Talk:Conceptions of God/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

After a general re-structure of the article and a few add-ons, with the intention of creating a basis for further necessary development of the article, I am removing the "cleanup tag" of December 2005. Hope it's ok. Thanks --88.214.139.161 04:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The objective was[is] to limit each conception, transmiting its core idea, to a maximum of two paragraphs (the rest of each one would be at each specific related article). This way perhaps it is easier for the users to get a more clear picture of the whole conceptions presented when reading the entire article. I have re-written certain conceptions to fit the two paragraphs, and perhaps I may have not summarized them in the best way; so, they can and should be rewritten in a more effective way. Thanks --88.214.139.161 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Judaism

Shouldn't there be an article on the jewish god, I mean it IS kind of important, we did kind of create the belief in monotheism (I think that's what it's called). - NJ Rock

You could look up Judaism or Yahweh, which is the biblical name for God. Sure, it's pretty important. Without it, there'd be no Christianity or Islam.--Gazzster 14:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it the same God?

I've always wondered this question, "Is the Supreme God of Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism, and Pantheism and all religious faiths that worship a Supreme God the same God? God of Christianity and Judaism could be the same God of Islam. Don't you think? I mean, I've never seen why not and I've always assume that Yaweh, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman, ect... Have all referred to the same Supreme Being. So why not? Anker99 08:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people do believe all faiths worship the same deity. Others don't. Others say there is no Supreme Being, or that, if it exists, it is not a personal being outside humanity. A matter of faith, I suppose. But it is wonderful and fascinating, isn't it? The various ways people have expressed a belief in something beyond them?--Gazzster 14:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Referring to this statement, "These religions all share the same roots and God, yet simply differ on the details." This is being stated as a fact rather than a belief, and I believe many people will find it offensive. It is already stated many times that some people believe it is all the same God. This statement should be deleted.---Sfmwol 10:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---Trinity doctrine definitely does NOT use the concept of Mother. It is always, in every case, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam referred to as Father. This statement is absolutely incorrect and should be deleted.Sfmwol —Preceding comment was added at 03:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New introduction

There are many conception of the chief gods of religions. The monotheistic Gods are extremely like in their characteristics.The Standard Model of (monotheistic) God(s) Gods in non-monotheistic religions can vary widely. Polytheistic religions, for example, have usually a hierarchy of gods.

I modified the introduction to reflect the conception of gods according to all religions, not like the monotheistic ones.--Names of chief gods (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this. You are modifying the subject of the article for no obvious reason. Ilkali (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Conceptions of God can vary widely" is false. The traits are Yahweh, Allah, Vahiguru are almost identical. It is unclear what you're opposing.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that those deities are almost identical. The issues discussed in the article seem sufficient evidence to the contrary. Ilkali (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, and immortality are all traits of Yahweh, Allah, Vahiguru. Aren't these sufficient likenesses?--71.108.2.69 (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the commonality of five properties among three deities is not enough to reject the proposition that "Conceptions of God can vary widely". Ilkali (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The conceptions become varied once non-monotheistic religions are added.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They become more varied. Ilkali (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I named 5 likeness of Yahweh, Allah, Vahiguru. You haven't specified a major single variation of these 3 monotheistic gods.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. Ilkali (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only smile at the clarity of your response. Again, I emphasize that Yahweh, Allah and Vahiguru aren't the same. Yet, they don't vary widely in their characteristics.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the differences in conceptions are not sufficient to describe them as varying "widely". It is my opinion that they are. If your position were simply that we should reword the lead to be less subjective, you'd be met with more receptive ears. Instead you are arguing that it be replaced by something equally subjective that asserts the exact opposite. Not only that, but you want to change the entire focus of the article. So far you do not have consensus. Consider trying an RfC. Ilkali (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlimited knowledge

I believe that there is only one true concept of God. Unlimited knowledge. According to this concept all possibilities logical, mathematical, and physical exist in Gods thoughts. Take for example the number of pictures that can be displayed on an ordinary television 10^1,500,000. Each picture is possible and therefore exists in Gods knowledge.

A thought needs a brain the way a painting needs paint. So God must have a physical world for each of his unlimited thoughts. Some will be good thoughts like Heaven others will be bad thoughts like Hell and some thoughts will involve Lions, Witches, and Wardrobes.

