Talk:Theology

message: I propose:
(a) To remove the 'Christianity' template
(b) To move the material on divisions of theology, which is very largely exclusively Christian material, to the 'Christian theology' page
(c) To move the material on the controversy surrounding the emergence of Christian theology to the 'History of theology' page
This page should, presumably, be even-handedly about all the contemporary uses of the word 'theology', which is no longer confined to Christianity; it has to give the Christian history of the term, but should not then imply that 'theology' is now synonymous to 'Christian theology'.
Any objections?
--mahigton 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for redistributing material

message: Given that there are pages elsewhere for Christian theology etc, and that this article is now clearly focused on (a) the history of use of the word 'theology' and (b) aspects of its contemporary usage that are relevant to more than one religious tradition, am I right in thinking that links on this page should not be to resources for Christian theology (or any other particular theology) but to
#resources directly related to the changing definition of theology in history (not simply examples of theological writing from history), and 
#contemporary discussions of the nature of theology that directly address multiple religious traditions; or
#contemporary discussions of the nature of theology that, while focused on a particular religious tradition, clearly treat ideas that will have a relevance to other religious traditions; or
#contemporary discussions of the nature of theology within one religious tradition that explicitly challenge its applicability to other religious traditions; and
#nothing else.
Is that fair?
--mahigton 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links section

message: Should we maybe think about archiving this talk page?  --Selket Talk 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, see Archive 1. From the date stamps I see on the article it looked like 2003 through 2006. I also added several talkpage templates. Although I am not a botOptigan13 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive bot? 

message: Both of these terms redirect here, however only theologian is mentioned in the article text. Wiktionary has different definitions for these terms, albeit not very clearly delineated (:wikt:theologian  :wikt:theologist). Perhaps this article should contain a brief discussion and clarification of these terms with respect to one another? __meco 09:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This is very important.--KitchM (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theologian vs. theologist 

message: The section discussing theology and the academy claims its role is "uniquely" problematic, because of how for example it tries to balance academic discourse with within-a-faith viewpoint and practical involvement. This might be problematic, granted, but it isn't uniquely so; other areas of academia, such as Marxist theory and feminist theory, share similar issues with fitting an activist, practically involved viewpoint into academia. --Delirium 10:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not sure it's uniquely problematic 

message: More quotations in favour of theology and/or theologians can be found here . This site supports intelligent design. I'll leave it to your judgement.   --85.73.241.86 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Quotations" section 

message: Am I the only one who thinks the cartoon at the bottom of the page lampooning theology is completely irrelevant and inappropriate? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If someone was looking for information on the subject, how would that cartoon help anyone? It just seems ill-advised and juvenile.
Emailnuevo (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the whole section "Quotations" (that includes this image) is inappropriate in Wikipedia, since it should go to Wikiquote (per WP:NOT#DIR). I am going to add the template indicating this. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until this section is moved there, could somebody make it more balanced?--85.72.157.191 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon/Focus 

message: Obviously not pertinent to a serious discussion of theology. Christian Left (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Imaginary Friend

message: "Even when it is distinguished from these other disciplines, however, some hold that the very idea of an academic discipline called theology, housed in institutions like Universities, is an inherently secular, Western notion.[citation needed][original research?] Noting that 'reasoned discourse about religion/God' is an idea with a very particular intellectual pedigree, with at least some roots in Graeco-Roman intellectual culture, they[who?] argue that this idea actually brings with it deep assumptions which we can now see to be related to ideas underlying 'secularism': i.e., the whole idea of reasoned discourse about God/religion suggests the possibility of a common intellectual framework or set of tools for investigating, comparing and evaluating traditions - an idea with a strong affinity for a 'secular' world view in which religions are seen as particular choices, set within an overarching religiously neutral public sphere. They argue that even those who pursue this discourse as a way of deepening their commitment to and expertise in their own tradition, perhaps even so as to become promoters and propagators of it, often do so in a way which underlines this same 'secular' atmosphere - by assuming the communicability of their religious views (as explored and explained by theological discourse) within a neutral intellectual market-place."
Now I ask, why is there an entire paragraph based on a definition of theology held only by Wikipedia? Since when is theology known as 'reasoned discourse about religion/God'? Why include an entire paragraph which is not only complete, uncited speculation, but bases its entire argument on a random definition?64.252.160.124 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant? 

