Talk:God/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NOT all cultures have belief in a god/ gods.

Most interpretations of Taoism, Buddhism, and other religions do not have gods or a god. Atheistic cultures also lack belief in god(s). Cultures with no contact of other religions also lack belief in their gods, and not all have their own gods(are atheistic towards them). Any other wording is pure POV.The Rev of Bru

I understand that you are pure POV, but you can still come discuss things with us @ Talk:God#all_cultures. Sam [Spade] 16:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I understand that you are interested in nothing but pushing your own brand of belief on others. Stop editing to represent your, and only your, POV. I've yet to see an edit of yours that was not pure POV crap.The Rev of Bru
Well! Thats not a nice attitude for a new user. I suppose you've reviewed all 12,000 of my edits? I reviewed all of yours, BTW ;) Sam [Spade] 21:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All of the edits I have seen from you have been extremely POV; the worst thing about them is not that however but the way you remove any other POVs you dont like instead of presenting all POVs. I am not the only one worried about your editing style, by the way. Rest assured I shall be reviewing more of your edits in future and attempting to remove your bias from the articles.
Oh, and in case you missed it, you might like to review proper nouns and where they are applied and not applied. You seem unable to grasp the concept.The Rev of Bru
I'm with Sam as far as WP:civ is concerned ("the Rev" appears to be on an "atheist crusade" if there is such a thing). But we all know of course that a user's number of edits is meaningless to judge that user's sincerity. Indeed, fanatics and/or cranks tend to have a very high edit frequency... Sam seems to have drawn "the Rev's" ire now, and there is no obvious resolution to this... but as long as we're not arguing about a specific part of this article, the hostilities may as well be continued on User_Talk pages. (The Rev: just remember that the more polite party always looks better in a dispute) dab 15:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suppose the condescending, superior attitude adopted by Sam is far better .... The problem in this is twofold: Sam's refusal to allow any proper grammatical use of the common noun 'god,' and his seemingly deliberately provocative edits slandering others, especially atheists (which he seems to have a grudge against for some reason.) He does not follow the guidelines on NPOV but tells everyone else they need to... I may not be the most civil in the talk pages, but I do not delete or misrepresent any one position in articles. He does.The Rev of Bru 17:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why separate articles?

It's extremely POV to have the article at God be about the single supreme being exlusively over all other gods, which cannot be properly called "gods" but "deities" so long as that division exists. (As though God has never been called "Deity"...) There was a poll on this matter back in Feburary, archived at poll, which had ~90% of those voting agreeing on that matter. -Sean Curtin 03:17, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Deity needs merged, in fact I have long intended to do so, but ment to await a better climate. Let it be clear that Deity, being a less widely used term, would be redirected to God, and not the reverse. Sam [Spade] 03:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ar you guys kidding? This word, as used by the vast majority of people who use it, refers to a benevolent, omnipotent spiritual being. Regardless of what you guys might think, that is what most people who do think about God, think God to be, and for this reason, the word God does indeed merit a seperate and distinct page. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 07:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the correlation between your premises and your conclusion. Sam [Spade] 14:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nor do I -- (a) historically in pre-Christian European culture this certainly wasn't true, and I would assume that it's not true in the non-Judeo-Christian world yet. (b) Popular perception is worthy of a footnote, not an academic distinction. (c) I'm presuming you're from a Judeo-christian background and are familiar with the Hebrew sacred texts; you may note that in most translations of said texts the word "god" or "gods" is used in reference to "other gods" or "false gods". --wheels
wheels - you said "Popular perception is worthy of a footnote, not an academic distinction". If Wikipedia were an "academic" endeavor, then only people attending college or university would be allowed to participate. This is not limited to being "academic" as it is open to all people to make changes. Therefore, the very nature of the consensus we reach by editing each others articles is "popular". It is far, far more popular to use the word "God" instead of "deity", therefore "God" should be the "target" of the redirect. KeyStroke 18:46, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Why benevolent? User: Dimadick

If God were not benevolent, we wouldn't exist in order to ask the question. KeyStroke 23:02, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • lol* is that the "theist anthropic principle"? dab 10:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re:Talk:God#.22inclusivistic_religions.22...really.3F

