Talk:God/Archive 10

message: Having removed irrelevant commentary from this section, there is almost nothing left.  Muslim editors are sorely needed.
Also, I've changed the section title, as "conceptions" is inaccurate - if there is one thing on which the Qur'an is clear it's this, "concept" is fine - further, as the Qur'an is not mentioned, "Islamic" is more appropriate.Timothy Usher 09:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qur'anic conceptions of God

message: Intriguing.  Please discuss.Timothy Usher 10:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God typically is used as a name for the Judeo-Christian God. The Hindu version is usually referred to by his names. When people search for 'God', they are more often than not searching for the Judeo-Christian version, not the Hindu. Yahadreas 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, given the Christian influence on the language, you are of course correct. Of course, one might point out that the word "God" (or more accurately Ishvara or Brahman — relatively non-secretarian names) are frequently used in Hinduism (see henotheism). Whether "people...are more often than not searching for the Judeo-Christian version" is debatable, given the quantity of text related to Hinduism on this page. That said, this article does seem more of a mess and hodge-podge of ideas that would do well as separate pages, if only for the sake of clarity. That leaves open the question, however, of the fate of this particular page. Do we leave it as a brief summary of various accounts of God — more clearly defined on their respective pages — or dispense with this article altogether? iggytalk 11:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep, trim if indicated, but do not turn into a disambig page. Link child articles if appropriate and not linked. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As, in the English speaking world, God typically refers to the Christian God, it would make sense to use this article to refer to this god only. This, after all, is the English language Wikipedia. As you say,iggy, Hindus refer to God as "more accurately Ishvara or Brahman"; they use the names. I am not certain, but I am sure that most Christians do not refer to God as Yahweh or Jehovah. When people use the word 'God' in the English speaking word, it is almost always associated with the Christian God, and so this should be reflected here. Yahadreas 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree as well. Many Hindus speak English and they refer to Ishwara or Brahman as God (Ishwar translated into English). Infact, as a Hindu interacting with Hindus in an English speaking world, I must have heard the word God used to represent the Hindu God more often than Ishwara and Brahman (Brahman is a more esoteric concept). Yahadreas, when you say the word is most associated with the Christian God, I am assuming you are basing it on Judeo Christian settings and not Hindus.   --Pranathi 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Pranathi, I am basing it on Judeo Christian settings; after all, I do live in a predominantely Christian environment. I don't actually have much experience of Hinduism and am merely assuming. If Hindus do refer to their God by the term 'God', then I will yield. I won't push further. Yahadreas 11:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I always forget about the dangers of qualifiers... I said "more accurately" only because those are transliterations (though not the only possible ones... Ishvara = Ishwar) of (Sanskrit, in this case) terms that are generally translated as "God" (note the qualification about being non-secretarian). As Pranathi points out, most Hindus speaking English have no problem with the word "God" and, in fact, make frequent use of it. Anyway, moving back to the discussion of the split, I rather like KillerChihuahua's comments above: trim if indicated, but do not turn into a disambig page, except I tend to think some trimming is called for. iggytalk 02:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused on what the split is attempting to accomplish. There is already a clarification at the top of the page that this is about the monotheistic God and not greek gods. If Abrahamic religions only are considered monotheistic - such views don't befit an encyclopedia. A Hindu can say We worship you oh God and make perfect sense. Truly confused, ---Pranathi 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: I moved the link as to god in pop culture to the see also section as it doesn't need its own section
Olleicua 03:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  poular culture 

message: The God article is already about the monotheistic God, and is far more developed than what we have here.  WE should think about what parts of this article need to be in God but aren't there already, add them, and redirect.Timothy Usher 07:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a friggin' minute...I'd tried to post to Talk:God (monotheism), only to realize that the talk page is redirected here, but the article is not!  I'll fix that.Timothy Usher 07:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[God]]

message: I am suprised that there is so much emphasis on the similarity between Kabbalistic and panthesitic beliefs. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Kaballah knows that this is in error. Just because we are saying that the table is G-d, doesn't mean G-d is the table. Similarly I can say that your arm is you, but that doesn't mean you are your arm. Think about it-it makes a world of a differnce. Unfortunately this vital distinction is lost on most critics. I'd like fix it up, but its so far gone I'm not sure where to begin. XXX
Then it's Panentheism. Str1977 (smile back) 00:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresented Kabbalistic View

