of acceptance of those beliefs, I'm specifically criticizing that you know nothing about this topic, have demonstrated your ignorance completely, and yet refuse to consider that you know nothing. It's worse than the young earth creationists causing trouble at Talk:Evolution because they at least bother to study erroneous strawman arguments instead of pulling their ignorance out of their bum and wearing it like a crown.
- I am not the final word, I am merely warning you what the community's reaction will be.
- And I'm still waiting on your anthropology articles... Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Go and read this. Take its words to heart. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yep,I know the reference and took it to heart. If there were more than three people in this discussion, it might be relevant.
- I won't answer your ad hominem attacks except to say that you're both very good at convincing yourselves, by means of cherry-picking theology, ignoring history, and typically defensive twists of logic used by Christians, that the purported existence of gods in other religions outside the Abrahamic, is not a stark assault on your own beliefs - after all there is no way to tell who is correct, right? Your successful attempt here, so far, to gloss over the inconvenient fact that these other irreconcilable gods (by the very definition of their own believers including every day Christians one more), places you in a faith-critical, if not culturally-bigoted situation, and no doubt brings you great comfort. So there! Can we please thenceforth not continue in this vein?
- References supporting my perspective.
- The observation in the first is cogent and nails our mutual situation here with amazing accuracy. God or god?
- Here is a typical Anthropology syllabus which reinforces the MOS:CAPS#Religion guidelines.
- By insisting that Hinduism is monotheistic, you gloss the complexity. But it's a moot point, this article doesn't position Hindus in that way.
- Now, if no one else is going to join in here but you two, and you are going to stubbornly hang on to your position, excluding the participation of someone new to the community with, yes, a new perspective (anthropological), and new contributions, referenced contributions, then I'm not going to fight it, it disrespects the spirit of Wikipedia.Kcornwall (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you could count you would get to 4 people in the discussion, although neither me nor AlexTiefling made it impossible to respond by creating the lengthy essays Kcornwall and Ian.Thompson do. These are just too much to read, which makes constructive discussion as good as impossible.
- Furthermore there seem to be some fallacies in your argumentation. Neurologist are no scientists - I can accept that if you label them as medical professionals, and make the distinction between medical scientists and medical professionals. However, this would then also go for all other occupations. Anthropologists are no scientist (but humanity professionals etc.).
- Also you typical anthropological texts does indeed talks about gods and goddesses (lower case), but nowhere does anyone here state that this is inconsistent with the capitalization agreed upon for this article. That usage is clearly about comparisons of multiple deities and does not necessarily refer to God as a (single) supreme being.
- If you want to change God to god in this article that will have major consequences for the contents. Actually in my opinion you would have to change the contents to the article to something like that in deity and Pantheon (gods). So changing it would be much more than merely changing capitalization. If this is indeed your intention, be open about it (and be advised that chances are about zero you will succeed) . Arnoutf (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, there are other articles about gods, this one is about God. He/she won't get this article deleted and redirected to one of those articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Kcornwall, the about.com link you've shared does not support your view. It does say that a shared figured called God should be capitalized. It would merely support decapitalizing God when discussing "the god of the (insert religion)," but not "the god called God as understood by (whatever religion)" And that you again call "multiple religions share the same god" shows you don't know what you're talking about. And citing an atheist website to demonstrate that those religions do not share the same deity is like citing a Christian website on Hindu theology. The syllabus you cite doesn't support decapitalizing God when referring to a shared deity commonly called God. The Christian site you bring up is "not affiliated with or sponsored by any denomination or single church" (meaning that that site only represent their personal beliefs, not even a fraction of the religion), is definitely fundamentalist and fringe, and deals with the question "I think there must be a god for every nation" (which is monistic polytheism, a different issue). Your "citations are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit," which is a problem. Also, at no point did I present Hinduism as monotheistic, but as pantheistic. You were the one who demoted the whole religion to mere polytheism.
