Talk:God/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Most COMMONLY refers to?

In the intro it is stated (implied rather than directly) the God ONLY refers to CALLUM a supreme being and a halo 2 god in a Monotheistic religion. As this is not at all true (Gods in Roman, Egyptian and Greek theology to name a few) perhaps it should simply say "God most commonly refers to" rather than "God refers to". Perhaps also an addition explaining the existance of the plural should be put.

This is a very simple revision and would make a lot more sense generally. Even if there are other articles relating to multiple Gods, it is not very clear as this is not included in the most important part of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankmoon (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Slightly addressed this concern by making the disambiguation text bigger and more focused on this particular issue. I'm not sure this will entirely satisfy your concerns, in which case you could suggest a way of doing this, because it isn't really a very easy edit to address this concern in a balanced way. After all, the term "God" is, at least where I live, more associated with the monotheistic concept. --Merzul 12:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Simplified to the Point of Error

This passage seems much too simplistic to me:

Theologians have ascribed certain attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. He has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, a source of moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent.[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars, including St Augustine,[3] Al-Ghazali,[4] and Maimonides.[3]

I appriciate that it was summarized out of a survey text, and so it is bound to be rather condensed, but in my opinion it is condensed to the point of being in error. For instance, the phrase:

These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars, including St Augustine,[3] Al-Ghazali,[4] and Maimonides.[3]

Seems to imply that all of these theologians supported the attribution to God of the qualities listed, in verying degrees. However, Maimonides for instance rejected entirely that one can attribute any quality to God accurately, stating that when one attributes a quality to God, such as oneness, one is not assigning to God the attribute of oneness, but is instead only using a figure of speech which represents a negation of other attributes, oneness in this case negating the idea that god has multiplicity as an attribute or is in any way multiplicitous. Maimonides took this position to the extreme of saying that one cannot even attribute existence to God in any meaningful way, and that the very idea of God having attributes in the way we understand attributes is an error. (This is in his The Guide Of The Perplexed)

Aquinas takes a position similar to this one, but instead of going as far as saying that any attribution is an error and only negative statements can be made about god meaniningfully, takes the position that God is merely not one in any way we understand, but because the statement is received from scripture, God is still one, in a way related to our idea of one but above and beyond it in perfection and beyond our ability to know accurately; thus divine simplicity. This position however ammounts to saying that we cannot know what we mean exactly when we say that God is one, but he is one anyway, we just don't get it (This is in his Summa Theologica)

It seems to me that the position that Maimonides takes that God cannot be said to have attributes at all, and that one cannot make any meaningful attribution to God of a quality, or the position that Aquinas takes that the attribution of qualities to God which are recieved from scripture have a meaning which is beyond us, cannot be responsibly included as 'varying degrees' of support for the position that God has the attributes listed.

I only bring this up because I've read the two authors I've mentioned and I think an accurate understanding of thier ideas of God are critical to express correctly in a wiki about God, as their ideas have served to a greater or lesser degree (Aquinas greater, Maimonides lesser) as a sort of foundation of the religious thought in thier respective religions which occured after them.

I haven't read the Muslim guy, but I'd be willing to bet that his position is similar to Maimonides, just going on the fact that Islam generally follows the idea that God cannot be understood at all by man.

I don't have the time right this second to do this myself, but I would be willing to assist anyone in expanding and clarifying this section and related sections of this wiki, or in just removing mention of the three theologians mentioned. If the summer manages to come around before anyone feels like correcting this aspect of the wiki, I would be happy to do it myself and supply direct citations etc.

Thanks Guys

Captpschar 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a synthesis problem. Material is juxtaposed in a way that draws conclusions beyond what the original sources are making. I removed the "all" for now... but I don't have the time to really look through all the sources to make sure it is really accurate... --Merzul 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Marxist theology???

