Talk:Divine Principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wolli Kangron vs. Divine Principle
I expected to see a discussion here of whether the title of this article should be Wolli Kangron or Divine Principle. All of the articles in English that I have seen that mention the book call it Divine Principle, which is certainly as it should be. The name in English is Divine Principle (even readers of the 1996 translation Exposition of the Divine Principle usually refer to the book as Divine Principle). This could be confusing given the existence of more than one translation referred to as Divine Principle (a confusion that already existed before the 1996 translation), but this is a confusion that exists in the real world and so is more worthy of comment in the article than pretending the confusion doesn't exist. This article is in English; it seems more logical to me that the title be Divine Principle and the redirect be Wolli Kangron. I am rather new to Wikipaedia, however. Would someone like to explain the contrary view? -Exucmember 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- It has been almost two months and no one has commented on what seems to me to be an obvious mis-naming of this article. I will move the article to Divine Principle and make Wolli Kangron the redirect if no one responds. -Exucmember 07:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Since there was no objection here, I moved the page for you. Jonathunder 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article needs work
This article needs a lot more work. I think it should explain the basic tenents set forth in the book. I'll come back to it and add to it as I can. Next time I visit this article, I will place a list of hoped for changes here. Everyguy 07:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Quotations
The quotations added to the article do not appear intended to convey the gist of the text, but rather to highlight certain views in order to reach a particular conclusion. As such, they do not conform to NPOV and so I suggest that we remove them. -Will Beback 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Will, I respectfully disagree with your judgement in this case. If you read the DP as a whole, the gist of it is to declare the coming of a new political age under a literal religious "King." It is common knowledge that Unificationists believe, and advocate for, Rev Moon as that King (see "True Love King"). Are not the political statements in the DP very relevant to any student trying to understand the gist? If you read The German Ideology would not the political vision for the future expressed there-in be the gist of it and everything else the rationalization for it? With regards and thanks Marknw 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Will, I added the rest of what I put on the Unification Church page also. I would appreciate your opinion on it. Regards Marknw 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Quotations, especially long excerpts, do not belong in Wikipedia. Wikiquotes is our sister project created specifically for the purpose. Our job here is to summarize, not quote. As for the theocracy stuff, I agree that it is important but we also need to retain balance. For example, if there are five important points then we shouldn't devote 75% of the article to just one of them. Since it is a major topic, it should probably get an article of its own. Looking over Category:Unification Church, is see that Godism might be a repository, or even Theology of the Unification Church. Otherwise, suitable titles might be "Unification Church views of government" or "Politicial views of the Unification Church".
Thank you Will, I'm a little confused. Every time I tried to summurize the points in the past, a Unificationist would come along and delete my edits saying it was just my POV. I had to resort to the quotes just to make the point without it seeming to be my POV. Any suggestions? Also, my main point is that the political ideology is written into the Divine Principle itself. How can the reader know that if they can't read it for themselves? It is not just the UC "point of view" on politics. The political ideology itself written in the DP is what drives the UC view. Similar to the way the political ideology of Karl Marx or Chairman Mao inform and motivate a communist activist, the political ideology in the DP motivates Unificationists. The point I'm trying to communicate is that the Divine Principle is not just theology, it also contains a theocratic political ideology that Unificationist consider as canon. I may be mistaken, but it is my impression that the UC related organizations spend the vast majority of their resources (Washington Times) and efforts on political activism in the US and all over the world. The reason for it is written into their "holy scripture" the "Divine Principle." Regards and thank you for your help. Marknw 23:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Will, I rearranged things a bit. Let me know what you think? Regards Marknw 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is an article about a specific book. So comments from Moon given in a different forum that don't addess the book are misplaced. The book is avaiable online, so extended quotes are also unneeded. Links to the quotations in context would be much better. -Will Beback 01:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Will for your suggestions. Could you please address my concern about summurized edits being deleted for being my POV? I can try your suggestion, but I have a feeling it will be deleted shortly as that was my experience before. Rev Moon is the Author of the Divine Principle. Again, my point is that there is a poitical ideology expressed in the Divine Principle. It would very difficult to make my point without talking about Rev. Moon, the Author, or quoting him and the DP. Can you see my point? I am open to suggestions however. I do feel strongly the religious theology POV needs to be balanced with an understanding of the political ideology. Will, could you please elaborate a little more about how we can come up with a working solution? Thank you again, regards Marknw 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Will, Just as an expample this segment is entirely from certain religious POV that has the affect being a believer's direct evangelizing witness for Rev Moon.
"presentations of his teachings with biblical, historical and scientific illustrations. Moon gave Eu special instruction regarding the content of these texts and then checked them over meticulously. These efforts resulted in Wolli Hesol (Explanation of the Divine Principle), published in 1957, and Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle), published in 1966. Since then, Wolli Kangron has been the basic text of Moon's teachings. According to its preface, Wolli Kangron expresses universal truth; it inherits and builds upon the core truths which God revealed through the Jewish and Christian scriptures and encompasses the wisdom from the Orient."
To say that the DP is "historical", "scientific", "universal truth", and "revealed by God", is that not pretty heavy duty quoting and POV also?
This other segment is very misleading about the content and sounds like a endorsement:
"The first part deals primarily with theological concepts, such as the nature of God and His creation, the human fall, and others. The second part deals with the process through history by which God continues to work to eliminate the ill effects of the human fall, and restore humankind to the relationship with God that would have existed if the fall had not occurred."
My question is, what is the purpose of this article anyway? Isn't to try to give the reader a quick synopsis of the content of the book? Not just from a believers viewpoint, but also from an attempted neutral point of view?
Regards Marknw 02:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the purpose is to summarize the book and give its context. Short quotations are suitable, but not long ones. Just try to keep the article properly balanced. If anyone removes proper material alert me, another eidtor, or admin. Thanks for your cntributions to Wikipedia. -Will Beback 03:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Exucmember Edits
Hello Excumember, I am happy to colaborate with you on this article also. With Regards Marknw 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-interpretation of history and the Bible based on numbers?
I thought that the Divine principle re-interpreted the history and the Bible based on numbers. If this is true (I may have misunderstood or misremembered) then please state this in the article. Andries 18:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are somewhat correct in your understanding. Numbers are very important in the Divine Principle, as they are in the Bible - which is why you see a bunch of 3s, 7s, 12s, 21s, and 40s when you read it. However I don't think you could say that the numbers are the main thing. Maybe the best thing to do is check it out yourself. Steve Dufour 08:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
