![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
If someone wants to learn about "God in Christianity", we shouldn't send them on an unguided tour of six or seven articles about different aspects of the concept of God in Christianity. That's what Christian God does right now. What we should do is provide a guided overview of all the major aspects of God in Christianity with links to the main articles on each aspect. That's what this article tries to do.
-- Richard 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
right, the discussion of Trinity is altogether too long right now. It should be a very brief summary of Trinity focussing conflicts with Nontrinitarian schools of thought. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
SECisek removed the Christianity navbox, appropriately enough, because the article is not listed on the template. See Template talk:Christianity. If this article is really going to do the job suggested by others in this discussion, it ought to have the importance to be added to that template. Perhaps this can be a useful lens through which to evaluate the place of this article: is it doing a new an important job not already parceled out in the articles listed in Template:Christianity? Wareh ( talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a cursory look at the article and it needs some work. The header has God as transcendant without mention of immanence. Also, I reverted an edit that is theologically correct but may need some better wording or placement than what was put in. How many people are active here? Don't want to step on any toes. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking through the article a little and trying to ammend some theological errances, and I'm more concerned with it being right than wording, so feel free to brush up the mechanics or placement of my edits if you see the need, because I just want to make sure this article correctly portrays the God of the Bible. Thebestlaidplans ( talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence currently says:
Why is the word "most" included there? Almost all Christians are monotheistic, so to them, the creator is necessarily God. It's true that some small percentage of Christians have pagan influences, but polytheistic Christianity seems like such a small segment that it's not worth mentioning in the lead, let alone on the first word. WP:LEAD says "avoid ... over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."
The remainder of this first sentence seems like it's duplicating what's already at the article God, and is widely understood when one says "God", especially in the context of a monotheistic religion. It may be better to just link to that article and instead focus on the issues specific to this article. (for better examples, see the leads at God in Judaism and God in Islam) -- Underpants ( talk) 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that the idea that God is like water having three different forms, one for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is actually a centuries old heresy defeated by Tertullian in the 2nd Century. Its best to just leave it as "three persons, one God", than give a belief that isn't actually held by anyone. Gabr- el 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Re.Justification for removing the South American image: "..Latin American artists sometimes responded to uniqe American concerns in their Trinitarian images [native polytheism and animal deities]... This translated into images of the Trinity as three identical human figures...this representation of the Trinity did not comply, however, with church guidelines...Pope Benedict XIV again prohibited representations of the identical Trinity in 1778" (Art and architecture of viceregal Latin America, 1521-1821 By Kelly Donahue-Wallace). If the image is to remain, it must be clear that this painting represents an heretical subsection of Roman Catholicism, not in conformity with that Church, and of course has nothing to do with Protestantism or any other forms of Christianity. However, because it is heretical and so particular to a specific cultural situation, I don't see any reason to keep it in this article, especially in such a prominent place. It obfuscates the issue and lends nothing to the argument, except as a curiosity. Perhaps a new section, something like "Depictions of the Trinity in Art", could be added. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση ( talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
An anon IP editor removed the "God as Father" section. In reviewing the section, I judged it to be worth keeping although it relies too heavily on primary sources and only cites one of its secondary sources (i.e. identifies secondary sources but doesn't provide references to them). I restored the text and put a {{refimprove section}} tag on the section. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently we need to add citations to the lede to clarify the phrase "God is believed by some Christians to be immanent...". I understand that the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ludwig Feuerbach among others has led to a different view of God than traditional orthodoxy, however I don't have any references. Would anyone offer an expansion of this liberal thought, ideally in the body of the article so we can remove the citation request from the lede, and avoid the argument over the term? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Didn't know this article existed until just now, but since the Trinity is discussed quite a bit, it may be helpful to include an image of the Shield of the Trinity diagram... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Needless to say, this article is central to WikiProject Christianity. Fortunately there seems to be no contention on the talk page, but the article seems to be suffering from "neglect" - the first sentence in the article has a citation-needed tag, images and templates are thrown around at random, there are many unsourced paragraphs and even sections - and it is anyone's guess how correct the content may be.
I think it would be good if an overall discussion regarding content improvement and even structure starts, for among the many pages in WikiProject Christianity, this one should get to be in good shape ahead of the rest.
History2007 (
talk) 14:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In the light of the previous comment, I have reworked the lead section. If acceptable as a guideline for the structure of the article, it will be necessary to include a section on the Attributes of God before the current trinitarian section.
In Christianity, God is the eternal being that created and preserves the universe. Christians believe he is transcendent (meaning that he is outside space-time, eternal and not controlled in any way by forces within the universe). [1] However, over against Deism, he is also considered to be immanent in a variety of ways in the different areas of his creation; but his immanence is not pantheistic in that God's being is not the substance of the created universe. [2]
The Christian Bible always speaks of God in personal terms— as one who is, who speaks, who sees, hears, acts, and loves and has a will and personality. He is represented in Scripture as being primarily concerned with people and their salvation. [3] In more philosophical language, in so far as it may be appropriate to speak of the " attributes of God", he is usually held to have, among others, those of holiness, justice, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence and immortality. However, it has been held that it is preferable to say: God is .... [4]
God is understood by trinitarian Christians as God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit; an infinite Godhead of three distinct persons (the term is used "not because it expresses what we want to say, but because we must say something" [5]). Prestige justified the doctrine as a "legitimate rational construction founded on the facts of Christian experience" [6] and McGrath explains it as the outcome "of sustained and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in Scripture, and continued in Christian experience. This is not to say that Scripture contains a doctrine of the Trinity; rather, Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a Trinitarian manner". [7] Less commonly, nontrinitarian denominations define the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit differently.
Although largely anticipated by Tertullian, the doctrine of the Trinity did not receive its complete and final formulation until the later part of the fourth century [8] and this, while clearly affirming the divinity of Jesus, left pending the problem of how the Incarnation should be understood as maintaining both the full humanity and the full divinity of Jesus. [9]. This was supplied by the Chalcedonian Definition of 451 which completed the basic classical formulations. These were framed against the back-ground of greco-roman philosophy [10] and while they have "contributions of permanent value to theological thought" [11] later shifts in philosophical thinking, particularly ontology, have led to alternative proposals in a radically altered cultural context. [12]
References
- ^ Machen, J. Gresham. God Transcendent. Banner of Truth publishers, 1998. ISBN 0-85151-355-7
- ^ Berkhof, L. Systematic TheologyBanner of Truth publishers:1963, p.61
- ^ Stagg, Frank. New Testament TheologyNashville: Broadman, 1962. ISBN 085416137
- ^ Augustine of Hippo. De civitate Dei:XI,10,1
- ^ Augustine of Hippo De Trinitate:5,10
- ^ Prestige, G.L. God in Patristic Thought SPCK:1964 p.xiii
- ^ McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology Blackwell:2001, p.321
- ^ Prestige G.L. Fathers and Heretics SPCK:1963, p. 29
- ^ Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines A & C Black:1965, p.280
- ^ Nicholls, William. The Pelican Guide to Modern Theology - Volume 1 Pelican:1971, p. 29
- ^ MacQuarrie, John. An Existentialist Theology SCM:1960, p. 4
- ^ Schultz, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology Eerdmans:2003, pp. 14ff
Jpacobb ( talk) 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to give clear shape to this section and reinforce the weak points. The original version was extremely repetitious and some of the contents, in my opinion, were not really Trinitarian as such and I will them into the new section already suggested "Attributes and Nature of God". Perhaps some of the material should be in more specific articles, rather than in this overview.
The section titles "God as Father" would sound better as God the Father etc. "As" might imply
Sabellianism
02:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpacobb ( talk • contribs)
Having had a further look as the problem, apart from the multiple repetitions, the heart of the matter lies in the fact that the three (sub)sections 'God the Father/Son/Holy Spirit' were included under Trinitarianism and a section on the Trinity but have accumulated material which corresponds better Christology and Pneumatology. I now see the article as having the following main sections.
These last two are Christology and Pneumatology under older names which are more comprehensible for the non-specialist reader. | Jpacobb ( talk) 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I remembered this page again and noticed that nothing new has happened. If you have almost finished with what you wanted to do Jpacobb, I will go ahead and touch up other things, add material, etc. Else please let me know. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, for section grouping, I would suggest:
2 Trinitarianism
3 Nontrinitarianism
Does that look more logical? History2007 ( talk) 18:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It is also the question of the audience. These days most of the world lives on soundbites and tweets, so you have to telegram the message upfront. And the section structure does that. So I might suggest
0. Lede (90% will read half of this, 50% will read it all)
1. Attributes and Nature of God (the Father) (this needs to cover both Trinitarian and non and 25% will read)
2 Trinitarianism
3 Nontrinitarianism
But the table of contents that 100% of the audience will look at telegrams the idea. History2007 ( talk) 05:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I touched up the images, and tried moving nontriniatarians to their own section. Looks better to me, but please also suggest. I did not change any text.
Overall I think Jpacobb did a great deal of improvement - really. The only question now is the section "The development of Trinitarian doctrine". That should really be more in the trinity article than here, and in any case, we should probably just remove the heading and have one section about the Trinity. The lede is just too long and is 5 parags while the limit per WP:LEDE is 4. Needs a serious trim to just telegram the basic ideas.
Then it will look like a pretty nice article. There are comments in the text and some may deserve to be uncommented. That is all. History2007 ( talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit each need their own parallel section or subsection. Also, the section hinden in comment should be used or elminated. It seems unneeded to me. tahc chat 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The Father is shared with who? If that section is about all three then why is only the Father mentioned in the heading? tahc chat 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So why not just call that section "Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Spirit"? tahc chat 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I am familiar Trinitarianism and Nontrinitarianism. It is the anti-Trinitarian bias in the article format that I object to. You (History2007) seem to be avoiding my critisim simply because I didn't bring it up before now. If the whole article is about God, you don't have to name God in each heading. tahc chat 17:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not avoiding it, and it was the first time you used the word bias was after my comment. Anyway, the structure you had placed nontrin under Trinitarianism. That was why I said I could not see the logic in that. Anyway, the situation in this topic is as follows:
Seems logical, right? Now where is the bias? History2007 ( talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I meant can you show a section structure on the talk page? History2007 ( talk) 20:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is of course no "total agreement" among Christian groups on God the Father, even among Trinatarians, as shown on that page. I had a long discussion on the page. In fact, to balance things out and achieve uniformity, could you guys please take a look at God the Father as well?
As you can see that page has a lot of emphasis on non-trin. In fact I had a long discussion there with a user who added a lot of non-trin, and was later indef-blocked - twice. There I was told we had too little non-trin. So we should probably coordinate these two pages. I think that page gives too much emphasis to small non-trin groups such as Binitarianism, etc. And of course, the non-trin views change/broaden every few years, as new groups appear.
But if there is too little non-trin on that page , or here, in 3-6 months a non-trin editor will arrive, complain about that and a long debate starts again. So we need to face that fact as well.
I have been intending to do some work and cleanup on the God the Father page but have not had a chance. And if you guys (including Jpacobb) could type a couple of paragraphs there about the situation on that page an assessment of that page's situation that would achieve uniformity. That may be the best way to do this, given that this page refers to it. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
How about
I would make a deal on that. History2007 ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above, I started looking at the Nontrinitarianism section again more carefully, and the text there is both correct and well written, but is effectively a history of the non-trin movements, execution of Michael Servetus, etc. I am beginning to agree that it is getting off topic here because the history of nontrinitarianism should be in its own article, not here. History of Nontrinitarianism does not say much about their views on God. And given that their views are so very diverse one could not do it justice in a summary, unless it is a short summary. What if we overcome the WP:Due issues by really reducing that section to 2 or 3 paragraphs, and just referring to the appropriate articles? Then it would be "just a mention" and not a WP:Undue issue. History2007 ( talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Tahc you re-inserted the childhood and messiah item with the comment that it is about God the Son. It is not. Even the nontrinitarian Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah, so it is not a God the Son issue. And what is known about his childhood is also not about God the Son because the nontrinitarian also use the same. That section has to be Trinatrian based. Right? History2007 ( talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw you did another fast revert... how nice. Think of it this way: if you look at Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament you will see that God the Son does not appear there. It is not in the NT. But Son of God is. Now the Trinity has 3 components: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. So that section should be about God the Son, not the Son of God. And the section name "God the son" may even be more appropriate. History2007 ( talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting changes coming from Reno. It's unquestionably an omission in the article that we don't deal with the relation of God with the eschaton. Perhaps we should address that rather than debate it in edit summaries. The article is about God in Christianity and it now tends to focus on the attributes of God in Christianity. The way God will behave in the future is an important difference. However an in-depth discussion of heaven is not appropriate for this article and has already been discussed in heaven and heaven (Christianity). However, describing God's role as maker of the world to come would not be out of question, provided it carries references. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is solid substance in terms of theological agreement in WP:RS sources, consensus here can change every month as IPs from Tibet to Palm Beach show up. If you want to write a section that discusses that, go for it. But just talk page consensus sans well sourced text in the body can not stretch the lede. What stretches today, will shrink tomorrow unless backed up with solid and well source material. History2007 ( talk) 20:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
An interesting interchange of ideas and views! Here are some suggestions which I hope are helpful:
It's really not that hard. Change the first sentence to:
God in Christianity is the eternal being that created and preserves the world and established or will establish the Kingdom of God.
