Talk:God

FYI: reminder on avoiding edit warring

In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

Atheism

Why does this fall under Atheism in particular, the God of abrahamic religion is not the only major deity of organised religion. 109.76.75.73 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I feel this article is very one-sided and biased. It speaks about the Christian concept of God as if he is real and the others are fake. In fact, this should be an article with links to all the different Gods and discuss them in short. This article instead gives precedence of the Christian God simply because Christians have taken the TITLE God and gave it to their deity as its NAME. This is not the case. The Christian God's name is YHWH, Yehovah, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. Not God. 75.190.244.183 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, maybe reading the article, which discusses the Jewish, Islamic, Bahai, Hindu, Neopagan, and Zoroastrian conceptions of God, instead of reading y'all's perception about Christianity into it. Maimonides and Al-Ghazali, both discussed in the article as much as St. Augustine, were not Christians. Stephen Jay Gould, an agnostic, is mentioned for his views. There are slightly more Christian authors, simply because most of the English-language sources are statistically more likely to have been by Christians. Still, the article does actually discuss a variety of religions if you bother to read it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

God can't be pictured, the people who drow those images will go hell. 78.183.77.2 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

work

I need permission, do grant.

rgds

singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.97.223 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you need permission for? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Male and Female is part of Creation

According to Genesis, the Judeo-Christian God created male and female ("male and female he created them" Gen. 1:27c). Therefore God precedes, and is above, sex and gender. Our use of pronouns referring to God as "He" or "Father" has to do with the limits of human language and human understanding.--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

While I personally believe God is beyond gender, I have to point out that you are, once again, engaging in original research based on primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do we only have pictures of *male* Gods on the page? This is phallocentric in the extreme, and has more to do with the tyranny of the penis than with religion. We need a non-gender interpretation, or at least one which takes into account the vagina and the importance of sisterhood (earth mother etc). Once more, we seem to have Wikipedia as a men-only club, with the penis thrust into our faces once again and issues emanating from this and other articles borderline offensive to women. Why, for instance, should I be told what to do or not to do with my body by men? From the abortion debate to the depiction of God as a man, I feel more and more encroached upon by a violent and macho culture passed down from the early Christian church. I'm going to take a straw poll at my next support group and get a feel for what would be a non-offensive depiction of an almighty deity that is not an elderly male with a beard. Why not, for instance, an early African earth mother clay figure, or an etching of the Great She Wolf, or perhaps a more contemporary representation suggesting the channelling of deity rather than deity itself? For instance, a photograph of Mother Theresa or Germaine Greer. Everyone's God is different in a gender-neutral pluralistic universe, so why constantly fall back on Michaelangelo's interpretation. This whole thing makes me very angry indeed. I'm beginning to believe we need a separate Wikipedia for women in order to get some balance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.202.213 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not to blame for the sexism of traditional Christianity. We just report what is in the sources. This article is specifically about the Abrahamic god. You will find other gods at Deities.--Charles (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this article does detail the deity of Deism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism; and touches on how God is viewed in Hinduism as well. Abrahamic God is actually a different article.

The limitations of patriarchial cultures' languages would be the problem (Christianity got most of it's views of God from Judaism, and the mystic traditions in both acknowledge that God is ultimately beyond gender even if limited gendered language is traditional). The Early Church hardly forced a chauvinistic view of God, the Holy Spirit in both Greek and Hebrew had a feminine name. The Catholic Church's catechism clearly states "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God." Judeo-Christian mysticism's obsession with the Shekinah and Sophia shows a rather feminine side to the Abrahamic God. This Christian bashing not only goes against WP:NOTFORUM, but it goes against any studied understanding of historical Christian belief (sexists of either gender would have a sexist vision of God whether they called It Yahweh, Odin, Mithra, or Sol Invictus; that is the problem, not Christianity).

Also, could the IP please name a particular "early African earth mother," instead of projecting their wishes on an extremely broad number of cultures? Of the figures I know of to include in this article, Cagn, Ngai, Nyame, and Waaq aren't goddesses. As for the "Great She Wolf," I cannot find any evidence for any such historical deity, just a figure in a Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting specifically using the name "Great She Wolf," and some neopagans emphasizing wolf-ish aspects of often lower-ranking goddesses from cultures that had absolutely no communication with each other.

I would be quite open to including the feminine interpretations of the divine in this article, provided they were historical interpretations instead of stuff hippies made up because they didn't bother to do their homework.

Mother Theresa and Germaine Greer would be as inappropriate to include as Martin Luther King Jr or Carl Jung. There are no notable claims that any of those people is the Deity more than anyone posting here.

As for "more contemporary representation suggesting the channelling of deity," please read WP:No original research.

As for "Everyone's God is different in a gender-neutral pluralistic universe," Wikipedia articles are not for people to share their personal feelings on subjects, but to summarize sources on shared or notable conclusions that different people have. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Scope, Revisited

I feel it should be addressed that some people do use the term "God" in a rather benign and generic way. A person my call on God, or have some other indicator of God in speech, or thought, but may not understand who, or what, their God is. In no way would I suggest this become a place for any type of spiritual counseling, but I do believe that some kind of line needs to be drawn so that people have some kind of understanding of what and who God is - but possibly also what God is not. Feedback on this is appreciated, and I thank you in advance for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.105.70 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Who and/or what God is or isn't is the main reason why theistic religions are so diverse. The best we can do is give a general overview of what the majority of religions and philosophies can agree on (omnipotence, omniscience, etc), and major notable distinct views, but we cannot give definitive views without favoring one religion over another (which isn't fair), or detail different religions' conceptions of God (which we already do with articles like God in the Bahá'í Faith, God in Christianity, God in Hinduism, God in Judaism, etc, etc). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 November 2012

Please let me use a picture that mostly represents God (a Celestial Light), not a man in the sky. That is highly offensive to Christianity and all other faiths that know of God's nature; genderless and not human at all - Dizzzer

Einstein's beliefs

The additions of: 06:07, 15 November 2012‎ Dethranity indicating the beliefs of Einstein should be removed. The paragraph is, in essence, providing an extremely simplistic view of Einstein's beliefs that do not actually add to this article in any significant degree. The arguments for Einstein's faith are ambiguous at best - he is noted as refuting a 'personal god' which is precisely what this article is discussing. If Einstein's opinions are considered important enough to be in this article, it would make sense to link directly to Religious views of Albert Einstein which gives a greatly more comprehensive analysis. --Mdb23b (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the line about Einstein which was removed was inaccurate. But I disagree that Einstein's beliefs are "ambiguous at best" or that this page is only about a personal god. Einstein was an agnostic who believed in "Spinoza's God". Spinoza - arguably the most popular version of God among philosophers - was not mentioned in this article, so I have added a paragraph about Einstein and Spinoza. Allisgod (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A user undid my edit citing "no consensus on this issue", evidently because of my above disagreements? Note that the God article is NOT exclusively about a personal god. That's not a disagreement, it's just a fact. Also, Einstein's views are clearly laid out in Religious views of Albert Einstein and linked to the added paragraph, which is essentially a summary from that page. These were corrections, not disagreements. Allisgod (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The information is about Einstein's beliefs, and belongs in that article. It is not about the God of this article, and therefore does not belong here. Simple enough. See the top of the article, where it is stated:

This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general concept of a "god", see Deity. For God in the context of specific religions, see an index of pages beginning in "God in". For other uses, see God (disambiguation).

For discussion of the existence of God, see Existence of God

KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Einstein's views are appropriate for this article. He's a smart guy and all, but theology wasn't his field. And as far as I know, his views weren't peer reviewed or formally published, which is what we normally require for Wikipedia sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Adjwilley, I did mention in my edit summary when I removed that content that he was not a theologian and we don't include random opinions. Looks like we're in agreement here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Monotheism includes pantheism, which is the view of Spinoza, Einstein and many individuals who use the term God (capitalized nonetheless). This information belongs in the article. Also, there are many non theologians mentioned in the article. Einstein is not just a 'smart guy and all', he proposed the theory of relativity based out of his fundamental view of unity - which he called God. I believe deleting/limiting this kind of information on this page is not appropriate nor is it helpful. If you limit the page to the God of Abrahamic religions, that's one thing and it should be clearly stated, but this is a page about the God of monotheism/henotheism which includes this view. Allisgod (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

