Talk:God/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

The Way to find God and Jesus:

There is a clear reason for yawning: It is caused by god (god loves us but he sometimes acts as an adversary= devil like us humans too to test the humans and to have the humans down under his thumb, because he wants to keep the relationship, he really loves us). God is composed of the universal engergy (everything consits out off this energy). We feel this energy in the form of love. God (the devil=adversary) has got possibilities of communication for example (singing of crows, barking of dogs like one woof for yes and woof-woof for no... <- you can try this yourself !!!!!, communication with humans in dreams... and thus he arrives in the radio, with yawning god/the devil can initiate a cough...<--- you will find Jesus this way if you pay attention, God promised to show us his son = this is a valid proof!!!). Jesus was sent to earth by god to communicate and only he showed the humans what god is really like (deep inside he loves us and he wants us to love him and believe in his goodness and power) !!!!! This love should always last even through the bad days !!!!!!!!!!

new header for rednblue

God denotes the deity believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.

I am afraid that the above sentence does not make sense. I would suggest that any English dictionary would illustrate the verbal mechanics in creating a logical English sentence on the subject of "God." The following, I would say, is an example of a sensible sentence from a dictionary on the subject of "God."

God is a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.[1]

The primary defect of the God denotes ... nonsense is that it connotes that God--whatever that is--is merely a word or expression that denotes. Is "God" just an expression? --Rednblu 16:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Is "God" just an expression?" Why yes, I believe just that. :) Typhoid Orchid 22:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "denotes" language, and cant think of a case where its better than "X is" or "X refers to." But is God a "being?" Or is God a name (as opposed to the word "god") to refer to the omniscient deity in monotheism? See the difference?-Ste|vertigo 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Whoever says "I am that I am" is at least claiming to be a "being," would you agree? This is just a justification of what the dictionary says that "God" is--a being. The voice that came out of the Bush did not say "I denote what I denote". Perhaps you are thinking of the Greek corruption that begins with "In the beginning was the Word that referred to what was not a being." I am afraid that every high school student who comes here will be asking, "Yes, but what is God--really?" And there are lots of WP:NPOV that we could quote that would say exactly what God is. So why not define God in terms of what God is? --Rednblu 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever claims that God is claiming to be a being? The claim itself is not attributable to God, but to people who believe in God as a personified deity. According to NPOV to define God in God's terms is... problematic. We could also make unqualified deference to Magneto and Spongebob Squarepants about who and what they are. Note also that there is just as much reason to include other non-Abrahamic views of a unitary Supreme Being, at least to disambiguate important distinctions between related concepts of unitary deity. It is not our business to explain "what is God, really," just as it isnt our business to point people toward a true faith. We explain what things are in NPOV terms, which references all related ideas, concepts and beliefs as claims and nothing more. -Ste|vertigo 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Does not the dictionary report that most people hold God to be "a being ... " when it gives the first definition of God to be "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe....[2]?" I am not questioning your theology. And I certainly am not claiming anything about God. I am questioning your WP:NPOV logic. And I am paraphrasing and citing the words of verified reputable experts on what intelligent people say that God is. Who is it that claims that the God defined in the dictionary is not a being? Can you name one? --Rednblu 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic religions

Mark, I'm not entirely sure what this means or refers to: "Ethnic religions may believe in a supreme being but may hold sharply ethnocentric views of God's relationship to humans." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I requested of Mark that he talk here, which he has not done. I will restore the previous version and force his participation here. "Ethnic religion" is a conceptual distinction between religions which claim to be universalist - open, applicable, and influenced by everyone - from those which are ethnic --ie. ancestral, traditional, and limited to particular cultures. There are of course no truly universalist religions, nor are some religions deemed to be "ethnic religions" entirely ethnic. -Ste|vertigo 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim wrote: "I agree with Mark; it's not clear that "unitary monotheistic concept" means much e.g. it's not the concept that's monotheistic" - ?? Are you saying that God him/herself is monotheistic? What do you mean by this? Your edits appear to be quite similar to Mark's. Apparent bias: Why did you include YHVH but not Allah? -Ste|vertigo 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the religion that's monotheistic, and the name of the concept is "monotheism." But the concept itself is not monotheistic. This is what I meant about problems with the writing, and it's not just in this sentence. -Slim Virgin

So what youre saying is the concept of the single unitary deity called "God" has nothing whatsoever to do with mono-theism. Is that a correct read of what you said above? The only other way to interpret this statement would be to mean something like God is real and not just a "concept", which would somewhat contradict NPOV. And you say "it's the religion that's monotheistic." Which religion are you referring to? This article is not limited to that scope, and if it was, it would be titled accordingly. This is what I mean about problems with your editing. -Stevertigo

I've removed this: "Ethnic religions may believe in a supreme being but may hold sharply ethnocentric views of God's relationship to humans." What does it refer to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that sentence was written in an unwieldy manner, but it does make an important discernment between religious systems who claim God is culturistic and belongs to a particular group of people, and those who believe that God is... God. Repeat: Apparent bias: Why did you include YHVH but not Allah? -Stevertigo

Also, you wrote above the other version was the stable one, but in fact you changed the intro just over three weeks ago. And the one there now was not written by a new user; he reverted to the old one. It is you who needs to justify the changes you want to make, and explain exactly how they are improvements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Three weeks? $3\times 7\times 24=504$ hours? And everybody thought it was good enough to leave alone, except for you. Please think about why youve decided to violate WP:HA with regard to anything I edit. -Ste|vertigo 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim's edit

Slim slimmed down the first few pgphs to this below. While I agree that certain points should be simplified for the layman reader, there are some basic problems with sentence phrasing, sensibility, and readability, aside from problems with the basic angle it takes, which require this change to be discussed here. -Ste|vertigo 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous version and copy-edited it. I take no responsibility for it, except that it's better than the version I reverted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of needing it simpler for the layman. There are parts of the other intro that make no sense, period, to laymen or anyone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you should first discuss it with us instead of claiming to know what all laymen or anyone else thinks. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous version	Steve V	Slim's version
God (YHWH in Hebrew, see etymology) denotes the deity believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe. Conceptions of God vary widely, despite the use of the same term for them all. Believers in one God may be adherents of pantheism, panentheism, philosophical rationalism, mysticism, or Trinitarianism. Some view God as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being; such views of God are anthropomorphic. Others put God into a mystical or philosophical category. They may refer to God as the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the ground of being, that which we cannot understand. People with such points of view see anthropomorphism or iconography associated with God as symbolism, but not literally true, or even as idolatry. According to universalist views, God is available to all, though often only through particular rituals and traditions.	The name "God", (rel. YHWH in Hebrew, see etymology) refers to the unitary (ie. monotheistic) concept of deity —most commonly described as an intelligent consciousness of infinite spiritual substance that underlies or permeates through the whole natural and physical universe of which it is said to be both "creator" and "ruler." As the supreme deity, God is worshipped, and "his" favour is courted by believers, who claim to have a direct or mediated relationship with "him." As such, separate cultures have developed distinct and particular concepts of faith and worship, which are the foundations for the world's various ethnic-traditional belief systems. In the Western World and in areas influenced by it, the term God is referred to as the God of the Abrahamic religions. Concepts of God can vary widely, despite the use of the same term for them all, and these conceptual differences are the fundamental distinctions between various religious definitions. According to monotheism, pantheism or panentheism, or (in critical context) the supreme deity of henotheistic religions, God may be conceived of in various degrees of abstraction: as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category, the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself, the "ground of being," the "monistic substrate," that which we cannot understand, etc. According to "universalist" views, God is available to all, though often only through particular methods and traditions. Ethnic religions may believe in a "supreme being" but may hold sharply ethnocentric views of God's "nature" and God's "plan." Some may regard any certain conceptions and traditions of worship as false or "blasphemous" —for example the use of anthropomorphic mythology and iconographic depictions of God may be regarded as mere "symbolism" or else as idolatry.	God refers to the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality. He is believed variously to be the creator, or at least the sustainer, of the universe. Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. He has been described as bodiless, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent. These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including St Augustine, Al-Ghazali, and Maimonides. Freud regarded this view of God as wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure, while Marxist writers see it as rooted in the powerlessness experienced by men and women in oppressive societies. All the great medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, attempting to wrestle with the contradictions God's attributes appear to imply. For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent freewill is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient. Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation. If nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary. If his commands are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent. The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen sustained attacks on the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for God's existence. Against these, theists (or fideists) argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position famously summed up by Pascal as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of." Notes

Grading of the two three versions

The above three versions score at 32% PlusOrMinus 7%. None of the three is worth the time it would take a high school student to scan them. All three indiscriminately homogenize contradictory opposites into illogical strings of words. --Rednblu 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Re Slim's previous version: Why are we giving the Hebrew? Why not the Hindi? Why not the Portuguese, Chinese or any other language in which a notion of "God" is expressed? Why do we say it is the entity believed by monotheists to be this and that when we then note, correctly, that some nonmonotheists also have a concept of "God"? Why only give some conceptions of "God" in the intro and not others? Why say how some see God without any reference at all to sources? This is worse than useless because it's not comprehensive and doesn't even get close to how most see "God". This version is far too thin. The other, although it has its problems, is far superior in detail and understanding, and much more sympathetic to the views of those who believe in a "God", which is appropriate.

