Talk:God/Archive 11

message: There is a clear reason for yawning: It is caused by god (god loves us but he sometimes acts as an adversary= devil like us humans too to test the humans and to have the humans down under his thumb, 
because he wants to keep the relationship, he really loves us). God is composed of the universal engergy (everything consits out off this energy). We feel this energy in the form of love. 
God (the devil=adversary) has got possibilities of communication for example (singing of crows, barking of dogs like one woof for yes and woof-woof for no... <- you can try this yourself !!!!!, communication with humans in dreams... and thus he arrives in the radio, with yawning god/the devil can initiate a cough...<--- you will find Jesus this way if you pay attention, God promised to show us his son = this is a valid proof!!!). 
Jesus was sent to earth by god to communicate and only he showed the humans what god is really like (deep inside he loves us and he wants us to love him and believe in his goodness and power) !!!!!
This love should always last even through the bad days !!!!!!!!!! 
==== new header for rednblue ====
::God denotes the deity believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.
I am afraid that the above sentence does not make sense.  I would suggest that any English dictionary would illustrate the verbal mechanics in creating a logical English sentence on the subject of "God."  The following, I would say, is an example of a sensible sentence from a dictionary on the subject of "God."
:: God is a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The primary defect of the God denotes ... nonsense is that it connotes that God--whatever that is--is merely a word or expression that  denotes.  Is "God" just an expression?  --Rednblu 16:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the "denotes" language, and cant think of a case where its better than "X is" or "X refers to." But is God a "being?" Or is God a name (as opposed to the word "god") to refer to the omniscient deity in monotheism? See the difference?-Ste|vertigo 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Whoever says "I am that I am" is at least claiming to be a "being," would you agree?  This is just a justification of what the dictionary says that "God" is--a being.  The voice that came out of the Bush did not say "I denote what I denote".  Perhaps you are thinking of the Greek corruption that begins with "In the beginning was the Word that referred to what was not a being."  I am afraid that every high school student who comes here will be asking,  "Yes, but what is God--really?"  And there are lots of WP:NPOV that we could quote that would say exactly what God is.  So why not define God in terms of what God is?  --Rednblu 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoever claims that God is claiming to be a being? The claim itself is not attributable to God, but to people who believe in God as a personified deity. According to NPOV to define God in God's terms is... problematic. We could also make unqualified deference to Magneto and Spongebob Squarepants about who and what they are. Note also that there is just as much reason to include other non-Abrahamic views of a unitary Supreme Being, at least to disambiguate important distinctions between related concepts of unitary deity. It is not our business to explain "what is God, really," just as it isnt our business to point people toward a true faith. We explain what things are in NPOV terms, which references all related ideas, concepts and beliefs as claims and nothing more. -Ste|vertigo 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Does not the dictionary report that most people hold God to be "a being ... " when it gives the first definition of God to be "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe....?"  I am not questioning your theology.  And I certainly am not claiming anything about God.  I am questioning your WP:NPOV logic.  And I am paraphrasing and citing the words of verified reputable experts on what intelligent people say that God is.  Who is it that claims that the God defined in the dictionary is not a being?  Can you name one?  --Rednblu 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Way to find God and Jesus:

message: ::God denotes the deity believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.
I am afraid that the above sentence does not make sense.  I would suggest that any English dictionary would illustrate the verbal mechanics in creating a logical English sentence on the subject of "God."  The following, I would say, is an example of a sensible sentence from a dictionary on the subject of "God."
:: God is a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The primary defect of the God denotes ... nonsense is that it connotes that God--whatever that is--is merely a word or expression that  denotes.  Is "God" just an expression?  --Rednblu 16:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the "denotes" language, and cant think of a case where its better than "X is" or "X refers to." But is God a "being?" Or is God a name (as opposed to the word "god") to refer to the omniscient deity in monotheism? See the difference?-Ste|vertigo 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Whoever says "I am that I am" is at least claiming to be a "being," would you agree?  This is just a justification of what the dictionary says that "God" is--a being.  The voice that came out of the Bush did not say "I denote what I denote".  Perhaps you are thinking of the Greek corruption that begins with "In the beginning was the Word that referred to what was not a being."  I am afraid that every high school student who comes here will be asking,  "Yes, but what is God--really?"  And there are lots of WP:NPOV that we could quote that would say exactly what God is.  So why not define God in terms of what God is?  --Rednblu 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoever claims that God is claiming to be a being? The claim itself is not attributable to God, but to people who believe in God as a personified deity. According to NPOV to define God in God's terms is... problematic. We could also make unqualified deference to Magneto and Spongebob Squarepants about who and what they are. Note also that there is just as much reason to include other non-Abrahamic views of a unitary Supreme Being, at least to disambiguate important distinctions between related concepts of unitary deity. It is not our business to explain "what is God, really," just as it isnt our business to point people toward a true faith. We explain what things are in NPOV terms, which references all related ideas, concepts and beliefs as claims and nothing more. -Ste|vertigo 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Does not the dictionary report that most people hold God to be "a being ... " when it gives the first definition of God to be "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe....?"  I am not questioning your theology.  And I certainly am not claiming anything about God.  I am questioning your WP:NPOV logic.  And I am paraphrasing and citing the words of verified reputable experts on what intelligent people say that God is.  Who is it that claims that the God defined in the dictionary is not a being?  Can you name one?  --Rednblu 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new header for rednblue 

message: Slim slimmed down the first few pgphs to this below. While I agree that certain points should be simplified for the layman reader, there are some basic problems with sentence phrasing, sensibility, and readability, aside from problems with the basic angle it takes, which require this change to be discussed here. -Ste|vertigo 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to a previous version and copy-edited it. I take no responsibility for it, except that it's better than the version I reverted. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a question of needing it simpler for the layman. There are parts of the other intro that make no sense, period, to laymen or anyone else. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well you should first discuss it with us instead of claiming to know what all laymen or anyone else thinks. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slim's edit 

message: * "God is..." not "God denotes..." Whether you believe in "God" or not, he is a thing. Very few people would consider that "God" is just a name in the sense we are implying here. -Grace
** Its an issue of scope. Are we in a position to dicatate what God is, or who God is, without first explaining the fact that God is used as a name? So if God is not a thing, nor is God merely a concept, nor is God merely a name, could we say "the name God refers to..." instead? -Steve
* It describes several different conceptions of "God" as though they were one. -Grace
** Dont confuse a description of the most common attributes therof as meaning "as though they were one." -Steve
* How does "God" "underlie"..."transcend" "[the universe] emanat[es] from him"... "cannot (or will not) interact with the universe [except through demigods]." "Why choose the notion of an "underlying" God, which doesn't make a lot of sense, over those notions, which do?"
** Its strange that you should say that one makes sense while the others do not. We are talking about the indescribable, after all - the concept of that which trancends all concepts (lest what you be actually talking about be an idol - which by definition is something less than God). I can just as easily use your own language and terms against itself, and nitpick at the semantics rather than the substance. Can we be constructive instead of failing and then winding up using a terse nonce introduction like theyve done at truth? -Steve
* "and" "...both; rather, one or the other" 
** Connective ties between terms can be tricky, certainly. Such is language. -Ste|vertigo 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grace points 

message: :The SV in this discussion is Stevertigo, not SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits are sourced. It's not for you to argue with "supreme reality," because we have a senior academic in a relevant discipline as a source. If you want to bring something else to the table, please source it equally well. Enough of the personal opinions. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever. You criticise my language and phrasing - I criticise yours. Stick to the content: Why the deference to the word "He"?  -Ste|vertigo 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the sources use "he". As I said, we report what the authoritative sources say. We don't add our own personal opinions. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Further your source is Swinerton? A living Christian convert theologian of little note should be deferred to on the very nature of God ? It would make far more sense to quote Einstein (which in fact is not a bad idea, come to think of it). You no doubt have volumes at your disposal. Why not at least pick somebody who now has an extremely direct relationship with God? -Ste|vertigo 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean Swinburne, he's professor emeritus at Oxford who specialized in the philosophy of religion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pick somebody else. Somebody notable on the subject. Abraham maybe. Zoroaster. Hillel. Jesus. Muhammad. Somebody with name recognition. -Ste|vertigo 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is notable on the subject and he has name recognition. I won't be answering any more of this, because it's not going anywhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you can go away if you want. But if you have time I suggest reading some Aquinas or Augustine. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall Augustine calling God "dea". Do you have a source for that? Grace Note 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what you are talking about. -Ste|vertigo 11:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, Steve, is your problem. Grace Note 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PS Notes 