His expertise was physics, not theology or philosophy. His opinion is not appropriate for this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why is Steven Hawking's opinion included? There are also other names in the article who are not philosophers/theologians. Allisgod (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

He wrote an entire book about how God does not exist, and is an evangelical atheist. Please show me where Einstein wrote such a book or entered into such crusading. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of books about Einstein's religion and great interest in his views on the subject, which he wrote and spoke about extensively. It's laughable to suggest Hawking's opinion is more valuable to this article than Einstein. Hawking himself would disagree with you since he - like most physicists and astrophysicists - cite Einstein more often than any other scientist on the subject of God/religion. Allisgod (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way who decided that a major theoretical physicist's opinion on God is not an "expert opinion"? Society is even talking about the search for the "God particle" and you want to limit this article to what, PhDs in philosophy and theology? Then why are there psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, astrophysicists, other physicists, and even fiction authors and politicians within this article. I count well over a dozen names. Allisgod (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just getting argumentative. If you wish to examine the reason why any of those are in the article and they fail the Notable on This Subject test, then feel free to bring it up on the talk page. But how come other stuff is here is not a good argument for inclusion. And the "god particle" has absolutely nothing to do with any deity, real or imagined, that ever has or ever will exist. It's a nickname. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I just defeated your ridiculous point that only expert theologians or philosophers belong in the article. Try again. Allisgod (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not make that point, although I can understand your confusion given the brevity of my edit summary. One cannot make fine distinctions in an edit summary. Insofar as to who needs to "try again", why that would be you, as 1) Policy is against you per WP:NPOV, 2) Consensus is against the edit, and 3) the onus is on you to persuade and provide adequate sourcing for content you wish added. You will have to provide a source which adequately assures editors of this page that Einstein was a theologian; a religious activist; or was otherwise notable for his religious views; any other type of notability is insufficient to make his opinion any other than irrelevant in this particular article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, dozens of books, articles about Einstein's religious views. If your strict standards were applied to this entire article, then over a dozen names and their related opinions on God would need to be removed. What is your agenda here? Allisgod (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Woah, nobody's got an agenda. KillerChihuahua is correct. You are responsible for providing secondary reliable sources that support your edit, and for building consensus on the talk page. Accusing people of having an agenda is not going to build consensus, and I haven't seen any compelling arguments for why Einstein's views are notable in this context. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The entry I added, which you removed, was the following in the "Existence of God" section:

Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, whose religious views continue to be of interest to many, called himself an agnostic.[34] He rejected a personal God, but said he believed in Baruch Spinoza's version of God.[35] For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[36] Einstein said, "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."[37]

This entry is as much about Spinoza's version of God as it is about Einstein's support for Spinoza's God. Spinoza is regarded as one of history's greatest philosophers so his version of God is obviously notable and is not discussed in this article at all. I am not here to 'build consensus' as if this is a political campaign. I'm just trying to add some facts that are not in the article. Allisgod (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Spinoza's views are probably fine. Also, you may want to take a minute to read WP:Consensus if you haven't already. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed we might want to have a sentence on Spinozism; "Spinoza's god" has been shorthand for years. I also think Spinozism should be at Spinoza's god, per COMMOMNAME, but that article needs more help than I can give it KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you should read it yourself since you are so quick to remove well sourced material rather than discuss the addition. I suggest you read WP:OWN Allisgod (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind the sharp tongue on my part. I just found it abrasive the way my additions were undone. I will just stick with the issues. I want to point out that there are sources (including direct quotes from Einstein) which suggest that Einstein's particular view of God was a necessary understanding for him to get to the theory of relativity, arguably the most important theory in science today. His faith in Spinoza's God (a unified God) helped lead him to pursue a unified theory of everything. I think that's a pretty notable addition to the God article, especially for the pantheist perspective. But I didn't go into any of that, all I tried to add was his general support for Spinoza. Here's an even more watered down two sentence version that I'll propose after Stephen Hawking's view, which is more about Spinoza than it is about Einstein but remains a natural segue:

Physicist Albert Einstein rejected a personal God, but said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[36] For philosopher Baruch Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[37] Allisgod (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Having a source is required for content, it is not a guarantee a particular snippet will get into an article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks, but nobody suggested otherwise. Allisgod (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am addressing your assertion, two posts up, " I want to point out that there are sources" which is basically the only argument you offer in that post, to which I was directly replying, for inclusion of Einstein's beliefs on this article. My point is that you must make a better case than "I want to point out that there are sources" and your twice-repeated "there are dozens of books, articles..." in order to persuade. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Allisgod, It's not that I have anything against Einstein (I am a physicist after all) but would it be possible for you to phrase a sentence or two about Spinoza's god, leaving Einstein out of the picture? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A few points. One, one of the best recent reference works relating to religion in general, the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion has a substantive article on "Albert Einstein and religion," which indicates to me that Einstein's views on science and religion are among the more important subjects regarding the relationship between science and religion; Having said that, there is a difference between "god" and "religion". Ask any Jain or Buddhist, who in general have what is called a "religion" but do not necessarily believe in a "God". On that basis, I tend to think that while Einstein's views are probably extremely important to Science and religion (which I think is probably what that article should be called here), I am far less convinced that his views are necessarily specifically relevant to this article. I might say the same about Hawking as well. I did read that book, some time ago, and remember that the philosophical arguments made in it have been regarded as being, well, weak, by those in the philosophy field. I do not remember however whether he was addressing "religion" in a general sense or the existence of "God" more specifically, and would be very appreciative if someone who did know that would indicate as much. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, since Einstein's beliefs may be summarized as "Hey, I like Spinoza's view of God," if we're going to discuss Einstein's view at all, shouldn't we just discuss Spinoza's view instead of namedropping to only indirectly discuss the actual belief? It's not really any different from going on and on about Niels Bohr to indirectly discuss the philosophy and theology of Søren Kierkegaard. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can include a line or two about Spinoza. Glad to hear John acknowledge the notability of Einstein on "science and religion", and agree that it makes no sense that Einstein's religious position on God, whose God is specifically Spinoza the philosopher's God, should be left out of the God article while Hawking (and a bunch of others) are in the article. The standards here are arbitrary if that is the case so on that point maybe we should first establish standards of being included in this article since there are many entries which should be removed if Einstein has no place here. Einstein's relationship with the word God is actually well developed and you are correct, Hawking's view gets very little attention from philosophers. Just consider this statements from Einstein:

"religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints."

Also consider how many entire books are written about Einstein's ideas about God. Most of these are scholars and this is just from a 5 minute search:

• Albert Einstein's quest as a scientist and as a Jew to replace a forsaken God; Jason Aronson, 1997
• God's Equation: Einstein, Relativity, and the Expanding Universe; Amir D. Aczel - 1999
• E=mc2 the God in Einstein and Zen: A Skeptic's Search for the Meaning of Life and Personal Redemption
• God in the Equation: How Einstein Transformed Religion; Corey Powell - Free Press 2003
• Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology; Max Jammer - 2002
• Putting God Into Einstein's Equations; Jerry And Marcia Pollock - 2012
• Knowledge of God: Calvin, Einstein, and Polanyi; Iain Paul - 1987
• Einstein's God: Conversations About Science and the Human Spirit; Krista Tippett - 2010
• The Experiment at Philadelphia: Did Einstein Discover God?; Kurt B. Bakley - 2010
• God in the equation: how Einstein became the prophet of the new religious era; Corey S. Powell, Free Press, Aug 21, 2002
• Subtle is the Lord: The science and the life of Albert Einstein; A Pais - 2005
• The language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief; FS Collins - 2006