Hinduism, along w most eastern religions, is inclusivist. They believe that everyone is born into their proper position, (due to karma) and should do what they are made to do (their dharma). That means a average Hindu thinks a Catholic is doing what he is supposed to in his catholic rituals, and a Sikh, Muslim, Jew is doing what he is ment to do, etc.. There is an exclusive nature preferring "true" religions, presumably making exception for Satanism/atheism or false cults to be improper. That said, an insightful phrase is "all paths lead to God", suggesting that even those on evil or improper paths will eventually find God in later reincarnations. Hindu is not the proper name BTW, the proper name is Sanatana Dharma, which translates roughly as "eternal righteousness with no beginning and no end". Everyone is Sanatana Dharma, because everyone is part of existence, and therefore an aspect of Brahma (at least in Brahman Hinduism, Hinduism is diverse philosophically). I don't agree that the "exclusivist"/"inclusivist" dichotomy is unhelpful, but its not clean cut. Judaism is an exception for example, in that they feel they are "Chosen", but don't prefer others to convert, and generally think a well behaved goyim will reach some sort of heaven. Sam [Spade] 03:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) Also Hinduism is basically monotheistic as all forms of God (i.e., Vishnu or Shiva) are simplly personal forms of God or Saguna Brahman. Talk about Vaishnavism or Shaivaism which are monotheistic traditions.

Quotations about God

I think this section should be merged with Wikiquote:God, since Wikiquote is supposed to be the place where quotes go. I've already added a "link" to the Wikiquote article in the external links section, so would everyone be okay with the move? --Ardonik.talk() 19:43, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Article is already way too large (poor 56K or less users). Move it. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

Non-monotheistic conceptions

I was bold and moved Neo-Pagan view into the newly created Non-monotheistic conceptions (where it belongs, since paganism (neo or otherwise) is a "poletheistic" rather than "monotheistic" religion). I didn't call the section "Poletheistic" because I also wanted to add Buddhism to the list, and many schools of buddhism worship nobody (ex. Zen Buddhism), thus they would be almost "atheistic", however, belief in existence of gods is still there. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

"a" supreme Being?

Whats the deal w that? And I get reverted for fixing it? Is there any explanation? Sam [Spade] 16:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Its called NPOV; I wouldnt expect you to understand. The Rev of Bru
Don't feel like I am out to get you because I am not. You might be right, however, in Zoroastrianism which is expressly mentioned, there are two surpreme gods. Ironic and unexplainable, maybe, but as long as Zoroastrianism is in the list 'a' should be used. Thanks for commenting in talk before reverting. Besides if you look at it, there are at least 4 supreme beings mentioned, so how can there be one an only? (one from the Abrahamic religions, one from Sikhism and two from Zoroastrianism. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 21:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lets go w the Zoroastrianism 1st, since its a more viable example. Is Ahriman ment to be supreme? Certainly not, quite the opposite, he did not create the earth, Ohrmazd did, with Ahriman destined to fail in their final battle. As per the supposed "4" supreme beings, that is your own exclusionary POV. Many (if not most) members of those respective religions (definitely almost all Sikhs, Hindu's, and Zoroastrians) assume the best about the members of the others, and assume they worship the one God. I will admit the number of abrahamic practicioners who feel this way is debatable, but the "all paths lead to God" policy of eastern religion is pretty well known. Sam [Spade] 21:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well then remove Zoroastrianism and you can have your cake and eat it too. I won't stop you. As set, your edit was in error, remove Zoroastrianism from the list and it will be fine. --The Sunborn
The point is not just that there can only be a single supreme being (there logically can be only one, barring theological paradoxes like trinity). Rather than just one, there could also be no supreme being. This alone warrants the indefinite article, because by referring to "the supreme being" you imply its existence. And no, that's not a prerequisite for writing this article. You can write about God regardless of whether or not he exists (contrary to the "ontological" so-called proof]]). dab 16:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The point is also that of course if there is a supreme being, then there can only be one: but that various religions believe in different supreme beings- and they cannot all be the supreme being; if one is correct than the others are not. The 'a' denotes that there are several to choose from.The Rev of Bru
I agree with the indefinite article, but I disagree that this is the point. People who agree upon the existence of a supreme being necessarily agree that they are talking about the same being, they will just disagree about attributes of that being. For example, a Muslim will say "Allah=God, but this Trinity idea is bogus", and a Christian will say "God=Allah, but Muhammad was not particularly inspired". dab 11:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

image vandalized

The image from the Sistine chapel that this article uses was vandalized. I tried to revert it, but the results do not seem to be satisfactory. I am posting this here hoping that someone with more experience dealing with the reversion of images can take care of it. ~ Kalki 17:20, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I just made a copy and uploaded it. If you deem it better, switch the links on the article. You can see it here: Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 23:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problems seem to have been with the other image or its dimensions being retained in some way in my browser cache, or elsewhere, but everything seems okay now. ~ Kalki 00:40, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Removed from the theology section

