Talk:God/Archive 15

message: It would be very nice, if somebody with knowledge of Marx's philosophy would check if attributing this interpretation of Marx's theory ("powerlessness under oppression") to Wolff is fair. I could not by reading the article make certain that this is Wolff's interpretation of Marx. Note that the word "powerless" or "powerlessness" doesn't appear in Wolff's treatment, so maybe a better source could be provided, or if anybody knows Marx, could give a more adequate account of what Wolff is talking about. --Merzul 03:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan Wolff 

message: This article is biased towards christian God. The only pictures are those of christian God. Since his existence is as probable as Zeus` and Ganesh`s, I recommend that this article would move towards a more neutral direction. In the intro section the picture once again depicts christian God. The picture should be replaced with the picture of an "extinct god" like Zeus or Wotan.
I will change the pictures myself unless someone wont address these concerns here.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.114.239.44 (talk • contribs).
:-i agree please change this-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.108.147 (talk • contribs).
::I disagree. What you're asking making no sense. First you state essentially that all gods are equal in your opinion and the Christian god is just the same as any other. Then you say using his picture is favoring one religion. However logically that same arguement could be made for any god pictured. Thus the only arguement you could logically have made was to allow no picture at all, and had you made that arguement I might have actually believed you wanted neutrality. The fact your conclussion is to replace him with another god shows infact you are a biased individual yourself, biased against the Christian god in your resulting request and infact to you all gods aren't equal. Now from the standpoint of an encyclopdia the choice here of a picture of a god (yes, in this case the judeo/christian and to some extent islamic god) is from a famous work that is avaliable for free and so can be used here, and is perfectly appropriate to WPs standards on them. [Monday, 2007-01-08 T 23:17 UTC]
:::Sigh.. extinct god is neutral towards ALL religions, since there are no Zeus worshippers today in the world. In the future islam is the religion with the greatest number of worshippers. Maybe they want to change the picture to represent islam someway when they are numerically superiour to christians. Of course Allah cant be represented in pictures, so maybe a picture of Allah`s creation the nature would be appropriate to the muslims? I dont think many muslims approve the Michelangelos painting as the best depiction of god. Christians are not a majority in the world today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.114.239.44 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias towards christian God 

message: Hello,
First I would like to say that I enjoy this page and appreciate the thoughtful work that has gone into it.
I would like you to consider adding, under the article "Names for God"
"Principle, Mind, Soul, Life, Truth, Love, and Spirit are names for God in Christian Science.  These names are synonymous and indicate God's wholeness."
If one were to look up Mind, Soul ect. in some dictionaries  it will say "In Christian Science - God".  This is an indication to me that these terms add an important and unique insight into the nature of Diety that has not been mention yet in this article.
Thank you for your sincere interest.
Simplywater 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why, but I actually checked this, and Mind and Soul are indeed in dictionary.com -- I was a bit surprised, but some of the others were not, so do you have an official source for all the other names? In that case, I would not object to adding the above line. --Merzul 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is also true, but since the line in question is not a quotation, I don't feel comfortable adding something I don't know anything about, so I ask you to add that line yourself. To be more in tune with the neutral style used on wikipedia I would suggest: Principle, Mind, Soul, Life, Truth, Love, and Spirit are names for God in Christian Science. These names are considered synonymous and indicative of God's wholeness. I can only imagine anybody objecting to this on the ground that this section is getting very long, but try to add it and we'll see if anybody objects.  However, try to stay cool, people might object, if you start adding this to all the articles about love, mind, etc... --Merzul 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: your wording is fine by me.  But I don't know how to add anything to the God artcle.  There aren't any "edit" places.   Why would people object if this were added to articles about love, ect if it is a legitimate definition? It's a good thing to told me to think about it.  I will consider your words of wisdom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 09:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you added it to Names of God yesterday, and it's still there.  I see you've added it to God as well just now.  I think both of those are appropriate, but if anyone objects, you can discuss it here (for the God page) or on Talk:Names of God for that page.  bikeable (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names for God