message: This currently starts with a false statement: "Theology is the study of religion from a religious perspective." It merits deletion.  Further statements are a little better.  Theology is the study of God:  Religious studies is the study of human religions. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what would be best is a more objective definition. In my own eyes, I see theology as the study of religious thought, such as the epistemology, ethics and metaphysics of these schools.  Marlith (Talk)  21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, it might have been amended since Rlsheehan above but the intro still had a dubious statement - a suggested contrast qualified by "sometimes" must be too controversial to appear in the heading: "It is sometimes contrasted with religious studies: theology is understood as the study of religion from an internal perspective (e.g., a perspective of commitment to that religion), and religious studies as the study of religion from an external (e.g., a secular) perspective.[1]" The minor authority cited is inadequate to support such a very high prominence, and due to overlength I suggest this asserted contrast should simply be removed. Jezza (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Confucius, Laozi, Krishna, Siddhartha Gautama, Zoroaster, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle never had "degrees" in theology or philosophy. So don't teach their teachings if you think they're unqualified. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifications 

message: I have moved the quotations to a subpage here. Some could possibly be integrated into the article, but quotes should not stand alone. See Wikipedia:Quotes for advice. Verbal chat 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should also be transwikied to wikiquote - and then inter-wiki-linked from here? I don't know how to do that though. Verbal chat 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: User:December12AC, thank you for your recent contribution to the page.  I hope you won't think my reaction too brutal, but I have deleted much of it.
You had added:Theology is the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, especially of a god or gods and how the divine relates to the world of the physical senses. Unlike philosophy which focuses upon speculative thinking to organize values and reality, theology usually attempts to organize values and reality around a particular understanding of a transcendental truth or truths, embodied in a god or gods. In this analysis, theology may be said to be more empirical and philosophy more rational, although both disciplines involve both means of reasoning.
Frequently but not always, theology posits a god as an infinite and eternal sentient being who has power, knowledge, and self-originating principles of action. This god usually is considered relevant to human existence and theology is the endeavor to know or understand him or her.
My problems with that material are as follows:
#I've added the gist of the first sentence to the lead paragraph, but not the 'world of the physical senses'.  Theologies have differed greatly in whether and how they have made a distinction between the divine and the non-divine, and only in some theologies (if ever) would reference to the 'physical senses' be the most appropriate way of indicating the realm of the non-divine.
#The description of 'philosophy' offered here is, I think, considerably too narrow.  Most of the philosophers I know would not accept that their work is appropriately described as 'speculative', nor as 'rational' as opposed to 'empirical' - at least, not without heavy qualification.
#Similarly, the description of theology as revolving around 'transcendental truth ... embodied in a god' is applicable, if at all, only to some theologies.
#The conclusion to the first paragraph, tht 'theology may be said to be more empirical and philosophy more rational, although both disciplines involve both means of reasoning', smacks strongly of Original Research - a no-no on Wikipedia.  To avoid that impression, you would need strong, reliable Verification - i.e., some very good references - to show that this was a sufficiently widespread characterisation of the difference between philosophy and theology to warrant inclusion in the head of the article.  (It's considered best practice in Wikipedia articles to avoid phrases like 'may be said...' Articles should always try to explain who says the thing in question.)
#As for the final paragraph, I'm not convinced of the wisdom of trying to expand in this article what has already very briefly been said - that theology treats god or the gods.  People can go to the Deity article to find more, and we don't really need in this page to get into the deeply controversial water surrounding definitions of God.  Given that the definition you offer would not be accepted in several of the contexts discussed later on in the article, I think it's best to delete this.
--mahigton (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for deleting recent addition 

message: I have removed the fully unsourced material Theology beyond affiliation to religious institutions.
It did not have one single source corroborating the statements, even though it was tagged for RS since 2008, besides being of dubious nature in content.
If anyone found my edit to be too bold, please leave me a note on my talk page so we can discuss it. DianaLeCrois   : 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unsourced material. 

message: It might be a thing idea if there could be a stub on the concept of propositional theology, which seems fairly common in modern-day pastoral practice.  Another type of sociological theology is the theology of welcome.  ADM (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Propositional theology

message: I have started a section wit this title. One of the major themes in Theology is Theology of salvation, but there exist several others. Perhaps we can add them. What do you think? thanks Alan347 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for contributing to the page.  I have, however, removed your proposed new section.  There is a separate page on Christian Theology which includes information on major themes, so this article serves the somewhat different function of providing an overview of the origins and spread of theology as a discipline, not restricted to Christianity.--mahigton (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes in Theology 

message: The Bad faith article needs help from available editors, especially on the sectoin for bad faith in theology. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Bad faith]] article needs help from available editors 

message: I have a question for every body.
Someone in fixing his bath room appliances with Gold. Pure gold. And He justifies his action by quoting in book of revelation the roads are made up of gold and in the gospels he quoted that the  prayer of the lord particularly the one about the coming of his kingdom. The question is what was he missing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.72.13 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussing the article not the topic. Please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKNO. Jojalozzo 13:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  
PUSSELE
 

message: Is it possible to replace / remove Calvin at the top?  He is *one* theologian among many.  The first to popularize the term that is read by all denominations of Christianity is Augustine.  Alternatively, Peter Lombard, who used the term in its modern sense.  In any event, having such a narrowly-appealing and idiosyncratic portrait up top seems to discount the vast diversity in Christianity. 72.214.36.170 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to edit myself because I don't normally edit Wikipedia.  But I saw that and realized how prejudicial it might seem to  non-Calvinists.  I also don't know (obviously) if this has been brought up before, but if so it's worth revisiting, so that Wikipedia appears inclusive.  72.214.36.170 (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and changed to Augustine of Hippo, also placed a neutral descriptor.  72.94.174.90 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New front illustration

message: The first paragraph of the Criticism section currently reads:
"Charles Darwin used theology to show that in Darwin's opinion living organisms are not the way an intelligent designer would have made them. Therefore in Darwin's opinion theology supports natural selection. Steven Dilley, a philosopher of science educated at Arizona State University claims the above"
First this doesn't seem to read clearly, it should at least say something like:
"Steven Dilley, a philosopher of science educated at Arizona State University claims Charles Darwin in the "Origin of Species" used theology to show that living organisms are not the way an intelligent designer would have made them."
However looking at the link to that article I'm not even sure that is the claim being made in the paper. It sounds rather as if Darwin was seeking to infer knowledge of God from the theory of evolution - and hence some sort of theology - but it doesn't seem to be as negative as that summary claims.
I'd suggest just removing the paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graceandpeace (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph in Criticism section doesn't read clearly 

message: Dawkins is definitely a vocal critic, but his ignorance of theology is so complete that the criticism makes little sense, and its inclusion on the page thus seems misleading (particularly among criticisms from those who understand the subject). The large cross-over between theology and history/language studies/philosophy, coupled with the presence of atheist theologians, immediately rob his beliefs of any grounding in reality. It is like including Bill Maher in the criticism section of Prozac. Yes there are valid criticisms, but it's not going to come from people who know nothing on the subject. Wikiditm (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My usual comment is that Dawkins is about as qualified to comment on theology as Ken Ham is on biology.  I really hate to say suggest replacing anything with Ayn Rand, but we'd be better off including her dismissal of theology as useless metaphysics instead of Dawkins's utter failure to understand what the humanities department is (because literature uses takes the hermeneutics of theology and applies them to secular works).  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including criticism from Dawkins 

message: See following: :Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_20#Category:Theologians. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category discussion about theologians 