I think the following should be removed from the article:

Marxist writers see the idea of God as rooted in the powerlessness experienced by men and women in oppressive societies. This however is an argument from motive. It is also recognized by many philosophers as begging the question. It presupposes that God does not exist and then asks why would people believe in God and reaches a conclusion that the belief must stem from a defective mental motive, which is only true if in fact God does not exist and as such is circular in its reasoning.

• First and foremost, the section that this paragraph is in was "Theology"--Marxism is not a theology, but a philosophy.
• Secondly, arguments and counterarguments of Marxist ideas about God seem to be more appropriate to the Marxist philosophy or Atheism articles, not here.
• Thirdly, the phrasing is weasel-worded and gives a definite anti-Marxist POV. While it happens to be a POV that I agree with (I think Marx was an idiot), it does not belong in an article that attempts to be NPOV.

Justin Eiler 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree I'm not sure that we should include it as I am sure its a logical fallacy on many levels, but it is one of Marx's opinions on God so would go in God article, although maybe not that section. If we are going to include it it can also easily be included that many consider it a logical fallacy. Simply stating two facts, what Marx thought, and what others think about what he thought is not being POV. Roy Brumback 01:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this content definitely does not belong in "Theology" section since Marxism is not a form of theology. However, it may belong in the article or a related article on criticism of theology. Perhaps a brief summary of criticisms of theology could be mentioned with a link to e.g. the Atheism article (or Atheism#Reasons for Atheism section), and this content and other details of specific criticisms and critical philosophies could go there. Whether one personally thinks a POV a "logical fallacy" or not is in my view irrelevant so far as criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is concerned. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The part that gets me is the first sentence of the counteragument: "This however is an argument from motive." While I note that a dubious tag has been added to the sentence, without that tag it's presented as a statement of fact, rather than one of opinion.

Additionally, I'm still not sure this particular discussion belongs in this article, but you're correct--I should have waited for the general discussion. "Be bold" does have limits. :) Justin Eiler 02:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank God somebody shares my concerns! The Marx section offends me in so many ways... and I can not remain civil in arguing this, so I will refrain from doing so... The discussion is at Talk:God/Archive 15#Powerful people's belief in God and is not something I'm very proud of, but my key concern is that this argument from motive claim is a category mistake, and I searched the web for "argument from motive" and Marx and found nothing but Wikipedia clones. Obviously, everybody is entitled to their own POV, but the burden of proof is on those who want to include material. This has been here for too long, so following Jimbo's advice whoever deletes it and keeps it out until it is sourced, I will award The Editor's Barnstar. But on that note, I am very happy that Roy has provided an argument backed by Alister McGrath. This one I would of course accept. And if a more neutral and delicate representation of Marx can be given, I would be even happier. Now, the question is if we want all of this in this particular article. --Merzul 03:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your latest edit completely removes my "weasel-worded" objection-good job. :)

I do still have concerns on whether or not this paragraph belongs in the article at all, but that was a drastic improvement. Justin Eiler 04:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... I only addressed the last sentence, but my arch-nemesis, the "argument from motive" is still there. And while "Marxist writers see the idea of God as rooted in the powerlessness experienced by men and women in oppressive societies" isn't terribly inaccurate, I do have nightmares where I'm oppressed by Jonathan Wolff because we are attributing this to his essay, where even the word "powerless" doesn't appear. Anyway, I hope now that we have a proper rebuttal from Alister, that Roy will accept deleting the "argument from motive", which I have not found anywhere other than on Wikipedia. --Merzul 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

history of monotheism

I've always understood zororastrianism to be a dualist religion and if correct then it should not be cited as an example of the first monotheistic religion. Is there any evidence for the presence of hebrews in ancient egypt other than the bible? If not then i think the part of the text that suggests that atenism was "..a formative influence on early Judaism.." should note the fact that the only evidence for the presence of hebrews in egypt is the bible despite repeated attempts to prove otherwise. I offer this only for the sake of clarity and not to cause offence to anyones' religious beliefs. There is i believe real uncertainty as to the origins of the hebrew people and this should be ntoed.