So what are the standards for inclusion in the article? Let's specifically consider Stephen Hawking's vs. Albert Einstein's inclusion/exclusion. Allisgod (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would we do that? Consensus is clear; a brief bit of Spinoza is ok, Einstein is not. This is bordering on WP:IDHT now. What we should be discussing now is what verbiage to use for Spinoza's view, and what sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to read WP:OWN a few times. You are not the moderator here, you are a participant like all of us. 2 of us have agreed that Stephen Hawking's inclusion with Einstein's exclusion makes little sense. There is no consensus on this issue. You are one person and your disagreement with this position has been noted. This issue is only a few days old. Relax. Allisgod (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am quite relaxed, thank you. Your patronizing instructions for me to read a policy I have helped write is noted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Practice what you preach. I'll take note of being patronizing and hope you will take note of being condescending. Nevertheless, I'm sure you are a better volunteer to Wikipedia than I am and glad you are here despite some disagreements. Allisgod (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I am or not, but I *do* know that your unfortunate habit of citing "own" to people when they disagree with you (twice so far on this page alone in this past week, to two different editors) will not encourage other editors' genuine attempts to try to work with you. You have shown yourself to be sarcastic, patronizing, and insulting, quick to assume (and that one's linked to ABF, not AGF, in case you're ignoring my links) ill of others. You cite policy to people who have been here considerably longer than you and you do with phrasing that makes it appear you are using policy as a weapon, not reminding others or citing policy as rationale for your position. You must know you aren't instructing anyone here except the ill-mannered IP. And here, you're showing a 'tit-for-tat" approach. I say "don't be patronizing" and you don't address that assertion at all; you toss it right back like "Oh yeah! Then what are YOU" like a childish argument at grammar school. I'm not name calling, whatever you may think; I'm trying to help you here, but you seem resistant to any and all guidance and advice or feedback. You may feel this is not a popularity contest, and indeed it is not, but one must at least be civil to a minimal degree, and one must work with others. I advise you to examine how your own words appear to others. You may not realize how nasty and snotty you sound; you know your inner thoughts but all we see are the bare words. I think you could be an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia; but I think you need to adjust how you deal with other editors first. One puppy's opinion. And now I suggest if you have anything else bitchy to say to me you bring it to my talk; this is becoming article talk page misuse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of God / Gender

I notice dissent about the male pictures of God. I looked back and noticed in mid March someone added the Michelangelo God picture and placed it on the very top of the article without any explanation or debate. This picture suggests a specific interpretation of God. The problem with this is that the very first sentence of the article mentions pantheism as one definition of God, which would obviously not be fairly represented by Michelangelo's male anthropomorphic God. The art picture is beautiful and I am not opposed to it being in the article, but the neutral God box is what should be on top of the article since the word God - even within monotheism/henotheism - is not at all fairly represented by the picture. I would hope editors be careful about allowing someone to put a contentious image on top of the article in the future. I have put the God box back on top and moved down the Michelangelo image to the section regarding Gender (I think it would also be appropriate to place it in the section about anthropomorphism if someone things that's a better fit). Allisgod (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tried desperately to both highlight and discuss this point, but have been quite frankly bullied out of the debate by two men, Ian Thomson and Charlesdrakew who have targeted me and censored my contributions. It's not as if I have tried to change the main article. These two men not only clearly think the Michelangelo depiction of God you speak of is the right one, but that they - as men - have between set up by God to decide in this instance who can and cannot make a contribution to the Talk element of this page. Because I am a woman, and have made comments alluding to the possible gender of God, they have labelled me "sexist" even though their very patronising and heavy handed ganging up on me is by itslef a working definition of sexism. I am not going to let this matter rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple suggestions: Register with Wikipedia so you can sign your name on posts. It gives you a more credible voice here. Also, better to stick with the issues than to get into personalities because arguments and edit wars do not get anybody anywhere. I am a man and agree the God picture is inappropriate to be the lead picture for this article. Allisgod (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture was put up without discussion in March and even without an edit summary, which is inappropriate. Now suddenly users want a discussion to preserve the "status quo", despite recent objections to the picture. Well, here are the problems with the picture being the lead: 1) The lead picture shows a representation of the Catholic version of God. 2) The lead picture shows a male God 3) The lead picture is an anthropomorphic or personal version of God 4) There was no lead picture in prior years 5) The God box (on the Wikipedia God page of all pages) is being demoted below a highly biased male Christian personal God picture. What's going on here? Allisgod (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

86.159.180.31, for the hundredth time, this has nothing to do with you being a woman! Actually read my posts instead of assuming that I'm only disagreeing because I have a penis! YOU are the only sexist here! Your posts were removed because they did nothing but make sexist attacks on other editors and had nothing to do with article improvement! You also did not make the same argument that Allisgod originally made about the pics, you started off by calling everyone a sexist opperating the sexist and idiotic assumption that if you're a woman, everyone else must be evil. That was sexism on your part, not others. I pointed out that the Christian bashing was wildly innacurate, and that Judeo-Christian mysticism had more feminine theology than the new age claims you were making, and you have the gall to call me sexist and continue to insist that Christianity is sexist? Drop the bullshit, grow the fuck up, and examine your own words and actions, you genital-obsessed bigot.

