Talk:Love of God

message: I cant help but notice that this page only centers on the christian god, just like all other religious things written by Americans.
THIS JUST IN: CHRISTIANITY IS NOT THE ONLY RELIGION TO HAVE EVER EXISTED IN HUMAN HISTORY! BREAKING NEWS!
Despite my tone in this note, I fully support NPOV in all things on this site. This page needs to speak of a generic, unnamed deity, in order to maintain a NPOV.
Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Full agreement here, but it should also be noted that "theophilia" does not mean "love of god" in the sense of divine love, love from God, but rather the act of people loving God and the sentiment that God is worthy of love. This should be fixed, but in general this page needs a lot of work. Craig zimmerman (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything Christian about the article whatsoever.  Is it a Bahai POV?  The POV is not neutral.  Christianity certainly does not lump itself into the category of "monothestic religions" along with various idolatries and misconceptions.  A generic  unnamed diety is not NPOV; it is a myth and anti-Christian.  Probably this article should be scrapped.  (EnochBethany (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Yeah. I'm an Anglo-Saxon Heathen, and naturally we honor all of the gods, not just centering on one... If anything, from my point of view, the page ought to be "Love of Frigga," since she's the one who provides divine love. In any case, yeah, it needs reworking into a more encyclopedic page, which would either establish this concept to one specific set of beliefs, or if it is to be a broad topic, then it needs to be free from a specific set of beliefs.  —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "all the gods"?  God is not one of the gods.  gods are finite, like pagan gods.  God is infinite.  And He has no other gods before Him.  Claimed gods are either imaginary or demonic or a mixture of both.  I don't see any way this article could have a NPOV.  I say scrap it.(EnochBethany (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Please post what Voegelin was trying to obviously say in his obvious book about gnosticism since your quoting it obviously you have read and understand it's obvious message.  Since you posted on your mytalk page.
:==Gnosticism== on what a book whose title says it is about Gnosticism says about Socrates, Phaedrus and the like, without omitting a single word of it! And then no response to my attempts to engage the complainant on the article's Talk page
LoveMonkey (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The long addition above may not be the peace of God, which "surpasses all understanding", but it does surpass my poor understanding.  I take it that it concerns a mistaken edit that I presume Philopithekos (or should it be Pithekophilos?) has by now rectified.  Editors constantly rectify mistakes by others.  Platia (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Using Eric Voegelin to source a position in complete opposition to his

message: Eric Voegelin, partially building on the concept of gnosis as used by Plato and the followers of Gnosticism, along with how it was defined by Hans Jonas,The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin By Eric Voegelin, Ellis Sandoz, Gilbert Weiss, William Petropulos Published by Louisiana State University Press, 1989 
, 9780807118269   defined the gnosisGlossary of Voegelin terms online  Gnosis "Knowledge". Originally a general term in Greek for knowledge of various sorts. Later, especially with the Gnostic movement of the early Christian era, a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite. According to Voegelin, the claim to gnosis may take intellectual, emotional, and volitional forms." [Webb 1981:282] of the followers of GnosticismGlossary of Voegelin terms online  Gnosticism "A type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism. As a religious or quasi-religious movement, gnosticism may take transcendentalizing (as in the case of the Gnostic movement of late antiquity) or immanentizing forms (as in the case of Marxism)." [Webb 1981:282] as religious philosophical teachings that are the foundations of cults. Voegelin identified a number of similarities between ancient Gnosticism and those held by a number of modernist political theories, particularly communism and nazism. 
Voegelin identified the root of the Gnostic impulse as alienation, that is, a sense of disconnection with society, and a belief that this disconnection is the result of the inherent disorder, or even evil, of the world. This alienation has two effects:
* The belief that the disorder of the world can be transcended by extraordinary insight, learning, or knowledge, called a Gnostic Speculation by Voegelin (the Gnostics themselves referred to this as gnosis).
* The desire to create and implement a policy to actualize the speculation, or as Voegelin described it, to Immanentize the Eschaton, to create a sort of heaven on earth within history by triggering the apocalypse.
Voegelin’s conception of gnosis and his analysis of Gnosticism in general has come under criticism from recent research, including that of Professor Eugene Webb of the University of Washington. Webb, a researcher and teacher in the field of the study of religion, has written several academic monographs on Voegelin’s thought and a book devoted to the exposition of his philosophy as a whole.Eric Voegelin: Philosopher of History, Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1981. In a recent article entitled "Voegelin’s Gnosticism Reconsidered", Webb puts Voegelin’s use of the terms gnosis and Gnosticism under close scrutiny. Webb explains that Voegelin’s concept of Gnosticism was conceived "not primarily to describe ancient phenomena but to help us understand some modern ones for which the evidence is a great deal clearer."Webb, E; Voegelin’s “Gnosticism” Reconsidered; Political Science Reviewer; 34; 2005 Webb then goes on to state his belief that today "the category (of Gnosticism) is of limited usefulness for the purpose to which he put it…and the fact that the idea of Gnosticism as such has become so problematic and complex in recent years must at the very least undercut Voegelin’s effort to trace a historical line of descent from ancient sources to the modern phenomena he tried to use them to illuminate."Webb, E; "Voegelin’s “Gnosticism” Reconsidered"; Political Science Reviewer; 34; 2005
LoveMonkey (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The long addition above may not be the peace of God, which "surpasses all understanding", but it does surpass my poor understanding.  I take it that it concerns a mistaken edit that I presume Philopithekos (or should it be Pithekophilos?) has by now rectified.  Editors constantly rectify mistakes by others.  Platia (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Voegelin

message: There are two different terms in existence.
LoveMonkey (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If in place of "theophilos" (a person who loves God) you put "theophilia" (love for God), which is what I suppose was meant, I don't think anybody denies it.  Of course, "philanthropia" applies not only to love for mankind shown by God, but even by human beings, as in the Greek proverb, Η φιλανθρωπία είναι ο πατέρας της προσφοράς/θυσίας ("Philanthropia is the father of self-sacrifice"). It is translated as "kindness" in : "The natives showed us extraordinary kindness; for because of the rain that had set in and because of the cold, they kindled a fire and received us all." Platia (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Philo- is an existent prefix.  Does agap- exist as a prefix?  Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mankind's love of, for God is theophilos, God's love of, for mankind is philanthropia

message: The central root for love of God & God's love for man is agap- (noun agape, verb, agapao).  Phil- has to do with fondness or friendship, liking someone or something.  Agape is described in 1 Corinthians 13.  Is this article some kind of religious shill of Bahai-ism?  Another issue is that "Love of God" is ambiguous.  Love of God can be man's love for God or God's love for man (objective vs subjective genitive in grammar).   The whole article needs revision or better, scrapping.  (EnochBethany (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Philo- is an existent prefix.  Does agap- exist as a prefix?  Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: THE ARTICLE IS DEFECTIVE BY CONFUSING THE ROOTS PHIL- WITH AGAP-

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Love of God. 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/20110707203943/http://www.babynamer.com/theophilos to http://www.babynamer.com/theophilos
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=40&cuItem_itemID=1380
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806173932/http://www.whylovegod.org/home.html to http://www.whylovegod.org/home.html
*Added tag to https://www.powerfulsight.com/gods-love-the-unfailing-love-of-god-for-humanity/
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) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Love of God. 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/20101203170343/http://www.orgsites.com/wa/facab/names.doc to http://www.orgsites.com/wa/facab/names.doc
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) 12:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified