Template talk:God

message: ADD  Tawhid to the template!!68.100.160.250 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tawhid]] 

message: Much needed template... hopefully this will also lead to some increased consistency between the God-related articles. In any case, great work! --Merzul 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YES!!! 

message: Where would the following more general articles fit?
* Existence of God
* Conceptions of God
* Names of God
I think they are quite important and sub-articles of the God article.  --Merzul 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General articles... 

message: The template is getting big, which is a problem if it is to be appended to religion-specific articles, which commonly feature images, templates etc aplenty, and which can do without an additional template, especially such a big one.
One option would be to change it from Vertical to horizontal, so that it lies at the foot of the page.
Thought? Sfacets 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big template

message: Much of this is redundant with other templates, such as . It also has a large footprint, and leads to problems with placement of images on the page to avoid large blocks of whitespace. We should trim several of the links from this template, or make it a horizontal template for the bottom of the page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-03 18:06Z
: While I liked the template in the beginning, and it is nice on some pages like God, the whole navigation template stuff is starting to get worse than Google AdSense. I will look at the articles were this is used and see, if this can't be trimmed down to focus on the actual subarticles of the God article, and then split out the conceptions of god into a template of its own, perhaps? --Merzul 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant

message: ... don't you think? The Christian-centrism and presumptiveness is appalling, and most of the topics are non-essential (Alaha? God the Sustainer? Holy Spirit? Lord?) or irrelevant (Esotericism? Hermeticism? Philosophy? Chaos?). Many of the links are broken, and random inconsistent interjections of Chinese help cross the line from obscurity to opaqueness. Seriously, you take the time to include Monad and Baal, but don't even have a link to Deity or Goddess? Plus it's ugly. -Silence 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is kind of a terrible template...

message: I wouldn't have thought that God needed a template but now that I think about it, it seems logical, I would also like to point out that there are a lot more things on the template than I thought there would be. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I wouldn't have thought that God needed a template

message: Can this template go on any article related to God, or only on articles which are listed on the template itself? Not a dog 03:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, articles include templates in which they are mentioned. hmwithtalk 15:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that would rule ACIM out. Thanks. Not a dog 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why ask the question above and then answer it yourself now??? I can not find the WP policy on this. Would you mind pointing it out? Thanks.—Who123 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax. I didn't answer it myself. hmwith answered it, and I applied that answer to the case (ACIM) that you brought up here. What's the problem? Not a dog 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am relaxed. I missed that one comment was by hmwith. I would still like to see the WP policy on this and similar templates. Have a great day!—Who123 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's less policy and more standard practice, I believe. hmwithtalk 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which articles should have this template? 

message: The template is "God" - given we have documentary evidence that man has invented many "Gods" over the years is kind of a bias to only say "God" as if that was either one god or one conceptual archetype of what was god. I suggest that it is renamed to "Deities" Ttiotsw 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A template for polytheistic gods would be called Template:Gods. "God" suggests monotheism. hmwith 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err ? Yes, that's the point - we have evidence that humanity has invented lots of gods over time thus the only verifiable word to represent this should be "Gods" (or rather Deities as it has a nicer ring). Ttiotsw 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Then it should say "part of a series of gods" or "part of a series of deities", rather than "part of a series of God". hmwith 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before changing it, I would like to know if anyone believes the title should be "God" instead of "Gods," and any arguments for a singular title. --Ned Pierce 12:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be no objective to changing it, Ned. Perhaps "Deities" is more appropriate because I sense that many people of faith would take objection to there being more than one God. Jasonid 05:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there is a clear bias. The "God" title, which appears above polytheism and pantheism, among others, links to an article that begins: "God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions." I'm changing it to Deities. Mdiamante (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template bias towards monotheism - rename ? 

message: And Elohim ? and God in Judaism ? etc. - Inyan
:Been asking that same question for about 2000 years and still no answer ! See Mythology and Legend. Ttiotsw 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is YHWH ? 