message: Explain grace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.32.59 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia.  Article talk pages are for article improvement.  If you have a question, please use the Wikipedia:Reference desk.  The Humanities reference desk would be most applicable, but you might want to read our article Divine grace (and linked pages, such as Grace in Christianity) before doing so. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140807010251/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au:80/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.6.vi.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.6.vi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080404123631/http://logicmuseum.googlepages.com:80/civitate-8.htm to http://logicmuseum.googlepages.com/civitate-8.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615100029/http://icjs.org:80/scholars/kogan.html to http://www.icjs.org/scholars/kogan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120731010447/http://www.bu.edu/dbin/infocenter/content/index.php?pageid=923&topicid=13 to http://www.bu.edu/dbin/infocenter/content/index.php?pageid=923&topicid=13
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100426034342/http://www.criswell.edu:80/news--events/about-us/ to http://www.criswell.edu/news--events/about-us/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150329082518/http://www.sbts.edu/about/truth/mission/ to http://www.sbts.edu/about/truth/mission/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110830165955/http://www.tiu.edu:80/divinity/connect/whoarewe/ to http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/connect/whoarewe/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090809201252/http://huss.exeter.ac.uk:80/theology/undergrad/ to http://huss.exeter.ac.uk/theology/undergrad/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121211044759/http://www.utoronto.ca:80/stmikes/theobook.htm to http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theobook.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've reverted again an addition by Festeeliot. Although their intentions are no doubt good, there are several problems with this edit:
* The source, Subhasis Chattopadhyay (2014), Reflections on Hindu Theology is from Prabuddha Bharata ("Awakened India"). It's a sectarian journal, not an avademic journal; the article itself has zero cites at Google Scholar;
* The aim of the article is not, citing Festeeliot, to claim that 
::"Hindu theology is now an established discipline and we find a clear effort at constructing a holistic aka systematic Hindu theology by scholars working now." 
Rather, it argues, citing from Chattopadhyay: 
::"In this context, ‘Hindu Theology’ would mean the systematization of various beliefs within the Hindu tradition, from the perspective of a believer of the Hindu faith that will affirm and defend the Hindu religious tradition.
::This would be in effect a reconceptualising of Hindu theology received from the tradition of scriptures and would help the average Hindu better understand one’s faith and also the other religions, defend or justify the faith, and help in applying the resources of Hindu tradition to present-day needs."
Before claimimg that "Hindu theology" has been established, it would be necessary to make clear what "Hindu theology" would be. Then we can ask how it would be the same, or different from Christian theology, especially with regard to the cultural dominance of the west and the need to 'protect' Indian culture against this dominance. I'm sure there are better sources for this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu theology 

message: There is a distinct lack of clarity on the purpose of the criticism section, as it currently reads like a "Worst Of" list from the Criticism of Religion page. The criticism via Philosophers section should instead be a look at the relationship between the two schools (whereby Philosophy was once the 'handmaiden' of Theology) and although throughout history non-religious Philosophy has existed (Socrates as the greatest example, although the religion Socrates spoke out against fails to fit the criteria of theology covered in this article) it was with the 'age of reason' - aka. the Enlightenment/modern period that Philosophy came into its own, and reason was elevated about that of faith. Criticism of theology therefore is often criticism of Philosophy/reasons being shackled to Theology. Caputo, John D., Philosophy and Theology, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006. Dalferth, Ingolf, Theology and Philosophy, Wipf & Stock, 2001. Not a criticism of theology proper.  -Granted, this is just one way this paragraph can read, but at the moment it is just a list of Philosophers who criticised theology and/or religion. &Why would it ever be useful to have such long quotes about each philosopher? It is bizarre. None of the theologians mentioned in the article were given such space, it completely unbalances the article. Also, there is confusion over 'criticism of theology' (theology being what we just spent this whole article defining) and 'criticism of religion' which is anyone who dislikes religious hegemony. See: the inclusion of Mark Twain. Noxiyu (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section Muddled & Self Indulgent 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426034342/http://www.criswell.edu/news--events/about-us/ to http://www.criswell.edu/news--events/about-us/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.criswell.edu/news--events/about-us/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150329082518/http://www.sbts.edu/about/truth/mission/ to http://www.sbts.edu/about/truth/mission/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sbts.edu/about/truth/mission/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830165955/http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/connect/whoarewe/ to http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/connect/whoarewe/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/connect/whoarewe/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809201252/http://huss.exeter.ac.uk/theology/undergrad/ to http://huss.exeter.ac.uk/theology/undergrad/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://huss.exeter.ac.uk/theology/undergrad/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501025921/https://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bradlaugh.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bradlaugh.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717060256/https://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/bradlo01.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/bradlo01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231841/http://www.nestorian.org/the_school_of_nisibis.html to http://www.nestorian.org/the_school_of_nisibis.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805171007/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ingersoll.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ingersoll.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307174208/http://www.ctu.edu/about/ctu-story to http://www.ctu.edu/about/ctu-story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Should this article say that Theology was at one time considered the highest of the sciences? This is what the one-volume Macmillan Encyclopedia claimed. Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Theology as the highest of the sciences

message: Near the beginning of this article we read that theology has turned into a secular field. Is this confusing theology with secular religious studies?Vorbee (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Secular field

message: The first sentence of this article says that Theology is the study of the nature of the Divine and "more broadly of religious belief". Would it not be better to Theology is the study of the nature of God, as the study of religious belief could be construed as a branch of the psychology of religion? Vorbee (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Theology versus psychology of religion

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :God Talk and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "God Talk" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Divine philosophy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Divine philosophy" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]