Re Steve's version. How can anyone like the "most commonly described" bit? It describes several different conceptions of "God" as though they were one. How does "God" "underlie" the universe? He is usually described as transcending it, which is a completely different thing. Some, particularly Muslim philosophers, have described the universe as emanating from him (as do Hindus in a sense, I suppose), and others say that he cannot (or will not) interact with the universe and must use demigods to do so. Why choose the notion of an "underlying" God, which doesn't make a lot of sense, over those notions, which do? How can he both "underlie" and "permeate" the universe? Few people would believe both; rather, one or the other. What is "infinite spiritual substance"? Is "God" substantial? I rather thought he was not any such thing. Who believes "God" has a substance? Can you source that? "God's favour" is courted by some believers, but not by any means by all. Some don't believe he has a "favour" that can be "courted". Some believe he does his will; but that cannot be considered the same thing as a "favour" that can be "courted". The sentence beginning "As such" is a/ not an "as such"; actually, I struggle to see what exactly that would mean and my English is excellent; b/ not taking note that many belief systems do not include a "God" who is worshipped as a supreme deity (the sentence strongly implies all do but myself, for instance, I have a belief system with no god whatsoever); c/ ignoring that the belief systems surrounding "God" are notable for not being "ethnic-traditional" (far from it; they tend to be multiethnic and generally opposed to traditional beliefs, although it's true that they do sometimes encompass them by the back door, as it were). The next paragraph is poorly worded. I'm not entirely sure that it's even true, but it's too badly written to allow certainty about that. The bit about blasphemy is nothing to do with "God" per se but to do with religious strictures surrounding "God". The two should be kept separate. The mention of "universalist" is also misleading. Again, this is not about "God" as such (were it, it would be worded "Universalists believe God makes himself available to all", whatever is meant by "God"'s being available to all.

Personally, I don't think either version is salvageable but Slim's at least has the virtue of being shorter. Whatever we end up with, given the treatment other widely accepted concepts have here, I think we should begin with "God is..." not "God denotes..." Whether you believe in "God" or not, he is a thing. Very few people would consider that "God" is just a name in the sense we are implying here. Cf. unicorn. Grace Note 07:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note well that the previous version was not written by me. All I did was revert to the older version Mark also reverted to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Slim has basically just admitted to editing based on a lack of knowledge of the subject, (reverting to an earlier but poor version) rather than based on a knowledge of the subject. Thanks, Slim: Way to go with those reverts.

Grace, your criticism is to the point and substantial, and I want to deal with all of it. The first point you make is with regard to the basic general description of God, and you focus first on the problem of the term "underlies" being inferiour to "trancendent." I agree, and contemplated doing so, but progress was undermined by Slim's revert. You seem to be niggling over the defintions of particular phrasing, for example "how can he both "underlie" and "permeate" the universe" seems to be answered in you next statement where you use an "or" to offer some choice. I dont know if and necessarily means both, or that or would necessarily mean an exclusive disjunction (xor). I do agree that its important to choose concepts, descriptive terms, and even function words, carefully so as to offer an inclusive and valid description, just as I maintain that to avoid such description, as Slim appeared to have advocated, is a copout. I think you are coming in here at just the right time to help out, and we can certainly figure out the right wording here on the talk. -Ste|vertigo 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Grace points

• "God is..." not "God denotes..." Whether you believe in "God" or not, he is a thing. Very few people would consider that "God" is just a name in the sense we are implying here. -Grace
  • Its an issue of scope. Are we in a position to dicatate what God is, or who God is, without first explaining the fact that God is used as a name? So if God is not a thing, nor is God merely a concept, nor is God merely a name, could we say "the name God refers to..." instead? -Steve
• It describes several different conceptions of "God" as though they were one. -Grace
  • Dont confuse a description of the most common attributes therof as meaning "as though they were one." -Steve
• How does "God" "underlie"..."transcend" "[the universe] emanat[es] from him"... "cannot (or will not) interact with the universe [except through demigods]." "Why choose the notion of an "underlying" God, which doesn't make a lot of sense, over those notions, which do?"
  • Its strange that you should say that one makes sense while the others do not. We are talking about the indescribable, after all - the concept of that which trancends all concepts (lest what you be actually talking about be an idol - which by definition is something less than God). I can just as easily use your own language and terms against itself, and nitpick at the semantics rather than the substance. Can we be constructive instead of failing and then winding up using a terse nonce introduction like theyve done at truth? -Steve
• "and" "...both; rather, one or the other"
  • Connective ties between terms can be tricky, certainly. Such is language. -Ste|vertigo 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• What is "infinite spiritual substance"? Is "God" substantial? I rather thought he was not any such thing." "Who believes "God" has a substance? Can you source that?"
  • If by some dogma you are using "substance" in its material meaning rather than its substantive meaning, then that is your inference, and your inference should not be confused with the proper broad usage of that term in that context. -Ste|vertigo 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• "God's favour" is courted by some believers, but not by any means by all. Some don't believe he has a "favour" that can be "courted". Some believe he does his will; but that cannot be considered the same thing as a "favour" that can be "courted". - Grace
  • This is problematic, but only because it refers to the concepts of prayer and belief itself (!) as being important (perhaps fundamental) components within faith itself --ie. something to do with devotion and worship of God -- hence the basis of knowledge, and therefore encyclopedic relevance. ("Grace versus works" is a tangent example of this kind of debate within Christian theology). But I agree that such debates, if we are to reference them, are too difficult to summarise in the lede. -Steve

Slim's real version

Given that a version of the intro is being wrongly attributed to me, I've quickly written up something that approaches what I would write, were I writing this (based on the limited textbooks I have to hand). -SlimVirgin

Interjecting: Thats quite a novel idea. -Ste|vertigo 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

God refers to the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality. He is believed variously to be the creator, or at least the sustainer, of the universe.

Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. He has been described as bodiless, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent. These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including St Augustine, Al-Ghazali, and Maimonides. Freud regarded this view of God as wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure, while Marxist writers see it as rooted in the powerlessness experienced by men and women in oppressive societies.

All the great medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, attempting to wrestle with the contradictions God's attributes appear to imply. For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent freewill is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient. Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation. If nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary. If his commands are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent.

The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen sustained attacks on the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for God's existence. Against those, theists (or fideists) argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position famously summed up by Pascal as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Wow. And on top of everything else, it's sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all Oxford and Cambridge. Quite lovely. Could we avoid the quantum leap from Maimonides to Freud though, Slim? And the Marxist views of God would seem to be misplaced. -Ste|vertigo 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Slim. I like it a lot. I would, however, just say "God is". God refers is not correct -- unless you're talking to Him, and He makes a reference, if you see what I mean -- and a more correct form like "God" refers turns the page into an article about the word. Saying "God is..." followed by "believed" makes the faith-based status of the word "is" suitably apparent.

Quibbles: I'm not sure about "bodiless"; maybe incorporeal? And I am not totally sure about including the contradictions right up top -- I'd put them after a little history or something. That said, this version is far more readable and informative than previous. bikeable (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay and Bikeable. Good point about "refers to"; I've changed it to "is." And I changed bodiless to incorporeal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit represents a substantial improvement in your modality of editing - making actual changes rather than just clicking on the magical revert button. Your improved behaviour is to be commended.