- Regarding your behavior: that you refuse to address me pointing out your demonstrated ignorance because you think calling it an ad hominem ends the discussion only makes you look like you cannot address the issue. You've shown no knowledge of religion, and run away attacking me while hypocritically accusing me of attacking you by calling attention to that. Then you say "Can we please thenceforth not continue in this vein," holding others to a standard of decorum immediately after violating that same standard. You are a POV-pushing hypocrite who knows nothing about this subject. That you're accusing me of doing this out of some inability to handle the idea that people worship other gods (when I've been studying Greek mythology for more than two-thirds of my life, only to branch out into studying all sorts of belief systems) is insulting. If you were paying attention, you'd have caught my comments denigrating young earth creationists, indicating that I'm not a fundamentalist. Hell, if you even bothered to look at my user page, you'd know that I'm a proud Discordian Pope, who regularly removes attempts to insert actual Christian biases into the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- (Branched off for the benefit of others who wish to stick to the core matter): The crux of the issue appears to be that KCornwall is acting on the belief that the many different religions mentioned in this article do not share the same deity ("repeats the same argument without convincing people"), which would be an appropriate reason to call what they worship gods instead of God; and that to insist so is a Christian bias ("undue importance to a single aspect of a subject"). This is, of course, absolutely wrong, because Muslims look at (at least) Jews and Christians and say "same deity, different understandings", Jews view any religion that fits the Noahide Covenant as acceptable for gentiles, Hindus hold that all religions describe the same truth in different ways, as do Sikhs. Freemasonry, while not a religion, also holds that most religions worship the same deity. To say that it's a Christian bias is laughable. Claims of a Unitarian Universalist are less ridiculous. Still, since we're discussing multiple religions, the Catholic church (i.e. the largest denomination in Christianity, which for the record I'm not a part of) says that other religions worship the same God, if differently. Again, it is only fringe fundamentalists who are the most likely to say that they do not worship the same deity found in other religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Amen to that sais the atheist ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I will add my agreement to the chorus. This is comparable to Dracula (not as to the mythicness of that figure, but its name usage). Many stories have been told about Dracula in many cultures, some depicting him as a villain and some appropriating him as an antiheroic or even a heroic figure) but despite these many competing depictions we do not refer to them as draculas, but as Dracula. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would think this is a simple matter of grammar that can be resolved easily enough. "God is a god", "There is a god named God", "Many gods, such as God..." are all coherent (if rhetorically clumsy) clauses, and the capitalization of the G lends important meaning. Atheist resentment does not trump grammar. That said, there are individual sentences in this article, such as "Theists believe there is one God", where grammatically the 'g' should be lower case. 72.227.98.109 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
First sentence
I'm not going to make this edit directly because there may have been a discussion about this before, but the first sentence of the current article ("God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.") is quite awkward. It uses the word 'god' as if it was already defined before. Since (according to the article's header), this article is only about 'god' in monotheism and henotheism, I propose to phrase it as: "In monotheism and henotheism, god is the supreme being and principal object of faith." –Jérôme (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- "God" is found in Deism, Pantheism, and Pandeism as well (it might be argued that the Mono-/Henotheistic "God" is inherently panentheistic), simply having varying characterizations of attributes -- and, subject to those, varying expectations as to the bounty to be wrought by faith. A Deist will tell you that our chief gift is the ability to reason, and that we disserve God by making it an object of "faith" at all. DeistCosmos (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- The opening sentence is indeed very awkward. I actually just made this change without seeing this comment. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Deity and God?
Why must there be two different articles ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8600:F00:692B:6634:4932:D6FE (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- 2601:9:8600:F00:692B:6634:4932:D6FE, deity isn't composed of a monotheistic God, but of several gods, or not an individual god at all, if you will, in several world beliefs.
Existence of god and acknowledgement of metaphysics
Should not the first paragraph close with a definitive statement such as. "The existence of god/God has not been scientifically proven and therefore remains a subject of metaphysical debate." There is no acknowledgement of this fundamental fact in the opening parargraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.40.6 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the reason that this statement is not in the first paragraph is because there is a whole article devoted to answering this question. There is a link at the very beginning of the article, before the first paragraph, that links to the "Existence of God" article.Jordan Latimer (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015
| This edit request to God has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph; this:
"In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism."
should be changed to:
"In atheism, belief in a god is not held, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism describe antithetical states of knowledge or knowability with respect to any given deity."
One who purports that "a god does not exist" is simultaneously making a claim of knowledge that there is not a god and expressing positive belief in a lack of god. Therefore, such a view would be more appropriately considered a gnostic atheist or gnostic antitheist.