Somewhere in the body add this section:
--Kingdom of God--
The Kingdom of God is a foundational concept in Christanity and the other Abrahamic religions as well. Interpretations of the phrase range from the restoration of the Land of Israel to a world-wide kingdom, from a theocratic monarchy to an egalitarian utopia, and from an earthly kingdom to one in the afterlife or heavens.
75.14.217.91 ( talk) 04:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, then change the first sentence to:
God in Christianity is the immortal who created and provides for the cosmos, establishing the Kingdom of God.
75.14.215.9 ( talk) 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, it looks like it will take less effort to do a simple version than to play ping-pong with you here. So I wrote 2 sourced paragraphs, but a few more are really needed and the eschatological aspects are yet to be mishandled, ... I mean handled. History2007 ( talk) 22:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, it ended up being 4 parags to explainit, could not telegram it in any less. But this should be enough to give an idea of the main eschatological approaches, lack of scholarly agreement, etc. I have pretty much finished with this topic now, and any more will probably make the page hard to read. These days unless you can tweet it, it is too long anyway. So my guess is that it is done now. History2007 ( talk) 23:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, to get it out of the way quickly, here's the policy on common noun uses of words like 'god', as in "there is one god":
"Common nouns should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god."
That aside, it's not great form to blanket-revert a person's changes and then simply give them permission to redo some of them - it comes across as domineering and obstructive. If you object to a subset of changes, it's much more constructive to just revert those ones. As it stands, there's no way for me to know exactly which ones you take issue with. For instance, you talk about theological inaccuracies. I talk about encyclopedic presentation. Presumably there's some way to satisfy both concerns. Take my issue here:
"God were expressed in the Pauline Epistles and the early (perhaps pre-Pauline) creeds which proclaimed one God and the divinity of Jesus almost in the same breath"
"in the same breath" is not at all encyclopedic language. If the article wishes to say that two things are considered interlinked, that must be supported by sources, not by their being referenced near to one another in a single sentence. The latter is WP:OR.
There are other cases in my edit, but like I say, I have no idea which of them you accept and which you reject.
My comments:
Hope this helps. St Anselm ( talk) 21:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, Creator = God is a theo-assertion, and hence keeping Creator is necessary. History2007 ( talk) 21:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
StAnselm:
Ilkali ( talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ilkali is correct. We don't know what qualifications are being brought to the article, but we can clearly see a bias that shows no knowledge on the topic or of Wikipedia:Capitalization#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure it's an ideal section, but it's not necessarily unconstructive to add it. It play a part in some fringe protestant theologies. It would definitely need references. Not sure why we would remove it though. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Every time an IP comes around, something else gets fixed. I ended up fixing the names of God article, and it resulted in material that may fit here. So I will extend the paragraph here to a few and hopefully that will be the end of it. History2007 ( talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
surely someone somewhere has been critical of the god concept this article should have a criticism section squiglesquiglesquiglesquigle (damn keyboard doesn't have squigle-key) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.190.169 ( talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
My main comment relates to describing the Holy Spirit as "it" and "which" instead of "He", "Him" and "Who". The Holy Spirit is a person in every way that defines a person. He has a will, He has emotions and He has a mind! He works and acts on behalf of the Christian believer to enable the believer to grow and develop in their relationship with God. He is a person the same way God the Father is a person and Jesus, God the Son, is a person. He communicates with us through our spirit and our conscience and He responds to us when we pray or seek God's guidance. So please correct the text and replace the "it" and "which" references to the Holy Spirit with "He", "Him" and "Who." Joy from Trinidad and Tobago. March 15, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.191.66 ( talk) 21:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
Im a Christian, but his true name needs to be removed because Christians and Jews can find it offensive and don't want to see it. Gary "Roach" Sanderson ( talk) 02:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Recently the lede changed from "God in Christianity", the article's title to "In Christianity, God". MOS:BOLDTITLE requests that we "include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English", which it can be. I request restoring the article title. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
If someone wants to learn about "God in Christianity", we shouldn't send them on an unguided tour of six or seven articles about different aspects of the concept of God in Christianity. That's what Christian God does right now. What we should do is provide a guided overview of all the major aspects of God in Christianity with links to the main articles on each aspect. That's what this article tries to do.