Good Article?

This article was listed as good article here; very long time ago, and I didn't see any nomination, it was just added. You can now look in the Article History that all assessment of this article date back to 2005, when it contained the section on Conceptions of God. I think this article is a completely different article, so perhaps a GA review might be a good idea? --Merzul 14:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Back in the Dark Ages, when GA began, there was no nomination process. Any editor could simply add or remove a GA. Later, as GA wars erupted, a process developed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting story to say the least!Kmarinas86 08:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Theory

This article should link to a main article of theories with a test. 24.193.218.207 06:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why -- seems more a descriptive than a theoretical exercise. --Shirahadasha 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias

God is not only used by Monotheistic religions - Polytheistic religions such as Hinduism may also venerate separate deities which they would then refer to as "God" and the idea Brahman is also a concept of a singular entity, or "God". The fact that the article on God reflects so much partiality to Monotheistic religions (mainly Abrahamic religions) is the result of the bias resulting from the demographics of Wikipedia users (majority are from the U.S., are Christian). Please coment. Sfacets 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this article attempts to present a unified perspective that arguably papers over differences in religious conception and may produce an artificial appearance that everyone generally agrees at the expense of bias. --Shirahadasha 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The introduction currently reads "This article discusses the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism."

The opening sentence is: "the name God refers to the deity held by monotheists to be the supreme reality. God is believed to be the sole creator of the universe.[1] As of 2007, a majority of human beings are classified as adherents of religions that worship a monotheistic God, usually the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[2]"

If the context is set in a way to exclude Polytheistic religions, how to include them? Sfacets 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea, I suppose, is that God with a capital G is mainly a monotheistic concept, and so there are other articles for other concepts of God. The alternative would be to move this narrower view to Singular God, so this general entry could cover broader definitions of the divine. This all means a lot of work though. --Merzul 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism

I removed this from the lead for good reasons: The unifying monotheistic conception of Brahman prevailing in the henotheistic belief system of Hinduism is also significant as a representative element in humanity's belief in a supreme God. First, it is an unattributed statement of opinion - to claim that Brahman is somehow "significant" and "representative" of some general belief held by humanity is incredibly POV. If anyone actually believes this, we must give the source and say it is their opinion, not represent it as a fact. Furthermore, it does not belong in the lead. The lead should do no more than summarise what is in the rest of the article. Unless this is one of the main things discussed in the body of the article it does not belong in the lead. Metamagician3000 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the formulation of the sentence isn't great, however mentio of the concept should be included in the article. Sfacets 04:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't denying that - hey, it was just my first edit (or one of them) on the article. I didn't expect it to be reverted immediately before I could do more or comment on the talk page. Anyway see my further comment about the lead below. Metamagician3000 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than starting out attempting to change the introduction, why not begin by adding a Hinduism section, adding some content on Hinduism, and attempting to work from there. Be sure to follow the attribution policy for anything added. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)--Shirahadasha 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not really up to me to do that, if you were addressing me. :) But if someone else did it, then it might well be appropriate to have a reference to Hinduism (a less POV one) in the lead. See my point? The lead (once it gets beyond more than a couple of sentences) is driven by what is in the overall article. Do you think you could write some material on Hinduism, if you think it should be there? I don't have an opinion myself - I mean we could have had an article just on the Abrahamic God. But I'm at least open to the idea given that there is a lot of other material that goes well beyond the Abrahamic tradition. Better go for now. Will look later for any replies. Metamagician3000 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead more generally