message: Can I suggest that you all work on the potential article split as this may solve some of the problems you are currently having.  Sophia 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop edit warring

message: let's be honest. he sits and watches us suffer through these terrible "trials" and doesn't offer aid for those in the most pain. and yet you praclaim he "care for everyone"??
Thats hypocrisy in the extreme!! what the hell? oops I said hell! sue me !--Institute representative 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  either unexistent of calvinistic 

message: God: Function: (noun) Context: (logical) - the only entity by definition possessing the ability to reduce an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously.  ...IMHO (Talk) 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical definition of God 

message: Okay, I've gone and split this article that was an extremely long article into multiple articles as suggested. Hoof38 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All these subarticles now need major editing and possibly partly merging back. Kusma (討論) 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is easier to revert to this revision and then start splitting again. The (now indefblocked as sock of Science3456) user above split the article into the following, which could be deleted as G5 if needed:
*Biblical definition of God
*Theology of God
*History of Monotheism
*Conceptions of God
*Christian Monism (used to be a redirect)
*Parodies of God and religion
*Posthuman God
*God as unity or trinity
*God as an extraterrestrial
*Phenomenological definition of God
*Conceptions of God in Hinduism
*Abrahamic conceptions of God
*Kabbalistic definition of God
*God (word)
*God (expression) - not sure about this one
Any thoughts on whether deleting them all and splitting more carefully from the old article or partial re-merging is best? Kusma (討論) 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's revert the changes of the puppet, as you suggest, and take another look.Timothy Usher 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had already split the article and I've worked a bit into the new one Conceptions of God. Now I see the split was reverted again. Anyway, I think that limiting to two average paragraphs per conception is enough: the rest of each "essay" could go to a separate article related to each of the specific conception. This way any user could go through the article without thinking that he/she is in shopping center looking for the product with the "best" publicity... --88.214.139.161 04:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since work has been done on the subarticles already, maybe it would be best to just reduce the treatment here to a summary paragraph per WP:SS and to keep the split. I don't feel comfortable doing much about this; I was only reporting what happened and which articles need attention Kusma (討論) 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd like to experiment to adjust the external article on Conceptions here. However due to the complexity of the issues presented in the majority of the conceptions, it is difficult and perhaps not advisable (the main ideia in each one wouldn't get through) to reduce (condensing) it to one summary paragraph. My suggestion is that it is better to have a small introduction going directly to the issue here and re-direct it to the specific article of the conceptions, than to try to put many words just to have a bigger article. My English language is not very formal so I'll try and then if you consider it can be developed is all yours, or if if you disagree you may revert it at your own will. --Rosaecruz 17:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Done, I've finished my editions for now, but one must continue to develop it, as there is much lacking yet... Btw, if any data is found to be valid in the article God (monotheism), then it should be merged into here and afterwards that article should be erased as it is like a replic of this one. Best regards, --Rosaecruz 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: This article is longer in See Alsos than in content.  As someone just coming into this article, I can tell you, it's kind of ugly. Maybe it would be a good idea to either pare it down (not likely without causing all kinds of edit wars) or just relegating all the See Alsos to Category:God, if they're not there already.
Related, some of the references look irrelevant to the content --Elliskev 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: These should be deleted or moved to another section. The examples just aren't relevant or widespread enough for a serious article on God.  The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is particularly ludicrous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.135.75 (talk • contribs) .
Having Pasafarian leanings myself I should probably support the inclusion and I do up to a point. I think one short paragraph giving a couple of the most well known examples would more than suffice so the section should definitely be reduced.  Sophia 09:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already in a subarticle, see #Split above. Please summarize here and synchronize with the subarticle. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parodies of God 

