Talk:Propitiation

message: I've been skimming the article for ideas and I've noticed quite a few problems with it.  Several parts seem to contain original research, e.g. "for example hilastheti in Luke 18:13, where there is no third party between the tax collector and God, and yet there is ‘propitiation’. (Interestingly, the tax collector “beats his own breast”, as an outward sign of his repentance and so, perhaps, he propitiates himself: bearing wrath (his own) and being made right (“dedikaiomenos”) by God."  This seems like one of the better examples of original research to me.
Another point apart for the original research is one of neutrality and veracity. Neutrality first. It seems as if the article is claiming that propitiation is an inadequate translation; "as Barth (and later Moltmann) showed, propitiation and expiation are false categories when applied to the triune God."  While it is one thing to state what the consensus (ugh, is that even possible?) of modern scholarships states about propitiation, the article seems to be making broad claims.  Am I reading this correctly?  On veracity.  This one is more difficult for me to communicate my objection and reasoning in regards to the article.  The article, especially in the propitiation and expiation section, seems to conflate several different theologian's positions and may even be equivocating different views of propitiation. It may be that the author(s) is just attempting to be concise. I am not sure though. It is, however, going to require some research, so I may come back and correct it later if no one else does.
(UTC)ahchoo4u March 30, 2012 12:34
I think that  it also needs work on its readability. Take the first couple of sentences. It is not clear at all that there is a difference between expiation and propitiation. Also the "Concretely it means the lid..." sentence is rather badly expressed.  I came  to  the  article  looking for a discussion of  the differences between expiation and propitiation, whilst reading K.I. Packer's "Knowing God".  I left none the wiser. 2A00:23C8:A04:4900:1538:63F0:3EA2:9CE1 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs work

message: It should be noted that Orthodox don't believe the Atonement was a propitiation. It would be good if the article reflected this, unfortunately I'm not yet learned enough to understand why they don't or what they mean by it. --Ephilei (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Othodoxy

message: The article currently talks of the 'fulfilment of the wrath of God' as an emotional response as well as a moral one. Can someone who knows a lot about the attributes of God, so to speak, and whether his anger can in any way be described as "emotional" in the way we think of it, confirm that this is accurate? I'm not sure that it is correct to talk of God being emotionally angry myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Propitiation in Christian theology

message: 173.206.76.42 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPOSSIBLE for '''''kapporeth''''' to be translated as "atone" because atonement was only '''coined around 1510 AD''' 

message: 173.206.76.42 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPOSSIBLE for '''''hilasmos''''' to be translated as "atonement" in the '''132 BC Septuagint''' -- "atonement" minted 1510 AD 

message: 173.206.76.42 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPOSSIBLE that the OT contained the phrase '''"﻿Day of Atonement"''' 

message: 173.206.4.13 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinkle Abuse by ﻿Peter SamFan