Actually, the lead does not summarise the article very well at all. The article talks about all kinds of things that are not hinted at in the lead (though not much about Hinduism, as it happens). I suggest that a fair bit of thought be put into whether more material should be moved out of the lead into the body of the article - though nothing else needs to be deleted altogether and even the sentence about Hinduism that I objected to may belong somewhere in some form, with attribution - and whether something should be said in the lead about the general history and variety of monotheism. I'd be happy to have a go at this but I've created enough controversy for one day. I'm here to improve the article not to cause sudden disruption to it, so could other editors try to consider my comments rather than just reverting me. In return, I'll leave it alone until I see some discussion of my points. Metamagician3000 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy... You call this controversy? :) Please go ahead and try to improve this article. I'm not very happy with this article because I'm not sure if it's a summary style overview or an independent article on the Abrahamic concept of God. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but I'm quite sure this article would benefit from some "controversial" editing. --Merzul 17:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Collate the 'See also' Links

Would it be appropriate to collate all of the 'See also' links? Would others appreciate adding to them? Would it be possible to collect the links together (perhaps structuring them too) so as to give a coherent view on the various concepts of God (answer to last question : maybe, though probably not, and it would be a lot harder than solving a 5x5x5 Rubik's cube even if it were possible....). --MrASingh 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea of God has been developed from the begining of time to the present day. However, proof of an existing "God" is very controversial. Natural phenomenon and ancient scripture have been the issue that many scientists and church officials constantly argue about. With out solid proof that God truly exists it can be assumed by my fellow coligues and I that the idea of God could indeed be just a idea formed in a early mans head. Through out time people began to believe this idea and now we have nations kneeling to an idea that was formed in some mans hea wh felt lonely and needed this great being to nurture him. There are instances where we will feel that a mirical happens and we say that God made it happen, when all along it is just an Idea in our head. Don't get me wrong I am a full hearted christian but theoretically speaking it could be possible Please edit By, Ezequiel

Marx

This part here is wrong.

Marx thought that God did not exist but he thought that its belief served a useful function. This part of this thinking is misunderstood and Alister McGrath has misunderstood him. In the 1800s opium was mainly used by doctors, a prozac is taking prozac wrong. One of the editiors here asks me would Marx see taking opium (prozac) as wrong, the answer is not if the person needs it.

Maybe for this page we should say something like "Marx thought that God did not exist" and transfer the rest to Marx page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

BernardZ, you have provided no cite for your conclusions you are inserting. You cite Marx's statement about religion as opium, but only if being drug addicted is "useful" can that case be made, and useful is ambiguous. You can certainly use drugs to achieve ends, but you can use anything to achieve ends, and so everything could be said to be useful. Did Marx think religion was beneficial? He thought it served a purpose, just as he thought capitalism served a purpose, but that doesn't mean he thought either were good or that he thought they should not be gotten rid of. Marx was clearly anti-religion, and your statement about opium/prozac/religion being good according to Marx seems to be your own conclusion, not his. If you disagree with McGrath that's your business, but please cite an actual source for your conclusion that he is wrong, and McGrath says that this is not just his opinion but of many current philosophers. Plus McGrath's point is that Marx's statements about the nature of belief in God only holds if in fact God does not exist, which is exactly the proposition Marx is trying to advance and as such is circular reasoning. If God exists then he would be saying something like truth is the opiate of the masses, which kind of loses it's rhetorical force. Roy Brumback 08:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, BernardZ. This is a difficult article, so just mentioning one aspect and not adding something for balance unfortunately doesn't work. But please note that the statement is strongly attributed to McGrath, so even if he is wrong. It is certainly not wrong to claim that he has argued that Marx is begging the question. In terms of content, you might be right, but we are leaving it for the reader to decide. For us to make any further judgement, precise citations to reliable sources are indeed required. --Merzul 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I wrote"Yet it is clear that Marx was not critical in general he actually saw a useful social function in it his quote that "the opium of the people." is often misunderstood. Marx lived in the 1800s where opium was widely used by doctors for its calming effect like prozac today. He saw religion, as something that calmed people down in their troubles in society. "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. "

It is has a reputable cite and should be included. Whether you agree or disagree with it.