-- Richard 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
right, the discussion of Trinity is altogether too long right now. It should be a very brief summary of Trinity focussing conflicts with Nontrinitarian schools of thought. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
SECisek removed the Christianity navbox, appropriately enough, because the article is not listed on the template. See Template talk:Christianity. If this article is really going to do the job suggested by others in this discussion, it ought to have the importance to be added to that template. Perhaps this can be a useful lens through which to evaluate the place of this article: is it doing a new an important job not already parceled out in the articles listed in Template:Christianity? Wareh ( talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a cursory look at the article and it needs some work. The header has God as transcendant without mention of immanence. Also, I reverted an edit that is theologically correct but may need some better wording or placement than what was put in. How many people are active here? Don't want to step on any toes. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking through the article a little and trying to ammend some theological errances, and I'm more concerned with it being right than wording, so feel free to brush up the mechanics or placement of my edits if you see the need, because I just want to make sure this article correctly portrays the God of the Bible. Thebestlaidplans ( talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence currently says:
Why is the word "most" included there? Almost all Christians are monotheistic, so to them, the creator is necessarily God. It's true that some small percentage of Christians have pagan influences, but polytheistic Christianity seems like such a small segment that it's not worth mentioning in the lead, let alone on the first word. WP:LEAD says "avoid ... over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."
The remainder of this first sentence seems like it's duplicating what's already at the article God, and is widely understood when one says "God", especially in the context of a monotheistic religion. It may be better to just link to that article and instead focus on the issues specific to this article. (for better examples, see the leads at God in Judaism and God in Islam) -- Underpants ( talk) 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that the idea that God is like water having three different forms, one for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is actually a centuries old heresy defeated by Tertullian in the 2nd Century. Its best to just leave it as "three persons, one God", than give a belief that isn't actually held by anyone. Gabr- el 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Re.Justification for removing the South American image: "..Latin American artists sometimes responded to uniqe American concerns in their Trinitarian images [native polytheism and animal deities]... This translated into images of the Trinity as three identical human figures...this representation of the Trinity did not comply, however, with church guidelines...Pope Benedict XIV again prohibited representations of the identical Trinity in 1778" (Art and architecture of viceregal Latin America, 1521-1821 By Kelly Donahue-Wallace). If the image is to remain, it must be clear that this painting represents an heretical subsection of Roman Catholicism, not in conformity with that Church, and of course has nothing to do with Protestantism or any other forms of Christianity. However, because it is heretical and so particular to a specific cultural situation, I don't see any reason to keep it in this article, especially in such a prominent place. It obfuscates the issue and lends nothing to the argument, except as a curiosity. Perhaps a new section, something like "Depictions of the Trinity in Art", could be added. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση ( talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
An anon IP editor removed the "God as Father" section. In reviewing the section, I judged it to be worth keeping although it relies too heavily on primary sources and only cites one of its secondary sources (i.e. identifies secondary sources but doesn't provide references to them). I restored the text and put a {{refimprove section}} tag on the section. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently we need to add citations to the lede to clarify the phrase "God is believed by some Christians to be immanent...". I understand that the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ludwig Feuerbach among others has led to a different view of God than traditional orthodoxy, however I don't have any references. Would anyone offer an expansion of this liberal thought, ideally in the body of the article so we can remove the citation request from the lede, and avoid the argument over the term? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Didn't know this article existed until just now, but since the Trinity is discussed quite a bit, it may be helpful to include an image of the Shield of the Trinity diagram... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Needless to say, this article is central to WikiProject Christianity. Fortunately there seems to be no contention on the talk page, but the article seems to be suffering from "neglect" - the first sentence in the article has a citation-needed tag, images and templates are thrown around at random, there are many unsourced paragraphs and even sections - and it is anyone's guess how correct the content may be.
I think it would be good if an overall discussion regarding content improvement and even structure starts, for among the many pages in WikiProject Christianity, this one should get to be in good shape ahead of the rest.
History2007 (
talk) 14:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In the light of the previous comment, I have reworked the lead section. If acceptable as a guideline for the structure of the article, it will be necessary to include a section on the Attributes of God before the current trinitarian section.