message: I removed this section before, but someone put it back, so I'm moving it here for discussion. It either doesn't say anything or else states the obvious:
Conceptions of God can vary widely, despite the use of the same term for them all. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization.
The question of the existence of God classically falls under the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, but is also one of the key discussions taking place within the field of the philosophy of religion.
*"Conceptions of God can vary widely." Yes, obviously so. And is it "vary widely" or merely "can vary widely," but in fact might not?
*"Theologians have studied countless conceptions ..." Basically just repeats the above; and are they really "countless"?
*... since the dawn of civilization." Cheesy and meaningless.
*"The question of the existence of God classically falls under the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics ..." This is the only part of the section that imparts information. 
*" ... but is also one of the key discussions taking place within the field of the philosophy of religion." Why the "but"? And of course it is; do we imagine that philosophy of religion might be studied without one of the "key questions" being the existence of God?
I suggest we leave the section out until someone is prepared to make it informative. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct on all counts. -Ste|vertigo 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conceptions of God

message: ...then shouldn't there be a secion on this page to deal with the Christian view of God alone? This page is more of an overview of monotheisms, not of different and religiously exclusive views of God. For instance, the fact that Allah is a name of God automatically precludes this page from being a reference to the Christian God, which has historically, prior to the modern trend of pluralism, denied that Islam worships the Christian Deity. Furthermore, Jesus is mentioned about six times in this entire article and almost only treated in the context of Jewish and Muslim views. Now, while there are christian views (like Arianism, Jehovas's Witnesses, etc.) which view Jesus as a lesser deity or created being, orthodox theology for most of the last two millenia has called any view which states that Jesus is somehow lesser to the Father, who is the only deity who is allowed to be called God, is a heteradox anathema. I have to wonder how this article could be rated as a Good Article if it doesn't accuratly express the orthodox view of God of the largest religion on earth. This article could stand to learn a lot from Wikiproject: Countering Systemic Bias, since this article is clearly written from a strongly American/European postchristian pluralistic viewpoint formulated no earlier than the European enlightenment. Thanatosimii 21:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas it should reflect a mediaeval viewpoint? It's in the nature of an encyclopaedia article that recapitulates the main sources on a thing that it should reflect those sources' voice. If you want more material from different viewpoints, find it, include it and properly reference it. A set of sections on different conceptions of God would be excellent but what we should try to avoid is simply writing our personal views of what some religion or other thinks about God. If you want to write a "Christian view of God" section, I'd advise you to propose your text here on talk and try to get some agreement before adding it to the article. It's a big subject though, because there are many conceptions of God in Christianity rather than just one, so I'd take care not to write about your conception, thinking that it is necessarily shared. Grace Note 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If "Christian God" is going to redirect to this page 

message: Okey I do not understand how this got onto the article about God but this seems very absurd to be on here. I wish to request its removal of the link from this Article. Anker99 22:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is both fallacious and insulting and I agree with the OP that the links should be removed. Grace Note 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parody religions have surely been existant throughout time: so I'd say they're mention (though possibly not any given specific current one) is as relevant as beleifs as to what God is. GromXXVII 09:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's pointless arguing with you. If you truly think "parody religions" are worth mentioning in a serious encyclopaedia article about "God", then I would be wasting my time. Grace Note 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See my reply to the other guy as well as this. One is too stupid to answer. Sorry, but it is. It's like saying you should mention great American footballers in an article about soccer because hey, it's just one word. Two, this is typical of Wikiarsery. Some guy wants to add something patently stupid to an article. Someone with an iota of sense and taste says look, let's get rid of it. So the first guy goes, right, if I can't have my patently stupid thing, everything even vaguely similar to it should go. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the names of God thing. I hate lists; I think they devalue articles. Three, go back and read what I said, man. I can't really say any more than that because you have simply missed the point. There are articles about people who say they hate God in books. There are no articles about the names of God in parody religions. You are not comparing my apples with your apples but holding up a pear. Four, this is the problem here. You simply do not see why, in a serious article about "God", something so flippant should not appear. Because you don't, it's impossible to make you see sense, and this is as much effort as I'll be putting into it. As for the lines' being a representation of whatever it is you think they represent, no they aren't. And if they were, they would belong in articles about those things, and not about God. Grace Note 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flying Spaghetti Monster? 