message: This template is so great that it must be fully protected!--Angel David 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention

message: It is about time this template had an Image. It is requested not to take it away.--Angel David 21:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlightenment 

message: i want the following to be added instead of some clouds, hehe: 
very funny, I thought the sky image was a great representation not of God Himself but it is instinctual of human beings to aim toward the sky for God, no one looks for God underground so I don't see why it doesn't fit as an image (again not of direct representation) anyway thats my opinion Habibko 03:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template image 

message: Should Monolatry be included in the list of 'general approaches'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monolatry

message: This template shows a serious bias towards the Christian view of God, being one single God (the title of the template) as well as the idea of heavens and holy light (the propagandized image), which have nothing to do with God. I think this needs to be changed to a more neutral title and image, reflecting a balance between the different topics covered by the template. Jasonid 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I  agree that the template may be better off with no image. As for "single", like the God article, it is intended to be about monotheistic God, see the disambiguation notice there.  Other notions can be addressed in other templates, such as . Maybe this should be the template on "theism", not the template of "God", and God linked not as the template's title, but as a topic in theism. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, many other generic templates such as , ,  have no picture, these one shouldn't have one since its topic has plenty of different descriptions.--Andersmusician VOTE 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the  picture. Some time people have just got to loosen up and relax.66.108.111.91 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several things wrong with this template 

message: Since my old image was removed I added a new one, a better one, a fair one, a non-disputable one. Isn't it great? Or is it?--Angel David 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I suppose "God" just doesn't lend himself well to images (aniconism and stuff). Your image is great for "religion" but somehow doesn't quite do the job  here... Let me say that I liked the clouds though. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: An image probably won't be possible because it would be inherently POV as to whose god Wikipedia is supporting. Best to leave it without an image. T Rex | talk 03:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the current "creation of Adam" image isn't terrible, but I really see no reason at all why this template should be "in bad need of an image" (why? images need to fulfill some function, wikipedia isn't flickr.com)  dab (𒁳) 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also not a question of supporting one god or another; it's applicability to the subject. None of the images so far relate to the infobox as characterized by the links it contains. If the clouds were, as I said, inappropriate for "at least half" of them, then the Sistine Chapel pertains to even fewer than that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Image

message: I notice that the 'God' side box isn't at the immanence page, nor is Immanence included in the box.  Since Immanence is the counterpart of 'Transcendence' (yes?) making those two additions seems reasonable, but I don't know how to do either.  Any help anyone?
Hope so!
john  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.238.136 (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Immanence? 

message: I'm replacing "God gene" with neurotheology, which encompasses the former premise as well as other scientific theories, and is a fuller article. Mdiamante (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: Defined relative to gods, not God specifically. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Agnosticism]] * 

message: Wikipedia's article is specific to God, but I'm not sure that's not just the result of bias in its authors. I've often heard it defined more broadly, encompassing all deities. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Ignosticism]] * 

message: Not specific to God, but relevant. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Misotheism]] * 

message: Not specific to God, but relevant. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Monism]] * 

message: See agnosticism. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Nontheism]] * 

message: Debatable. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Pandeism]] * 

message: Debatable. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Pantheism]] * 

message: Not related to God. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about what would be included in a 'God' template. Ilkali (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is Polytheism "not related to God" but Deism, Monotheism, Panentheism and Henotheism are?!! If Polytheism is "not related", then neither are the others, which are currently figuring prominently at the head of the template! Weirdos...65.183.135.231 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Establish its relevance. Ilkali (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Polytheism]] * 

message: Not specific to God, but relevant. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Theism is about there being at least one god. It makes no reference to the specific set of entities called God. Ilkali (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  * [[Theism]] * 

message: Does this need to exist for any reason, or did someone just forget to G6 it? Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a redirect.  I think someone forgot to G6 it.  Care to do the honors? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done --Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 01:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:God (version 2)]] 

message: Hello. It might be wise to change the subtitle 'theistic approaches' to 'General Conceptions'. The reason is that theism is actually a doctrine in its own right and came to be contrasted with deism as deism became influential in the eighteenth century. Deism stresses that God is not intervening in the world whereas Theism says God is. It is therefore a bit confusing to say that deism is a theistic approach when actually it is opposed to theism. The same can be said of pantheism which asserts that God is not transcendent. This also opposes the theistic view. Langdell (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Theistic approaches vs. General Conceptions

