This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Personal god article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Personal god is a scope that is covered by at least two traditions, one is Vaishnavism specifically in Bhakti and another is Christianity. Both points of view should be represented. Wikidās ॐ 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | Exclusive definition of god, as the personality both containing all, and at the same time being in the intimate relationship with his devotees, up to stage of personal involvement in the intimate care and dependence that can extend beyond the concept of denominational care to the realm of bhakti is found for example in monotheistic school of Bhagavata in India,[1] Placing it as the earliest example of personalism in relation to God in 4th century BC. | ” |
Is this reversion anything other than vandalism?
-- 71.108.3.143 ( talk) 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly believe Hinduism should be in its own section. There are many theological differences in Christianity alone; there is absolutely no need to create a hodgepodge of ideas. You are yourself acknowledging the complexity of the matter when you mention that "Jesus and Yahweh are the same personal god" is POV.
Now concerning the issue that Jesus is Yahweh [1], I wish to say that you could dismiss the vast majority of the Bible's content as POV. I oppose this mode of argument. Jesus is proclaimed to be the same as Yahweh by the Nicene Creed to which virtually all Christian subscribe except a tiny fraction of them known as nontrinitarians. I had included this fact in my edit.
Lastly, I believe your removal of the explanation of the Holy Spirit as a personal god was unjustified.
-- 71.108.3.143 ( talk) 14:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the section "Past and present views", for this:
In medieval theology, God was frequently envisioned as behaving like a king, haughty and unconcerned with the fate of his vassals. Puritan theologians sometimes depicted God as a minister, openly disgusted with the sinfulness of his creations. By the twentieth century, however, most Liberal Christian denominations, shaped by Christian humanism, advocated belief in a personal god according to the second or third definition, depicting God as loving and caring.
I object to this bigoted, POV, Whig history of theology; that interpretation of Christ the king is completely and utterly laughable, evincing a total ignorance of medieval government, manners, religion, philosophy, and society in general. Medieval kings were not haughty, not if they wanted to actually get anything done (for example, their vassals, meaning nobles who held land in gift from them, were not actually obligated to obey their orders on a battlefield, just to show up--so negotiating skill was very important.) And as to their concern with the fate of their subjects (which is probably what was meant by "vassals"): could you imagine a modern President or Prime Minister willingly whipped through the streets of his capital, like Henry II? Especially if he had that kind of personality?
Its portrayal of Puritanism is no better--it's obviously totally unacquainted with the teachings of Puritanism, like Total Depravity and Predestination. Puritans are not just "mean," judgmental Christians; they actually believe different things about sin.
It was the most illiterate, POV thing I'd ever seen. It added nothing to the article, so I deleted it.
Someone did the right thing, asking for a "cite" on its assertion about Christ the King, but I think deletion is better. Nagakura shin8 ( talk) 01:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"God is conceived and described as a being a personal creator," RuMoR ( T~ C) 16:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The very beginning of the article says jews believe in a personal god, and in fact this belief is a "characteristic features of monotheism".
But "a personal god is a deity that is, and can be related to as, a person", and later on it says jews do not believe God is a person. Isn't that a direct contradiction??
Same question for muslims. I am a muslim myself, I love God, but I do not consider him to be a "person" nor my relationship with God as "personal", and I consider myself fairly representative of muslims.
Looking through Google for a source, I find an awful lot of christian polemics. Apparently not believing in a personal god is a horrible thing. I actually get the sense that "personal god" is mostly a christian concern. -- 99.245.206.188 ( talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.108.68 ( talk) 08:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The article God in Islam claims that "God in Islam is not only majestic and sovereign, but also a personal God: according to the Qur'an, God is nearer to a person than his jugular vein. (Quran 50:16)" - but saying that God is "near to a person" does not directly imply He "is" a person. I've always understood Islamic god as being beyond any description (hence He has no image etc.), and therefore being somewhat different than a person, but this would need to be supported by more pertinent quotes from the Qur'an. Anyone could help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasiok ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The sub-section titled DEISM tells nothing about Deism, but rather sets out two "narrow" interpretations of a Personal God having nothing in particular to do with Deism. Deism is only mentioned in passing. Why, then, is there such a heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iohannkn ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
from the lead section:
does always not mean "not always" or "never"? the vaishnavism section, along with the muslims' view section, also need some attention (no offence to the authors). i'll look into it myself, but i'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, and chances are i'd change the intented meaning by editing. k kisses 15:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "In Vaishnavism the reality of God is never in an idealization, but the actual impact of God in the lives of human beings" can be taken to mean a lot of different things:
I am sure there are more, presumably including the original intended meaning of the author, as non of these seem to describe vaishnava philosophy (which as a branch of the dvaita school does believe in a separate independent existence of God. Unless this sentence is clarified I will remove it. -- Q Chris ( talk) 08:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE Jewish theology states that God is not a person UNQUOTE. Wrong. The Maimonidean 13 Articles of Faith state that He "is not a body, and cannot be grasped in bodily terms, and has no likeness". This is a rejection of G-d's corporeality and materiality, but not His personhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.210.193 ( talk) 17:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll look again in the 'Christian' section for LDS/Mormon doctrine on: (1) Heavenly Father, (2) Son, Jesus Christ, and (3) Holy Ghost, (being personal and separate). -- AstroU ( talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Personal god article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Personal god is a scope that is covered by at least two traditions, one is Vaishnavism specifically in Bhakti and another is Christianity. Both points of view should be represented. Wikidās ॐ 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | Exclusive definition of god, as the personality both containing all, and at the same time being in the intimate relationship with his devotees, up to stage of personal involvement in the intimate care and dependence that can extend beyond the concept of denominational care to the realm of bhakti is found for example in monotheistic school of Bhagavata in India,[1] Placing it as the earliest example of personalism in relation to God in 4th century BC. | ” |
Is this reversion anything other than vandalism?
-- 71.108.3.143 ( talk) 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly believe Hinduism should be in its own section. There are many theological differences in Christianity alone; there is absolutely no need to create a hodgepodge of ideas. You are yourself acknowledging the complexity of the matter when you mention that "Jesus and Yahweh are the same personal god" is POV.
Now concerning the issue that Jesus is Yahweh [1], I wish to say that you could dismiss the vast majority of the Bible's content as POV. I oppose this mode of argument. Jesus is proclaimed to be the same as Yahweh by the Nicene Creed to which virtually all Christian subscribe except a tiny fraction of them known as nontrinitarians. I had included this fact in my edit.
Lastly, I believe your removal of the explanation of the Holy Spirit as a personal god was unjustified.
-- 71.108.3.143 ( talk) 14:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the section "Past and present views", for this:
In medieval theology, God was frequently envisioned as behaving like a king, haughty and unconcerned with the fate of his vassals. Puritan theologians sometimes depicted God as a minister, openly disgusted with the sinfulness of his creations. By the twentieth century, however, most Liberal Christian denominations, shaped by Christian humanism, advocated belief in a personal god according to the second or third definition, depicting God as loving and caring.
I object to this bigoted, POV, Whig history of theology; that interpretation of Christ the king is completely and utterly laughable, evincing a total ignorance of medieval government, manners, religion, philosophy, and society in general. Medieval kings were not haughty, not if they wanted to actually get anything done (for example, their vassals, meaning nobles who held land in gift from them, were not actually obligated to obey their orders on a battlefield, just to show up--so negotiating skill was very important.) And as to their concern with the fate of their subjects (which is probably what was meant by "vassals"): could you imagine a modern President or Prime Minister willingly whipped through the streets of his capital, like Henry II? Especially if he had that kind of personality?
Its portrayal of Puritanism is no better--it's obviously totally unacquainted with the teachings of Puritanism, like Total Depravity and Predestination. Puritans are not just "mean," judgmental Christians; they actually believe different things about sin.
It was the most illiterate, POV thing I'd ever seen. It added nothing to the article, so I deleted it.
Someone did the right thing, asking for a "cite" on its assertion about Christ the King, but I think deletion is better. Nagakura shin8 ( talk) 01:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"God is conceived and described as a being a personal creator," RuMoR ( T~ C) 16:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The very beginning of the article says jews believe in a personal god, and in fact this belief is a "characteristic features of monotheism".
But "a personal god is a deity that is, and can be related to as, a person", and later on it says jews do not believe God is a person. Isn't that a direct contradiction??
Same question for muslims. I am a muslim myself, I love God, but I do not consider him to be a "person" nor my relationship with God as "personal", and I consider myself fairly representative of muslims.
Looking through Google for a source, I find an awful lot of christian polemics. Apparently not believing in a personal god is a horrible thing. I actually get the sense that "personal god" is mostly a christian concern. -- 99.245.206.188 ( talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.108.68 ( talk) 08:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The article God in Islam claims that "God in Islam is not only majestic and sovereign, but also a personal God: according to the Qur'an, God is nearer to a person than his jugular vein. (Quran 50:16)" - but saying that God is "near to a person" does not directly imply He "is" a person. I've always understood Islamic god as being beyond any description (hence He has no image etc.), and therefore being somewhat different than a person, but this would need to be supported by more pertinent quotes from the Qur'an. Anyone could help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasiok ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The sub-section titled DEISM tells nothing about Deism, but rather sets out two "narrow" interpretations of a Personal God having nothing in particular to do with Deism. Deism is only mentioned in passing. Why, then, is there such a heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iohannkn ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
from the lead section:
does always not mean "not always" or "never"? the vaishnavism section, along with the muslims' view section, also need some attention (no offence to the authors). i'll look into it myself, but i'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, and chances are i'd change the intented meaning by editing. k kisses 15:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "In Vaishnavism the reality of God is never in an idealization, but the actual impact of God in the lives of human beings" can be taken to mean a lot of different things:
I am sure there are more, presumably including the original intended meaning of the author, as non of these seem to describe vaishnava philosophy (which as a branch of the dvaita school does believe in a separate independent existence of God. Unless this sentence is clarified I will remove it. -- Q Chris ( talk) 08:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE Jewish theology states that God is not a person UNQUOTE. Wrong. The Maimonidean 13 Articles of Faith state that He "is not a body, and cannot be grasped in bodily terms, and has no likeness". This is a rejection of G-d's corporeality and materiality, but not His personhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.210.193 ( talk) 17:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll look again in the 'Christian' section for LDS/Mormon doctrine on: (1) Heavenly Father, (2) Son, Jesus Christ, and (3) Holy Ghost, (being personal and separate). -- AstroU ( talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)