Since Theism and Atheism deal with variable levels of certainty in belief (see Epistemology if the difference remains unclear), these terms are not to be confused with (a)gnosticism in describing similar perspectives.
Knowledge and belief work together to describe a single position.
"I don't believe that a god exists" - Agnostic Atheist
"No god exists" - Gnostic Atheist
"One or more gods exist" Gnostic Theist
"I believe that some god exists" - Agnostic Theist
Hasikova (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}template. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- A top Bible scholar is both an agnostic and an atheist. So, I would agree with the four categories stated above. The proposed wording is, however, not ideal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- What part of the wording could be improved? The first part remains necessary "In atheism, belief in a god is not held." Any mention of knowledge might be more appropriate in the section "Existence of God" where ad hoc descriptions of variability in atheism can be more accurately and appropriately encompassed by the agnostic/gnostic dichotomy. I'm open to specific wording changes... perhaps clarify that gnosticism and theism are used in tandem rather than describing opposing states of certainty? Hasikova (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- What everyone should have pointed you to was WP:No original research, WP:CITE, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was unaware you needed a source for definitions. It occurs to me that the original author did not cite their definitions, but rather just made up their own. The most inclusive definition of atheism that can be used, is simply "the absence of belief in god." Any other definition exists in attempts to lump together those that suspend belief, and those that actively maintain certainty in nonbelief; which contorts a dichotomous description into three different descriptions [3] Hasikova (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- What everyone should have pointed you to was WP:No original research, WP:CITE, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- What part of the wording could be improved? The first part remains necessary "In atheism, belief in a god is not held." Any mention of knowledge might be more appropriate in the section "Existence of God" where ad hoc descriptions of variability in atheism can be more accurately and appropriately encompassed by the agnostic/gnostic dichotomy. I'm open to specific wording changes... perhaps clarify that gnosticism and theism are used in tandem rather than describing opposing states of certainty? Hasikova (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions
- ^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=deism&searchmode=none
- ^ 1. Harvey, Van A. Agnosticism and Atheism, in Flynn 2007, p 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."
- Ehrman stated that atheism is about faith (having or not having faith in God) and agnosticism is about knowledge (i.e. knowing for sure either that there is a God or that there is none, or being unable to know such stuff). So, obviously, since atheism and agnosticism refer to different matters, the above four categories follow from what Ehrman stated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2015
| This edit request to God has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Read this before you just skip it >:( The existence of the God described by his word in the Holy Bible can be proved via a simple logic, with existence being infinite in all directions and the very motion of time (not our relative time but eternal time) being infinite in the 2 directions it can go, it therefore stands to reason the Holy God described by his word in the Holy Bible MUST exist and the work carried out by his son Jesus Christ at the cross truly did give us a chance at eternal happiness and not eternal damnation which is far WORSE than anything anyone in this universe is/has/will ever endure. Zxuiji (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done See Reification (fallacy) --NeilN talk to me 16:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015
| This edit request to God has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bad link in references pointing to an archived page:
"Philosophy of Religion.info – Glossary – Theism, Atheism, and Agonisticism". Philosophy of Religion.info. Archived from the original on 2008-04-24. Retrieved 2008-07-16.</ref>
Replace bad link with a link to a live version of this content:
"Theism, Atheism, and Agonisticism". finetunedreality.com. Retrieved 2015-03-28.</ref> 24.209.137.121 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Question: Why does it need to be a live page? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)- Not done: Looks like more of the dead-link spam I've been seeing. Stickee (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Most Imporant Character Of God
