Template talk:God

YES!!!

Much needed template... hopefully this will also lead to some increased consistency between the God-related articles. In any case, great work! --Merzul 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

General articles...

Where would the following more general articles fit?

• Existence of God
• Conceptions of God
• Names of God

I think they are quite important and sub-articles of the God article. --Merzul 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Big template

The template is getting big, which is a problem if it is to be appended to religion-specific articles, which commonly feature images, templates etc aplenty, and which can do without an additional template, especially such a big one.

One option would be to change it from Vertical to horizontal, so that it lies at the foot of the page. Thought? Sfacets 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundant

Much of this is redundant with other templates, such as {{Belief systems}}. It also has a large footprint, and leads to problems with placement of images on the page to avoid large blocks of whitespace. We should trim several of the links from this template, or make it a horizontal template for the bottom of the page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-03 18:06Z

While I liked the template in the beginning, and it is nice on some pages like God, the whole navigation template stuff is starting to get worse than Google AdSense. I will look at the articles were this is used and see, if this can't be trimmed down to focus on the actual subarticles of the God article, and then split out the conceptions of god into a template of its own, perhaps? --Merzul 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of a terrible template...

... don't you think? The Christian-centrism and presumptiveness is appalling, and most of the topics are non-essential (Alaha? God the Sustainer? Holy Spirit? Lord?) or irrelevant (Esotericism? Hermeticism? Philosophy? Chaos?). Many of the links are broken, and random inconsistent interjections of Chinese help cross the line from obscurity to opaqueness. Seriously, you take the time to include Monad and Baal, but don't even have a link to Deity or Goddess? Plus it's ugly. -Silence 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that God needed a template

I wouldn't have thought that God needed a template but now that I think about it, it seems logical, I would also like to point out that there are a lot more things on the template than I thought there would be. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Which articles should have this template?

Can this template go on any article related to God, or only on articles which are listed on the template itself? Not a dog 03:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the article A Course in Miracles an appropriate article for the template? To reiterate the above question, what is the purpose of the template and which articles should it be in? What function does it serve?—Who123 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Typically, articles include templates in which they are mentioned. hmwithtalk 15:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So that would rule ACIM out. Thanks. Not a dog 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why ask the question above and then answer it yourself now??? I can not find the WP policy on this. Would you mind pointing it out? Thanks.—Who123 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax. I didn't answer it myself. hmwith answered it, and I applied that answer to the case (ACIM) that you brought up here. What's the problem? Not a dog 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am relaxed. I missed that one comment was by hmwith. I would still like to see the WP policy on this and similar templates. Have a great day!—Who123 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's less policy and more standard practice, I believe. hmwithtalk 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Template bias towards monotheism - rename ?

The template is "God" - given we have documentary evidence that man has invented many "Gods" over the years is kind of a bias to only say "God" as if that was either one god or one conceptual archetype of what was god. I suggest that it is renamed to "Deities" Ttiotsw 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A template for polytheistic gods would be called Template:Gods. "God" suggests monotheism. hmwith 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Err ? Yes, that's the point - we have evidence that humanity has invented lots of gods over time thus the only verifiable word to represent this should be "Gods" (or rather Deities as it has a nicer ring). Ttiotsw 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it should say "part of a series of gods" or "part of a series of deities", rather than "part of a series of God". hmwith 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Before changing it, I would like to know if anyone believes the title should be "God" instead of "Gods," and any arguments for a singular title. --Ned Pierce 12:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be no objective to changing it, Ned. Perhaps "Deities" is more appropriate because I sense that many people of faith would take objection to there being more than one God. Jasonid 05:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is YH-H ?

And Elohim ? and God in Judaism ? etc. - Inyan

Been asking that same question for about 2000 years and still no answer ! See Mythology and Legend. Ttiotsw 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Attention

This template is so great that it must be fully protected!--Angel David 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

New Thought ?

Would it be possible to add New Thought (Unity, Religious Science,Divine Science) to the Template. How does one go about this I'm new to this. Also just for the record "New Age" is not New Thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.250.164 (talk) 04:56, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Enlightenment