In regards to Henotheism, someone added:

The term has come to mean in recent years that one believes in multiple god/esses, though the worshipper "borrows" from various cultural groups and may worship one above the others. An example would be worshipping a Greco-Roman god for one reason and then asking a Celtic god for something else. This form of henotheism is frequently condemned in the Torah or Old Testament.

This is incorrect. No one refers to the worship of multiple gods as henotheism; they correctly refer to this as polytheism. Also, how can new form of worship "in recent years" be condemned in the Bible?! That's a time-traveling historical anachronism. RK 00:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Polytheistic concept of god

I noticed that monoteistic god has been tacked to the end of this article. I find that to be somewhat awkward, because the header of the article mentions only the Supreme monotheistic version. We need to either eliminate the Western POV, or expand the deity page. (ClockworkTroll 22:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) - fergot to sign)

whats with this "western" comment? How is that applicable? I am ok w you taking the polytheistic part over to another page tho, it has no place here, I agree. Sam [Spade] 22:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps "Western" is not the best word to use. I have some ideas to talk to you about; I'll continue this on your talk page. ClockworkTroll 22:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Moved, btw. Sam [Spade] 22:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it is useful to have a separate deity article for polytheistic gods, because these would overload this article. But this article at least needs a section about the emergence of monotheism. The concept of "God" is clearly secondary to the concept of "gods" and only really came into fashion in hellenism. Strictly speaking, hebrew YHWH doesn't belong on this page, as he was not a monotheistic God in the Old Testament, he only forbade adoration of other gods, without denying their existence. I'm not saying this to troll this page, just to point out that a section about the relations to polytheistic frameworks is required. dab 10:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute headers

Who is disputing what, at this juncture? The article can use more work I agree, but I think at least the neutrality dispute should go. Comments? Sam [Spade] 23:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, your comment was pretty much precisely my thoughts on coming across the article yesterday. I suspect highly-charged articles like this will frequently *become* POV, but only for brief periods of time! --AlexChurchill 08:41, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
OK< moved it. Now what needs the most work, as far as the clean-up? Sam [Spade] 21:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I "cleaned up" all that I thought needed cleanup. I recommend that until and unless someone else (like me) goes on an "editing spree" that we consider it cleaned up. BTW: I am thankful that (appearantly) none of my edits engendered an edit war, or even comments here on the discussion page. KeyStroke 22:14, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

section moved to talk

Some people have posited that perhaps God is really an intelligence that at some point in the past become sufficiently advanced that it aggregated itself to the very fabric of the cosmos. In this view, this god-intelligence now looks over the Earth.

Furthermore, there are also wilder, although not considered unreasonable, beliefs that God is another type of organism. There has in fact been a group of individuals found who believe God is truly a pink monkey (pinkomists). A small group of individuals who speak their own dialect in the Sierra Madre Oriental of Mexico have also chosen to worship the sagebrushes which they consider the fruit of life.

I find these portions dubious, and even if they were some how cited, I think they'd find a better home elsewhere. Also I a very suspicious as to the reality of these claims. Sam [Spade] 22:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
yeah, I googled the pink monkey one after I wikified it. All it turned up a tripod site other than a mirror of us. The sage one is much more believable see: Salvia divinorum. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 00:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK< I'll move the sage part to Deity. Sam [Spade] 00:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent edit by RK

are you absolutely, 100% sure all that content you removed is duplicated elsewhere? if so, thats fine, but if not, I don't agree w deleting it. Sam [Spade] 23:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Just when I thought we had achieved a consensus on a good article too! I vote for the return of what was removed wholesale. If minor tweaks are needed, fine, but lets not delete whole sections. KeyStroke 02:13, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
Fair questions! What specific content are you talking about? The material on God in Kabbalah is in the article on Kabbalah. The material on God in Hinduism is in the article on Hinduism. I agree with you that we shouldn't be loosing content. I just want to move detailed discussions into the more specific articles, and tighten up the text. RK 17:32, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I was just checking re: the large removals of text, but if your confident their duplicated elsewhere, I'll go w that. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would like to see my one (or was it two) line addition under "God as Unity or Trinity" talking about the ten eminations of God. Granted, it doesn't fit exactly under the heading, but I (personally) think that it is important that people realize that the "multiplicity of the God-head" (to coin a phrase) is not limited to the disagreement between trinitarians and unitarians. That there are Abrahamic beliefs that "factor" God into a multiplicity other than three (in this case, ten). KeyStroke 19:23, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. That's Ok by me. RK 21:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Some adherents of this position consider Trinitarianism to be a form of polytheism.