message: I'd like to propose that comment by German philosopher Feuerbach be added. his conception of the Anthropological nature of "God" was very influential in later secular understanding of how the idea of God arises in society. Considered one of a group of philosophers termed the Young Hegelians Feuerbach was influential on the thought of other philosophers such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who were to have a major impact on the course of the European and world history. 
The following captures his conception fairly well,
“…but the object of religion is a distinguished object - the most excellent, the first, the highest being. It essentially presupposes a critical judgment - the discrimination between divine and non-divine, between that which is worthy of adoration and that which is not. 
It is in this context, therefore, that the following statement is unconditionally true: The object of man is nothing else than than his objective being itself. As man thinks, as is his understanding of things, so is his God; so much worth as a man has, so much and no more has his God. The consciousness of God is the self-consciousness of man; the knowledge of God is the self-knowledge of man. Man's notion of himself is his notion of God, just as his notion of God is his notion of himself - the two are identical. What is God to man, that is man's own spirit, soul and heart - that is his God. God is the manifestation of man's inner nature, his expressed self; religion is the solemn unveiling of man's hidden treasures, the avowal of his innermost thoughts, the open confession of the secrets of his love." - Ludwig Feuerbach, 1841, The Essence of Christianity, Chapter 2 - Essence of Religion in General, page 1.
Any opinions on this?198.54.202.218 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraph for the section entitled Anthropomorphism 

message: Why is God in Zoroastrianism not on the template? If anybody wants to add it, this is the link Warrior4321Contact Me 23:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroastrianism 

message: The alpha and the omega
72.214.126.218 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 72.214.126.218, 29 March 2010 

message: I want to Add the new Portal http://Knowingallah.com , which is dedicated To know the God - This site is made by Many languages
MidadeWiki (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from MidadeWiki, 21 April 2010 

message: I would like to request that "Polytheism" is re-added to the "General conceptions" section of the "God" template. Polytheism is important to the topic of God because it is a belief that deals with the number of Gods worshipped under a religious system. It is one of the defining features of many non-Abrahamic religions which have existed throughout history, such as Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian and Aztec mythology, as well as several modern Neo-pagan religions. Considering the number of Polytheistic religions throughout history, it seems disrespectful and illogical not to include Polytheism under "General conceptions", especially when "Monotheism" is listed, but "Polytheism" is not! Surely if Monotheism is relevant than Polytheism is also? After all, they are both beliefs than concern themselves with the number of Gods worshipped.
123.3.95.188 (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Set Sail For The Seven Seas 217° 23' 0" NET 14:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 123.3.95.188, 27 June 2010 

message: Since I am not a registered user I can't do this myself but I wanted to ask someone if they would add the link 'Theism' to the God template in the list under General Conceptions. Theism should be first on the list! Thanks 81.107.150.246 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assistance

message: Suggest code for this template (before noinclude section at end) is replaced with that for the template opposite, as (1) it uses the simpler "Sidebar with dividers" and (2) is thinner, for the sake of smaller screens.
I've also included Theism in the "General conceptions" section as requested above, although in alphabetical position as per the rest of the links.
213.246.81.40 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 213.246.81.40, 23 May 2011 

message: I propose to add the Triple deity among the Specific conceptions
Mormegil 87.19.76.143 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple deity 

message: The two terms mean exactly the same thing. I have removed the less common monolatrism to avoid such confusion. Pass a Method talk 17:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monolatrism + Henotheism? 

message: I think someone should just create a nice graphic of the word "God". It occurred to me that the Allah template does this and if the same were done for "God" I doubt anybody would object as long as it's a nice, neutral image. NaturaNaturans (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Suggestion 

message: I saw this template on polytheism and it struck me as odd. Surely if this template encompasses polytheism, it should be called "gods". Otherwise perhaps polytheism and other general concepts shouldn't be included in the template? Generally the title of the template only includes subtopics, not supertopics, especially for a nav style one such as this. Mvolz (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove general concepts?  

message: Add Aseity and Transcendence to Attributes, since these are common to many forms of theism. 2601:547:501:8F90:1856:6CC9:A2D:B4A6 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 02:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2022