In Christianity, God is the eternal being that created and preserves the universe. Christians believe he is transcendent (meaning that he is outside space-time, eternal and not controlled in any way by forces within the universe). [1] However, over against Deism, he is also considered to be immanent in a variety of ways in the different areas of his creation; but his immanence is not pantheistic in that God's being is not the substance of the created universe. [2]
The Christian Bible always speaks of God in personal terms— as one who is, who speaks, who sees, hears, acts, and loves and has a will and personality. He is represented in Scripture as being primarily concerned with people and their salvation. [3] In more philosophical language, in so far as it may be appropriate to speak of the " attributes of God", he is usually held to have, among others, those of holiness, justice, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence and immortality. However, it has been held that it is preferable to say: God is .... [4]
God is understood by trinitarian Christians as God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit; an infinite Godhead of three distinct persons (the term is used "not because it expresses what we want to say, but because we must say something" [5]). Prestige justified the doctrine as a "legitimate rational construction founded on the facts of Christian experience" [6] and McGrath explains it as the outcome "of sustained and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in Scripture, and continued in Christian experience. This is not to say that Scripture contains a doctrine of the Trinity; rather, Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a Trinitarian manner". [7] Less commonly, nontrinitarian denominations define the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit differently.
Although largely anticipated by Tertullian, the doctrine of the Trinity did not receive its complete and final formulation until the later part of the fourth century [8] and this, while clearly affirming the divinity of Jesus, left pending the problem of how the Incarnation should be understood as maintaining both the full humanity and the full divinity of Jesus. [9]. This was supplied by the Chalcedonian Definition of 451 which completed the basic classical formulations. These were framed against the back-ground of greco-roman philosophy [10] and while they have "contributions of permanent value to theological thought" [11] later shifts in philosophical thinking, particularly ontology, have led to alternative proposals in a radically altered cultural context. [12]
References
- ^ Machen, J. Gresham. God Transcendent. Banner of Truth publishers, 1998. ISBN 0-85151-355-7
- ^ Berkhof, L. Systematic TheologyBanner of Truth publishers:1963, p.61
- ^ Stagg, Frank. New Testament TheologyNashville: Broadman, 1962. ISBN 085416137
- ^ Augustine of Hippo. De civitate Dei:XI,10,1
- ^ Augustine of Hippo De Trinitate:5,10
- ^ Prestige, G.L. God in Patristic Thought SPCK:1964 p.xiii
- ^ McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology Blackwell:2001, p.321
- ^ Prestige G.L. Fathers and Heretics SPCK:1963, p. 29
- ^ Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines A & C Black:1965, p.280
- ^ Nicholls, William. The Pelican Guide to Modern Theology - Volume 1 Pelican:1971, p. 29
- ^ MacQuarrie, John. An Existentialist Theology SCM:1960, p. 4
- ^ Schultz, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology Eerdmans:2003, pp. 14ff
Jpacobb ( talk) 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to give clear shape to this section and reinforce the weak points. The original version was extremely repetitious and some of the contents, in my opinion, were not really Trinitarian as such and I will them into the new section already suggested "Attributes and Nature of God". Perhaps some of the material should be in more specific articles, rather than in this overview.
The section titles "God as Father" would sound better as God the Father etc. "As" might imply
Sabellianism
02:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpacobb ( talk • contribs)
Having had a further look as the problem, apart from the multiple repetitions, the heart of the matter lies in the fact that the three (sub)sections 'God the Father/Son/Holy Spirit' were included under Trinitarianism and a section on the Trinity but have accumulated material which corresponds better Christology and Pneumatology. I now see the article as having the following main sections.
These last two are Christology and Pneumatology under older names which are more comprehensible for the non-specialist reader. | Jpacobb ( talk) 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I remembered this page again and noticed that nothing new has happened. If you have almost finished with what you wanted to do Jpacobb, I will go ahead and touch up other things, add material, etc. Else please let me know. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, for section grouping, I would suggest:
2 Trinitarianism
3 Nontrinitarianism
Does that look more logical? History2007 ( talk) 18:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It is also the question of the audience. These days most of the world lives on soundbites and tweets, so you have to telegram the message upfront. And the section structure does that. So I might suggest
0. Lede (90% will read half of this, 50% will read it all)
1. Attributes and Nature of God (the Father) (this needs to cover both Trinitarian and non and 25% will read)
2 Trinitarianism
3 Nontrinitarianism
But the table of contents that 100% of the audience will look at telegrams the idea. History2007 ( talk) 05:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I touched up the images, and tried moving nontriniatarians to their own section. Looks better to me, but please also suggest. I did not change any text.
