Talk:The nature of God in Western theology
God is stupid"
Really! This section is absurd and can be summed up as: God is all-powerful by definition and because God is powerless not to be all-powerful, God is therefore not all-powerful. Come on people please, it's just a paradox.
The article as it stands is Ok, but it isn't really a discussion of God in Western theology. Rather, it is a discussion of the popular anthropomorphic views of God held by most Christians and Jews, which happens to be western. I think it would be profitable to combine this with the format and content of the entry on "The nature of God". That entry describes specific views of God, most of which are actually held by adherents of multiple faiths, such as neo-Aristotelian views of God, Kabbalistic views of God, process theology, etc. After a number of such views are described, an analysis of each can be attempted. RK
Yes to your suggestion. No comment on the comment before your suggestion. --LMS
- I would have to agree with RK's "comment before his suggestion". I would also add that Christianity is not an exclusively Western religion; the second largest body of Christians in the world is Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and Islam certainly is not. I'm sure a case could be made for Judaism also having significant "non-Western" elements. Therefore any description of "Western theology" cannot claim to describe the entirety of *any* of the three religions addressed in the article, and should not pretend that it does. Wesley
I thought that the article was rather unencyclopedic as it stood, so I removed extensive sections under the Mysticism and Anthropomorphism section that digressed into personal discussions and reflections upon the semi-relevant subjects. The author offered some poor insights and too many opinions to assure the status of the entry as neutral, accurate, and informative. I hope it is an improvement. --12/11/05
moved from article:
Note: begin wikification here. Warning! The following has not yet been wikified, and therefore has not yet been rendered from the neutral point of view! (It is part of a college lecture; see User:Larrys Text.) --User:LMS
I think the above notice is important to restore, until the article can be rewritten from a neutral point of view, and in the third person. I'm therefore going to restore it. The alternative would be to move the bulk of the article to this discussion page until it can be reworked; that is the normal policy for people who contribute essays to wikipedia. Wesley 22:44 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
- I agree, and I have re-restored the notification.--C++12 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Minor Edit I was thinking of changing...
the nature of god also comes into the problem of evil this is because if god is good then why did he make evil? unless he is not the "all loving god" as we all see him but if he did not make it then why dosnt he stop it that leaves us with two paths 1 he is not all loving or he is not all powerful if he cannot stop evil
The nature of God also comes into the problem of evil. This is because, if God is good...then why did he make evil? That is unless, he is not the "all loving God", as he is suppose to be. If God did not make evil, then why dosen't he stop it? Which leaves us with 1. He is not all loving. or 2. He is not all powerful and cannot stop evil.
-§-RuMoR 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is better, but it is still a personal voice, or otherwise inappropriate. I wil suggest a new version shortly for us to consider--C++12 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Private language argument
An article called Private language argument was created on 6 October 2005 and it is now linked to from The nature of God in Western theology. The content that was added to Wikipedia was copied from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --JWSchmidt 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The question of evil coexisting with an all-powerful and all-loving God was addressed by Augustine in his treatise "On Free Choice and the Will". Augustine provides the insight that God endowed us with free will and the opportunity to choose to love God, this necessitates the possibility that people will freely choose not to, whence evil comes. It is a privation, a mis-use, of the intended good for which free will was given. God does not create evil, but permits it, as the consequence of our free will. There is an entire wikipedia article on "the problem of evil", which might be referenced or excerpted should the subject be deemed relevant to this article.
Also, two other thoughts on the article as it presently exists, for the sake of its fullness. Regarding the excerpt from the RLDS, God entered into the covenant freely, and like any agreement, treaty, commitment, or covenant, one is bound by its precepts. Being so bound restricts what one may *choose* to do while remaining faithful to the covenant; it does not restrict what one is actually *able* to do. So such an argument is irrelevant to the omnipotence of God.
And truthfully, when I began reading the article, I was looking more for a "more-or-less" strictly philosophical approach, such as the development of the understanding of "god" through Plato, Aristotle, etc. Of course there would be Christian philosophers as part of the discussion, but the article morphed into a question of God's attributes as purported by Abrahamic traditions, and not by discursive reason.
The tone of this article seems to be very personal, and the background section doesn't disclaim its source. It's difficult to read, actually, lacking punctuation etc. I am going to remove it temporarily, since it is present in this discussion thread.--C++12 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is written in the style of a personal essay and is quite bias. It looks like it needs a significant re-write
I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)