Talk:God/Archive 8

message: :In Canaanite Mythology El (god) was the father of mankind and creator of creatures.  He was for all purposes, attributed as the god of the desert such as that given to Yahweh.  While El, in the myths, did not appear to have omnipotence it is most likely that the Hebrews accepted this god as their chief god on the way towards monotheism.  It could further be hypothesized that the omnipotent aspect was borrowed from the Hebrews affiliation with the Babylonians.  In that mythology, Marduk became the supreme god, complete with artifacts of omnipotent powers.  According to the Old Testament (if accepted as science fact) Noah and Abraham, both worshipped El, and other gods, until it was revealed that El stood alone.  Yaweh, then took on the attributes of Marduk and El.  It is unclear where the pre-Islamic pantheons fit into this, as the works have been destroyed or lost with the inception of Islam in Arabia.  It is possible that those gods were somewhat similar to that of Canaanite gods, as Allah was the chief god among those peoples.
why do we have a "mythology" section now? this article is too long already. move to Elohim or YHWH, or, well, Mythology. dab 12:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this section would serve us better elsewhere. It should be merged tho, not deleted, of course! Sam Spade Arb Com election 15:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology

message: Who is disputing what, and why? 
Sam Spade Arb Com election 08:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you had added the notice at some point? I think the article is quite fair now. Although we need to cut the weaselisms. "The religions widely thought of as monotheistic today" may be npov, but it's horrible stylistically. Can't we just define what we mean by "monotheistic", and then talk about "monotheistic religions"? dab 11:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless your been swayed by my reasoning (or intend to be ;). Suggesting that eastern thought is not monotheistic is POV, IMO. I know your trying to discuss the origins of western monotheism, and if you clarify that I'll be fine w it, but I reject the western ethnocentrism of assuming Judaism was the first monotheism, while ignoring other traditions.  Sam Spade Arb Com election 12:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "the modern monotheistic religions" are Islam, Christianity, Judaism. full stop. (though there are minor ones, of course). I am not trying to include eastern religions under the term, because they are happily undecided in western terms. Judaism was not the first monotheism, western or not.  first strict monotheisms appeared later, propably as late as Hellenism.  Henotheism otoh is older than Judaism (but cannot be shown to be older in the Far East than in the Ancient Near East) dab 14:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Far east and ancient near east blend into the Indian sub continent, the very potential contridiction of your thesis. I fear that trying to invoke any clear beginning of monotheism (as opposed to western monotheism) is prone to error, and would assumably end the "happily undecided" status of eastern religions (including Hinduism, Budhism, and Jainism). I'd rather leave it ambiguous, or focus on western monotheism alone, where I am somewhat confident we'd find little disagreement. Sam Spade Arb Com election 16:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, I agree. "Eastern religions" came into existence in the 1st millennium BC, though, and whatever people in India were up to in ANE times (2nd and 3rd millennia) , we just don't know. dab 17:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to have some ideas ;) Sam Spade Arb Com election 09:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: this sectoin of the article seems to me to be open to some interpretation, did Clarke mean in the quote that was litteraly create God in some physical form or that he is a construct of collective human beleif? this quote seems like the surrounding context would clear that up.
:I think this concept is an ill defined one no matter where you look. Transhumanism and singularity are good leads. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 23:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Human God

message: Recently edits by Jordanblue added a reference to Rael and its website directly in the article. I personally think that it should not belong the main article but (if really necessary) in the links section. What do you think? Nova77 17:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rael? 

message: hey this article (and this talk page:)) reads good enough now to be nominated as a featured article - too drowsy to do it now and tomorrow weekend chores backlog to be cleared so dont know if i'll remeber.  
blokes*, think about nominating this.
*[i'm brit feminist rastafariafrogitan[a/o] for me bloke means any sentient being.]
Not even close.  Request for peer review, maybe.  Inserting a copyedit tag would be more like it... Blair P. Houghton 21:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CFA?

message: we have Michelangelo's painting further down, so I don't like the cropped image of "God's face" appearing in the intro. How about this (an example of Christian use of the Tetragrammaton, in the Bourges Cathedral). Or some 17th century woodcut with a hand emerging from a cloud? Showing the face in the intro seems a bit too much on the anthropomorphic side. This may also be an article that should go without any image in the intro. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best not to have any image in the intro. Wesley 16:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the image

message: the quotes should go to wikiquote. that's why we have wikiquote, no article should have a "quotes" section. dab (ᛏ) 05:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: quotes

message: When did we start calling God "God"?--Luckybeargod 16:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
:When the Saxons introduced the Germanic deity Gott. JFW | T@lk 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the word "God" come from??? 

message: I have reverted the opening two lines to the following:
::The term God is ordinarily used to designate a singular, universal Supreme Being. 	
::However, there are countless variant definitions of this God. For example:
20:04, Apr 19, 2005 Paradiso had "(simplified some language)" and made it the following:
::The term God designates a universal Supreme Being.
::There are countless variant definitions of God, however. For example:
I argue that the qualified, usage-oriented definition that I've provided is better, for it allows for some of the odder usages of the term God that make Paradiso's definition false/inadequate.  As for the second sentence, "However" belongs at the begining of the sentence; dangling modifiers are poor English, and it obscures the logical relation of the two sentences.
Sometimes "simple" isn't better.  Emyth 23:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I changed the opening statement. 
:Old Version:
:The term God is ordinarily used to designate a singular, universal Supreme Being. 
:However, there are countless variant definitions of this God. 
Reasons for edits:
*the word however works best as a conjunction to join the two sentences
*the words singular and universal are reduntant, since they are implied by Supreme Being (I don’t really care about “universal” but “of the universe” would be better than “universal” )
*we do not need the word ordinarily for definitions, so its gone
*the word variant is only reduntant and confusing, so lose it
*I also got rid of the word this since it is meaningless and only confused things
:New Version:
:The term God is used to designate a Supreme Being, however, there are countless definitions of God.
Paradiso 01:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: Okay I like progression as much as anyone, but there is no where in any of the Vedas where Brahma is called God or has the attributes of God.  This is a more moderate and liberal interpretation of the Hindu religion.  As far as I know there are no Brahma temples or worship areas.  Unless someone can provide proof that the Hindu Formless being known as Brahma is another name for God, I will delete the passage in the next few days.mpa
:See Brahmanism. Sam Spade  13:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu's Brahma as God? 

message: The current list is better, but the primary argument against a god isn't the existence of evil, at least for me.  I think it would be better to list no arguments than list this as the primary argument.Nereocystis 18:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Sam Spade  17:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No primary argument

message: This section was removed from article.
====Disproving existence====
Many people who do not believe in the concept of God try to disprove him mathematically. One such proof goes as follows: Can God create a rock too big for himself to lift? If the answer is yes, then He is not perfect, and therefore not God, since He cannot lift all rocks. If the answer is no, then He is not perfect, and therefore not God due to the inability to do something.
I am not impressed with the writing here to begin with, it seems out of place since this is a counter to the telological argument, and is only concerned with a single omnipotent, perfect god. not all concepts of the idea "god"
:Every part of an article doesn't need to focus on all concepts of the main idea of the article.  If such were the case we would be unwise to include a geography section in the maine article as geography is only concerned with the geographical aspects of maine. It is an interesting disproof of one concept of god and, were this article not as long as it is, would belong here.
As an aside, this is also logically absurd. The argument reduces to this: "Can anything that can not exist, exist?" or in catagorical logic: A and Not A.
Anyway, in summary, this is not the place for this, and if it is, the counter argument needs to go up, and the God article is plenty long already.--Tznkai 15:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disproving God 

message: Many people who do not believe in the concept of God try to disprove him mathematically. One such proof goes as follows: Can God create a rock too big for himself to lift? If the answer is yes, then He is not perfect, and therefore not God, since He cannot lift all rocks. If the answer is no, then He is not perfect, and therefore not God due to the inability to do something.
I am not impressed with the writing here to begin with, it seems out of place since this is a counter to the telological argument, and is only concerned with a single omnipotent, perfect god. not all concepts of the idea "god"
:Every part of an article doesn't need to focus on all concepts of the main idea of the article.  If such were the case we would be unwise to include a geography section in the maine article as geography is only concerned with the geographical aspects of maine. It is an interesting disproof of one concept of god and, were this article not as long as it is, would belong here.
As an aside, this is also logically absurd. The argument reduces to this: "Can anything that can not exist, exist?" or in catagorical logic: A and Not A.
Anyway, in summary, this is not the place for this, and if it is, the counter argument needs to go up, and the God article is plenty long already.--Tznkai 15:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disproving existence