Overall I think Jpacobb did a great deal of improvement - really. The only question now is the section "The development of Trinitarian doctrine". That should really be more in the trinity article than here, and in any case, we should probably just remove the heading and have one section about the Trinity. The lede is just too long and is 5 parags while the limit per WP:LEDE is 4. Needs a serious trim to just telegram the basic ideas.
Then it will look like a pretty nice article. There are comments in the text and some may deserve to be uncommented. That is all. History2007 ( talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit each need their own parallel section or subsection. Also, the section hinden in comment should be used or elminated. It seems unneeded to me. tahc chat 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The Father is shared with who? If that section is about all three then why is only the Father mentioned in the heading? tahc chat 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So why not just call that section "Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Spirit"? tahc chat 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I am familiar Trinitarianism and Nontrinitarianism. It is the anti-Trinitarian bias in the article format that I object to. You (History2007) seem to be avoiding my critisim simply because I didn't bring it up before now. If the whole article is about God, you don't have to name God in each heading. tahc chat 17:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not avoiding it, and it was the first time you used the word bias was after my comment. Anyway, the structure you had placed nontrin under Trinitarianism. That was why I said I could not see the logic in that. Anyway, the situation in this topic is as follows:
Seems logical, right? Now where is the bias? History2007 ( talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I meant can you show a section structure on the talk page? History2007 ( talk) 20:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is of course no "total agreement" among Christian groups on God the Father, even among Trinatarians, as shown on that page. I had a long discussion on the page. In fact, to balance things out and achieve uniformity, could you guys please take a look at God the Father as well?
As you can see that page has a lot of emphasis on non-trin. In fact I had a long discussion there with a user who added a lot of non-trin, and was later indef-blocked - twice. There I was told we had too little non-trin. So we should probably coordinate these two pages. I think that page gives too much emphasis to small non-trin groups such as Binitarianism, etc. And of course, the non-trin views change/broaden every few years, as new groups appear.
But if there is too little non-trin on that page , or here, in 3-6 months a non-trin editor will arrive, complain about that and a long debate starts again. So we need to face that fact as well.
I have been intending to do some work and cleanup on the God the Father page but have not had a chance. And if you guys (including Jpacobb) could type a couple of paragraphs there about the situation on that page an assessment of that page's situation that would achieve uniformity. That may be the best way to do this, given that this page refers to it. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
How about
I would make a deal on that. History2007 ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above, I started looking at the Nontrinitarianism section again more carefully, and the text there is both correct and well written, but is effectively a history of the non-trin movements, execution of Michael Servetus, etc. I am beginning to agree that it is getting off topic here because the history of nontrinitarianism should be in its own article, not here. History of Nontrinitarianism does not say much about their views on God. And given that their views are so very diverse one could not do it justice in a summary, unless it is a short summary. What if we overcome the WP:Due issues by really reducing that section to 2 or 3 paragraphs, and just referring to the appropriate articles? Then it would be "just a mention" and not a WP:Undue issue. History2007 ( talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Tahc you re-inserted the childhood and messiah item with the comment that it is about God the Son. It is not. Even the nontrinitarian Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah, so it is not a God the Son issue. And what is known about his childhood is also not about God the Son because the nontrinitarian also use the same. That section has to be Trinatrian based. Right? History2007 ( talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw you did another fast revert... how nice. Think of it this way: if you look at Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament you will see that God the Son does not appear there. It is not in the NT. But Son of God is. Now the Trinity has 3 components: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. So that section should be about God the Son, not the Son of God. And the section name "God the son" may even be more appropriate. History2007 ( talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting changes coming from Reno. It's unquestionably an omission in the article that we don't deal with the relation of God with the eschaton. Perhaps we should address that rather than debate it in edit summaries. The article is about God in Christianity and it now tends to focus on the attributes of God in Christianity. The way God will behave in the future is an important difference. However an in-depth discussion of heaven is not appropriate for this article and has already been discussed in heaven and heaven (Christianity). However, describing God's role as maker of the world to come would not be out of question, provided it carries references. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is solid substance in terms of theological agreement in WP:RS sources, consensus here can change every month as IPs from Tibet to Palm Beach show up. If you want to write a section that discusses that, go for it. But just talk page consensus sans well sourced text in the body can not stretch the lede. What stretches today, will shrink tomorrow unless backed up with solid and well source material. History2007 ( talk) 20:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
An interesting interchange of ideas and views! Here are some suggestions which I hope are helpful:
It's really not that hard. Change the first sentence to:
God in Christianity is the eternal being that created and preserves the world and established or will establish the Kingdom of God.
