Talk:God in Christianity

Rationale for this article

If someone wants to learn about "God in Christianity", we shouldn't send them on an unguided tour of six or seven articles about different aspects of the concept of God in Christianity. That's what Christian God does right now. What we should do is provide a guided overview of all the major aspects of God in Christianity with links to the main articles on each aspect. That's what this article tries to do.

--Richard 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, glad you did this, but the ToC needs work. It needs to discuss Trinity vs. Unitarianism, and various topics of Christology, without being a WP:CFORK of either Trinity or Christology. Trinity and Christology are the two heavyweight main articles for this, and this article here needs to act as a hinge between the two. On top of that, it can discuss Christian mysticism and stuff. --dab (𒁳) 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

right, the discussion of Trinity is altogether too long right now. It should be a very brief summary of Trinity focussing conflicts with Nontrinitarian schools of thought. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This merger should have been preceded by some notice on the talk pages of all articles moved here. I can appreciate that the articles were related, but the elements may not have been properly harmonized here. (There are also some easily fixed issues: double redirects, etc.) We now have an infinitely large topic, and it will take some work to preserve the value and meaning (not that I'm overrating these) of its constituent parts. As the author of once sentence in Godhead (Christianity) - "In the later Neoplatonic mystical tradition (in Pseudo-Dionysius, for example), the term θεαρχία thearchia is used.[1]" - it was a little jolting to see material like this in the context of the lead of this new mega-article. I'm of the opinion that status quo ante would be better, at least until someone has created a better framework into which to do the merges (especially since proper discussion was not initiated prior to the merges). A better solution would have been improved cross-references. Wareh 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the goal of this article. It is NOT intended to be a super-mega-merger of all the constituent articles. It is meant to be a SUMMARY article that provides a grand overview of the key points of those articles with {{main}} article links to the other articles. Dbachmann was right in putting the {{toolong}} tag on this article. I have made an effort to cut out non-essential text that the reader can access by reading the subsidiary articles.

Personally, I think the current outline is a pretty good framework (if I do say so myself). I'm sure can be improved but I think it covers the bases pretty well. If you have suggestions for improvement, please present them for discussion.

--Richard 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my surprise was expressed too harshly (the merging of pages without discussion still seems to me a departure from good practice). Perhaps I can put my real concern more constructively. Now that this article is on so general a topic, as it gets edited back down to a manageable size for its new function, I think everything edited out needs to be looked at conservatively and carefully: is it really treated somewhere else? It would be a bit perverse to combine content into a new article, only to use the new article as the criterion for exclusion of material that was reasonably included in the previous disposition. I say all this fully recognizing that some of the content here is poor, and that we still have an irrational structure of related articles. My hope is that, whatever gets edited out here, gets a clear link to the article that really does treat it and an explanation of how it relates. In some cases this may require the creation of new stubs or else creative searching for existing articles that are appropriate. Wareh 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Wareh. I do think we need this article. I do think it is a good idea to merge Godhead (Christianity) into this. But I must also agree that the present version should probably be rewritten from scratch. The point of this article cannot be to rehash random points of Trinity. What we need is a coherent summary of the question as a whole, that is, briefly and cleanly lay out the key topics ot Trinity, Christology, Christian theology and Christian mysticism. Perhaps we should start from a mere list of key topis and expand it from there. dab (𒁳) 14:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SECisek removed the Christianity navbox, appropriately enough, because the article is not listed on the template. See Template talk:Christianity. If this article is really going to do the job suggested by others in this discussion, it ought to have the importance to be added to that template. Perhaps this can be a useful lens through which to evaluate the place of this article: is it doing a new an important job not already parceled out in the articles listed in Template:Christianity? Wareh (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. If consensus says it merits inclusion, by all means, let's add it. I did not because I have noticed that being bold with the Chritianity nav box seems to provoke Massive retaliation from some editors. It is best to see if we have a consensus first. -- SECisek (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

May I also suggest it talk about more than just the Trinity? Is this meant to be an all-encompassing explanation of the Christian God, a central summary of other articles, or a summary of the differences to other deities? Or something else? The Trinity is but one aspect of difference or similarities. aragond 58.165.32.222 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Just a cursory look at the article and it needs some work. The header has God as transcendant without mention of immanence. Also, I reverted an edit that is theologically correct but may need some better wording or placement than what was put in. How many people are active here? Don't want to step on any toes. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking through the article a little and trying to ammend some theological errances, and I'm more concerned with it being right than wording, so feel free to brush up the mechanics or placement of my edits if you see the need, because I just want to make sure this article correctly portrays the God of the Bible. Thebestlaidplans (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence currently says:

Most Christian groups see God as the eternal being who created the universe and all there is.