message: Surely more people on this Earth hold the view in the picture that was presented in the second (read: subordinate!!) position!! Over a billion people are in India alone!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that the images have been shuffled, with the non-Western conception again being pushed to the bottom, now behind TWO depictions of God as a white-bearded white-skinned man, presumably with a holy penis twixt his loins!! This is not the article on DEPICTIONS of God is it??  What about those of us who equate God with the Universe, not even a depiction that reflects that view?? Please, give me one good rationale why there should be TWO depictions of the westernized old white man, one Hindu conception shoved to the end, and that's it!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 05:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article is much the worse for no longer having an image, any image, in the intro section.  I can understand PanDeist's concern, and I would encourage us to include non-Judeo-Christian imagery, although I am slightly unsure (this is my own limited knowledge speaking) about the precise correspondence of Krsna and God as such (isn't he more an "aspect"?).  I would put one image back in the intro, be sure to include Krisna or another non-Christian God, and I would consider eliminating one of the two Michaelangelos -- the close-up is the better, and other artists have done fine jobs representing both Judeo-Christian and non-JC Gods.  I would also look into including images of Ahura Mazda as well as Sikh representations of God.  Finally, I would suggest that a compromise on which God gets to be in the intro, we could rotate them occasionally -- every week or two, perhaps even on a schedule.  There are plenty of us watching this page to take care of that.  bikeable (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a start towards a better concept, I like the idea of rotation, but I do not think we need to remove one of the Michaelangelos so long as we balance it with equal numbers of other conceptions... I regret that the image I added was removed - there needs to be something there for those who believe in God as related in PanTheism/PanDeism/Pan-en-Theism, etc, showing something symbolic of the Universe itself as representing the image of God to such believers!! There is no limit, of course, the article could use more images (maybe 6-7?)!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have reversed the images!! 

message: thumb|210px|right|The Winged Self (seal of the living God ("The phrase "seal of the living God" doubtless means that which God had appointed, or which he would use; that is, if God himself came forth in this manner, he would use this seal for these purposes (...)  In subsequent times, in the church, it was common for Christians to impress the sign of the cross on their foreheads (...) that there would be some mark, sign, or token, by which they who were the people of God would be known; that is, there would be something which would answer, in this respect, the same purpose as if a seal had been impressed upon their foreheads." Barnes, Albert. (1798-1870). "Commentary on Revelation 7". "Barnes' Notes on the New Testament"): The purpose of The Winged Self Symbol is to focus thought in the inner Divine perfection of each individual.
Dear fellow and friend editors: I have added the Symbol The Winged Self, to the article's intro, with the follwing comment in the historic:
:"20:30, 26 June 2006 88.214.135.188 (Talk) (A Symbol: starting to learn looking for the God dwelling inward, "Our God who art our Winged Self" (Kahlil Gibran))".
Soon after, user Codex Sinaiticus reverted the edition with the following comment:
:"20:41, 26 June 2006 Codex Sinaiticus (Talk | contribs) (putting any picture or symbol in the intro is going to look pov, because it excludes other povs. Maybe it could go further down, but the intro does not need to highlight any one conception)".
Let me assure you that I do understand and appreciate user Codex Sinaiticus' edition and comment. However, I would like to purpose this Symbol, "The Winged Self" (with its related description), to be the One associated with the present article God.
In order to accomplish this Aim, I would like to humbly request to each one of editors to please state your own opinion/thought, sincere and direct, on this issue that I bring here.
In order to permit a knowledgeable decision, You may find details about the Symbol:
*at the related article,
*in the original web page concerning It ,
*and also at this recent webpage created on my own; blessed, indeed, I have been during these dark times of my soul, for the Divine Essence always poured Light upon my darkness:  .
Finally, I must here state that to the Symbol "The Winged Self" it is associated, within my Mind at least, the following Passage:
:"et vidi alterum angelum ascendentem ab ortu solis habentem signum Dei vivi et clamavit voce magna quattuor angelis quibus datum est nocere terrae et mari" (Revelation 7:2).
Thank you very much for your attention. My best Regards. --GalaazV 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't see that The Winged Self is well-known enough to merit an image in this article; indeed, with 54 google hits, I'm not sure it merits a wikipedia article at all, but perhaps a mention in Khalil Gibran.  best,  bikeable (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Galaz, what are you doing?  You keep editing your comment on the talk page.  I mean I admit, you approach a perfect comment, but it doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, which seems to have already arrived at a consensus not to put your symbol up at the top of the God article.  I don't want to disuade you from adding what you wish to the talk page (within reason) but I just don't understand where you're going with this. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Well, I wont be around editing anymore, but it would be welcome with Joy if you - in an individual and in a collective effort here - would be able to go beyond the dogmas in your minds and listening for a while to your own hearts, revising your decision(s). Nevertheless, I regard as my duty to bring to You a message. "For what we do presage is riot in grosse, for we are brethren of the Rose Cross; We have the Mason Word and second sight, Things for to come we can foretell aright." "We give you Love, 'tis all we've got./For Love unties the Gordian Knot." --GalaazV 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you didn't take things the wrong way.  No one is asking you not to edit and contribute.  However, contributions to this site need to be neutral.  You may love your message wholeheartedly - yet this is not a platform for advocacy, it is a place to present, neutrally and in a balanced way, a whole range of ideas without preference.  Since you quote from rosicrucian and masonic ideals, I recommend you consider contributing there - but again, it all has to be neutral.  That's why I asked about editing the comment.  It seemed like simple advocacy, where we're trying to build an encyclopedia in a shared environment.  So please don't just leave - we're not hardened by dogmas as you put it.  Rather, we're consistently trying to practice a principle of this website, and not allow any dogma, yours or mine, to override another, nor to have such put forward with undue weight.  If we put rosicrucian symbols in a prominent way on a general God page, it would be ascribing it undue weight.  That's really what the whole discussion earlier was about - that western (Christian) images of the deity were being prioritized unduly.  --Christian Edward Gruber 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you didn't take things the wrong way.  No one is asking you not to edit and contribute.  However, contributions to this site need to be neutral.  You may love your message wholeheartedly - yet this is not a platform for advocacy, it is a place to present, neutrally and in a balanced way, a whole range of ideas without preference.  Since you quote from rosicrucian and masonic ideals, I recommend you consider contributing there - but again, it all has to be neutral.  That's why I asked about editing the comment.  It seemed like simple advocacy, where we're trying to build an encyclopedia in a shared environment.  So please don't just leave - we're not hardened by dogmas as you put it.  Rather, we're consistently trying to practice a principle of this website, and not allow any dogma, yours or mine, to override another, nor to have such put forward with undue weight.  If we put rosicrucian symbols in a prominent way on a general God page, it would be ascribing it undue weight.  That's really what the whole discussion earlier was about - that western (Christian) images of the deity were being prioritized unduly.  --Christian Edward Gruber 19:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Symbol: pls. your comment is highly valuable 