In terms of substance, there are many more aspects of your edit which I like rather than dont like, though in terms of volume, a substantial portion of the wording itself would seem to fit in the latter category. In particular, the third paragraph down, though while starting off on a good (if not rather generalistic) point (note the contrast between pgph. 2 and 3 with respect to specificities and generalities) is problematic because it gets mired in details of debates regarding particular aspects --all of which are either philosophical or too localised to particular religious theology to use, in light of similar critiques against my version. Good work, but plenty more to do to make it Good. -Ste|vertigo 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the incredibly condescending tone of your comments, it is clear that your behavior has not improved one iota, and therefore you are not to be commended. And given that you seem pathologically unable to write clear, factual and relevant prose on, well, basically any topic (i.e. "the modality of your editing"), it would behoove SlimVirgin to actively avoid making the introduction what you consider to be "Good". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If we understand pathological condescension to in part be the product of weeks of concerted harrassment by you two, then its about a push at this point, and Im more than willing to be courteous with Slim, provided you two actually show some direct responsiveness and knock it off with this tag-team nonsense. Clear? -Ste|vertigo 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it won't work. You were the one who was following us (or me, I'm not sure which) around, making bizarre edits to introductions in order to introduce your personal viewpoint. But regardless, concentrate on content, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been "harassed" or "tag-teamed"; you've had your incredibly bad edits reverted by various editors who actually care about the quality of Wikipedia, and your spurious RfCs mocked and deleted by people who understand that the RfC process is not a forum for petulant whining. When it is pointed out that your insertions are non-factual nonsense, you reply "yes, they weren't accurate, but you still shouldn't have reverted them" as your main defense, with the backup of insults and conspiracy-mongering, all the while claiming such insults etc. are not a violation of WP:CIVIL, which you apparently wrote, but obviously cannot understand. This, of course, is leavened with liberal use of Wikien-l for entirely inappropriate personal vendettas showing a remarkable disregard for the truth, not to mention closing the thread even as it opens, by immediately violating Godwin's Law. Once you learn to write neutral, cited intelligible prose, and not the fantastical gibberish you've been posting, then I'm willing to stop reverting your edits. Clear? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. This is after all coming from two people who refused, despite invitation, to join an open thread on wikien which dealt directly with one particularly controversial aspect of editing behaviour, which I believe has some relevance. Forgive me, but your unwillingness to deal with your behaviour in appropriate places has forced me to comment in places where content should be paramount. -Ste|vertigo 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue was always your behavior, and the thread never dealt with that. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So why then did you two avoid it? (Its still open if you like). And if you want to "stick to content," why do you consistenly bring up the issue of my behaviour? -Ste|vertigo 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you behave badly. You don't use sources. You argue that your definition of "Palestinian refugee" is better than that of the United Nations. You try to cause problems for people who oppose you. You come up with conspiracy theories rather than accept that perhaps your writing isn't as clear as it might be. The solution is to stick to source-based research. Read what the authoritative sources say on a topic and write articles based on that. Then there will be no problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do? I dont? Refugee: No, I dont argue that - I argue that the distinction between "refugee" and "people" is only political and therefore "refugeee" should be merged with "people." "Conspiracy theories? Source-based research? Authoritative sources? No problem?" Please stick to the content. -Ste|vertigo 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your tone in this discussion falls far short of what is required by WP:CIVIL. Please be less sarcastic and less condescending to other editors who are trying to do good work. bikeable (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, speaking as someone with some knowldege of the subject, the civility principle entails more than just what words are chosen (though its often easy to point to an occasional swear word, and ignore everything else). I appreciate your comments, but I take them with full awareness that you may not be at all aware of the context between I and these two. -Ste|vertigo 01:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the unintended implication that you had written the version you were reverting to, Slim. I meant only that it was the version you were championing. I think the one you actually wrote is so far superior to both the others as to be unchallengeable as a working version: a credit to your intelligence and writing ability. Steve, I apologise for simply not having the time to quibble with you over your comments on my comment, nearly all of which are either not constructive or just plain bollocks. I apologise if that doesn't seem civil but I can't think of a better word for it. Grace Note 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, GN. I appreciate the feedback. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Grace Note 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure what the definition of "bollocks" is. Is it close to "bs?" Do I read you correctly? I respond to your every point. You then call my comments incivil, and then state "[you dont have] the time to quibble with [me] over [my] comments on [your] comment, nearly all of which are either not constructive or just plain ...?" -Ste|vertigo 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I direct you to the article on bollocks for an explanation of sorts. You might focus on the element of the explanation that notes that it is generally content-free. I didn't comment on your civility or otherwise, because I couldn't care less about that. Grace Note 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Notes

The SV in this discussion is Stevertigo, not SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "He is..." - A male personification? Without any previous qualifier indicating that "God" be a name for this male personification? -SV

   It's quite usual for God to be personified as male, or at least to take the masculine pronoun, regardless which culture is describing him. I cannot in fact think of a major religion that has a supreme female deity. Please source your objection. Grace Note 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   The objection is neutrality with regard to the personification, not the gender. -SV

   In which case, I can only conclude that you do not speak English as your first language, otherwise you would be quite aware that what appear to be gender-specific pronouns can be used for entities that are not considered to be persons. Cf. ships. Grace Note 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   I do speak English, although its not the Queens English. (Nor do I worship in Her church neither). Someone with such a knowledge of English should be able to discern between what a statement "appears to be" (based on a no-doubt thorough reading), from what the statement actually means, as it is stated. So when I say "x is a, and not b" it should be clear to any master of English that b is not relevant to the discussion. -Ste|vertigo 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, but the problem remains that you are seeing "a" when you are looking at "b" and reading into it a meaning it does not bear. Grace Note 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "...to be the supreme reality" !? - No no no. How is a male personification "the supreme reality," except in the view of psychoanalysis which views God as merely a reflection of the psyche? -SV

   Is English perhaps not your first language? It's possible that you do not know that native English writers used to use, and in many cases still do use, "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun (naturally, it's not very neutral but we are not here to straighten out the world's wrongs). As a consequence, most English-language descriptions of God use "he" as the pronoun to go with him. Describing God as "it" would be extremely offensive, I believe, to the vast majority of those who believe in him, as well as a woeful misrepresentation of the sources. Grace Note 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sure you understand the difference between writing for NPOV in English and deferring to Western conventions as expressed in English. -SV

   No, I do not have any conception of NPOV as other than a recapitulation without prior bias of the published views on a subject. I suggest you read WP:NPOV and become clearer on that conception. Grace Note 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   I believe your reductive condensation of NPOV is so exemplary it should be shared on wikien. It should indeed be good for a chuckle or two, as most of us neither confuse the principle of NPOV with WP:V, nor with citenazism. -Ste|vertigo 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   You are welcome to post it wherever you like, but I assure you the only chuckles it will arouse will be at you should you diverge from that understanding. The principles of NPOV and V are interlinked for obvious reasons, not least that this is an encyclopaedia, a work that consists of recapitulations of sources. If you don't like "citenazism", I suggest you leave the project, because you have fundamentally misunderstood that it is built from sources, not our personal views. Grace Note 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

   Stop pretending to threaten people, Stevertigo; no sensible editor on wikiEN or anywhere else would have supported the edits you were trying to make to this article. And "reductive condensation" is another example of what Wittgenstein called "language gone on holiday," which is the problem with much of your editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

   I hope Steve won't be offended if I note that I put my LOLlerskates on when I read that. Grace Note 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "Freud regarded this view of God as wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure, [3] while Marxist writers see it as rooted in the powerlessness experienced by men and women in oppressive societies." - Belongs in a critical or agnostic section of the lede. I understand space is short, but distinguish theological views from philosophical, empiricalist, and a-theistic (critical of theology) views. -SV

   It's very appropriate to give varying views of God. Far more so than to mistake views on religious strictures for views on God himself. Grace Note 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   I agree. -SV

   Then you are disagreeing in this point for the sake of it? Grace Note 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   No, I am agreeing with this point for sake of it. I actually disagree with its inclusion at that point, given the jump from Maimonides to Freud spans at least a few decades. Im simply letting it go because I appreciate the difficulty of Slim's task, and admire her effort. That such does not seem to be returned is probably just a factor of this wikielitist strain we've been seeing lately. -SV

   I don't think there's any call for that kind of talk. If your efforts were more directed towards bringing clarity than towards creating obscure and inappropriate debates, I'm sure they'd achieve greater acclaim. Grace Note 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "He has been described as incorporeal, a personal being..." - In one sentence you have iconized exactly why your approach is culture-centric while trying to appear neutral. "He" is a description for a "personal being", is it not? Hence by "He" you have incorporated the language of Western cultural belief, again, without qualifying the name "God" as a name. -SV

   I'm all for nonculture-centrism but what culture are you referring to that does not refer to the supreme being as "he"? Can you plese source this? Grace Note 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   Any non-patrialistic culture for one, but again gender is beside the point. The difference is in the personification of God, the issue of male personification is secondary. -SV