BernardZ 13:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not whether we agree or disagree with it or not. It's that you are personally analyzing what Marx said and putting in your own conclusion about what this statement means about Marx's opinion of religion. I personally think he's not only begging the question but is also using an Appeal to motive, but as I haven't found an established philosopher arguing this I let my edit to that effect be removed until I do find one. You're free to put in Marx thought religion was like opium, but please leave out your personal conclusions about what this means. Roy Brumback 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference I quoted is a book written by philosophers to be a text book. Both Martin Danahay and William Irwin are both professors in reputable universities.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Matrix-Philosophy-Revolutions-Reloaded/dp/0812695720

The Matrix is the Prozac of the People by Martin Danahay in More Matrix and Philosophy by William Irwin (Open Court, 2005) ISBN 0-8126-9572-0 Edited by William Irwin Chapter BernardZ 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do they say? Does it have anything about McGraths's assertion that Marx is begging the question, as you are using this to say McGrath is wrong about Marx.? And is it specifically about God or religion in general. Roy Brumback 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Marx is ulimately a social philosophers as such the existance of God is not the issue it is religion that he is concerned about. That is why I am saying it would be better to take it out of teh article and put it into a Marx section.

However please read what I wrote above. It has the cite which I wanted to put in. No more and no less.

Also I never made in the article the claim that McGraths's is wrong. I know he is wrong but that is another issue.

The exact quote by Marx, I leave you with it.

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people. To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness." (Marx-Engels Collected Works Vol 3, page 175-176.)

BernardZ 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You said "Yet it is clear that Marx was not critical in general he actually saw a useful social function in it his quote that "the opium of the people"". Yet Marx says abolishing religion is necessary for "real happiness". Sounds critical to me. And the reason given for your edit was that McGrath is wrong. Roy Brumback 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are backtracking firstly I am quoting a reputable source in a reputable text book written for philosophers so whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant for the Wikipedia. It is not up to us to judge. However more importantly I feel that unless you want to argue that religion = god in a Marxist sense something that is clearly wrong as in Marxism as Marx thought it. 1) There is no God 2) There is religion.

Since Marx then talks about religion his comments are off topic for this article. Which is the point I am making. Either put it in religion or Marxism. BernardZ 06:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note I would be very happy if you put it in the Marxist page as I would like to start a discussion on this issue there. Then if it resolved there we could bring it back to this page. BernardZ 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You can easily put stuff that book says about Marx onto Marx's page or a related Marxist view of religion page, but as for the God page, we can I suppose say what Marx thought about God briefly with a brief counterarguemnt, but let's not devote too much space on this general God page to it. Talking about opium being like prozac and such seems a bit much. Roy Brumback 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The very idea of God's image is not known to man .Depictions of God in various drawings around the world is very wrong because ,we simply do not know how God looks like.Representing a so called "realistic image of God", is not a very nice idea.Representing God in human-forms in drawings,is a great sin unto man and should not be codoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.29.225 (talk • contribs) 11:01 BST 11th April 2007

Semi-protected?

Why is this article semi-protected? It doesn't seem to have the controversy or vandalism that would require such a measure. Scifiintel 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Page logs show that Riana (talk · contribs) tried out unprotecting this on 28 March; 10 hours later she re-protects it with the message "that didn't seem to work too well." For now, this page has indefinite semi-protection. --h2g2bob 07:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

"God" should go to a disambiguation, not a particular article. I was under the impression that disambiguations go at the generic page (i.e. "God" and articles that are disambiguate go on pages with "()" after the name... like "God(Abrahamic deity)". 205.161.214.82 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no general rule that generic names must redirect to titles that are followed by (), although this is common for terms with multiple meanings in different instances. Naming conventions state that the title should be a common name for the subject - when someone searches "God", he or she is most likely looking for the article on God in religion than any other meaning. That is why in this case it is appropriate to first go to the article on God in religion rather than a disambig page. +A.0u 18:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In short, "term" should be used instead of "term (XYZ)" for primary topics. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) +A.0u 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess, when I search for "god" I am using a generic term, when I search for the Christian god, etc, I would search "Christian god" "Yahweh" "Jehovah" "Alla" "Abrahamic god" terms, or expect a disambiguation page. To me, individual gods are all just different fictional incarnations of the same "God(male deity)". Seems to me that placing one religions "god" page over the others is a bit.... egotisical. 205.161.214.82 05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

