Talk:God in Christianity

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

Tertullian[edit]

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

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

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

Please do not ignore this.

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

Reverting and not explaining[edit]

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

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

"God and Satan"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of God and Satan is under discussion, see talk:God and Satan (song) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Very recent additions that fail WP:V[edit]

Per another editor's request, the first sentence in the recent addition I'm contesting has no citation given. Per WP:ONUS, there is no obligation by any editor to leave in the text while we wait for an source to be provided. Similar to the first sentence, I'm worried that the second sentence implies that these traits and virtue in every instance and in every human being are always sourced to the Holy Spirit. I think that when you look at what Fung writes, he doesn't really support this - he does state that "the qualities enumerated are not the result of strenuous observance of an external legal code, but the natural produce ("harves") of a life controlled and guided by the Spirit." The text is close, but appears to me that it was written without actually looking at the cited source. A similar thing appears to have happened with the second half of that sentence and the Erickson reference. I cannot find in Erickson where he states that individual abilities (like understanding and knowledge) are labelled as the Spirit's "gifts" and connects this to the Greek "charisma". Maybe I'm missing it, but I can't find it. Again, it looks like the sentence was written without actually looking at the sources cited. Additionally, the two sentence paragraph is a minor aspect of the Holy Spirit in Christian theology (it's small section further down in the main article) and its inclusion here seems a bit undue weight IMO. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • i have moved the existing content and the proposed content here (neither is in the article now) so they can be discussed:
existing content

The sacredness of the Holy Spirit is affirmed in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 12:30-32, Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:8-10) which proclaim that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin.[1] The participation of the Holy Spirit in the tripartite nature of conversion is apparent in Jesus' final post-Resurrection instruction to his disciples at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (28:19):[2] "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".[3] The Holy Spirit plays a key role in the Pauline epistles, to the point that their pneumatology is almost inseparable from their Christology.[4] In the Johannine writings, three separate terms, namely Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth and Paraclete are used.[5]

References

  1. ^ Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 page 280
  2. ^ "Mt 28:19; ESV - Go therefore and make disciples of all - Bible Gateway". Bible Gateway. 
  3. ^ Lord, giver of life by Jane Barter Moulaison 2006 ISBN 0-88920-501-9 page 5
  4. ^ The power of God in Paul's letters by Petrus J. Gräbe 2008 ISBN 978-3-16-149719-3 pages 248-249
  5. ^ Spirit of Truth: The origins of Johannine pneumatology by John Breck 1990 ISBN 0-88141-081-0 pages 1-5
new content

The Holy Spirit is described as the (source of the) goodness, intelligence, and talent found in the human being. A good, intelligent, prodigious, understanding, or humble person is said to be "graced by the Holy Spirit".[citation needed] The virtuous characteristics (goodness, love, joy, self-control,etc.) of a person are thought of as the "fruits" of the Holy Spirit,[1] while the individual abilities (like understanding and knowledge) are labelled as the Spirit's "gifts" (Greek charisma, in English charism).[2]

References

  1. ^ The Epistle to the Galatians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) by Ronald Y. K. Fung (Jul 22, 1988) Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing ISBN 0802825095, pages 262–263
  2. ^ Millard J. Erickson (1992). Introducing Christian Doctrine. Baker Book House. pp. 265–270. 

In my view the "existing content" is inappropriate for WP - it is confessional, not encyclopedic, and is sourced to the bible in some parts. The "new content" is an effort to write encyclopedic content and if it were better sourced, would be much better. Please discuss here rather than edit warring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - I think you do raise some serious points about the paragraph you removed. I'm curious why you didn't also remove the paragraph that has been the source of the current disagreement, which is the "new content" you describe above? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
whoops, missed it. Yes check.svg Done Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
One of the things I like to do is go back in an article's history to see where the POV was introduced. In this case, it was four years ago by a single user doing a massive overhaul of the page. Not all of the overhaul was bad, but it does seem to have introduced a lot of the wording that is more confessional than encyclopedic. IMO opinion, the second paragraph in this version is a better starting point. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)