message: The existence of the articles is sufficent to merit a clearly labelled link in a relevant section of the article. There is no doubt that the terms used are infact names of 'god' in the parody religions linked. Therefore the links are accurate, relevant links to existing wikipedia articles. If you disagree with the existence of the articles in the first place, take the argument there, if you can get those articles deleted, then removing the links here would be a valid action. FalconZero (Talk | contribs) 12:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is both fallacious and insulting and I agree with the OP that the links should be removed. Grace Note 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parody religions have surely been existant throughout time: so I'd say they're mention (though possibly not any given specific current one) is as relevant as beleifs as to what God is. GromXXVII 09:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's pointless arguing with you. If you truly think "parody religions" are worth mentioning in a serious encyclopaedia article about "God", then I would be wasting my time. Grace Note 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See my reply to the other guy as well as this. One is too stupid to answer. Sorry, but it is. It's like saying you should mention great American footballers in an article about soccer because hey, it's just one word. Two, this is typical of Wikiarsery. Some guy wants to add something patently stupid to an article. Someone with an iota of sense and taste says look, let's get rid of it. So the first guy goes, right, if I can't have my patently stupid thing, everything even vaguely similar to it should go. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the names of God thing. I hate lists; I think they devalue articles. Three, go back and read what I said, man. I can't really say any more than that because you have simply missed the point. There are articles about people who say they hate God in books. There are no articles about the names of God in parody religions. You are not comparing my apples with your apples but holding up a pear. Four, this is the problem here. You simply do not see why, in a serious article about "God", something so flippant should not appear. Because you don't, it's impossible to make you see sense, and this is as much effort as I'll be putting into it. As for the lines' being a representation of whatever it is you think they represent, no they aren't. And if they were, they would belong in articles about those things, and not about God. Grace Note 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity 

message: In response to your points:
One - The links in question resided in a section described as
*Names (of God) from parody religions
As a subsection to
*Names of God (from religions)
They differ by one word, and your assertion that 'it is not in keeping with
the rest of the article' relies on the assumption that religions and parody religions
are substantially different, which is probably not a discussion for this article.
Two - True, we do not include all known information about a topic, as it
would lead to unwieldy articles, however we do include relevant information that
is in keeping with the article (see Point one). By your logic, should we also remove
the section "Names of God"?
Three - True, not all articles that exist should be linked to relevant articles, however
I stated that they were "relevant links to existing articles", specifically to avoid situations
like you have outlined in point two, for example there does not exist an article for "People
who have said they hate God in books", therefore any linkage is impossible.
Four - The order of priority for inclusion of information is subjective at best.
Your definition of priority may not coincide with mine, as mine may not with anothers,
however. My argument for is thus : The three lines reside in a section of similar information,
and are essentially a representation of the agnostic/athist/scientific/Inteligent Design Objectionist
point of view, and should be included in keeping with wikipedias Neutral Point Of View policy.
Additionally, I'm unclear why you feel that my statement of 26th of August is insulting, I would
appreciate if you could clarify your grievance, so that I won't make the same mistake again.
:See my reply to the other guy as well as this. One is too stupid to answer. Sorry, but it is. It's like saying you should mention great American footballers in an article about soccer because hey, it's just one word. Two, this is typical of Wikiarsery. Some guy wants to add something patently stupid to an article. Someone with an iota of sense and taste says look, let's get rid of it. So the first guy goes, right, if I can't have my patently stupid thing, everything even vaguely similar to it should go. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the names of God thing. I hate lists; I think they devalue articles. Three, go back and read what I said, man. I can't really say any more than that because you have simply missed the point. There are articles about people who say they hate God in books. There are no articles about the names of God in parody religions. You are not comparing my apples with your apples but holding up a pear. Four, this is the problem here. You simply do not see why, in a serious article about "God", something so flippant should not appear. Because you don't, it's impossible to make you see sense, and this is as much effort as I'll be putting into it. As for the lines' being a representation of whatever it is you think they represent, no they aren't. And if they were, they would belong in articles about those things, and not about God. Grace Note 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Reply to Grace Note