| Soap/Forum |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"God is Good", GOD=GOOD. - The Messenger 75.74.55.230 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC) == Defining GOD: the 'system as a whole' (all-inclusive), the 'universal quantum computer'. God-incarnate: the original & number 1 programmer, Creator of all Worlds ==== Asking for an edit to include these additional 21st century definitions that differentiate between GOD & God. GOD: the 'system as a whole' (all-inclusive), the 'universal quantum computer'. God-incarnate (in the Guardin' of Eden, Jesus son of Joseph, Second Coming of the Christ): the original and number 1 programmer, Creator of all 'true Earth-like plan-its'. - The Messenger 75.74.55.230 (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC) |
I Am Who Am
Perhaps someone could add an I Am Who Am page because this traditional translation is referenced in the Latin Vulgate translation from the Greek Septuagint " Douay-Rheims Bible English/Latin, Latin Vulgate Latin NOT "Ego sum qui Ego sum" but "Ego sum qui sum" [1]/Greek/Hebrew and Septuagint Greek also again NOT ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐγώ ὤν but "ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν" [2]/Hebrew translations of Exodus 3:14.and both are consistent with the traditional Hebrew revelation that the God of Abraham is not a mere impersonal force but a Person -- the reference in the text prior to my edit refers to the Jewish "He Who Is" and is followed more correctly in context with "I Am Who AM" -- The UNIQUE character of the revelation of God's Name to Moses is that God Is not merely the Greek Logos -- an impersonal Force but an Omnipotent Person (Who -- not what, that, it, or which) Who is interested in the persons, actions, history, development, sins, conversion, repentance, prosperity, atonement, salvation, etc of the Israelites Startarrant (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startarrant (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
References
- "I AM WHO I AM" is not only correct English, it is the correct quote from English Bibles. The translators of the original King James Version in 1604-1611 and its first revision in 1629 used the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint and produced "I AM WHO I AM". Subsequent other Bible versions also use "I AM WHO I AM". Most of the KJV translators were Freemasons and practiced the art of English(7,74) gematria(8,74) using 'the key'(74) of A=1, B=2...Z=26. I AM WHO I AM=77/92=I9+A1+M13+W23+H8+O(15)+I9+A1+M13, Christ=77=C3+H8+R18+I9+S19+T20, power=62/77=P16+O(15)+W23+E5+R18, glory=62/77=G7+L12+O(15)+R18+Y25. - The Messenger 75.74.55.230 (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you want to say here. Arnoutf (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- We may need to alert WikiProject Paranormal on this one. (I think it has something to do with numerology.) ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you want to say here. Arnoutf (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Picture of God as Lead
In 2013, we had this discussion and compromised on the pic of Michaelangelo going from lead to the first section, replaced by the God box. Many people found the article to be biased when the lead picture was specifically a theistic representation when the article subject matter is much more broad. This worked for over a year until someone added another theistic God picture to the lead. I think it would be best for the credibility of this article and NPOV to have the God box on top so as not to misrepresent the broad subject matter of "God" in this article. NaturaNaturans (talk)
The number of images depicting Christian conceptions of God in this article is definitely not consistent with the broader intent of this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Jeffro77, but I disagree with you, NaturaNaturans. Throughout history and in modern society, "God" is a monotheistic deity. Gods are covered in another article. What atheist God do you have in mind? If you mean pantheism, we've got that covered. If you mean pandeism, we also got that. Absolute Infinite? Got that. What others are you thinking of? This article primarily deals with the monotheistic conception of God. Historically and by current number of adherents, the Christian God is most popular and has the most artwork done of Him by a significant margin. I don't think it's justified to remove the current image from the top simply because it is a theistic representation. It amazingly captures how many conceive of God's appearance, and does a great job of representing it. What other options do we have which won't be biased in some sense to some ethnicity or culture or religion? A portrait of blinding light? We already got something like that in use, called Sunlight.
- From an aesthetic standpoint, I personally believe the
{{god}}box should be on bottom. That's how most articles do it, and that's what looks the best (in my opinion). If you have a better image to use, then please do recommend it. I'd consider images to be subject to WP:WEIGHT, however, so intentionally using a non-Christian depiction of God which is not religiously neutral, or even putting the image under the template, could be considered undue weight.