"Some adherents of this position consider Trinitarianism to be a form of polytheism"? Shouldn't that be Most or Nearly all? Jayjg 15:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I think a number would consider trinitarians to be "misguided monotheists".--AlexChurchill 17:12, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Being a Trinitarian, myself, I can explain (at least my viewpoint) on why it is a crucial (pun intended) aspect of being a Christian. I normaly avoid rhetorical questions, but in this case it is the best way to get the idea across: Q: Why don't I experience God (if he exists) as easily as I experience any other person-to-person relationship? A: Because our sin seperates us from a Holy God. Q: How can all my sin be removed? A: By the substitory death of a sinless human sacrafice. Q: Why does it need to be sinless? A: Because if the sacrafice was not sinless it would be dying for only its own sin. Q: Why must the sacrafice be a man? A: Because, of all the creatures on the earth, only a man has an "eternal component" (the spiritual aspect) so any other sacrafice is only for a limited time, and cannot be timeless. Q: How can a man be sinless? A: Only if he does not inherit the sin nature through the law of inheritance, which comes down through the father. Q: How can a man not have a sin-ridden father? A: Only if his father is God. Q: How can a temporal man be sired by God? A: He cannot, he has to be eternal. Q: What can be eternal other than God? A: Nothing, therefore a man sired by God must also be one with God. . . . . . Of course this (naturally) leads to the question: Q: How can God be one, yet separate in the distinction between God the Father and Jesus? A: This is a mystery and an inigma to the mind of man, but with God all things are possible. . . . . I know that isn't an answer that satisfies the mind of man, but God is not bound to satisfy the mind of man. . . . . Now that I have typed that up, I wonder if there is a place to put that in an article. KeyStroke 05:09, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
The above doesn't quite strike me as airtight logic, but it is a very good summary of conventional Christian trinity theory. I just want to point out that it is certainly not established fact, and is definitely a POV (not a bad thing by itself -- really, everything's a POV). So, one must always be careful about how and where it is added to an article - Nat Krause 09:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Some medieval rabbis held that the trinity should be considered Shituf, "association", which they held to be wrong, yet they did not classify it as polytheism. This is still a normative view today. RK 17:46, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I think very few people who object to the trinity seriously view it as polytheism, but rather as an excessive emphasis on a prophet (Christ) and Gods "essense" or acting force, the Holy Spirit. Sam [Spade] 18:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Trinitarianism holds that Jesus is much more than a prophet, and the Holy Spirit much more than an acting force. In fact, in Trinitarian belief, the three parts of the Trinity are each unique persons, and God. Jayjg 22:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said messiah, not prophet. Sam [Spade] 11:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Even messiah is not strong enough; the messiah in Judaism (and Islam for that matter) is not a god or deity. Jayjg 17:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is very subtle. My thought is that Christ underwent Theosis, but thats my view (also prob the othadox view). Sam [Spade] 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Isn't it we (sin-ridden creatures) who undergo theosis, and not the sinless second person of the Trinity? If we think that Jesus underwent (for lack of a better word) an "evolution" to become more god-like, isn't that no different than Mormanism? KeyStroke 21:24, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
Trinitarian thought could also receive some help from the Hindu concept of avatara, or the incarnation of the Deity into a particular being, or form. In this example, there would be one G-d, expressed in three Avatars (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). I wonder if any Christians ever thought of that? (Not my religion, but still, there's such a thing as "empathy"...) Rickyrab 21:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, not to be presumptious, but I thought of that, and I'm kinda Christian (I think Christ was perfect, the messiah, will return to lead me into battle in the final war, etc...), but I'm also Sanatana Dharma so... ;) Sam [Spade] 21:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thought about it? Maybe, but not for long. For Jesus to be an avatar of God would require God the Father to become Jesus, then stop being God the Father, and then Jesus to become God the Spirit and stop being Jesus. So I am thankful that the scriptures (Matt 3:13-17) indicate that all three of the Trinity were present at the baptism of Jesus. KeyStroke 21:21, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. Firstly, God is immanent (and imminent ;), omni-present, etc... Also the concept of avatar does not involve a being "disappearing" or whatever, in fact the whole point is that it is a way for them to interact w humanity in a different way, while still occupying themselves otherwise. Their are multiple instances of God sending an avatar to earth, such as Genesis 32:24-32. BTW, I don't think Christ was an avatar, mainly because its very clear he was born, unlike an avatar. Something similar perhaps, but an avatar, no. Sam [Spade] 21:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Of course, those who thought up the Hindu concept of Avatara might not have originally thought of childbirth being a means of incarnation, but Christianity is not Hinduism, so it might have its own version of Avatara, one in which an avatar can be manifested through being born. Rickyrab 22:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Possibly, but as I said above, I think there are better examples of Avatars in abrahamic religions. Sam [Spade] 22:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okeydokes, whatever. Rickyrab 22:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) :-)
Actually, all medieval Rabbis held that the trinity was shituf, which was considered forbidden as a form of polytheism and therefore idolatry; a small number considered it permissible for non-Jews, but most held it forbidden for Jews and non-Jews alike. And similarly, Muslims consider it to be shirk, a forbidden form of polytheism. For example "Thus tawhid is monotheism while shirk is polytheism or idolatry." [1] "Thus it is prohibited in Islam to accompany one’s parents in the matters of Shirk (polytheism), including visiting a place of polytheistic worship (or visiting a place where any besides Allah are worshipped)." [2] "Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three." [3] etc.Jayjg 21:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Name of God (G-d) cannot be torn?

