Talk:Maltheism

message: Having honed the Eutheism and dystheism article a bit, I would like to make the following proposal to structure things a bit better:
# Make the Eutheism and dystheism article the focal point for this topic. (Add appropriate redirects for "Eutheism vs. dystheism", etc.)
# Change redirect for Eutheism to point to Eutheism and dystheism instead of summum bonum. I think it was generally agreed that Eutheism and summum bonum are really separate things, and the dialectic article references summum bonum appropriately.
# Change Dystheism to be a redirect to Eutheism and dystheism. Virtually all of the content in the current dystheism article is recomposed in the dialectic article, and that which isn't can be included in a separate Maltheism article.
# Change Maltheism from a redirect to Dystheism into its own article, incorporating the bits from the Eutheism and dystheism article that are specifically about Maltheism. That section in there now is way too much content for a subsection in that larger article and should be in its own space. Include elements from current Dystheism article specific to Maltheism. This should only contain that which is specific to people who identify with the term 'Maltheist', including concepts unique to believers in Maltheism. This will be short and to the point and will not be a personal essay. :-)
# Remove most of the content in the Maltheism subsection, since it would have been moved to its own article by this point.
# Change content of Theophilia to reflect that this is a term coined and used by Maltheists, referencing Eutheism (which would bring readers to the dialectic page).
I think this is a reasonable solution addressing the concerns of people who have had issues with the original Maltheism article. Eutheism/dystheism focuses on the philosophical/theological concepts and elaborates on the dialectic between the two beliefs. Separate articles on eutheism and dystheism would be weaker, in my opinion, because they would need persistent cross-references all over the place in order to make it all meaningful. Each term is meaningless, or at least contentless, without its opposite, thus discussing them in one place seems more prudent. Both terms are defined very early in the article so redirects from the individual terms would be clear.
Shall I proceed?
Craig zimmerman 16:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: after almost two years, we still have any evidence whatsoever that the term refers to more than an online essay, and that the term is in any way well-defined as distinct from dystheism. the "beliefnet introduction" is a user comment on their discussion board (and it is my distinct impression that you are linking to your own words, Craig)! If no sources and no respectable evidence is brought forward, I will finally redirect this to dystheism, it simply will not do to use Wikipedia as a host for personal essays on topics that already have perfectly good articles. dab (ᛏ) 12:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirection to misotheism would be more apt. FFS, there's a WP for Russell Brand. Have a sense of proportion!!!79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: well?

message: I suggest that the bit referring to "the God we perceive" be edited. I don't know about you folks, but most people haven't in any sense perceived a god.
70.8.74.104 (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Two responses: (a) what they meant of course is the God concept, not God Himself (itself, whatever). (b) I have never perceived God in your (correct) sense of the term, and do not believe others have. Nonetheless, I must allow for the possibility that other folks have ways towards knowledge that are closed to me. In other words, you and me may have the gnostic equivalent of colour blindness, with them not seeing why we don't see and us not understanding why they believe in their own fairytales.79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the risk of religious intolerance 

message: The most popular forms of Satanism are Atheism. They do not advocate rebellion to "god" because they don't believe in it. It is rebelling against stupidity and authoritarian control. What people who are not Satanists believe is Satanism, is not the religion any more than what Christians believe Islam is.
::: That's just nonsense. Atheist do not believe in God, and most of them do not believe in Satan either. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby: not believing in God is not a belief, merely the total absence of it. Satanists tend to believe in both God and Satan, and worship the latter presumably because they believe Satan is a source of greater strength. However, it is incongruous to worship and serve a bad entity who does not care much for you. Now, the maltheist knows full well that God is evil and accordingly does not worship Him. Instead, the maltheist goes to Hell and mutters to himself: Figures. What else is new?
:::Autocorrect does not know the term maltheist, but supplies the correction malt heist. It may have a point there.79.70.243.105 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Satanism 

message: replaced belief net source with a google book  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  replaced source