   Could you please supply details of the "non-patrialistic culture" that you have in mind? And please supply sources for it. I am not going to argue with you about the "personification" of God, which is a characteristic of almost all belief systems that include a supreme being. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise, given that it is a notion so central to most of those belief systems. I do not say this out of any prejudice against your personal beliefs, which are entirely irrelevant here. Grace Note 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   That was an offhand retort which requires no search, because... (once again) gender is not the issue. Personification is the issue,' and you need to source this opinion of yours that "almost all belief systems" personify God. Its entirely ridiculous that you suggest so, considering the de-personalization and abstraction ("transparency") of God in Judaism, or of the transcendence of "God" (or what (not "who") qualifes) in Dharmic religions, for whom the varied "deities" are simply aspects --quite distinct from the polytheistic "Pantheon" of Greco-Roman deities, though the grab-box terms of "paganism" and "polytheism" easily lend themselves to bias and confusion. Sourcing Müller's well-understood concept of henotheism, the first sentence of Slim's version is already problematic, in that the claimed distinctions between "monotheism" and "polytheism" are based in Western traditional views, which does not equate to an NPOV basis for this article. You could say claim that this article refers to "just the monotheist God" but that would just be a extra degree of specialization for this topic beyond what the even the wordy disambiguation states. An anthropomorphised or otherwise culturally specialized concept of God is not an NPOV concept of God. -Ste|vertigo 17:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

   It is plain that I didn't mention gender in the comment you are responding to. I do not need to source anything because I am not taking issue with Slim's presentation of God in this respect; you are. Your discussion of both Judaism and "Dharmic" religions is entirely incorrect (I can only assume, actually, that you are simply unable to conceptualise how an abstract being can be "personal" to the adherent, although most believers have no problem with it at all, happily praying to a transcendent being without dimension or form), and it is a sidetrack to bicker about "monotheism" because, after all, a monotheist is someone who believes there is a supreme being, whether reflected in different aspects or not, and God is simply the term for that supreme being. You, I might note, are ignoring that the Christian God also has an avatar, but it is not in the least problematic to describe Christians as "monotheists". One could begin the article by saying "God is the supreme being for those people who believe there is a supreme being". One suspects you would then be kvetching that Zeus is a supreme being in a different sense, yet isn't called God. Grace Note 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Your attempt is a magnificent one because it touches on some of the most important questions, though it fails the NPOV test overall. -Ste|vertigo 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits are sourced. It's not for you to argue with "supreme reality," because we have a senior academic in a relevant discipline as a source. If you want to bring something else to the table, please source it equally well. Enough of the personal opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You criticise my language and phrasing - I criticise yours. Stick to the content: Why the deference to the word "He"? -Ste|vertigo 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the sources use "he". As I said, we report what the authoritative sources say. We don't add our own personal opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Further your source is Swinerton? A living Christian convert theologian of little note should be deferred to on the very nature of God ? It would make far more sense to quote Einstein (which in fact is not a bad idea, come to think of it). You no doubt have volumes at your disposal. Why not at least pick somebody who now has an extremely direct relationship with God? -Ste|vertigo 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you mean Swinburne, he's professor emeritus at Oxford who specialized in the philosophy of religion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pick somebody else. Somebody notable on the subject. Abraham maybe. Zoroaster. Hillel. Jesus. Muhammad. Somebody with name recognition. -Ste|vertigo 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He is notable on the subject and he has name recognition. I won't be answering any more of this, because it's not going anywhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can go away if you want. But if you have time I suggest reading some Aquinas or Augustine. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall Augustine calling God "dea". Do you have a source for that? Grace Note 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what you are talking about. -Ste|vertigo 11:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That, Steve, is your problem. Grace Note 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem of grace

No, Grace that is your problem. If you make a nonsensical comment like "dea", you should explain that you mean it to be a snide comment with regard to my criticism of using "He" in reference to God. If you do explain it thusly, I can respond appropriately by pointing out that this gender-based critique was not the one I gave, not on this talk or otherwise. Now that it should be clear to you that it is you who failed to understand the critical point, it should also be clear to you how nonsensical the above snide comment was. -Ste|vertigo 16:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The critical point, which you have missed, is that Augustine had a personal god, which he referred to as "deus" and with the masculine pronoun, not with some more neutral term. I was noting, in a roundabout way, that all the sources you give personalised God in one way or another; some of them carried on conversations with him, which is hard to do with an abstraction. How it would be possible for any adherent who believes they have a personal relationship with their deity not to is a matter I leave for theologists bored with angels on the heads of pins. Grace Note 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Augustine did not "[have] a personal God" - he claimed to believe in "a personal God." Thats the difference between a statement written with accord to NPOV and... something else (irrespectively). Where Augustine is concerned, meaning 'due to his Christian context,' the difference in the Latin name "deus" is trivial and hence unnotable - "God" is a direct and uncolored translation. His and Aquinas' views should be represented (through description) in the article, but they should not be incorporated into the very terminology which the article uses. For example, Aquinas uses the capitalized form for He and Himself:

"Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows both Himself and His works."

...and does so even in the context of objections from the point of view of rationality:

"Obj. 2: But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science---even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge."

Their views fit well into Christian theology, and implicit in that context is (as Muller noted) the anthropomorphisation of God - either through the person of Jesus or through a pagan-influenced concept of God as a Zeus or Odin type. But since this is not the Christian Wikipedia, NPOV requires we qualify and describe the very origin and basis of our descriptions as they are influenced or biased by our various cultures. To not do so is to convey a bias in how the term God is represented - one which does not do justice to both how the term God is used panculturally, nor how it is used in "Oriental" contexts such as the Tao, Dharma, Brahman etc. -Ste|vertigo 06:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I imagine you went pretty red in the face writing that stuff, Steve, but your implication that Augustine believed there was a personal god that he didn't personally "have" is so ridiculous that I couldn't read the rest. Grace Note 01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your ignorance and insults are up and down this page. One wonders how you got your name. Naturally, you appear to have missed the distinction that was actually made, and instead chose an imaginary interpretation which you could easily dismiss as "ridiculous." You do much to reinforce the hope that true believers will forever continue to be regarded as either downright irrational or conveniently delusional.-Ste|vertigo 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Conceptions of God

I removed this section before, but someone put it back, so I'm moving it here for discussion. It either doesn't say anything or else states the obvious:

Conceptions of God can vary widely, despite the use of the same term for them all. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization.

The question of the existence of God classically falls under the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, but is also one of the key discussions taking place within the field of the philosophy of religion.

• "Conceptions of God can vary widely." Yes, obviously so. And is it "vary widely" or merely "can vary widely," but in fact might not?
• "Theologians have studied countless conceptions ..." Basically just repeats the above; and are they really "countless"?
• ... since the dawn of civilization." Cheesy and meaningless.
• "The question of the existence of God classically falls under the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics ..." This is the only part of the section that imparts information.
• " ... but is also one of the key discussions taking place within the field of the philosophy of religion." Why the "but"? And of course it is; do we imagine that philosophy of religion might be studied without one of the "key questions" being the existence of God?

I suggest we leave the section out until someone is prepared to make it informative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct on all counts. -Ste|vertigo 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If "Christian God" is going to redirect to this page

...then shouldn't there be a secion on this page to deal with the Christian view of God alone? This page is more of an overview of monotheisms, not of different and religiously exclusive views of God. For instance, the fact that Allah is a name of God automatically precludes this page from being a reference to the Christian God, which has historically, prior to the modern trend of pluralism, denied that Islam worships the Christian Deity. Furthermore, Jesus is mentioned about six times in this entire article and almost only treated in the context of Jewish and Muslim views. Now, while there are christian views (like Arianism, Jehovas's Witnesses, etc.) which view Jesus as a lesser deity or created being, orthodox theology for most of the last two millenia has called any view which states that Jesus is somehow lesser to the Father, who is the only deity who is allowed to be called God, is a heteradox anathema. I have to wonder how this article could be rated as a Good Article if it doesn't accuratly express the orthodox view of God of the largest religion on earth. This article could stand to learn a lot from Wikiproject: Countering Systemic Bias, since this article is clearly written from a strongly American/European postchristian pluralistic viewpoint formulated no earlier than the European enlightenment. Thanatosimii 21:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Whereas it should reflect a mediaeval viewpoint? It's in the nature of an encyclopaedia article that recapitulates the main sources on a thing that it should reflect those sources' voice. If you want more material from different viewpoints, find it, include it and properly reference it. A set of sections on different conceptions of God would be excellent but what we should try to avoid is simply writing our personal views of what some religion or other thinks about God. If you want to write a "Christian view of God" section, I'd advise you to propose your text here on talk and try to get some agreement before adding it to the article. It's a big subject though, because there are many conceptions of God in Christianity rather than just one, so I'd take care not to write about your conception, thinking that it is necessarily shared. Grace Note 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Okey I do not understand how this got onto the article about God but this seems very absurd to be on here. I wish to request its removal of the link from this Article. Anker99 22:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Validity