KeyStroke, you added that some religious Jews write "G-d" instead of "God" so thet "the name of God cannot be torn". What does this mean? In the way that this is phrased, I am unfamiliar with this position. You are probably referring to the fact that religious Jews have traditionally avoided physically writing the name of God in Hebrew on paper, unless it was necessary (for example, in prayer books, the Talmud, the Bible, etc.) The reason is to avoid desecrating the name of God, by eventually throwing away a paper with the name of God on it. Orthodox Jews eventually extended this prohibition to English renderings of the name of God, and later they extended it to the generic English word "god". (These extensions are not part of halakha, Jewish law.) In recent years many Orthodox Jews have tried to extend this prohibition to "writing" on computer screens and the blackboard, although such chumras (stringincies) are not halakha. RK 17:46, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

A less observant Yid might write "G-d" simply because it's Jewish. Rickyrab 22:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Meaning a cultural thing, without knowing why you are doing it? I never thought about that. But wouldn't a Jews interaction with others who don't do it cause him/her to question why non-Jews don't do it, and thereby "find out" why they do do it? KeyStroke 22:15, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
Perhaps, now that you mention it. Let's try to find an off-the-docks...err, Orthodox Jew... (slaps self on head for repeating Archie Bunker's malapropism) to explain all of this, shall we? :) Rickyrab 22:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not everybody interacts all that much. Some of the Jews I have known (esp. the more observant ones) tend to be very immersed in Hebrew culture, and don't necessarilly get "out" alot. That said, alot of people are pretty immersed in their own culture (like average americans for example ;) Sam [Spade] 22:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I am most likely "projecting" again. I love to debate religion in chat because it forces me to delve into why I believe what I believe. My arguments with calvanists have, for example, moved me from being a casual acceptor of the idea of free-will towards being a fully-convinced open theist. That never would have happened if it weren't for the calvanists trying to convince me that individual (as opposed to coprorate) predestination is true. Anyway, I guess I was just assuming that everyone did as I do, expose their religious beliefs to critisism so that it either changes me, or gives me further understanding of why I believe like I do. BTW: I have been convinced by others, which is why I am now a gap creationist, why I now believe it is right to apply the death penalty, and why I reject the idea of tithes in a christian church. KeyStroke 01:27, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
I think it would be great if you added a summary of that info which you would prefer into the article. My assumption is that KeyStroke ment exactly what you said, and felt "torn" as a good summary of it. If you can sumarize it more prescicely, that would be optimal, of course. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 17:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
RK - I am a gentile, who only knows of this, particular, habit of some Jews through my interaction with them in chat. So I only know of the reason why this is done by hearsay. I made a change to that line in hopes it better fits with your understanding. It is my intent to keep this topic (the deliberate alteration of the word "God" when being written, so as to prevent any dishonor to the name done by some Jews) to a very short (one line) comment (at least on this page). I would love for someone (you?) to expound on all the ramifications of why, and when, and how and the history of this practice. Maybe you can create a Why the word "God" is sometimes typed as "G-d" online by Jews (or some such similarly named article) and really educate all of us. KeyStroke 19:12, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
This link might be helpful: [[4]] Jayjg 21:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Scripture reference makes it POV ??

