Talk:God the Father

Relationship with the sky father article

"God the Father" is a separate concept from paternal gods. While the term "God the Father" is specific to Trinitarian Christianity, the idea that a god or gods have fatherly qualities is already addressed on the sky father article. The three-sentence polytheism section should be moved there. The Judaism section should be moved there as well. Jews do not call God "God the Father" because there is no need to differentiate. The short Islam section exists only to say that "God the Father" is not a Muslim concept. This article should primarily be about the member of the Godhead "God the Father" in Trinitarian Christianity, which obviously deserves an article unto itself. "God the Father" simply isn't the appropriate term for fatherly aspects of God/gods in other religions; that is the place of the sky father article. Neelix (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing that this article makes no mention of Zeus, "Father of gods and men", Father of the sky/heaven(ouranos). For a continuous period of 1,000 years prior to Christianity, the Greek world understood only one God to have the title "Father" and that of course was Zeus himself. Read Hesiod, Homer, the Orphic hymns, etc.

When Jesus introduced the terms "The Father" and "The Father in Heaven" to the masses, his audience, whether Jew, Greek, or Roman, would have understood him perfectly well. Though it may have been a new concept to Judaism, it was not unique and unheard of. Though the title "father" was nonexistent in Judaism, the Hellenistic world would have understood him perfectly well. The point being, this article should have made mention of this fact: God being a "Father" is a Hellenistic concept that seems to have its origins in India.70.19.172.172 (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Neelix that there is specific distinction between "god as father" and "God the Father". These three specific words put together in this manner, "God the Father", is a specific term in Christianity, specifically referring to one of the persons of the Holy Trinity. In other religions they may call god "Father", but unless a specific religion uses the three word "God the Father" in this manner it should not be mentioned here. If one wishes to have a general article on "god as father" one should start an article as such and then one should include all the references to god as father in different religions. As it is, the only reason to mention god as father in other religions in this article would be with the intention to distract from the Christian concept. If the article is about a Christian theological term, it would not be against NPOV to exclude other concepts of god as father, provided that a redirect link is provided to lead others to the generic consideration of god as father. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Trinity navigation box

I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Trinity. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Please feel free to make any comments you see fit on any of the other templates on that page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Art

There is some nice art provided, but perhaps excessive. The Marian Art section does not belong here. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, there are more depictions of God the Father in Marian masterpieces than on their own. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is wonderful art but belongs in Marian art in the Catholic Church, not this article on the Father. Grantmidnight (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Most are already there, since I wrote Marian art in the Catholic Church. However, cannot be grouped by Father there. It is hard to find Father images of that quality outside the Marian context, hence here they have a clear home with multiple images that show various viewpoints. History2007 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"God the Father in Art" needs more treatment.

Currently it is just a collection of images. A text describing the history of and varying theological views on Christian depictions of God the Father is needed. Please provide something if you're knowledeable about this. -- 92.229.252.71 (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Should probably be an article on its own. But I do not have the expertise yet... Give it time... However, what is clear is that there are far fewer major art pieces of God the Father than of Christ or the Blessed Virgin. History2007 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is great art but is far excessive. It is also covered eleswhere in WK. Let's delete the Gallery because it does not add to this article. Grantmidnight (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly who does it hurt by being there? Is someone going to trip over it and fall? No. Given that you admit it is great art, there is every reason to keep it. The other user above even wants it expanded. So if anything it needs expansion. Again, exactly how is this causing any one, or yourself, any pain? In any case, you probably did a great thing to remind me of this on Christmas Eve. I went ahead and added text as the other user had suggested, and the gallery accompanies the text now, so this discussion is now moot. And I learned a few things as I researched it. Thank you and Merry Christmas. History2007 (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the further discussion. My only point was that there is an existing main article on the subject and it does not need to be repeateted here in such detail. Grantmidnight (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an article? I guess there is now. Was there an article? I guess there was not then. I just wrote God the Father in Western art a few days ago after you guys kept talking about it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I must have been mixed up. thanks Grantmidnight (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mother Goddess Vs. Father God

Mother Goddess page seems to be biased toward the neo/Pagan beliefs, where as the Father God page seems to be biased toward the monotheist, Christianity in particular.

Is there no knowledge that could balance the pages out between the polytheists and monotheists? 2010-03-04T00:07 Z-8 76.90.226.194 (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But this article is not about the generic theological concept of a "Father God" but rather of the specific Christian theological concept of "God the Father." How about you start a separate article on "father god"? Chrisgaffrey (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Is OK?

Prajapita Brahma Kumaris

According to Prajapita Brahma Kumaris religion, Shiva is remembered as God the Father or "Baba" in Hindi language, as the only one God.

Actually neither is WP:RS, but I have no objection to this edit since it does not say much. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There are as many references as you want on Brahma Kumari WikipediA homepage here Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Please read, isn't it?

Januarythe18th (talk) 1:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is actually not my task to read that article and correct it. But it is clear to me now that these edits are in effect spam edits for a very small religious group, giving it attention way past WP:UNDUE. We will have to reduce the attention to that, and please read WP:UNDUE, given the number of adherents to Brahma Kumaris compared to Islam, Christianity, etc. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, I read some of that Brahma Kumaris article and it seems to have serious cult-like accusations in the article, and seems like a really a fringe-like group - so something about that may have to be mentioned as this Brahma Kumaris issue begins to get spammed. History2007 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If Islam has not God the Father, why not we remove it? (Januarythe18th (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

How many followers does Islam have? It is a major religion and needs to clear that it has no trinity. History2007 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IG

First, has the gallery bitten anyone yet? But seriously, the gallery tags exist in Wikipedia because galleries are not in general against policy. It is a question of deciding where they fit. E.g. see the galleries at: Flora, Munich, Rose, etc., etc. etc. So there is no "hard rule" in Wikipedia that galleries must be banished from everywhere, else please rapidly remove the other 3 galleries I mentioned here. Now, as to which images go in that will be a long discussion, but we can talk about that one image at a time. Should be fun to analyze them. Now that I look at what has piled up over time, it looks like 4 Coronation o fteh Virgin images are too many of that topic. So probably just one of those, but each of the others is a separate theme. I will trim the coronations anyway, no big deal. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article need any gallery at all when there is a main article, God the Father in Western art (that you created), that covers the topic in depth and has a far more extensive gallery (which makes sense). Is this consistent with WP:SUMMARY? I don't have a problem with all galleries. Novaseminary (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is consistent with WP:Summary, and being here gives a user a taste and incentive for clicking in the Main. And again, has it bitten anyone yet? There are so many, many errors floating in Wikipedia that need attention, I do not know why this discussion is necessary.History2007 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. I didn't mean to ruin your day or enter into a long discussion. I just thought the gallery doesn't add to the article... and might even be contributing to the accumulation of cruft in the article. And others above have questioned the gallery (even before there was an extensive main article with gallery). You seem to be the only one on talk who has said it should stay. Novaseminary (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that article because someone suggested it. And the prev comments were pre-Main. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)