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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ayyavazhi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ayyavazhi 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.
I am substituting "Trinity" for the term "Godhead" in the article "Briefly, it is the belief that the Second Person of the [I]Trinity[/I]". Godhead is broader and subsumes Trinity without excluding Christian groups whose doctrine is antithetical to the concept of Trinity. As a general rule, I think, it would be better to use the term Godhead rather than Trinity when referring to Christianity in general. A subject on Godhead should be written with reference to the term, Trinity, used commonly among a majority of Christians. I guess I'm giving myself some work.
Edited the page so that it uses more neutral language regarding the competing viewpoints of the early church regarding the Incarnation. The previous version read far too much like a statement of doctrine from a church, rather than an impartial giving of information. -Manuelomar2001 2-26-2005
If the concept of avatar is not incarnation, as stated in the article and put back, then what is it doing on this incarnation page? Incarnation means to take flesh, body, birth as a human being. If the avatar concept is not this concept it should be removed. If it is just like the Greek mythology idea of gods like Zeus materializing miraculously without taking birth, then by all means it should be removed from this page. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Incarnation is a western word with a specific meaning. Avatara is a different meaning and is translated with the same word into English and its different meaning is superimposed over the meaning of incarnation. Its an important thing to note in the article and it is the perfect place to discuss it. Wikidās ॐ 18:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Incarnation requires no birth. The distinction from avatar is that incarnation, in this sense, is used only to refer to a deity. More generally, they are the same. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This use of the word "immaterial" is incorrect.184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the Sikhism section because it's clearly talking about reincarnation, not incarnation. If Sikhism actually does have traditions of incarnation in some manner, then the section should discuss them, and not reincarnation. Here is the text that I removed:
Sikhism supports the concept of incarnation. According to sikhism there are 8.4 million forms of life, and one goes through these forms with human being as the supreme form of life. According to Sikhism, it is the one's deeds which decide how many time he will be incarnated. Meditation is the only form to liberate a soul from the process of incarnation.