message: :These notions were adapted from paganism, notably witchcraft, who believe in the Maiden the Mother and the Crone, which was converted to the chrisian ideal that became father the son and the holy ghost. These notions of trinity and duality are also remnants of a time when cheristianity and judaism were polythiestic.
While it is true that some people believe the statements expressed in the paragraph quoted above, it's definitely not "generally agreed" fact, and should not be presented as such.  Please either remove this paragraph or rewrite it to appropriately bracket it as the belief of some (preferably named) individuals, rather than as established fact.  Kelly Martin July 1, 2005 03:26 (UTC)
::True. Serious scholars don't now accept such an "original" theory. Since bronze age paganism predated the medieval Western European concept of "witchcraft" by at least 2,000 years, it is safe to say not many will. Fire Star 1 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
:::But but but, DAN BROWN SAID IT! -cough- Sorry, theology is a hobby of mine so I have a hard time taking a lot of neo-wiccan and related claims seriously. At any rate, someone with more tolerance than myself should explain 3rr and research to user:Gabrielsimon so we don't have to deal with this again.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)
::::Agreed. Don't look at me, though. :-O Jayjg (talk) 1 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)
: I do not believe that the opinions of a few Wiccans are justified for inclusion here.  The sections for each religion are not marked "Please insert views from each of the billions of other religions about this religion." — 12.207.151.144 3 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
::Wiccans or not, the God article seems to have absoultely nothing on the origin of these ideas. (If you want to go REAL far back, we can talk about sun worship or Zororastorianism) The God article is rather long as it is. Should Gabriel's refrences check out, I think we need a better place to put these views.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
:so your adhearing to censorship?  or are you saying that becasue the word god is some how copyright  to christainity that other true viewpoints andfacts do not matter?
Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
:: No, read what I wrote again.  That is not the place to put your views on Christianity.  Many Christians believe that Wiccans practice human sacrifice.  Should we open the floodgates for their opinions in sections about the beliefs of Wiccans ? — 70.105.104.53 3 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)
::this is not my opinion,  it is facts that i have found, hence it should be put in the light, as for christains who think wiccans practise human sacrifice, well, i ve found no evicdance of that anywhere, so i relly dont know where anyone would get that  notion.  maybe someone was thinking of the aztecs?  
Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
::: The Wikipedia is not your soapbox, as much as you think it is.  You know from much experience that your theories are not accepted here and are nearly instantly reverted.  This shows in your talk page, your edit history, and the lack of quality control that results from your trying to rush your views back into the Wikipedia.  This lack of quality and crank-like soapboxing shows both immaturity and a strong lack of regard for the Wikipedia and other editors.  If you want a soapbox, get web hosting.  — 70.105.104.53 3 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
::::sir(or ma'am, i have no way to tell) you offend me.  if we are begining personal attracks, then letm e justsay, i took the care to be trackable, to show my face, and to create a user account, you did not,  how does that make you more caring about  this place then i?  no, this is not a oplace where i push my opinions, no matter how much you might like to think it is that.  please  have something usefull  and polite  to say should you decide to say anything else in the future.  furthermore, these are NOT my theories, so if you please, move on and go find something usefull to do.
Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
:::::Both of you stop. This is not the place for personal discussion or attacks. Now then. The sources bellow are not exactly screaming in credibility, and seem very baised. In certain articles they may be used to note that some neo-wiccans claim that witchcraft is the source of the trinity. It should imediatly be noted that most modern scholars, again refrenced, refute that theory. Get it? Good, lets move on.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)
many times throughout history "modern" scholars of the dayt were prooven wrong  and had to look embarrassed for a long time... :-)  as for the above edit by me, well, ican never let an insult lie, though i do not bleieve i returned one, i apologize, it just makes me raher upset when people  claiom  my work is not up to my best,  expecially when they know nothing about me.
Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)
:With the WP:NPOV policy, I don't really need to care about the essential truth of the matter, just that we write it accurately to reflect observations on our consensus reality.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
one source http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/HecateTrinity.html
Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)
another source 
http://mikeblume.com/pagantr.htm
Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
third source
http://www.sign2god.com/folders/oorsprong-3eenheid-en.html
Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