message: Concentrating only on your statement regarding the parody religion section, and ignoring your points
about the lead section, You state that the 'parody sections should not be on the "God" page because they are
diversions from the "God" problems in history and in the world today'. I must strongly disagree, they
are in fact integral to the problem of 'God' today in that they essentially represent 'the argument against'.
They arose as a direct backlash of the scientific community toward "God" problems (as you describe them).
I will not return the lines to the article at this point, pending further debate on this subject. FalconZero (Talk | contribs) 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In reply to Rednblu

message: It seems that you are in fact discussing the assumption that religions and parody religions are substantially different,
the difference between this and your statement about football and soccer is that parody religions are a subset of religions.
(as denoted by the prefix) With regard to point two, it was an illustrative example to counterpoint your argument, not an actual suggestion (and incidentally, I agree that lists are oft inappropriate). The rest of our discussion is irrelevant because it hinges on point one which it seems you don't want to consider. As for flippancy, I respect the integrity of the article, not the subject. I should
also point out that rather than debate this in an adult manner, you chose to turn this into an Ad hominem as a terminal point,
which makes the entire process pointless. I am here to contribute information, and I simply don't have the time to argue with
someone who appears to have a fixed point of view. Unless you wish to riposte I will assume we're done here, and leave
you to your article. FalconZero (Talk | contribs) 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In reply to GraceNote

message: We might get further in this discussion if we would start consulting the primary and secondary sources, actual scholars we could cite to resolve this question of why God is a "He."  Thus, we might search on any database of scholarly text for the word combination "Why-is-God-male", and lo and behold we find lots of scholars who have answered this question in many different ways.  I leave most of that list of scholars for you to explore--because you will probably find a scholar who expounds on the point-of-view that you know is right.  Accordingly, I bring to your attention several scholars' explanations that ring the bell on this side of this keyboard.
I cite specifically to the Fall 2000 volume of International Security an MIT Press publication wherein appears an article by Bradley A. Thayer titled Bringing in Darwin: Evolutionary Theory, Realism, and International Politics (International Security, vol. 25, no. 2, 124-151).  Within the context of pulling together what is known from many disciplines of science and social sciences, Thayer summarizes the best and most realistic information that people have about why people 1) compete unproductively, 2) go to war when that is unreasonable, and 3) impose terror on each other in the name of God.  In the process, Thayer feels he must untangle why God is male--both as 1) an intermediate step of induction from empirical evidence and as 2) a clue to the universality of the male God as the one in whose translated name all human cultures go to war.
On pages 134-136, Thayer points out that all empirical evidence indicates that humans inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees the operational ambivalence toward the alpha male in the community.  Chimpanzees bow to the alpha male, and then hide food from the alpha male as a survival technique.  And there are cycles of the subordinate chimpanzees cheating by hiding food from the alpha male and then the alpha male catching them cheating and browbeating them into submission.  But the subordinates must cheat again on the alpha male to get enough food to survive--and the cycle of sin and redemption continues.  In fact, a major driving factor for the evolution of human intellect was the necessity to outwit the physical power of the alpha in getting enough resources and enough sex to survive.  Nevertheless, the alpha male serves a crucial role, both in human and in chimpanzee communities, in organizing the defense of the territory against the invading lethal raids from the neighboring camps of the same species.
Thus humans, because of their genetic defects, repeatedly turn their backs on reason and common sense and, in times of trouble, look for the great alpha in the sky to save them.  Nevertheless, for their own survival, humans must repeatedly sin against the laws of the great alpha in the sky by caring for material goods or personal comfort more than their 1) own divinity or 2) relationship with the great alpha in the sky.  For genetic reasons that we inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees, as many modern humans worship female Gods as modern chimpanzees bow to female alpha chimps--namely less than 1%.  --Rednblu 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is God a He? 

message: In my opinion, this edit is a very promising line for developing a truly reasonable and excellent NPOV page on God.  But we need a good citation to a reliable published scholar for that edit by September 13 or else that edit should be reverted to the prior nonsense but cited POV.  --Rednblu 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF? That's not NPOV. It's the BS Atheist perspective. One of the many examples of Atheists trying to force their religion onto other people. Trueblue9999 10:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a citation for this excellent edit by September 13