- I understand your concerns, and I appreciate your voicing them, and might have even argued along similar lines at one point, but I don't think that's what's best for this article. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds like maybe we have a misunderstanding. Pantheism and pandeism ARE monotheistic positions and are therefore a part of this article (they are not 'atheist' positions, as I think you are suggesting?). Traditional theistic conceptions of God are well represented by these Christian God images. But mystical conceptions of God - specifically panentheism, Kabballah, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, many liberal versions of Christianity, along with pantheism and pandeism, represent large segments of the population that are misrepresented by a God picture. NaturaNaturans (talk)
- I wholly echo NaturaNaturans, and add that the images arising in medieval Christianity are more reflective of polytheistic representations of Zeus and Odin than anything reflecting the characteristics assigned its deity. Pandeist (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds like maybe we have a misunderstanding. Pantheism and pandeism ARE monotheistic positions and are therefore a part of this article (they are not 'atheist' positions, as I think you are suggesting?). Traditional theistic conceptions of God are well represented by these Christian God images. But mystical conceptions of God - specifically panentheism, Kabballah, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, many liberal versions of Christianity, along with pantheism and pandeism, represent large segments of the population that are misrepresented by a God picture. NaturaNaturans (talk)
God Template
I expanded the God template to "show" all categories since this is the God article. But maybe some boxes should be shown and others hidden since this article has some limits in scope? NaturaNaturans (talk)
- But this one is the big deal, the alpha-and-omega article on the topic. I'd show all that relates, even if obscurely. Pandeist (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's distracting and if you check other articles this template is on, it's collapsed. --NeilN talk to me 10:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
god as fantasy fiction
|
im sorry but i think this is wrong to put god as a fantasy fiction category im agnostic i dont know if he is exist or not. but i do know some believe some not. we cant really state he is fantasy character maybe unkonwn character but not fantasy and way fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.130.247 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015
| This edit request to God has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Delete the fantasy characters category. 174.138.220.46 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not done Per the above collapsed section I don't think there's any consensus for this. You'll have to get agreement for the change first. --NeilN talk to me 21:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Fantasy character category
Was there any discussion about adding this category? Seems inconsistent as most if not all deities appear in fantasy works like comic books, movies, and D&D manuals and yet their articles are not categorized as such (e.g., Thor, Krishna, Allah, Zeus). --NeilN talk to me 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Was just about to explain in the previous thread:
- (edit conflict)Wait, the previous poster wasn't as clear as this one. The rambling lack of punctuation in the previous post made it look like consideration to add it (rather than undoing this edit), and the continued conversation didn't exactly help. This user's request is clearer, and the request itself is not unreasonable. With the exception of the Arthurian characters subcategory, the fantasy characters category is for figures that no reasonable person expects exist. Its inclusion seems WP:POINTy.
- Since there was no consensus to add the edit to begin with, I'm removing it.
- Had the OP from two threads ago had been as clear, I'd've removed the category then. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian. I agree with the removal. --NeilN talk to me 21:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Editrequest
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a link to the disambiguation page, since the hatnote is missing that.
- {{otheruses}}
-- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks for pointing that out. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015
| This edit request to God has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Good Afternoon, My name is Don Strickland, and I am a theology (M.Div) student studying at a mainline seminary. I am writing to ask for your consideration in adding a small addition to the Wikipedia article titled, “God.” The addition I propose concerns the following: The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence(present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
The idea of “omnipotence” is, in mainline Christianity, understood to be tied to Greek philosophy. As the Roman Empire was increasingly “Christianized,” early Christian apologists worked to make the very Jewish conception of God rationally comport with Greek philosophy. The idea of omnipotence prevalent in classical theology is indebted to Greek philosophy much more than Jewish religion, a position that neo-orthodoxy comfortably holds.
With the emergence of Whitehead’s process metaphysics, many mainline prominent theologians of the twentieth century began to find Greek philosophical categories like omnipotence untenable when used to describe God’s essential being. For instance, Charles Hartshorne’s book titled, “Omnipotence and other theological mistakes,” which is required reading in many mainline seminaries, provides a process theological perspective grounded in whitehead’s metaphysics rather than Aristotle’s metaphysics.
Postmodern theology since the latter half of the twentieth century provides another example of mainline Christian thought that problematizes Platonic metaphysical categories (such as omnipotence) for defining God’s essential nature. It is too much to go into, but some liberation theologies, theologies of the cross, and womanist theologies also provide alternatives to the pre-twentieth century dominant view of omnipotence.
It is true that in classical, orthodox theology writers (e.g. the ontological argument of Anselm) employed Greek metaphysics to describe God. At least since the early twentieth century (the period when Fundamentalism sharpened its resistance to mainline critical methods), Greek metaphysical conception has come under scrutiny in mainline circles.