Why is the word "most" included there? Almost all Christians are monotheistic, so to them, the creator is necessarily God. It's true that some small percentage of Christians have pagan influences, but polytheistic Christianity seems like such a small segment that it's not worth mentioning in the lead, let alone on the first word. WP:LEAD says "avoid ... over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."

The remainder of this first sentence seems like it's duplicating what's already at the article God, and is widely understood when one says "God", especially in the context of a monotheistic religion. It may be better to just link to that article and instead focus on the issues specific to this article. (for better examples, see the leads at God in Judaism and God in Islam) --Underpants (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead can definitely be improved, but I always assumed the "most" was there not to exclude any polytheistic Christians, but rather to exclude atheistic (or at least non-theistic) groups that consider themselves Christians (like Unitarians, who don't really seem to believe in anything). —Angr 21:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I Second the lead Sentence Change... In Fact the lead sentence falls into the category of Weasel Words So I am Going to flag it as such. Please correct it asap so the quality of the Article does not suffer. Perhaps the entire article can become a fork to the various christian Religions Wiki Pages... IE: God of Catholics, God of Mormons, God of evangelicals, God of Protestants, ECT....... So a Rewrite is probably (B)Best(\B) because the Cristian god is different for every Cristian religious Denomination. 216.180.189.229 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

God as three forms? <- Heresy

Note that the idea that God is like water having three different forms, one for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is actually a centuries old heresy defeated by Tertullian in the 2nd Century. Its best to just leave it as "three persons, one God", than give a belief that isn't actually held by anyone. Gabr-el 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That particular analogy may apply to Oneness Pentecostal doctrine. But, agreed -- that doesn't apply to mainstream Christians.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not care for heresy, or see any specifically on this article but, I too saw in particular the sentence "The Christian God is understood as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". I think that removing mention of the Trinity as some sort of heresy would be nonesense rubbish but, it is unfair to imply in summary, the lead is a summarisation of the topic thus the totality, that God the father is not presented as the sumpreme onely being all through the whole bible and that is, is it not (I will be going checking this now) monotheism? This one supreme being existence does not apply to Jesus or the Holy Ghost (well, the Holy Ghost could be anything really, I guess). I think what I am suggesting is clear... ? We do not need to say "The other two are not God" but they are not exactly are they? I think in bibles and stuff attention was often paid to this sort of thing. ~ R.T.G 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing Image