True, this article is relatively general (the idea of a deity or comparable being in religion). If you look at the Template:God that appears in the article, it includes links to more articles on "Specific conceptions", such as those you mentioned. Otherwise, if this article "God" discusses all specific individuals, it would be too long. +A.0u 05:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Example : Ada. I bet 90% of the people visiting that page are looking for Americans With Disabilities Act but that goes to a disambiguation page.... 205.161.214.82 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

90% of Americans, maybe, but Wikipedia is also used by other countries. I have no opinion on this page, however. --h2g2bob 06:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One shouldn't assume that 90% of people visiting a page is looking for just a single article. What about the supposed other "10%" that are looking for something else? Also, Ada is different from ADA; disambiguation pages are created for just that reason: to clarify the different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title. +A.0u 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In all, there's a difference between a primary topic (such as God and the term "God") and a topic that should have a disambiguation page (such as Americans With Disabilities Act and the acronym AMA). +A.0u 06:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

God - Krishna

Hi! Can anybody, please, write few lines about concept of "Krishna as God" as seen by followers of Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya disciplic succession to the article "God". There is a link already to article "Krishna" but He is not mentioned in main article. Thank you. P.S. And also remove "I AM GOD" from there, I have seen it in the section "Etymology and usage Main article:God(word)I AM GOD" P.S.2. I would like to edit myself, but just registered, article "God" is semiprotected, and so I cannot edit it still... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4krishna (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi

The existence question allinea describes the arguments and opinions of known philosophers. Some belief, others don't, and where some tried to prove the existence of god, others refuted it. But I think it should be stated that the common believe of philosophers nowadays is that the existence of god or not-existence cannot be proven.

Thomas

That is a hard hitting question if you ask me. First we need to understand Divinity. I am still having problems understanding Jesus Christ's Divinity. Also, I am not sure weather or not there was ever a real historical Krishna who lived in the time epoch the Sanskrits and Hindu scriptures place him in. Anker99 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamic god and Jewish/Christian god are not the same

the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

This sentence implies that the Judaic god and the Islamic god are the same figure. They are not. The Islamic god is moon god, while the Jewish god is a weather god if I'm not mistaken. The Christian god is a whole story in itself. And while your at it, restructure the Wikipedia articles a bit. If you try to answer to question "Who was <insert name of god here>, historically speaking?" you get pointed to all kinds of articles (this article, or an article about the pronounciation of the tetragrammaton) but no relevant articles. Shinobu 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing pre- and post-Abrahamic traditions. The post-Abraham deity is clearly the same figure for all three religions. There are in-depth Wikipedia articles for Yahweh and Allah, as well as an article on the Names of God. But if you feel like some information is still missing, please find some sources and add the information. You would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia by your efforts. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation

It is true that Arabic Christians do not think their God is the same as the god of Islam. The islamic God is being seen by many christians as a God of laws, while christians believe in a loving caring and tender God towards mankind. Christian believe in a personal relationship with this God, which is much alike a (good) father with his (good) son. While Islam believes in God being a king or a master, and all men are but his slaves or servants. Arabic christians who got converted from Islam to christianity, often have hard time with naming their God 'Allah', because of their different point of view on God. Therefor many named their God 'Yallah', to differ between the Allah of the muslim belief.

As far as the Judaic God, it has been seen as the same God as christians to an extend. Judaic people believe God is but one God, while christians believe in the Trinity, where God consists out of 3 individuals namely: God: God as father, Jesus: God as man, and Holy Spirit: God as a Spirit dwelling in people. This is a point of discussion between many Judaic people and christians. But as far as the heart of God, and God being the creator, and one who gives life, both Christians and Judaism are much alike.