How can the inclusion of a scripture reference make a paragraph POV? This makes no sense to me, unless you believe that all of scripture has a POV problem. KeyStroke 22:15, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

As long as it says that this is one possible view and not the only view (as I feel it did), the scripture should be fine. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing link?

The link "What is God?" leads right back to the God article. Was there once a separate page, which is now gone?

There apparently was such an article some time ago ([5]), but it was changed to a redirect to God. It can always be re-written though, if you or someone is up to it. Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Needs to be split up

The article is too long. Could it be split up? Mozzerati 20:30, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Gender

Although I understand that it is conventional for English speakers to refer to God as "He" (which, I believe, tends to be capitalised), I do not think that such a pronoun should be used when referring to God generally. It is acceptable when discussing the God of the three chief monotheistic religions, for example, but in a general sense, it should be, I believe, avoided. Hence my changes to the article. -- Emsworth 20:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We just lost a boat-load of content

How can all that content be removed, and not considered vanalism??? KeyStroke 06:30, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

when it was redundant. For example, Emsworth removed a section "proofs of the existence of god" but that's okay, since he left a second section on the same topic (then renamed it). More explanation and analysis of the change might help... Mozzerati 08:21, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
I believe we are in a process of weeding out a lot of redundant stuff about fictional characters at the moment in any case. Sjc 11:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
it was not only redundant but an exact duplicate of sections that already existed - Emsworth's changes were cleanup, with some copyediting too. --16:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

etymology

There were some inaccuracies in the etymology section. It is misleading to say that the *germanic* god is "equivalent" to theos, deus: the meaning of the word in pre-christian times is not exactly known, but it was made equivalent by the bible translators. The meanings "possession", "inspiration" for *ghutom were completely off the mark. "possession" doesn't even nearly mean the same thing as "inspiration", and I don't know what PIE root they might refer to. The controversy surrounds a root for calling -> "invocation" vs. a root for pouring -> "libation". The word may also go back to a contamination of these two roots (they are not very clearly separated in Sanskrit, either, because in ritual, pouring always goes together with invoking, of course). dab 10:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

all cultures

The section about gods being present in all cultures is left over from a time when this article was about gods in general, not monotheistic God. It should be rephrased. The recent anon addition that gods are present in *most but not all* culture is correct, and was not made in bad faith, therefore Sam Spade's reversion seems a bit rash. I am reverting him again, but politely, and as I just said, it doesn't matter anyway, because the paragraph should be changed to refer to monotheistic God anyway. dab 13:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... well, the sentance is currently factually accurate. If you rewrite it to something which is also factually accurate, and just as (or more) informative, I'll have no objection. Sam [Spade] 22:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alright, if you change it to be God and not gods, then yes, it would be factually semi-acurate. There are actually few cultures that have the an idea of God and many that have an idea of gods. So yeah, change it but you would also have to reflect this fact. --The Sunborn