Re.Justification for removing the South American image: "..Latin American artists sometimes responded to uniqe American concerns in their Trinitarian images [native polytheism and animal deities]... This translated into images of the Trinity as three identical human figures...this representation of the Trinity did not comply, however, with church guidelines...Pope Benedict XIV again prohibited representations of the identical Trinity in 1778" (Art and architecture of viceregal Latin America, 1521-1821 By Kelly Donahue-Wallace). If the image is to remain, it must be clear that this painting represents an heretical subsection of Roman Catholicism, not in conformity with that Church, and of course has nothing to do with Protestantism or any other forms of Christianity. However, because it is heretical and so particular to a specific cultural situation, I don't see any reason to keep it in this article, especially in such a prominent place. It obfuscates the issue and lends nothing to the argument, except as a curiosity. Perhaps a new section, something like "Depictions of the Trinity in Art", could be added. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not confined to Latin American artists as evidenced by the example of the 15th century fresco found in the church of St Peter and St. Paul in Vercelli, Italy - see Trinity. And I think talking about heresy is not a very helpful approach, nor would I support the removal of the image purely on the grounds that it might give offence to some. There is room in this article to cover lots of interpretations/ visualisations of the trinity. There is no 'right' approach. But I agree we could make clear for example papal prohibitions on images (which seem to have been frequently ignored or at least not universally understood). And while the image may not be common in the post-18th century Roman Catholic Church, I understand it is a common image in the Ethiopian Coptic Church. That's already 3 separate cultures I've identified (so doesn't seem that specific to one culture?) Wikipedia has so few images, I think we should be a bit more careful about scrapping those we come across. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've just read something that has clarified this for me. "Benedict XIV on October 1st, 1745, issued a Bull, Sollicitudini Nostrae which set out in some detail what depictions were permitted of the Holy Trinity and the persons who composed it. For Benedict XIV, the key test for depicting the Trinity was Scripture. Therefore, in depicting the Holy Spirit, a dove (the baptism of Jesus) or tongues of fire (Pentecost) were the only applicable images. However he did go on to say that the image of the Trinity as three identical men (based on the three visitors appearing to Abraham) would be tolerated. What would not be allowed would be: the Holy Spirit as a human being; the Trinity as a man with three faces or double-headed with a dove in the middle." I suspect this settles it. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus the disputed image is from the sanctuary of the Blessed Trinity in Agnani just outside Rome. Not even Latin America! Contaldo80 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll correct the grammatical mistakes; I see how its inclusion can be helpful, in light of Benedict XIV's statements. However if the image had been specific to a particular group, it should be clearly referenced as such. Regarding it being a painting from Agnani, where's the source for that? I can't see that info, but if it's true it would be worth mentioning in the image caption. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

God as Father

An anon IP editor removed the "God as Father" section. In reviewing the section, I judged it to be worth keeping although it relies too heavily on primary sources and only cites one of its secondary sources (i.e. identifies secondary sources but doesn't provide references to them). I restored the text and put a {{refimprove section}} tag on the section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And I replaced it with cited text from God the Father. The main source of the old text seemed to be Floyd McClung, a pastor/missionary but not the sort of source we should be using in this article. And it didn't reflect the text at God the Father, which it should have done. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

God is believed by some Christians to be immanent

Apparently we need to add citations to the lede to clarify the phrase "God is believed by some Christians to be immanent...". I understand that the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ludwig Feuerbach among others has led to a different view of God than traditional orthodoxy, however I don't have any references. Would anyone offer an expansion of this liberal thought, ideally in the body of the article so we can remove the citation request from the lede, and avoid the argument over the term? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A different view of God by whom? You?

"Liberal thought" does not make it "Christian" thought. You seem to be thinking of deism, but most deists do not even call it Christianity. And even someone holds such views-- and still considered it Christianity-- does not make it Christianity in any meaningful way.

And this is all dependent you finding the citations for your theory and estaplishing it is not a fringe theory.

Needless to say-- even if this was all true, or at least WP:verifiability, it does not have WP:consensus. Until and unless it has consensus, stop reverting the text to what you want to verify or want to consensus for-- per WP:BRD.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)}

Thanks for the dialog. You are changing the consensus of the article. It has been in this state for over a year. Please offer proof that all Christians believe that God is immanent. I am at work and don't have any documentation that there are a few (but R.C. Sproull has a podcast where, on the topic of the immanence of God indicates that some do not believe in it). Let's leave it and allow someone with a source one way or another to comment. Otherwise it's just an edit war, and you're going against the consensus created even if I don't have a source. Tagging the phrase is the best way to go for now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I applogize for not reading you text closly. I gather you are dropping the issue of if some or all Christians believe there is a God. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ}

Not quite sure what you mean by dropping, but I disagree that some hold this view. Orthodox Christianity (or traditional if orthodox holds other meanings for you) holds the immanence of God as foundational. A small minority disagree but are orthodox in other ways. I don't know if that makes it more clear. Perhaps we could accurately reflect this idea and so as to offend the casual reader of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

English

Original Latin

Diagram

Didn't know this article existed until just now, but since the Trinity is discussed quite a bit, it may be helpful to include an image of the Shield of the Trinity diagram... AnonMoos (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)