As for the move of the picture, when a reasonable explanation was provided, notice that Charlesdrakew and I made no objections! "This represents a specific sectarian view of God" is a perfectly acceptable reason. "I'm a (whatever gender, doesn't matter), so everyone else must be stupid and evil" is something only a bigot looking for a fight would say. Notice also that Allisgod did not suggest including pics of figures that he cannot demonstrate were historically worshiped! Quit trying to use a persecution complex to get your way. Argue actual issues, present reasons, and you'll be treated like an adult. This has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with you acting like a spoiled child. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Drop the bullshit, grow the fuck up, and examine your own words and actions, you genital-obsessed bigot." This is how you actually communicate on a public page that will be read by many people, including children? And you tell other people to grow up? You set yourself up as a self-styled editor and moderator here, and you use language like that? And MY opinions get deleted because you disagree with them, but your foul and offensive language is allowed to remain simply because YOU say so? Perhaps, to simplify things, we should just have a picture of YOU on the article as God? I'm not sure what your underlying issue is, but I can assure you that this is one "little lady" you won't be pushing around. My voice *will* be heard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.159.180.31 (talk • contribs)

My underlying issue is that you keep telling baldfaced lies about what I've said, despite the damn obvious evidence to the contrary. Nowhere have I claimed to be a moderator. If I removed stuff just because I disagreed with it, I'd've removed far more, but I did not. I did not ever suggest that my word was divine, simply pointed out that your word was mortal. I did not make this about gender, you did, and you are the one continuing to make it about gender. I suppose there's no point in arguing with a blind psycho like you. I hope you get the help you need. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not have strong views about whether that image goes at the top or lower down but as God has historically been portrayed as male for thousands of years it is perfectly reasonable to have it there. 20th/21st century modifications to the nature of God are a minor part of the overall article and should not be given undue weight. That would be WP:Recentism. The behaviour of the IP is however totally unacceptable and is likely to end in blocking if it continues. The IP must learn to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks on other editors.--Charles (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• You both (Ian and IP) need to dial it back a little, IMO. The answer to the question regarding why the image is of a man is answered at least as far back as 2009, had you bothered to read the archives. The answer is that this is the God article and not the Goddess article. See Talk:God/Archive_21#Goddess Now, it is certainly true that the English word for Goddess is a derivative of the word for God, and that's a crying shame, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Wikipedia reports what is, as it is covered in reliable sources, not what should be, and we cover it according to the weight it is given in the real world. It is plain to anyone not a complete imbecile that this is a man's world, and has been for all of recorded history, with a very few pockets like Hawaii before the Europeans came and screwed them up. Sorry, but that's how it is. Not how it should be, maybe, but as I said, we don't write how it should be. See WP:NPOV. Now, that's the answer, and I hope we're now done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Michelangelo Sistine Chapel Picture of God: On Top or Further Down in Article

Let's get back to the issue please:

1. The picture was put up without discussion in March and even without an edit summary, which is inappropriate.
2. The lead picture shows a representation of the Catholic version of God. [not pantheism, not Islam, etc.]
3. The lead picture shows a male God
4. The lead picture is an anthropomorphic or personal version of God
5. There was no lead picture in prior years
6. The God box (on the Wikipedia God page) has been demoted below a male Christian personal God picture.

I propose putting the God box back on top, with the picture in the Anthropomorphic or Gender section. I think this is a reasonable request. Allisgod (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, There was no lead picture? Yes, there has been, This argument is an old one, and generally eventually goes back to some version of the Sistine chapel image. A quick perusal of the talk page history will show that. A few examples:

• Mar 2005 Images; God's face? Talk:God/Archive_8#the_image
• June 2006 God is not an old white man with a penisTalk:God/Archive_10#I_have_reversed_the_images.21.21
• Jan 2007 God is not white Talk:God/Archive_16#God_cannot_be_illustrated
• Jan 2007: Can we remove the Michaelangelo image and have a symbolic sun image?Talk:God/Archive_15#Photo_.40_top
• July 2007: Image of Michaelangelo complaint.[[Talk:God/Archive_20#Just_a_question]