The existence of the articles is sufficent to merit a clearly labelled link in a relevant section of the article. There is no doubt that the terms used are infact names of 'god' in the parody religions linked. Therefore the links are accurate, relevant links to existing wikipedia articles. If you disagree with the existence of the articles in the first place, take the argument there, if you can get those articles deleted, then removing the links here would be a valid action. FalconZero (Talk | contribs) 12:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This argument is both fallacious and insulting and I agree with the OP that the links should be removed. Grace Note 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So I've removed the section. Why? One, it is not in keeping with the rest of the article. Two, we do not include everything that can be said about a thing, and rightly so. If someone has written in a book that they hate God, does that oblige us to have a section titled "People who have said they hate God in books"? Should we have a section about comedy shows that have had sketches that included God in some way? Etc, etc, etc. Three, the existence of articles does not require the inclusion of sections in other articles to mention them in. It's ridiculous to suggest that, as a brief period of thought would make clear. Four, of the many, many things that can be said about God, that some guy wrote a "parody religion" would rank about seven millionth on a list of how interesting those things are. Let's show that we are able to discern what is interesting enough to include. Grace Note 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal. My standard for inclusion would be something like this. Would this interesting feature of "God" (or whatever the Wikipedia page is about) be clear enough and inciteful enough to get the interested high-school student right into the center of the "God" problem in the world (or whatever the Wikipedia page is about)? Accordingly by this my standard, the parody sections should not be on the "God" page because they are diversions from the "God" problems in history and in the world today. Likewise, the current lead section fails because it is purposefully 1) unclear and 2) irrelevant to what "God" has been in history and irrelevant to the "God" problem in the world. Thus, the current lead section should for the same reasons be removed--but should be left temporarily until we have a workable substitute that is actually better and not just another churning of the unclear nonsense that the current lead section is. --Rednblu 03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Parody religions have surely been existant throughout time: so I'd say they're mention (though possibly not any given specific current one) is as relevant as beleifs as to what God is. GromXXVII 09:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless arguing with you. If you truly think "parody religions" are worth mentioning in a serious encyclopaedia article about "God", then I would be wasting my time. Grace Note 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In Reply to Grace Note

In response to your points:
One - The links in question resided in a section described as

• Names (of God) from parody religions

As a subsection to

• Names of God (from religions)

They differ by one word, and your assertion that 'it is not in keeping with the rest of the article' relies on the assumption that religions and parody religions are substantially different, which is probably not a discussion for this article. Two - True, we do not include all known information about a topic, as it would lead to unwieldy articles, however we do include relevant information that is in keeping with the article (see Point one). By your logic, should we also remove the section "Names of God"?

Three - True, not all articles that exist should be linked to relevant articles, however I stated that they were "relevant links to existing articles", specifically to avoid situations like you have outlined in point two, for example there does not exist an article for "People who have said they hate God in books", therefore any linkage is impossible.

Four - The order of priority for inclusion of information is subjective at best. Your definition of priority may not coincide with mine, as mine may not with anothers, however. My argument for is thus : The three lines reside in a section of similar information, and are essentially a representation of the agnostic/athist/scientific/Inteligent Design Objectionist point of view, and should be included in keeping with wikipedias Neutral Point Of View policy.

Additionally, I'm unclear why you feel that my statement of 26th of August is insulting, I would appreciate if you could clarify your grievance, so that I won't make the same mistake again.

See my reply to the other guy as well as this. One is too stupid to answer. Sorry, but it is. It's like saying you should mention great American footballers in an article about soccer because hey, it's just one word. Two, this is typical of Wikiarsery. Some guy wants to add something patently stupid to an article. Someone with an iota of sense and taste says look, let's get rid of it. So the first guy goes, right, if I can't have my patently stupid thing, everything even vaguely similar to it should go. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the names of God thing. I hate lists; I think they devalue articles. Three, go back and read what I said, man. I can't really say any more than that because you have simply missed the point. There are articles about people who say they hate God in books. There are no articles about the names of God in parody religions. You are not comparing my apples with your apples but holding up a pear. Four, this is the problem here. You simply do not see why, in a serious article about "God", something so flippant should not appear. Because you don't, it's impossible to make you see sense, and this is as much effort as I'll be putting into it. As for the lines' being a representation of whatever it is you think they represent, no they aren't. And if they were, they would belong in articles about those things, and not about God. Grace Note 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Rednblu

Concentrating only on your statement regarding the parody religion section, and ignoring your points about the lead section, You state that the 'parody sections should not be on the "God" page because they are diversions from the "God" problems in history and in the world today'. I must strongly disagree, they are in fact integral to the problem of 'God' today in that they essentially represent 'the argument against'. They arose as a direct backlash of the scientific community toward "God" problems (as you describe them).

I will not return the lines to the article at this point, pending further debate on this subject. FalconZero (Talk | contribs) 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Can you cite some serious scholar--maybe somebody like Joseph Campbell or at least a poet-meddler like Robert Graves who argued something like that? --Rednblu 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's pointless discussing this issue with someone who believes that the flying spaghetti monster represents the "argument against" God. Grace Note 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Rednblu, I enjoyed our brief exchange, but I do not wish to continue debating this subject if other contributors do not wish to approach it in an adult manner. FalconZero (Talk | contribs) 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• May I say respectfully that we are discussing something very close to parody if we are considering putting those sections back in, is that not true? So we have to try very hard not to create some parody, and is that adult? Is that it? --Rednblu 05:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please accept my apologies Rednblu, my comment about approaching the discussion in an adult manner was not directed at you (see my comments below). I didn't intend to argue the nature of parody religions, or if they're valid religions, my argument was that they are a subset of religions (as donoted by the fact that they are prefixed), as I have already argued within this thread. Within these religions there exist names for the central deity, which I was arguing belong in a section clearly labeled as parody religions rather than in the main list of names of god where they could be misinterpreted as belonging to 'real' religions. FalconZero (Talk | contribs) 10:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to GraceNote

It seems that you are in fact discussing the assumption that religions and parody religions are substantially different, the difference between this and your statement about football and soccer is that parody religions are a subset of religions. (as denoted by the prefix) With regard to point two, it was an illustrative example to counterpoint your argument, not an actual suggestion (and incidentally, I agree that lists are oft inappropriate). The rest of our discussion is irrelevant because it hinges on point one which it seems you don't want to consider. As for flippancy, I respect the integrity of the article, not the subject. I should also point out that rather than debate this in an adult manner, you chose to turn this into an Ad hominem as a terminal point, which makes the entire process pointless. I am here to contribute information, and I simply don't have the time to argue with someone who appears to have a fixed point of view. Unless you wish to riposte I will assume we're done here, and leave you to your article. FalconZero (Talk | contribs) 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction regarding assumption of free will

In the introduction for this article on God it is stated that: "All the great medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, attempting to wrestle with the contradictions God's attributes appear to imply." As an example the article states: "For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent freewill is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient". This example does not illustrate a possible contradiction in 'God's' attributes, it questions whether there is 'free will' or not. One would have to prove that 'God' claims there is such a thing as complete free will (ie: an agent's will operating with absolutely no cause or causal relationship, NB -scientifically this seems impossible) and that this giving of free will qualifies as an attribute of God. I have corrected the quote (changes in bold) to: "For example, God's apparent omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent God-given freewill is illusory..."Pippin Wainwright 14:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood the sentence. It doesn't say the example illustrates a contradiction in God's attributes. Rather, it refers to "the contradictions God's attributes appear to imply," an entirely different claim, and the example that follows is, indeed, an example of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, your edit was your own argument; we add only the arguments of reliable sources to articles, not our own. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right of course. But aren't you going to correct the really serious wrongs in the lead section first? --Rednblu 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out what you think they are? If I see the word "personalisation" though, I'm reaching for my AK. Grace Note 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

in the article it keeps saying "he." there is no reason that god couldnt be a woman. and me being a man just makes it all the more strange that i'm saying.

[anonymous]

God is almost invariably described as "He" in the sources. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources say, not make its own mind up what God could or couldn't be. Grace Note 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should also explain just that, though: so I'd think that if the "He"s are to stay in that there should be a statement as to why: otherwise a reader may get confused and ask "Why is it always refering to God as male..."