message: Hey all.  A recent link was added that is an apologetic christian site which has all sorts of "proofs of god", "proofs of Jesus" stuff.  There are other POV external links too, which is why I didn't delete it as somewhat un-NPOV and unencyclopedic.  I am not sure this article is the place for them, since it is about (generically) the monotheistic creator deity, and not really about a POV on a particular flavour or interpretation of that deity.  I think that such links are great on pages/articles that discuss those POVs, but more scholarly or comparative links should be the norm here.  How do people feel about this?  I would say scrap POV external links entirely, especially because it would be impossible to keep them in balance with all the various views available, or we'd have an amazingly long list.  Anyway, just my HPOV --Christian Edward Gruber 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, if we let one in, all must come in (and we don't have room for all to come in). //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External POV links 

message: WP:SS was a good idea, but whoever did the split did a terrible job imho. WP:SS means that every topic branched out gets a summary section. Instead, we have a lengthy dab notice. The God (word) was bullied out of the article, apparently, as if the history of a term had nothing to do with the history of the concept it refers to. Shame, the article was beginning to look good, and it's been bombed back to average half-baked Wikipedia list-cruft standard. Come on, the see also section is unusable. "See also" should link five, maybe ten centrally related terms. What we have instead looks as if five people did a flip-board brainstorming session over lunch. dab (ᛏ) 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the split

message: I am utterly surprized that there is no "Fear of god" article, which is the very basic topic in religion. (There does exist "Fear of God" article, but don't be fooled.) `'mikka (t) 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fear of god 

message: Is it really necessary to find a citation for the Christian use of Allah in Arabic speaking countries? It is kind of a blatant fact the word is "God," and is discussed on the Allah page. Perhaps a reference to al-Ab might clarify some? Lxx 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Allah? 