That's not to disagree with any of your other points, but There was no image is demonstrably erroneous. Not that it matters much; Consensus can change after all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that point. I didn't look back that far. Allisgod (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't either. I simply used the handy search box. I thought, Image must have been discussed before, so I typed in "Image" hit search, and scrolled through and read the ones that seemed relevant. I find if I do that on article talk pages which have a Search archives function, I don't waste people's time so much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Points addressed one by one:

1. The image has been used on and off since before 2005 when editors were arguing about it on this talk page, so it was a restoring of an image, not simply adding an image. I agree the image has been controversial.
2. The image shows Michelangelo's depiction of God, which is arguably Catholic, Christian, or Judeo-Christian. It is unarguably a work of art.
3. Agreed, the image is male. This is the God article not the Goddess article.
4. Lead image is indeed anthropomorphic. Whether it is personal depends on your interpretation of the term "personal God" and whether you feel it applies here. I suggest ditching that debate as non-constructive.
5. Already shown to be false, for over 7 years.
6. Agreed.

I see merit in the argument that the image is a narrow representation, originally intended to represent the Christian God, who was understood to be also the Jewish God. One cannot call it the "Catholic God" because at the time there was no other Christian sect. The question is, is this the God who is primarily spoken of in this article? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"[I]s this the God who is primarily spoken of in this article?" is not exactly the question I would ask. Although I think the answer to that would actually be inconclusive since, for example, Islam would find this picture offensive. But I think in this case, a monotheistic (or henotheistic) God is an abstract concept that is pictured (and not pictured) in dramatically different ways. So having the lead be a picture of one group's vision suggests that the page is about something more specific than it actually is. I think it's like a page on Political Parties putting the Democratic party symbol as the lead image because it is the majority party. That's not the way it ought to work here. Allisgod (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You are in error. We do not give equal weight, we give due weight, per NPOV, a core policy. You will not be able to change that core policy from this article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say give equal weight. You're making a straw man argument. Allisgod (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If my reply did not address your post, then I misunderstood what you were saying. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you don't understand. Your earlier statement, for example, that this is a God and not a Goddess page suggests you lack an understanding of an abstract version of God that does not fulfill your anthropomorphic bias toward the word. If this page is about the Christian God, then the picture makes sense. That picture as a representation of God offends Muslims, pantheists, and other monotheistic individuals and groups. It does not belong on top of a page with such a broad subject matter. Lets wait for other opinions. Allisgod (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You haven't the faintest idea what I believe or don't, and I'll thank you to cease your snide and inaccurate guesses. Both your beliefs and mine are completely irrelevant to this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and I apologize for getting snippy. I'm rephrasing the topic to get us back on track Allisgod (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've changed it right back, per WP:REDACT; don't change your own comments if someone has already replied to them. Strike out and add text underlined or a different color if you must, but do not simply change with no indication left it was ever different. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Offensive to Muslims

I'm giving Allisgod's argument that the image might be found offensive to Muslims its own section. We rarely have the subject come up, however, we've had arguments about images of Muhammad on Wikipedia for years. It seemed settled in 2008. In 2009, it was brought up on the Village Pump again. This past year, it has gone up to ArbCom, who topic banned a couple of editors and ordered an Rfc. The links go to the specific discussions, not the general pages. The consensus is that as Wikipedia is not censored, we do not worry overmuch about people who are offended by images of Muhammed, except that we offer a method for them to hide images if they don't want to see them. The same logic applies to images of God, or images of the human form, of Angels, of any sentient life, which is also prohibited by Islam. Human has images of people, for example, as do almost all biographies. You will be unable to gain traction for not having an image with the argument that it offends someone for a religious reason. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia; we ignore Islamic prohibitions on images. And finally, the image, as has been noted by Allisgod his/herself, is in a Catholic church, and is meant to be a representation of the Christian view of the Abrahamic God. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're making yet another straw man argument. The image being in the article is not at issue. Having a picture of God in itself being offensive to Muslims is not the issue. Having a Christian God as a lead picture of the article IS the issue. Allisgod (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you should stop using it as an argument. You said specifically "That picture as a representation of God offends Muslims" [1] and this is a direct response to your concern. I fail to see how replying directly to what you said is in any way a "straw man argument" but I suppose you might use the term "straw man" differently than I have ever heard. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)