A belief in a "God" or gods is found in all cultures: no. Or only for very fabricated definitions of "god" or "culture". Taoism. Buddhism. Atheism. (Soviet) Communism. Ancestor Worship (Shintoism) (Are Ancestors gods, or are they just spirits of dead people?). You may argue that in any culture, you will at least find subcultures where some people have notions of supernatural entities, but that's a much weaker statement than "all cultures have gods". Is there agreement now that this article is about Singular God only? In that case, I would toss the entire paragraph (or replace it with an explanation of the relation of polytheism and monotheism). dab 11:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree w your point about Taoism, buddhism (have you looked into how many gods the people in these cultures worship? I was at a buddhist temple, and the number of crazy looking gods they had was staggering), The closest thing I can think of to an atheist culture is communism, and the inability of believers to accept enforced atheism is what led to the fall of communism in europe (IMO). Even communist china allows a certain catholic church. Ancestor worshipers worship their ancestors and other gods. Finially shintoism, have a look for yourself, the number of gods is so large even I know one (from a video game ;), Raiden. Anyhow, this is all uirrelevant, I repeat my statement above, i'm ok w replacing the section if you replace it w something as good or better. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 14:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ok. in my view, there is nothing wrong with discussing before editing, we might spare ourselves an edit war.... I know that popular Buddhism is very polytheistic indeed (just like popular Catholicism). That doesn't change the fact that early Buddhism was atheistic, as is Taoism and Zen. My point was also that in aboriginal religions, the concepts of spirit and god tend to blur, and therefore you may make your point with using a *very broad* concept of god, which would obscure the development of the idea of "gods" from animistic, pre-theistic beliefs. The statement at the moment "most, but not all" is correct as far as I'm concernd. Before I edit it any further, I would like to know if it is even pertaining to the scope of this article. (and, well, the point about communism, as you say, that's just, like, IYO :o) dab 15:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Buddhism is a very diverse religion: the situation with gods and Buddhism varies widely, it really doesn't make sense to make a statement about it as though every Buddhist culture thinks the same. Also, there's cultures that are animist and thus don't necessarily have a belief in gods (depending on what definition of god you use, of course). I think most cultures today have some level of belief in gods (some more than others of course), but to say all is unlikely to be true. Then again, the statement is a bit empty anyway, how many people have to believe for "a belief in a god or gods" to be found in the culture? 1 person? 10 people? 10%? 50%? 90%? What if individuals believe on their own terms seperately from the shared culture? etc. Shane King 15:04, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
what about creating an article that is actually focussing on these questions? gods? theism? universality of theism? dab 15:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
gods and theism we already have. Universality of theism I'm uncertain we need. Anyhow, I didn't mean to inspire too much debate, and remain steadfast in my original point, that this section is just fine as is (or as it was when I edited it), but that I don't see it as so vital that its replacement w something equally valid would be unnacceptable. Any proposals on that? Cheers, Sam [Spade] 20:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
proposal : stop editing the article to represent your own POV, Sam Spade. You have already admitted that not all cultures have belief in a god or gods: so stop changing it.The Rev of Bru
I did? When/where? Who are you, and why are you trying to spread your incivility and rhetorical POV across the wiki? Sam [Spade] 21:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I know we have deity. I was suggesting we take the discussion about whether or not all culture have gods over there. See below: I want to replace your paragraph with a section summarizing the development of the idea of "God". dab 10:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Every culture has some concept of or does believe in a higher being, i.e. a deity. Please point out just one example where they lack a word for a higher being, that is all it would take. If it has already been said, repost it. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a word proves nothing. Atheists have the concept of God, and the word God, they just deny the existence. Confusion of concept, belief and existence is what powers the Ontological argument. A 'higher being' may be a king, or magician. If there were cultures with no word for god, they have of course all been visited by missionaries since. The word "god" itself is the best example of this. It (presumably) meant simply "a wooden idol over which you pour milk or butter" before Ulfilas came along and decided to change the meaning. dab 08:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam, I see that you have at least gone from "belief" to "concept". But if there is a word for god in the dictionaries of every language, that's just because the bloody Jesuits have been to every nook and corner of the earth, and it doesn't say anything about "all cultures". If we cannot agree on a "many, but not all" wording, we have to be more specific. The point is that 'godless' cultures may either be "pre-theistic" (animism) or "post-theistic" (agnosticism, atheism). I'm trying to separate the two cases:
Today, monotheistic religions are numerically dominant (mainly due to the missionary efforts of Christianity and Islam), but polytheistim, and to a lesser extent also animism, survive. Sizeable minorities, mainly in industrialized countries, are secularized, agnostic or atheist
Note that the number of adherents of Judaism+Christianity+Islam accounts for just slightly more than half of the global population, but not for any sizeable majority. India and China are notoriously difficult to classify along theistic lines, but they make up for nearly as many people. Look at Religion in China: if "many Chinese belief systems have concepts of a sacred and sometimes spiritual world yet do not invoke a concept of God", that's a sizeable chunk of non-theistic people, right there. And yes, I would agree to "all cultures have concepts of sacred or spiritual entities", but that's a statement for spirituality, not for God. dab 08:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)