? Grace Note 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Grace's and Slim's view appears to be that the western view —that God has personality, hence "He", and is not just an abstract mysterious transcendence like the "Aum" — should dominate this article, and that other articles can deal with other frameworks. They have thusfar been unable to, aside from trite insults, deal with the direct criticism that this usage of "He" violates POV, as well as our MOS conventions: ie. we dont put Jesus quotes in a red font, nor do we let people refer to their various religious figures as "His Holiness", etc. These two elemenatary criticisms should have brought Grace and Slim to an understanding that their usage of "He" at the very least needs to be qualified. They have instead thus far refused to do so, let alone respond directly to the critical points (above), and, to different degrees, they appear to enjoy the view that they can simply bogart the article. An MO that will not long remain thus. -Ste|vertigo 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Let us please not include both "He"s in that criticism of usage. --Rednblu 04:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some elaboration on any criticism would be useful. What are you talking about and what is the distinction? -Ste|vertigo 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you just find a scholar who said what you say? --Rednblu 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

• Some one wrote "God could be a woman" - no, God (talking about a supreme being as known from the three monotheistic religions) cannot be a woman, and neither can he be a man. These are qualities of human beings (as the words already tell you). God can also be neither male nor female, he is neither and both. That "he" is used is a convention and WP should stick to it, as an Encyclopedia is not aiming at confusing the reader. Also, there is no superior alternative to "he" - why should we use "she" or "it".
• Replying to the original post in this section, I see a problem in the following phrase: "If he does know this, their apparent freewill is illusory." (Italics by me) This is POV as it is not obviously true that ominscience makes free will illusory. In fact, it is a non sequitur. That it is common makes it even more important to ensure that this isn't perpetuated. The sentence should read that some argue that and not that it is like that.-Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not gender, its the usage of Western concepts of antropomorphisation in an article that is not limited to Western culture or convention. The view that "he is neither and both" is thus problematic to state without qualification and context. What the "aim of an encyclopedia" really means is not what you suggest, but that we got to follow our NPOV as well as WP:MOS. Read those and then GBTU. Point two seems to be correct. -Ste|vertigo 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the problematic wording violates NPOV as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But you are reading the anthropomorphisation into it, Steve, and again, I can only assume that this is because you don't speak English as your first language. That's not to insult you at all. Nearly every writer on "God" in nearly every language they write about "God" uses the masculine pronoun. In English, until fairly recently, it was the default for "beings". Now, Steve, you keep quoting policies at us, but you do not seem to have any awareness that to refer to God as anything other than the overwhelming majority of sources refer to him would fall foul of WP:NOR, because it is your thesis that using "he" anthropomorphises God, not that of anyone you are sourcing. Grace Note 07:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is God a He?

We might get further in this discussion if we would start consulting the primary and secondary sources, actual scholars we could cite to resolve this question of why God is a "He." Thus, we might search on any database of scholarly text for the word combination "Why-is-God-male", and lo and behold we find lots of scholars who have answered this question in many different ways. I leave most of that list of scholars for you to explore--because you will probably find a scholar who expounds on the point-of-view that you know is right. Accordingly, I bring to your attention several scholars' explanations that ring the bell on this side of this keyboard.

I cite specifically to the Fall 2000 volume of International Security an MIT Press publication wherein appears an article by Bradley A. Thayer titled Bringing in Darwin: Evolutionary Theory, Realism, and International Politics (International Security, vol. 25, no. 2, 124-151). Within the context of pulling together what is known from many disciplines of science and social sciences, Thayer summarizes the best and most realistic information that people have about why people 1) compete unproductively, 2) go to war when that is unreasonable, and 3) impose terror on each other in the name of God. In the process, Thayer feels he must untangle why God is male--both as 1) an intermediate step of induction from empirical evidence and as 2) a clue to the universality of the male God as the one in whose translated name all human cultures go to war.

On pages 134-136, Thayer points out that all empirical evidence indicates that humans inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees the operational ambivalence toward the alpha male in the community. Chimpanzees bow to the alpha male, and then hide food from the alpha male as a survival technique. And there are cycles of the subordinate chimpanzees cheating by hiding food from the alpha male and then the alpha male catching them cheating and browbeating them into submission. But the subordinates must cheat again on the alpha male to get enough food to survive--and the cycle of sin and redemption continues. In fact, a major driving factor for the evolution of human intellect was the necessity to outwit the physical power of the alpha in getting enough resources and enough sex to survive. Nevertheless, the alpha male serves a crucial role, both in human and in chimpanzee communities, in organizing the defense of the territory against the invading lethal raids from the neighboring camps of the same species.

Thus humans, because of their genetic defects, repeatedly turn their backs on reason and common sense and, in times of trouble, look for the great alpha in the sky to save them. Nevertheless, for their own survival, humans must repeatedly sin against the laws of the great alpha in the sky by caring for material goods or personal comfort more than their 1) own divinity or 2) relationship with the great alpha in the sky. For genetic reasons that we inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees, as many modern humans worship female Gods as modern chimpanzees bow to female alpha chimps--namely less than 1%. --Rednblu 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

God has no gender and the only reason we refer to God as a "HE" is because when Jesus Christ was teaching the people he referred to God as "The Father". God is indeed the Father of this Universe and God can also be considered the "Mother" if you want to. Anker99 04:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How could God be an It? A What !

What on earth is this change of God to an It about? Have you read the cited article? God is 14 times referred to as a He and never as an It. How could God be an It? Can you explain that to me? What "God" are you talking about in this edit? Is this Original research or what? --Rednblu 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't possible to replase moste or all the "he" with simply god?--Pixel ;-) 03:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Most seminaries are today switching to what's called "inclusive God-language." That means that we remove gender references to the Divine and replace them with something neutral. Also, alongside this trend is the removal of anthropomorphic language about God. This trend is actually quite older, since theologians have been saying for years that we must not make God into an idol like ourselves (both physically, conceptually, and linguistically). The thinking is that if we apply language which in any way makes God concrete (Male/female, arms and legs) we risk making the concept of God into an idol which is essentially just a projection of ourselves or our basic human-ness. This issue is tricky, since many people have a particular God-image as well as a well-reasoned purpose behind it. Generally, however, such images are kept on the personal level, while in text and discussion God-images are made neutral in gender. MerricMaker 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to be rude, or to disrespect MerricMaker's beliefs, I think we should be firm that God is referred to as "he" just as he is in just about every reputable source about him. It's just unnatural in English to call God anything but "he". It is not "anthropomorphic" any more than calling a table "la table" in French implies that one thinks the table is a woman. Grace Note 10:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't expressing my beliefs, I was responding to a question about why God was referred to as "he." My response was not based on my beliefs one way or another. Perhaps I don't believe in God at all--that is not the point of this article. First, God is referred to as "he" because at the time the Bible was written it was a male-dominated culture. This is quite important to the history of theism. Second, some recognized that such a view of God is a product of culture and history and simply limits our scope of what should be expressed as the infinite. Therefore, both views, as well as others not mentioned here, are valid and important and should be included in the discussion. That is what we must be firm about, that God does not stop with your beliefs or my beliefs, but that we remain objective regardless of the content of belief. MerricMaker 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the references to God back ti "it". To refer to God as "he" or "him" on Wikipedia would be POV. The Wookieepedian 04:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't POV when all the major sources and the standard English useage is to do so. In any event, I don't think anyone at all is saing that God is "male" when they use that pronoun. It is simply the standard English idiom. JoshuaZ 05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "he" is appropriate -- indeed, "it" is so nonstandard as to carry its own very odd-sounding POV. I would stick with "He" (or "he"?), and add a parenthetical note, ("rarely, 'She' or 'It'"). If "It" can't be verified, a parenthetical note about "She" (which is certainly used, if quite rare) would suffice. bikeable (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But using "he" sounds, well, sexist. The Wookieepedian 05:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us speak the truth to ourselves--at least in this sanctuary of God. God and evolution made us the way that we are and gave us the hungers that we actually have. We don't want women legislators, and we don't want woman Gods. We want alpha males the way our ancestors have for the last ten million years--and therefore just like Abraham wanted. Selah. --Rednblu 06:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. People's opinions on God are based on a male-dominated way of thinking. To use the word "he" to describe God suggests that (symbolically speaking) only males could have such powers. Someone reverted my edits, claiming my edits were pushing a POV. It is quite the other way around. Using "he" to refer to a genderless being in the article makes it POV, regardless of how many people choose to refer to God in this way. The Wookieepedian 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a long and distinguished line of scholars going back to the earliest syllables of human thought who explain why God is a "He." Do you have any citations to a significant published scholar who gives any evidence that God is not a "He." Please name one by chapter and verse. --Rednblu 14:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that the English language has largely abolished the grammatical gender. But some vestiges still remain, in which something that is not a "man" is referred to as "he" and something that is not a "woman" is referred to as "she". Those objection to the use of "he" here, should rather go and convince the English-speaking community that God should be referred to as "it". Especially you must convince those adhering to monotheistic religions, as the article is specifically restricted to God in monotheistic religions. If you have succeeded, you can come back and adapt the Wikipedia article to the new common English usage. But not before. So go out and see you again in 50 years the earliest. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But let me hasten to add that there are plenty of significant published scholars who have analyzed the issue of "It." Have you found them? I would suggest that someone should create a section of the God page just on the significant published views of that "It" issue. I believe that NPOV is good in all things, especially here. You may even find one of my favorite writings about "It." I am very interested in understanding the dynamics of how a group gets fixed in its interpretations of reality, and this is only one example. Once a very good friend of mine invited me and several other of his good friends to Pesach. He and his companion had created their own wonderful series of xeroxed songs, readings, and questions and answer periods to whet the interest of these big kids, graduate students, you understand. And in our readings and prayers, we went around the room. And I noticed that in the readings and prayers, God was always "He." And when my turn came, I read "She," and the first time I got a great laugh of new recognition as I replaced the "He" in the text with "She." "She" made the text very different, but still as personal and as live as a poem could be. I did not try "It" because probably I was compensating for the continual "He." But as I think about it as a Gedanken experiment, "It" just does not make good, warm poetry in any English prayer I can think of--which aren't many. "It maketh me to lie down in green pastures" conveys to me something sinister and might make a good line in a movie script. However, I have not actually tried "It" for "He" in reading to a group. I will sometime try it if I think of "It," and I will think of you, my friend. --Rednblu 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it does not matter what scholars or monotheistic religions in general prefer to use, that is still POV. It is not a fact that God is a "he", nor is it a fact that God should be referred to as a "he". I and a group of others may prefer to refer to God as either "he" or "she", but that does not change the fact that no one really knows what God is, and can therefore assign no gender to God. For Wikipedia to attempt to do this, it is a violation of the NPOV policy, just as it is to call an inanimate, non-living object such as a ship "she". The Wookieepedian 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me think this through using the actual WP:NPOV policy text? Where does that WP:NPOV policy text say that "it does not matter what scholars or monotheistic religions in general prefer to use"? I promise not to argue with your conclusion unless you ask me to do that. I am interested right now--if you give me permission--to determine how clear the WP:NPOV text is written. Where does the WP:NPOV policy text say that "it is a violation of the NPOV policy" to report what actual scholars have written on whether God is an "It" or a "He"? --Rednblu 21:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