Somewhere in the body add this section:
--Kingdom of God--
The Kingdom of God is a foundational concept in Christanity and the other Abrahamic religions as well. Interpretations of the phrase range from the restoration of the Land of Israel to a world-wide kingdom, from a theocratic monarchy to an egalitarian utopia, and from an earthly kingdom to one in the afterlife or heavens.
75.14.217.91 ( talk) 04:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, then change the first sentence to:
God in Christianity is the immortal who created and provides for the cosmos, establishing the Kingdom of God.
75.14.215.9 ( talk) 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, it looks like it will take less effort to do a simple version than to play ping-pong with you here. So I wrote 2 sourced paragraphs, but a few more are really needed and the eschatological aspects are yet to be mishandled, ... I mean handled. History2007 ( talk) 22:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, it ended up being 4 parags to explainit, could not telegram it in any less. But this should be enough to give an idea of the main eschatological approaches, lack of scholarly agreement, etc. I have pretty much finished with this topic now, and any more will probably make the page hard to read. These days unless you can tweet it, it is too long anyway. So my guess is that it is done now. History2007 ( talk) 23:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, to get it out of the way quickly, here's the policy on common noun uses of words like 'god', as in "there is one god":
"Common nouns should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god."
That aside, it's not great form to blanket-revert a person's changes and then simply give them permission to redo some of them - it comes across as domineering and obstructive. If you object to a subset of changes, it's much more constructive to just revert those ones. As it stands, there's no way for me to know exactly which ones you take issue with. For instance, you talk about theological inaccuracies. I talk about encyclopedic presentation. Presumably there's some way to satisfy both concerns. Take my issue here:
"God were expressed in the Pauline Epistles and the early (perhaps pre-Pauline) creeds which proclaimed one God and the divinity of Jesus almost in the same breath"
"in the same breath" is not at all encyclopedic language. If the article wishes to say that two things are considered interlinked, that must be supported by sources, not by their being referenced near to one another in a single sentence. The latter is WP:OR.
There are other cases in my edit, but like I say, I have no idea which of them you accept and which you reject.
My comments:
Hope this helps. St Anselm ( talk) 21:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, Creator = God is a theo-assertion, and hence keeping Creator is necessary. History2007 ( talk) 21:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
StAnselm:
Ilkali ( talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ilkali is correct. We don't know what qualifications are being brought to the article, but we can clearly see a bias that shows no knowledge on the topic or of Wikipedia:Capitalization#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure it's an ideal section, but it's not necessarily unconstructive to add it. It play a part in some fringe protestant theologies. It would definitely need references. Not sure why we would remove it though. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Every time an IP comes around, something else gets fixed. I ended up fixing the names of God article, and it resulted in material that may fit here. So I will extend the paragraph here to a few and hopefully that will be the end of it. History2007 ( talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
surely someone somewhere has been critical of the god concept this article should have a criticism section squiglesquiglesquiglesquigle (damn keyboard doesn't have squigle-key) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.190.169 ( talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
My main comment relates to describing the Holy Spirit as "it" and "which" instead of "He", "Him" and "Who". The Holy Spirit is a person in every way that defines a person. He has a will, He has emotions and He has a mind! He works and acts on behalf of the Christian believer to enable the believer to grow and develop in their relationship with God. He is a person the same way God the Father is a person and Jesus, God the Son, is a person. He communicates with us through our spirit and our conscience and He responds to us when we pray or seek God's guidance. So please correct the text and replace the "it" and "which" references to the Holy Spirit with "He", "Him" and "Who." Joy from Trinidad and Tobago. March 15, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.191.66 ( talk) 21:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
Im a Christian, but his true name needs to be removed because Christians and Jews can find it offensive and don't want to see it. Gary "Roach" Sanderson ( talk) 02:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Recently the lede changed from "God in Christianity", the article's title to "In Christianity, God". MOS:BOLDTITLE requests that we "include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English", which it can be. I request restoring the article title. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)