Talk:God in Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Theology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Latter Day Saints (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Criticism section[edit]

surely someone somewhere has been critical of the god concept this article should have a criticism section squiglesquiglesquiglesquigle (damn keyboard doesn't have squigle-key) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.190.169 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Trinitarianism, The Holy Spirit[edit]

My main comment relates to describing the Holy Spirit as "it" and "which" instead of "He", "Him" and "Who". The Holy Spirit is a person in every way that defines a person. He has a will, He has emotions and He has a mind! He works and acts on behalf of the Christian believer to enable the believer to grow and develop in their relationship with God. He is a person the same way God the Father is a person and Jesus, God the Son, is a person. He communicates with us through our spirit and our conscience and He responds to us when we pray or seek God's guidance. So please correct the text and replace the "it" and "which" references to the Holy Spirit with "He", "Him" and "Who." Joy from Trinidad and Tobago. March 15, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.191.66 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken Jpacobb (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Tertullian[edit]

There was an issue with Tertullian's "contribution" and I think the 2ndary sources do suggest that he formalized ideas that were floating around in the early Church, but he was more than just a reporter or bystander, and did have a hand in the formation of the concept. By the way, I have not been watching this page, and will not watch any more, was just passing through to see what happened. You guys take care... History2007 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Keeping an unbiased/neutral tone in this article[edit]

Considering the neutral point of view (one of the three core content policies) of Wikipedia, I think you should reformulate the last part of the first paragraph. I'm talking about "while compromising on the rather pagan concepts of God as human". This doesn't sound neutral at all. It sounds like someone is judging the Christian approach of God by saying it compromises on the rather pagan concepts.

Please do not ignore this.

Yes I agree, see below, but it would be best if you would "sign" your comments. tahc chat 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting and not explaining[edit]

I reverted an unexplained change to God in Christianity. I also fixed a poorly added citation needed tag. I explained why I reverted. You simply reverted my changes and removed a maintenance tag, without supplying a reference. It should have a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Next time please discus on the page in question. As I said,
{cn} is the real issue here... but even if this was found I don't see how this is useful information. If you find a cite for this please move it to the section "The Son" of the article or better yet, just move it to Incarnation_(Christianity)
This so-called fact does really need citation as a fact. That the identity of who "they" are is useful has yet to be seen, but first we need citations.
To state "restore material but change CN tag to who tag" is not to have "explained why I reverted".
I however did explain why I removed the text of fact itself. That the incarnation, as a concept, is considered by some to have pagan origins is just not important to the topic of the article-- even when and if it is cited. The article is about God in Christianity... a God with many traits... and the incarnation is an important one, but just one trait. Theories as to "why" any or every trait is considered a trait are too far from the topic of God in Christianity. Even if many editors came forward claim it "whys" were needed in the article, it would not belong in the lead section.
Reasons for the incarnation of the more scriptural, theological, and historical sort would be needed first, and if the idea that it was of pagan origin could be cited with mainstream RS, then we could include it in that context... but in the body of the article, not the lead.
Lastly I am rather confused why you approved removal of "{cn}" with this edit, but then wrote as quoted above "It should have a reference." tahc chat 06:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This is uncited, and as it stands it should be removed. I can see how it might get a citation, but I don't think the statement belongs in the lead. I's a rather fringe view. The supposed pagan origins of the concept of the incarnation isn't even mentioned at Incarnation (Christianity). StAnselm (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Nor is it mentioned at Origins of Christianity, Christianity and Paganism, or Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. And, of course, it isn't mentioned in the body of this article, which means it shouldn't be in the lead anyway. I see the initial reference to paganism was added by an IP editor in August. It was sourced to unreliable sources. Those references were removed with this edit. And what we are left with is original research and/or personal opinion. StAnselm (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)