Talk:Divinity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Split 2 ==Removal of academic discipline and restructure of article== 3 Merge 4 removal 5 the use varies significantly depending on the underlying conception of God that is being invoked 6 Reference to LDS is gratuitous

[edit] Split

I can't really agree. I've split off the Divinity (confectionery) part, but the other uses are strongly related to each other, and it makes more sense to keep them in the same article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, after moving the confectionery part to a new page the other meanings are very related, so there is no need to split it in more parts. However, maybe the article should be focused in the main usage, making brief mentions to the others in the introduction to redirect the reader to other articles if interested. What do you think? But, may I ask why do you have removed the references about mythology? Thanks --surueña 15:53:31, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Which did you see as the main usage and which the subsidiary ones?

A "See also" section should include links to things not linked to in the text; the ones that I removed were, I thought, all referred to and appropriately linked in the text. Did I miss something? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the main usage of "Divinity" is about the property, "the nature of a deity". But I'm not an expert, it's simply because I see the other usage as a synonym for "god" (that has its own article), but I discovered that there are some differences reading your text. I'm agree with removing the split tag.

There is a version of the article that talked about Norse mythology. --surueña 21:07:15, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not at all sure about what it said, which is why I cut it. I'm still working at the article (mostly off-line at the moment), so I might come back to that, thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==Removal of academic discipline and restructure of article==

My apologies for not explaining the changes, but I felt that the page needed some tidying up. I have created a separate page Divinity (academic discipline) for the academic discipline and created a new Divinity (disambiguation) page with all the relevant uses of Divinity listed there. If you are not happy then recommend those two pages for Rapid Deletion. Elsewise I think the rv on my edit should be undone and the article restored to my last edit. Davidkinnen 09:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that, while Divinity (academic discipline) looks fine, it doesn't really stand as a separate article, and would be better merged with this article (which is also rather short). That view is strengthened by the fact that "divinity" in this sense is largely synonymous with "theology". Do other editors have strong feelings either way? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made some major revisions (my apologies if I disrupted the structure that was there - I tried not to), and I have again removed the section on divinity as an academic discipline. I inserted a forwarding link instead. it seems to me that the tenor of this article has to do with the use of the word 'divinity' and 'divine' to talk about higher realms, not to talk about the study of higher realms. to include the section on the academic discipline strikes me (to use a really, really, 'really' bad analogy) like opening a Playboy to find nothing but articles on cosmetics, airbrushing, and photographic techniques.

Sorry...  ;-)

I do feel that this article should be merged with the article on "Divine". I may do that next weekend, if it seems un-dysfunctional.

here is the section I removed:

In schools and universities, "divinity" is another name for theology and/or religious studies, and in some countries, especially in North America, for studies relating to religious ministry.

In general, in the United States a degree in Divinity is taken to mean a degree preparatory to, or in advancement of, practical ministry -- for instance, the Master of Divinity (M.Div., which may be pursued after the B.A., not necessarily the B.D.) is the standard degree before ordination or licensing in the Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. The doctorate in this field is usually the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.).

The academic degree in Theology, on the other hand, is usually the Ph.D. or Th.D. or S.T.D., taken preparatory to teaching in a university or divinity school.

The Doctor of Divinity degree in the United States is only awarded as an honorary distinction.

See Bachelor of Divinity, Master of Divinity, and Doctor of Divinity.

as always, feel free to dispute. Ted 09:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I feel it would be appropriate to merge this with divinity, and redirect Divine to Divine (Glen Milstead). Gilliamjf 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal

I've removed the following passage and citation:

• Even certain sects of Buddhism, a faith noted for its skeptical attitude towards deities, invoke beings who have some supernatural status and religious significance.⁽²⁾
• 2: Image of a Buddhist divinity from the British Library

the link goes to an image at the British museum to what the museum calls 'a Buddhist divinity'. there's no indication that buddhists would hold this to be an image of a divinity, or that the image was ever intended for that purpose by buddhists.

[edit] the use varies significantly depending on the underlying conception of God that is being invoked

This is specifically not polytheistic, the usage is singular, and thus an upper case "G" is appropriate here. Sam Spade 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

silliness—please read the article. I'm not going to correct it, because it's really trivial, but you are POV pushing here, and I am losing a little bit of respect for you because of it. I know that you're a Child of God, and I respect that, but there's no need for you to use Wikipedia for proselytic or evangelical purposes. Ted 17:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please focus on the article, and Avoid personal remarks. Sam Spade 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sam, this has little to do with the article. you claim that this usage is specifically not polytheistic, but please check the edit history: I wrote that particular line, and I'm telling you that I did not not intend it to be a monotheistic statement. nor would that perspective fit comfortably with the rest of the article, which specifically notes that capitalized uses are reserved for monotheisms, but more general/historical uses of the term are lower-cased.

I'm really not that concerned about capitalization here, but man, you keep filtering everything through your own religious filter. if you can not adopt a more open, balanced perspective then you should not be working on these articles. I don't know how to put it more clearly than that. Ted 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reread my last statement. Sam Spade 08:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am entitled to inform you when you are violating NPOV policy. whether or not you like hearing it is irrelevant. if you wish to take it personally, I can't help that, but it's not going to stop me from saying it. you are (of course) welcome to discuss the matter if you think my statements are in error, or you can present it for appropriate mediation or arbitration. Ted 14:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to LDS is gratuitous

Reference to LDS is gratuitous

The topic of "Divinity" has been exploited in order to espouse beliefs of the Mormons which go beyond the topic of the article. The section on the LDS should be shortened in the spirit of brevity and accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClearDivinity (talk • contribs).

This is not a discussion that I wish to become involved in, but I would like to note that the specific section on one religion is at best religiously biased with the assumption that all readers are Christian and would need an explanation of one particular religion's deviations from the explanation.

However, I would like to caution you on your edits, which seem to be to a degree centred around disputing the validity of the differing perspective. As well, if you are interested in shortening the section, why have you made it significantly longer? In my opinion, one paragraph of perhaps 5 sentences is sufficient to explaining that a difference exists, with a link to another article which has more in-depth dealing with the matter.

Finally, just a friendly reminder to remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking the signature button on the toolbar. This fills in your username and the date, making discussion easier. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)