Talk:Personal god
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Scope of Article
Personal god is a scope that is covered by at least two traditions, one is Vaishnavism specifically in Bhakti and another is Christianity. Both points of view should be represented. Wikidās ॐ 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delayed response. I deferred commenting here and then somehow forgot about it.
- Anyway, while I'm sympathetic to your view, I think your insertions are haphazard and somewhat poorly worded. For example:
“ | Exclusive definition of god, as the personality both containing all, and at the same time being in the intimate relationship with his devotees, up to stage of personal involvement in the intimate care and dependence that can extend beyond the concept of denominational care to the realm of bhakti is found for example in monotheistic school of Bhagavata in India,[1] Placing it as the earliest example of personalism in relation to God in 4th century BC. | ” |
- This sentence is very difficult to parse, partly due to its length. Is the entirety of as the personality both containing all, and at the same time being in the intimate relationship with his devotees, up to stage of personal involvement in the intimate care and dependence that can extend beyond the concept of denominational care to the realm of bhakti a modifier on Exclusive definition of god? This much information should be broken up into separate sentences. Also, there are various places where it seems you are missing an article.
- I think the best thing for this article would be to extract the religion-specific information into their own sections - one for Christianity, one for Hinduism, etc - to reflect in what sense the relevant gods are personal. If you're willing, I'd like you to take the first step in that by consolidating all your contributed information into a single section on Hinduism, and then hopefully I or someone else will do the same for the Christianity-related material already in the article.
- Lastly, I would ask you to follow the MoS on issues of capitalisation. It is not appropriate to capitalise pronouns, as you did: but is of universal importance, as Lord Himself.
- Thanks. Ilkali (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, some of the ideas and suggestions are fine, some as in case of capitalization may need to looked at as if the case be of the actual quote. I would not separate all religions as yet, mainly due to the fact of the number of personalist religions. Of course if sufficient material is found separate sections will be needed. Wikidās-ॐ
Categories: WikiProject Vaishnavism articles | Start-Class Hinduism articles | Unknown-importance Hinduism articles | Start-Class Vaishnavism articles | Unknown-importance Vaishnavism articles | WikiProject Hinduism articles | Start-Class Christianity articles | Unknown-importance Christianity articles