W'pedian, I think you are taking this far too far. No one knows whether God is a "he" or a "she" or an "it", and virtually everyone tends to refer to him as a "he", so that's what we should use (with a parenthetical explanatory note, as I have said before). I don't think it's quite the same as a relic of grammatical gender, but that's a good example. We do, of course, call ships "she" in articles, because that is the way the English language works (see USS Constitution, and every other ship article). Similarly, God is generally (but not always) seen as anthropomorphic, and calling him "it" de-anthropomorphizes him in a way which I would consider far more POV. None of the choices are perfect, but "he" is very, very standard. Furthermore, it appears to me that the clear consensus of editors here goes against you. bikeable (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But again, my friend.  Just a second please.  Can you show me in the WP:NPOV text where it says that NPOV is determined by the "consensus of editors"?  I agree with you that in places the policy text implies that, but it would help my understanding here if you would show me the part of the WP:NPOV text that you think says that the consensus of editors determines NPOV.  Can you show me that?  --Rednblu 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are unnecessarily splitting hairs. Of course the consensus of editors does not determine NPOV, but then, that does not excuse a single editor who wishes to argue a contrary point. In any case, this is not a question of editors, this is a question of language use, and I think it is clear enough where most English speakers come down on this one. So could we move along? bikeable (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But there are lots of significant published scholars who agree with what W has said.  He just hasn't found them yet.  If W finds those scholars' quotes, then wouldn't NPOV require a Due balance in presentations of W's view compared with the editors' consensus view?  --Rednblu 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

An explanation of Irrelevance.

While this Linguistic debate is very fun and entertaining is ultimately comes to nothing. The present theological understanding of God is quite exactly that “IT” is the correct pronoun to utilize in the general course of scholarly debate and writing. The reasons behind this are very simple. It is generally accepted by members of the three religions which worship God that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. This means that God is totally and utterly without limit.

Now as anyone will tell you it is generally impossible for Men to completely understand Women or vice versa. As this would be a limitation on Omniscience God cannot be strictly male or female.

Also as God is Omnipotent it must be possible for God to become male or female or some totally new gender of which humanity has no knowledge. Ergo again god is not strictly male.

Finally The most compelling reason is this. God is Omnipresent meaning that God is part of all things. Including (though by no means limited to.) Mountains, Seas, Lakes, Rivers, Forests, Deserts, Cities, Trains, Busses, Cars, Boats, Docks, Chains, Iron, Copper, Tin, Gold, Silver, Men, Women, Cows, Dogs, Peacocks, Elephants, Squid, Dinosaurs, Rocks, Bricks, Buildings, Jets, Flowers, Trees, Sky, and the Sun. As you will note most of these things are ‘It’s. Ergo the most accurate pronoun description of God is also it.

I must say that this is all either irrelevant or nonsense.

The English language uses "he" for God, just as the French, German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew language.

Theological reasons would be secondary to that if they were valid, but:

That Men cannot understand women is a highly dubious claim ... and has nothing to do with omniscience. God made both so he knows both while he is neither.

Omnipotence is a tricky quality that many do not grasp. QED.

Omnipresence does not mean that God is actually part of al things. He certainly is not a mountain. He is God, everything else is not. Apart from that, you picked only things that are "it"s. Men and Women are "he"s and "she"s. Ships are "she"s in English. And: you base your agument on English's lack of a grammatical gender, but since you do so you must accept all of English usage, including the fact that English uses "he" for God.

One more point: God, in the belief of the monotheistic religions, is a personal being and hence he cannot be an "it". Can you address an it? What do you say: "Hey, it, look my may!"?

In the end, I know my explanations are futile as above reasoning sounds more like a joke. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I Am in direct agreement, the argument is Nonsense and Irrelevant. You are quite right God is neither man nor woman. You have made the asertion that one does not say "Hey, it, look my may!". Quite true! This is not said, any more than "Hey, him, look my may!" I feal that we are makeing good progress. However Some things you seam to have a touch off. I did not pick only things which were it, I included both men and women, as well as animals which can acurately be caled him or her in specific but which are its in general. Also Ships are no more female than cars or desks. While a ship is sometimes refered to as "She" it is just as common to call them it. if a child were point to a ship and ask you "What is that?" You would say "Its a ship," Not "Shes a ship,". Now finaly, your asertion that you can not adress an it is incorect. People can and do adress computers which are without question "it". Emperors Harbinger 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

At some point in this mess someone wanted decent citation of God imagery that was not masculine. I can cite gobs of theologians, but the question was phrased as a request for Chapter and Verse.

1.) Sofia (Lady Wisdom) is mentioned all over the place in the Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, Tobit, Sirach; there's some connection between her and ruach which is the breath of God, which was always recognized by Hebrews as a feminine manifestation of the Divine, moving throughout creation.

2. There's the stuff in Isaiah about "God being like a mother" to Israel, but this might be minimized depending on your translation.