message: Something odd has happened to the intro since I last looked at it. For example, what does the first sentence mean? "God is a Germanic name for deified reference ("reverence") to the unitary concept of deity ..."?? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored an older version of the intro, which seems less problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevertigo, as you've restored the intro, please say what it means, particularly the first sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not responding to comments on your talk, or on wikien, I will not feed your abusive usage of first reverts by responding to you here. Comment on wikien at either one of the two relevant threads. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you're talking about. I am asking a question here about the contents of the article, which is what this page is for. The first sentence is completely meaningless, and yet you restored it. Therefore, please say what you think it means and stop playing games. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Youre probably right about some things, but Im not sure if youve linked your comments up correctly - I cant seem to match particular points in the text with the links. -Ste|vertigo 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well you seem to have the basics down. But your proposed solution at best appears facetious, if not altogether trite. There is a way in which to present information which conforms to both NPOV and does give some richness to the subject. As citations are often just one pov (see the "cite nazi" thread on wikien-l) there is good reason to defer more to NPOV rather than various subordinate policy. Slim had a point about the first sentence, and I tried to accomodate her. God after all isnt just a word, or a concept (of divine personage), but a real thing, with arms (manifestations) and legs (enduringness) and other aspects to be described with bombast and flourish. ;] -Ste|vertigo 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "God" is a Germanic name for deified reference ("reverence") to the unitary concept of deity —most commonly described as an intelligent consciousness of infinite spiritual substance that underlies or permeates through the whole natural and physical universe, which is therefore said to be both its "creator" and "ruler."
What strikes me about the accuracy of the above wonderful passage and point-of-view is that it is pretty much what every respectable dictionary says--in somewhat less bombastic glory, I will admit.  So there is a real problem with the current lead sentence in that it mixes apples with oranges by stirring in a little of Jehovah--who is a totally different personality from the Germanic God--which I see from the etymology of God is related--not to any Jehovah--but rather to Germanic words like giddy.  Is there even one English dictionary that explicitly relates "God" to the four-letter Jehovah?  Or even to the five-letter Allah?  Did the word "God" appear anywhere in the original texts into which the King James translators forced the alien and Germanic "God" who was definitely not Jehovah back in the time at least when "God" and "giddy" had the same Most recent common ancestor?  I have enjoyed these little discoveries, so thank you.  --Rednblu 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I wrote all of that above, so Im grateful that someone appreciates it - particularly in the context of Slim's hatchet job critiques. That said, I do agree with Slim that to refer to the word (Germanic name) puts a bit of a spin on the lede toward the linguistics - which is better handled at God (word). While removing that phrase was proper to get this article back within the boundaries as stated in the disambiguation, these limits require its parallel association with related terms up front. YHVH and Allah are, after all, different names for the same God, (with slight cultural differences arisen from different cultural interpretations of Abrahamic monotheism.) :) -Ste|vertigo 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I slightly changed the sentence.  The use of the indefinite pronoun "it" was confusing as it was not completely clear if "it" referred to God or to the "universe."  I think my revision makes it completely clear.  Feel free to revert or edit further!  --ElKevbo 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Dont confuse God with any of the variants of the Abrahamic God, but neither claim that the differences therein are based in cultural artifacts rather than in theological differences. But then, let us not understate culture. In other words its a balance. So when you say that the Germanic has weight with regard to the concept of God, this may be true, but from a theological point of view it would represent the influence of paganism - God as an Odin-like personage. Personality and character are cultural elements, which are secondary to the unifying theological aspects. So, while I have great regard for the avenue of promoting linguistic unity which you (and to some degree dab, in a comment above) seem to lament, concepts can nevertheless show a relationship even where there is no direct etymology. Thats the nature of the God concept, which is why in the "God" article we can deal with so-called polytheistic concepts as well, in a way which does justice to those views which see these as fundamentally similar rather than culturally different. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 06:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * So what would be a WP:NPOV distinction between pagan and non-pagan views of "God."?  --Rednblu 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep in mind that, in the context of Abrahamic religion, "paganism" is a pejorative to refer to polytheism. Polytheism is itself a kind of polite modern word to refer to "idolatry:" ie. "if its not The God (or "Our God") they worship, its an idol." So, you are correct in noting that the distinctions are subjective, localised, or (as I put it above) contextual. The problem of course with that approach is that "context" for "God" tends to be Abrahamic, and not universalist. So, because that's where people come from, we have to deal with that dimension, while still applying NPOV in a way which connects Abrahamic and Dharmic concepts. -Ste|vertigo 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: ::"God" is a Germanic name for deified reference ("reverence") to the unitary concept of deity —most commonly described as an intelligent consciousness of infinite spiritual substance that underlies or permeates through the whole natural and physical universe, which is therefore said to be both its "creator" and "ruler."
What strikes me about the accuracy of the above wonderful passage and point-of-view is that it is pretty much what every respectable dictionary says--in somewhat less bombastic glory, I will admit.  So there is a real problem with the current lead sentence in that it mixes apples with oranges by stirring in a little of Jehovah--who is a totally different personality from the Germanic God--which I see from the etymology of God is related--not to any Jehovah--but rather to Germanic words like giddy.  Is there even one English dictionary that explicitly relates "God" to the four-letter Jehovah?  Or even to the five-letter Allah?  Did the word "God" appear anywhere in the original texts into which the King James translators forced the alien and Germanic "God" who was definitely not Jehovah back in the time at least when "God" and "giddy" had the same Most recent common ancestor?  I have enjoyed these little discoveries, so thank you.  --Rednblu 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I wrote all of that above, so Im grateful that someone appreciates it - particularly in the context of Slim's hatchet job critiques. That said, I do agree with Slim that to refer to the word (Germanic name) puts a bit of a spin on the lede toward the linguistics - which is better handled at God (word). While removing that phrase was proper to get this article back within the boundaries as stated in the disambiguation, these limits require its parallel association with related terms up front. YHVH and Allah are, after all, different names for the same God, (with slight cultural differences arisen from different cultural interpretations of Abrahamic monotheism.) :) -Ste|vertigo 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I slightly changed the sentence.  The use of the indefinite pronoun "it" was confusing as it was not completely clear if "it" referred to God or to the "universe."  I think my revision makes it completely clear.  Feel free to revert or edit further!  --ElKevbo 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [more] 

