Talk:God in Abrahamic religions

message: I believe that God in Abrahamic religions is preferable because it conforms to the pattern set by the series of articles that includes God in Buddhism and God in Islam.  
--Richard 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Abrahamic religions don't (fully) agree on the nature of God.  This can be an overview of the key points where they agree and disagree, but the God of Abraham is way too big to fit in 32K. :) -JasonAQuest 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger to [[God in Abrahamic religions]]

message: That this section is longer than the section on Christianity is a pretty severe case of undue weight. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the LDS section for the reasons quoted above -nothing to do with religious intolerance-. If someone wants to re-edit please post in the linked page, or otherwise we would have to describe all Christianity branches, all Judaism branches and all Islam schools, too big for 32K E Mendez 13 December 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.161.205 (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Latter Day Saints

message: Why is "god" capitalized in this article? Is Wikipedia taking sides here? ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "god" in this article 

message: I find this rather difficult to defend.
I tried to compile material relevant to the actual topic, i.e. the development of common "Abrahamic" traits in the monotheism of Late Antiquity. No reason for the removal was given in the edit summary. 
Unless some coherent rationale can be given to defend this, I will restore the pertinent material. --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of relevant content

message: In at least the Christian parts of the article, shouldn't "he" and "him" be "He" and "Him" when referring to God? I'm talking about English usage rules here, not  faith or its lack. Tim Bray (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is discouraged by the manual of style (MOS:ISMCAPS).  Capitalized God can be used when referring to "the God" vs "a god", of course.  —PaleoNeonate – 18:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: As a fairly novice dabbler in theology, I may be wrong, but I think that "God is conceived of as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe" contradicts most of, shall we say, mainstream understanding of the Abrahamic god. I'd like to see some sources regarding this claim. 89.160.243.36 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some minor objections 

message: IP vandal mimicking Manafeistlanguage's disruptive edits, which was indefinitely blocked yesterday for the same disruptive behavior on multiple religion-related articles, did you read the reliable sources cited throughout the article before starting your ridiculous edit warring? No, you didn't. Because the cited academic reference explicitly states that the Bahai Faith and Rastafarianism ARE Abrahamic religions:
 GenoV84 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't understood the edit summaries. It's precisely because those faiths are considered Abrahamic that the sentence I removed was false. The cited source only discusses Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The other faiths, in particular Rastafarianism and Baha'i, are not ancient, not semitic, and in the case of Rastafarianism not from the Middle East. For the record, I am not Manafeistlanguage. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:A5AD:A58F:13D:FF53 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You have repeatedly engaged in vandalism and edit warring with various IP addresses and one indefinitely blocked account on this article. The cited academic source clearly states the exact opposite of what you claim, as the verbatim quote that I provided demonstrates. False Abrahamic religions according to whom? According to you? Are you a scholar of religious studies or an historian of religion? Claims without evidence are worthless on Wikipedia. Nobody believes you. GenoV84 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that the religions are false. I am saying the sentence I removed was false. The sentence "all of them originated from ancient Semitic religions in the geographical region of the Middle East" is strictly false, precisely because this article includes religions like Rastafarianism and Baha'i. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:A5AD:A58F:13D:FF53 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone on this website can see that you are currently the only one engaged in edit warring and censorship of sourced content while ignoring the aforementioned sources using multiple IP addresses, not me. GenoV84 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Outsider comment:  As far as i can tell, both parties above are edit warring, i counted three reversions by GenoV84 and four by the IP (assuming each IP address is the same person); that is too many!  For the record, GenoV84, it looks as though you are not understanding what the IP editor is saying:  He did not say anything about , but rather that the claim that all Abrahamic religions are of ancient, Semitic, and Middle Eastern origin is false, which is precisely upheld by the direct quote you give above.  I suggest you both desist and rethink the approach, and GenoV84, i think you would do well to re-examine your argument. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 19:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, if you think the IP editor is a sock puppet, which you appear to be claiming above, you'd better take your accusation (with proof) to the correct page, because just making blind accusations here (however correct they may be, i don't know), may well be considered a personal attack. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 19:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

text:  I have already opened a sockpuppet investigation about this user and provided the diffs for his disruptive edits (diffs for all of their edits: , , , , , , , , , , , ). If you are right, then it's the vandal's fault that he/she didn't explain his thought in the appropriate way. Furthermore, provoking me countless of times to revert him/her again while the discussion is still ongoing means that he/she is just asking for a block and doesn't want to engage in a collaborative manner with other editors, instead of looking for a dispute resolution; an astonishing example of WP:POINT. GenoV84 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Just to make it clear, I am indeed the same person as the other recent IP addresses. I assume I have a dynamic IP address, though all I'm doing on my end is typing and hitting submit. I do not have a Wikipedia account. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:A5AD:A58F:13D:FF53 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I was right all along. He/she just admitted that those IPs that continue to engage in edit warring and deliberate removal of content on this article were not "multiple editors", it's only one person.  , please check their edit history. GenoV84 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO [[WP:CONSENSUS]] to remove sourced content