This concept of God may be similar to the Multiverse Theory, only with a little bit more imagination. I wonder if Richard Dawkins has visited Narnia recently.--Gjeremy (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that [...]". This page isn't about what you believe. Please see WP:FORUM. Ilkali (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I Guese If I believed that the earth was round instead of flat then the article earth would have nothing to do with what I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjeremy (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

God and love

Nothing about the relationship between God an love to be found here. Why not?

For example: Sai Babas Thought for the Day -5th December 2005- says: There is in everyone a spark of Truth; no one can live without that spark. There is in everyone a flame of Love; life becomes a dark void without it. That spark, that flame is God, for He is the source of all Truth and all Love. Man seeks the Truth; he seeks to know the reality because his very nature is derived from God who is Truth. He seeks Love, to give it and share it, for his nature is God and God is Love.

-- 88.75.203.177 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"God" as opposed to "Gods"

"By not using Yahweh's name and using, instead, the generic word "God," we are contributing to the deception that we all worship the same God and that Allah is just another word for God."[1]--71.108.2.69 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What does the term 'God' mean to you? Ilkali (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Any immortal being.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not what the term means to the majority of speakers. Wikipedia has to use language that conforms to established conventions, not just the impressions of a single person. Ilkali (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the article gives the impression that (1) there is one supreme god in the universe, and (2) we simply have different ways of thinking about this same God. It is inaccurate because it doesn't provide sources to attribute the belief that it is in fact the same God. I don't want proof, rather attribution of statements to sources.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not give that impression. Ilkali (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You say it doesn't give the impression of the same God (singular). Then why isn't "Gods" if it gives the impression of different gods?--71.108.2.69 (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't give either impression. It says nothing about what gods might exist. It talks about God rather than gods in general because it is an article about God. Ilkali (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you genuinely mean this, then the article's name should be Conceptions of divinity.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an article about God. It is not an article about divinity. Ilkali (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an article about gods, If you even care to read it before you state your opininion, the title is wrong.Learningnave (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it is either singular or plural.--71.108.2.69 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

'God' is a singular proper noun. Ilkali (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What an idiot...--207.68.234.177 (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Islam

About "the purpose of existence is to make God pleased, both by worship and by good deeds."

This not really true, because it let us think our relation with an anthropomorphic God which has feelings like human. Yes, there is verse 56 in the 51st surat in quran, but it does not mean that God seeks pleasure for worship. Thus, many verses (2:97, 14:8, 29:6, 31:12) tolds us that God will not be affected "emotionally" if we seek his way or not, this means that it is for our proper benefit not to help God be pleased.

I think that the problem rise from the use of adequate word, in Arabic we use يحب (he likes, he loves) but we don't really think it as feeling or emotional state of God, it is like a form of satisfaction (again this is not the exact meaning of الرضا when applied to God) for what we do, because we seek his instructions.

It is problematic, for the same word, when applied to God, the meaning changes in a way which is ineffable, so that we will not fall down in a trap of anthropomorphistic view of God, thus, affects our way to do worship and good deeds.

What I can suggest is to try to choose as possible as you can the approximate English vocabulary, and use a footnote to explain it for non-Arabic speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.46.32 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The All

I am a Hermeticist and under your Hermeticism section ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God#Hermeticism ) the articles says: "the possibility of there being things outside of The All is not excluded."

Well, The Kybalion says on page 27 (32 if viewed in pdf http://www.kybalion.org/TheKybalion.pdf or http://www.kybalion.org/kybalion.php?chapter=IV): "THE ALL must be ALL that REALLY IS. There can be nothing existing outside of THE ALL, else THE ALL would not be THE ALL."

By its very definition, The All must be all-encompassing. When I read in this article that there is supposedly a possibility of something being outside of The All that really struck me as being completely wrong. Please fix this.

Sorry if I did anything wrong here I've never edited wikipedia before but Hermeticism is really important to me and I don't want people getting the wrong ideas about it. BlueBerryWizard (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh, don't worry. Next time just plain erase things that are wrong and cite a source in-article for what you're replacing them with, if you're doing so. If it's wrong, someone will eventually revert the change (it's very easy to do). 187.204.41.22 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)