message: I know that original research is forbidden, but I just cannot resist the temptation to quote, paraphrase, and cite what actual scholars throughout history have actually written about "God."  I also know that WP:NPOV when it appears in Wikipedia is quickly ripped out with snarls such as "literally nonsense" or "Don't revert on a line" as the various packs fight for nothing but turf.  Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the underlying work issue of the God page which is "What have researchers found God to be--really"?  So I am assembling here in one place excerpts of the WP:NPOV that the dog packs have ripped out from the pages all over Wikipedia.
This being Sabbath morning, I consult my favorite source of original research which is PubMed to find what new evidence researchers have found on "what God is--really".  I search on God and find that there are 1933 articles on the detailed anatomy of "God" and I sort by date to select the most recent findings I have not yet read.  Right there at the top is a September 2006 publication in the International Journal of Neuroscience (2006 Sep 116(9):1079-96), a publication with the scholarly title, Experimental facilitation of the sensed presence is predicted by the specific patterns of the applied magnetic fields, not by suggestibility: re-analyses of 19 experiments.  The scholars detail how researchers have made "God" make a personal appearance to 407 subjects in 19 experiments by the application of subtle magnetic fields of signature pulses focussed on the proper areas of the subjects' brains.  In the words of the scholars, "The importance of verifying the specific timing and temporal pattern of the software-generated fields and following an effective protocol is emphasized."
So, if God does not exist, and surely she does not, then it is something of a WP:NPOV mystery how "God" got related to the four-letter Jehovah.  So what I just realized when I heard the snarls over whether God was Germanic--was that God is Germanic.  Now, maybe it would be good if people of the future could think of God and  as simply different names for the same thing.  A people should be able to define their abstractions to be useful to them.  Nevertheless, it is WP:NPOV true that God and  did not have common origins; they had different inventors.  Perhaps, the inventor of  was Abraham.  The inventor of God is more obscure.
In searching for the process that invented God, PubMed is again useful.  Now, I will quickly admit that PubMed enforces the most tyrannical POV there is, and PubMed's POV is to ban whatever is not supported by fact.  Nevertheless, PubMed is a good source if you are interested in the facts of "what God is--really".  You might search for God many ways.  But one way to search for God is to search in PubMed for "Oldest Germanic God".  You will find there a very likely theory of humankind's discovery of God as summarized by Scott Hajicek-Dobberstein.  Scott was examining Wasson's hypothesis that many lines of human religious experience derived from the before 5000 B.C. discovery somewhere near Finland that eating the red mushrooms that grow under birch trees gives you an imagined experience of 1) being divine or 2) being in the presence of someone who gave you answers to the hard questions of life.  Wasson summarized his research and fact-finding in his 1968 book Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality  in which he stated that essential enlightenment practices of Hinduism derived from these Northern European discoveries of how to either become or to invoke Gods.  Wasson documented the existing religions, such as in Siberia, that even today use the body and broth from these mushrooms as their sacred sacrament to renew their experience of being in the presence of who created them.  These red mushrooms contain entheogens such as ibotenic acid and muscazone--toxic chemicals which make people feel that they 1) are gods or 2) are in the presence of gods.
Expanding on this 1968 research, Scott Hajicek-Dobberstein examined the religious writings of Tibetan Buddhists to discover symbols such as "One-Eyed" which he associated with Wasson's observation that the red mushroom that gave people the divine experience when they ate it "at one stage of development, looks something like a bloody human eye-ball plucked from the socket and thrown on the ground" (p. 107).  When Scott asked his colleagues for other divine traditions in which there was a One-Eyed god, someone pointed him to the Germanic tradition of God, Odin, Woden, Wotan, Wodanaz, Godan, Wod, ... which shows up in our God's day, Wod's day, Wednesday, the name of the middle day of the modern week if Sunday is the first day.  And Scott found that the traditions of the Germanic God shared with the Hindu and Buddhist traditions of Soma, the religious symbols of One-Eyed, raven, and tree of enlightenment under which the red mushrooms still grow as symbionts.  And now of course, it makes sense that etymologically the Germanic God and the Germanic giddy have common ancestors.
In contrast, PubMed contains no evidence for an evolutionary relationship either direction between God and .  Apparently, the translators of the King James version simply were ignorant of both 1) what  meant and 2) how  was pronounced.  --Rednblu 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dont confuse God with any of the variants of the Abrahamic God, but neither claim that the differences therein are based in cultural artifacts rather than in theological differences. But then, let us not understate culture. In other words its a balance. So when you say that the Germanic has weight with regard to the concept of God, this may be true, but from a theological point of view it would represent the influence of paganism - God as an Odin-like personage. Personality and character are cultural elements, which are secondary to the unifying theological aspects. So, while I have great regard for the avenue of promoting linguistic unity which you (and to some degree dab, in a comment above) seem to lament, concepts can nevertheless show a relationship even where there is no direct etymology. Thats the nature of the God concept, which is why in the "God" article we can deal with so-called polytheistic concepts as well, in a way which does justice to those views which see these as fundamentally similar rather than culturally different. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 06:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * So what would be a WP:NPOV distinction between pagan and non-pagan views of "God."?  --Rednblu 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep in mind that, in the context of Abrahamic religion, "paganism" is a pejorative to refer to polytheism. Polytheism is itself a kind of polite modern word to refer to "idolatry:" ie. "if its not The God (or "Our God") they worship, its an idol." So, you are correct in noting that the distinctions are subjective, localised, or (as I put it above) contextual. The problem of course with that approach is that "context" for "God" tends to be Abrahamic, and not universalist. So, because that's where people come from, we have to deal with that dimension, while still applying NPOV in a way which connects Abrahamic and Dharmic concepts. -Ste|vertigo 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [more] 

message: Mark 3 a new user, wrote an extremely simplified version of the lede. While things of course can be changed, they should be done so with care, and not simply as a unilateral changeup. -Ste|vertigo 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark 3's version