It is about time this template had an Image. It is requested not to take it away.--Angel David 21:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that it be removed, for a variety of reasons, mainly that there is no universal shared image of what God is or of how he ought to be represented. The earlier attempts to provide an image for God here were strangely Judeo-Christian-centric; that's odd considering that their God forbids them to create images of him, don't you think? :-) The image here seems to lean towards a "sky God" orientation, which contradicts the images of beliefs that think of God as an earth God/Goddess, or as a being without regard to any particular space, up or down, air, sea or land. I have to agree with the contributor who asked why we need an image of God, especially since he is supposed to transcend imagery and even forbids his devotees (in some systems) from creating an image of him. Craig zimmerman 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I love the Power of the image of light. I study New Thought (Unity, Religious Science).It is all about God within but I just love the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.147.185 (talk) 20:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that God is a source of light. The title "light bearer" is actually associated with Lucifer, who was opposed to God. It is invalid to assume that all people who believe in the existence of God share the positive light-offering image of him. The point is still that there is no single universally valid representation of God that all people would concur with. In fact, it is the very fact that each group has a different image of him (even those groups that are told NOT to have images of him!), and that these groups argue endlessly about the differences between those images to the point of violence, which is the source of the most heinous evils in our world. (And the people who say "let's all try to have one image of him" cause even more of this kind of damage in the end.) I still say no image, please. Craig zimmerman 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I love the image I do not belive in the literal, let's lighten up (no pun intended). I believe all evil, is the absence of God (light). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.67.165 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New Thought

I added New Thought very specific belief system. I hope i changed in in the correct manner. Love the image--JGG59,25 August 2007

template image

i want the following to be added instead of some clouds, hehe:

very funny, I thought the sky image was a great representation not of God Himself but it is instinctual of human beings to aim toward the sky for God, no one looks for God underground so I don't see why it doesn't fit as an image (again not of direct representation) anyway thats my opinion Habibko 03:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Monolatry

Should Monolatry be included in the list of 'general approaches'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Several things wrong with this template

This template shows a serious bias towards the Christian view of God, being one single God (the title of the template) as well as the idea of heavens and holy light (the propagandized image), which have nothing to do with God. I think this needs to be changed to a more neutral title and image, reflecting a balance between the different topics covered by the template. Jasonid 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the template may be better off with no image. As for "single", like the God article, it is intended to be about monotheistic God, see the disambiguation notice there. Other notions can be addressed in other templates, such as {{Middle Eastern deities}}. Maybe this should be the template on "theism", not the template of "God", and God linked not as the template's title, but as a topic in theism. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, many other generic templates such as {{Template:Discrimination}}, {{Template:Freedom}}, {{Template:Ethics}} have no picture, these one shouldn't have one since its topic has plenty of different descriptions.--Andersmusician VOTE 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image, since it's inappropriate for at least half the entries listed.

It seems to me this template lacks focus. Ahura Mazda, OK. Holy Trinity, yes. Allah, Demiurge, God in Sikhism, Jah, Tetragrammaton, Supreme Being, Alpha and Omega, the Absolute. etc., etc. Good. But Amaterasu Omikami and Susanoo? (With Susanoo even placed out of alpha order in order to shoehorn him in some way that made sense.) Kami in general? (More like nature spirits than Gods.) Nüwa? Devas, but not Brahma? SUMMUM, a truly fringe notion?

These are not ideas in the same category. Specific gods of polytheistic religions are not conceptually similar to the transcendent divinities of monotheist, or even dualist religions. Most of the time in polytheistic religions, even the supreme god doesn't take on any of the characteristics of the transcendent deity even if (like Zeus) he might be occasionally called "God".

The idea of a transcendent, universal God, variously conceived and approached, needs to be treated as its own subject. Individual deities and culture heroes of polytheistic and pantheistic religions don't fit in, worthy as they might be of coverage. Perhaps there's some other class for which a template can be made that applies to them. But this isn't it, unless we're willing to extend it indefinitely. There needs to be some kind of bound set on what this template is about, and there doesn't seem to be one just now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the picture. Some time people have just got to loosen up and relax.66.108.111.91 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the template is unfocussed. The "specific conceptions" part is mostly just clutter. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

New Image

Since my old image was removed I added a new one, a better one, a fair one, a non-disputable one. Isn't it great? Or is it?--Angel David 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

well, I suppose "God" just doesn't lend himself well to images (aniconism and stuff). Your image is great for "religion" but somehow doesn't quite do the job here... Let me say that I liked the clouds though. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone provide an Image to this template. It's in bad need of an image.--Angel David 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An image probably won't be possible because it would be inherently POV as to whose god Wikipedia is supporting. Best to leave it without an image. T Rex | talk 03:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

the current "creation of Adam" image isn't terrible, but I really see no reason at all why this template should be "in bad need of an image" (why? images need to fulfill some function, wikipedia isn't flickr.com) dab (𒁳) 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also not a question of supporting one god or another; it's applicability to the subject. None of the images so far relate to the infobox as characterized by the links it contains. If the clouds were, as I said, inappropriate for "at least half" of them, then the Sistine Chapel pertains to even fewer than that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)