:Do you have any credible sources that make the point you are trying to make? If so, they must be quoted, attributed, and placed in the relevant article. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)
There is discussion about the trinity, Christianity, and its possible influence from Paganism on the page about the Trinity. I propose that is a more appropriate article to talk about this than the page on God. - grubber 2005 July 3 12:23 (UTC)
Its very unlikely that maiden-mother-crone is connected to Judaeo-Christianity. Maiden-mother-crone is Indo-European (see Proto-Indo-European religion), wheras Judaeo-Christianity is Afro-Asiatic (see Chaldean mythology and Egyptian mythology). There very little connection deep down between these religious traditions. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
::Wow, what great sources. The first one says nothing of how the Trinity actually came from paganism into Christianity. It talks more about "St. Brigit" and her supposed pagan background. And simply because it says, "the ancient concept of "The Trinity" most certainly affected the decisions of the ancient Roman Catholic church," does not make it so. What is their proof? This leads me to the second source. The author, Michael Blume, makes wild generalizations. It would be like me saying, "I have a black dog." Followed a few lines later by, "So as I have proven, all dogs are black." He tries to claim that just because a triad existed before the Christian Trinity that it must have created it. This is absurd. People do once in awhile come up with new ideas. Also, the author clearly did not do his research well enough because his notion of the Catholic Trinity is incorrect. Catholics believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hate to break it to you, but Catholics do not worship Mary. This leads me to your third source. Once again, the author does not do his research well enough. Now disregarding the spelling (sometimes I thought Gabrielsimon was actually writing the sources), it is ridiculous to assume that just because it is on a website makes it true. These sources are clearly POV, and therefore be taken with a grain of salt. In addition, before making anymore controversial changes, please use the discussion page. If you cite more valid sources I do not categorically object to having something like that on Wikipedia, I am just waiting for substantial proof. And most cathedrals are not shaped like a wood grove or such nonsense, they are shaped like a cross. Thank you for your time reading this. If you got through my whole diatribe, give yourself one billion barnstars. --Lord Voldemort 4 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
:Please stop deleting Lord Voldemort's comments.  They are not personal, and are on-topic.  Deleting them is decidedly against Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 4 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
::It seems we've reached near consensus that Gabriel's edits are ill supported and off topic for the article. Lets move on.--Tznkai 4 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
I suggest Gabriel move this to neo-paganism or maybe Talk:Trinity. I admire his pluck, and grace under fire. Please keep up w the interesting research Gabriel, you'll find the right place for it in time! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
if I may, nowhere on Proto-Indo-European religion is there any stuff about a triple goddess. Nor should there be. Wicca is a religion, but it is aged about 50 years. Of course it includes older elements, mixed more or less randomly, but if you take Wiccan websites as a source, you can only take statements about the past 50 years for granted. Anything else will be completely muddled. Also on Goddess, the triple stuff is rightly confined to the Neo-Paganism section. There may have been models in Celtic religion, but hardly anything is known about them. A historical outlook on religion is instructive, but only if it is well-informed. dab (ᛏ) 13:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monism and dualism as "notions derived from witchcraft" 

message: wouldnt it be intersting of some religion tried to copyright God?
Gabrielsimon 08:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  thinking

message: as long as this article is about Singular God, the mythology category is mistaken: Individual gods, even YHWH Holy Spirit etc. may have mythological components, but pure monotheism means stripping God of all mythological qualities, I suppose (although maybe C. S. Lewis would disagree); can you have pure, philosphical monotheism as long as your God retains mythological elements? I don't know, not in theory, I suppose, although of course in practice every notion of God is affected by mythology. dab (ᛏ) 18:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the very idea of God is not mythology, although any particular God and his/her/its stories is myth. Seems to be an innacurate catagorization. The other question is, even if it is strictly accurate, is it really worth the wrong impression it will give?--Tznkai 18:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: mythology

message: I made the extensive definition list it's own section to avoid having to scoll down to see a Table Of Contents.  I'm thinking of moving "conseptions of god its own article to deal with the size issues of this page. If get no objection I will.  Also what is the normal method of moving disscussion pages in these situations.  The discussion is mixed and there may be sections of the disscussion about conceptions and about other topics and it may not be very clear.  Any suggestions? Direct messages to my talk page.
Olleicua 21:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up Issues