Since mainline Protestant theology is so critical of the classical Greek view of omnipotence (and other Greek metaphysical categories of divinity), the article leans heavily toward a fundamentalist theological perspective, which, since the late 1800s, has resisted mainline critical scholarship and has sought to conserve the metaphysics of early Greek-Christian thought.
I am wondering (in light of the clear theological differences between fundamentalist and mainline churches) is it possible to add a parenthetical statement to the Wikipedia article titled “God” that recognizes the many mainline theologians since the early twentieth century (e.g. process and postmodern theology) who recognize concepts such as “omnipotence” as a product of Greek metaphysics and not a divinely revealed, essential attribute of God’s being.
One suggested revision is as follows:
"The concept of God as described by (CLASSICAL or ORTHODOX) theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence(present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. [(IT IS WORTH NOTING, HOWEVER, THAT AT LEAST SINCE THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY THESE CATEGORIES HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY MANY MAINLINE THEOLOGIES (E.G. PROCESS THEOLOGY AND POSTMODERN THEOLOGY) (See Footnote Below)]. In theism, God is thecreator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe."
It is an incredible task to “define” God. I hope my suggestion is taken in the spirit in which it is intended, which is to somehow indicate that the conversation about the nature of God’s being is not settled in Christian discourse. It is my hope that such a sentiment might somehow be included in the article so that readers might understand that the question of God’s being is an open question, not a closed one.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
I hope and peace,
Footnote: For a Process Theological Perspective see Charles Hartshorne’s Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes State University of New York, Albany, 1984. For a Postmodern perspective see John D. Caputo’s The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event, Indiana University Press, 2006. On page 80, Caputo notes that “No wonder, then, that the idea of absolute omnipotence did not arise from biblical and historical experience, but rather arose from a metaphysical debate.”
Britemdiv (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- There may be something to your (somewhat overly wordy) request. We do need a reliable source though that supports the "challenge" of the claim. I would also be very hesitant to specify this to mainline theologies because as far as I know that would frame it as a uniquely US protestant tradition instead of a global issue. Perhaps something like:
- "The concept of God as described by classical theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence(present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. However, since the early twentieths century it has been challenged whether these attributes are essential to describe God (ADD A STRONG SECONDARY SOURCE HERE TOWARDS THIS CLAIM). In theism, God is thecreator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe." Arnoutf (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that's needed. The sentence already has the word "commonly" which indicates that it's not necessary to have those attributes. Additionally the word "includes" means their not all necessary (ie only some of the attributes). Stickee (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Poles in mythology
Now we have a new article Poles in mythology, Please see and include suitable improvements , if any, in article Poles in mythology.
Rgds Mahitgar (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Methods to define the term: "God"
- experimental data, actual facts
- an analytical theory, a prediction based as an extrapolation of a proven mechanism
- traditional-popular or religious beliefs
- personal beliefs
- personal ambition for eternal life, fear of death
- anthropic reasoning, forcing human thought as a mechanism of nature, or the cosmos, or god
- other personal needs — Preceding defined comment added by 853.72.162.200|johnK 23:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Baha for name of God in the Baha'i faith
If my understanding is correct, Baha is the name of the manifestation and not the name of God himself. Binaryhazard (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Merger proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I propose that God be merged into Deity. I think that the content in the God article can easily be explained in the context of Diety, and the Diety article is of a reasonable size that the merging of God will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Proud User (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: This was discussed a little over a year ago, and the consensus was not to merge. StAnselm (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Really wish there was a "+1" feature Binaryhazard (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Opppose - too large and separate this concept stuff. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Opppose - These are too large articles. Besides in some religions, specially Abrahamic religions the meanings of God and deity are so different. It doesn't seem to be a good idea to merge them. Keivan.fTalk 13:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2015
| This edit request to God has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Replace "Chritian" with "Christian" as I believe this is a typo. If you do a find on the page it will be the only result.
Thanks!
98.116.57.246 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016
| This edit request to God has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The word concept to define God is outdated, unless your thinking about making a movie (Daniel) Daniel999999999 (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Majora (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI: reminder on avoiding edit warring
 | This section in a nutshell: Communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. |
In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.
Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.
The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why is the above unsigned? Is it a god writing? 2602:30A:2E14:6710:FD3E:8392:D217:9095 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)