However, given the direction of this discussion (which is oodles of fun by the by) the point which is trying to be made is one about institutionalized patriarchy. What is being pounded away at is the notion that the culture which gave rise to scripture was a male-dominated one even to the point that a wife was of lesser value to her husband than the house he lived in. We don't live in one of those any longer, our language shouldn't reflect it any longer. We must recognize what actually comes about via an honest dialogue with our faith and what is coloured by our cultural heritage. Some of this heritage is important, some of it needs to be re-evaluated. This is not a discussion about the actual manifestation of the entity we call "God." There is no way that this or any other discussion is going to cover that topic. What is at issue here is the language we apply about God. Do we allow people to be presented with language they can interpret as they choose? That is why God is described in scripture with a barrage of imagery rather than with a single fixed definition. Or do we stick with the traditional "he" and assume that our readers are going to know we write "he" but we really mean "God-concept acceptable to you, taking into account your socio-cultural context"? 23:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Great finds! --in my opinion. Could we find some published theologian, maybe a rabbi, mullah, or yogi who says that God is an "It" putting together all of those great texts that you found? Can you get access to JSTOR in your library? --that would put a lot of scholarly publications right on your screen so you could do quick text searches to find what you want. What do you say? --Rednblu 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, most of these experts have a male-oriented view of the world, so they would be biased on the issue. The Wookieepedian 00:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rednblu, please no yogis! The article is by definition narrowed down to Monotheism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one disagrees here, I will nod my head. But I note as a placeholder that many significant published scholars outside the United Kingdom and outside the United States have something quite different to say about God. --Rednblu 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to draw your attention to the note on top of this article "This article discusses the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. See God (word) for the etymology and capitalization of the term. See deity, god (male deity) or goddess for details on polytheistic usages. See Names of God for terms used in other languages or specific belief systems. See God (disambiguation) for other uses." And BTW, though I am no scholar on this, I hail from outside these two countries. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said! But apparently this idea that God is the monotheist's "He" supreme deity is an idea that originated only in the United Kingdom sometime after 1600. So that preamble is probably a violation of NPOV -- if the more significant view of published scholars is that God is polytheistic, "She," or "It." Doesn't WP:NPOV matter here? I myself have no idea of what God is except as a cultural construct with an ancient and interesting history And there seem to be a preponderance of scholars across the world who write quite assuredly that God is a Trinity, a We, a Host, a She, or an It. What is NPOV here? Doesn't it matter what significant scholars have written about what God is? --Rednblu 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wookie, then go out and change the world. As long as it is as "male-oriented" as you think it is (if it is) there's no use fighting your fight here on WP. That would he OR! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not be OR. As the article currently stands, it violates NPOV. The Wookieepedian 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I agree. You have great insight into the heart of darkness. But still there are enlightened people who have written significant views on God as a "She" or an "It." Have you read these scholars? How about a lady rabbi, or a lady mullah, or a lady yogi? I won't at this time identify which ones I find unlikely. Have you looked? --Rednblu 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You could just look at the biblio in a book like Gender, Religion, and Diversity : Cross-Cultural Perspectives or The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology. Westminster press puts out a good series of feminist interpretations of theology, Oxford and Eerdmans put out similar stuff. Just for some fun, however, you might particularly look at:

Susan Ackerman is a biggie in exegesis, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth towards the end of his 8,000 pages of theology, Meister Eckhart, Karen Armstrong, Marjorie Suchocki, John Cobb, John Hick, Frithjof Schuon, John A.T. Robinson, Harvey Cox, Alfred North Whitehead, Valerie C. Saiving, Daniel Day Williams, Rita Nakashima Brock, David Ray Griffin, John Dominic Crossan, Walter Brueggemann, Sister Joan Chittister, Marcus Borg, Julian of Norwich, Hans Küng, Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, the new bishop-elect for the American Episcopal church... You know, essentially every theologian of recent vintage has or does address this issue. Feminism is mainstream, we write books and everything. MerricMaker 01:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

From the publications of those scholars, what three most significant points should be added to the God page? --Rednblu 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're asking for a summary of midrash and a summary of the last 130 years of theology and Biblical Exegesis. One might just as well ask for an 11-minute all-encompassing lecture on the impact of context on the composition of scripture. I can give you some insights from Feminist scholarship but if something can be summarized in a nutshell it is probably best left there.

These were prepared by Nancy R. Howell

1. Feminist theologies recognize the importance of naming, which means that women's voices must express women's experiences (of oppression and of spiritual significance) and that language is an important locus of reform or revolution in Christian theology.

2. Some feminist theologies focus on relational paradigms (which often reject hierarchy and patriarchy), but other feminist theologies argue that relational theologies simply keep women in the stereotypical role of nurturing/maintianing relationships.

last and most important for our purposes here.

3. Feminist theology deconstructs the gender biases in theological doctrines of God. Insofar as concepts or doctrines of God are exclusively masculine, theological images and attributes must be revised to be neutral, inclusive, or feminine. MerricMaker 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your patience with my questions. I don't want to limit what is significant. I am interested in what would be significant to add to the God page. What in those points specifically explain God and should be added to the God page? Do those published writings specifically clarify that God is a "She" or an "It"? --Rednblu 02:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but

We all know gods do not exist, don't we?

We don't know either way... The Wookieepedian 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my friend. That is true. Gods do not exist. Democritus discovered as early as 400 BC that the whole universe is just 1) atoms and 2) void. Whatever gods exist, they are made only of 1) atoms and 2) void like everything else in the universe. Would you deny that the statue of Shiva exists? So in a WP:NPOV encyclopedia, surely we should report the significant published POVs and photographs of Shiva? Would you agree? And similarly God appears in the King James translation of the Masoretic text. How could you disagree with that? Now why the King James translators would insert the polytheistic and pagan God who had a long and documented history of colorful misdeeds and had nothing to do with any previous Hashem into the holy Masoretic text is a matter of conjecture. Apparently, the pagan and polytheistic Wotan, Wodan, Godan, Wod, Gode, God had crept into secular and sacred English Christian poems, songs, and prayers since about 600 AD I am still looking for the earliest and clearest example of the pagan and polytheistic Wotan, Wodan, Godan, Wod, Gode, God appearing in a Christian sacred text. Does anybody have a better example than this from a Wessex translation of the Gospels? Apparently, the pagan and polytheistic Wotan, Wodan, Godan, Wod, Gode, God first crept into United Kingdom translations of the Gospels, and then much later into the Masoretic text? Any ideas? --Rednblu 20:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't talk about gods. It talks about God.

The KJ translators just reflected what had been the English usage for centuries, which was the same as what happened in Latin with Deus and in Greek with Theos and, for that matter, in Hebrew with El and Elohim.

I agree, Rednblu, with your Wessex text but think the variant "Godan" to be spurious. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am putting together a nice little grid of the clearest and earliest use of each of those derivatives of Odin that became the God of the United Kingdom bible in the actual published texts that they first appeared. The best example I have found so far of Godan is in a little poem in the 600s. This poem describes very touchingly and lovingly how Frea, Godan's equal companion in this pantheistic and Supreme Deity as "She" story, does one of those wifely things that makes Godan's decision for him. You have to read it. Does NPOV matter when it comes to the significant published views of what reputable sources have actually written about God? (I know you already know this, you genius; you already told me. You are just helping me out by asking me the questions.) --Rednblu 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am no genius. No I didn't know about Godan, though I had a glimpse into the Origo. But whether that is the origin of the word "god" or a contradiction of "god Wodan" is another matter.

What are you aiming at in regard to this article?

Just to be clear: the God of the Bible is not Odin, just as he wasn't Zeus in Greek. People have to use existing language. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Deus? Well, there you are again! The Christians inserted the supreme being they had, the pagan and pantheistic Jove into the Masoretic text when they translated it. My only interest here is to figure out what NPOV would require if we depended only on the significant publications of reputable sources on what God is. I understand there is a lot of original research about what God is. But our question here is: What would NPOV require that we write about God? And that is a question. I don't know the answer. But I see a lot of significant published views of God being ignored and suppressed by the current God page that incorrectly limits God to being monotheistic and a "He." --Rednblu 22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering whether you are serious.

First of all I was not talking about "Jove" but the word "Deus". And using the word that pagans used for their various deity to translate the Hebrew "Elohim" does not mean that they "inserted the supreme being that they had ... into the Masoretic text": Christians never worshipped Jove - pantheistic or not - and there was no Masoretic text around at that time anyway.

And no, the article is not "incorrectly" limited to monotheism, as that is the scope of the article. You may not like it but that's what it is. If you want to throw open the article boundaries you should try to get consensus for that, but I don't think you will succeed.

After all, to have an article on the monotheistic concept of God is a feasible undertaking. To mix it with the totally different concept of polytheistic gods and pantheism isn't, as this is completely different stuff.

In how far, your etymological observations are relevant to either I cannot tell. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am merely summarizing the statements made by the above list of significant published scholarly views on God. I appreciate very much MerricMaker's having provided me with that list which I will treasure. And in following that list, not only did I find the etymology argument, Godan, and Jove as the historical originals for God and Deus, I also found Mary Daly. So the above published scholars appear to be very serious. And, yes, the current monotheistic God page is a blatant and biased POV-fork in violation of WP:NPOV, but that is not my concern as far as I can see. Let's see how the Wikipedia Due weight policy applies here on this page. Supposedly, each significant published view on "God" should be represented on the "God" page in proportion to the prominence of each. Is that not true? So let's all examine for ourselves what proportion of the God page should be allocated to the significant views of the published scholars. I will give you my allocations of proportion merely to start our discussion toward developing an understanding of what NPOV would require in presenting without Undue weight the significant views of published reputable sources. --Rednblu 17:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

These are the percentages of the "God" page that should be allocated to the various published POVs about God.

• Catholic church scholars 10%
• Islamic scholars 10%
• Protestant church scholars 10%
• Jewish scholars 20%
• Scholars asserting that the monotheist's God is an "It" without physical traits such as gender 10%
• Feminist scholars 10%
• Karl Barth school 7%
• Alfred North Whitehead school 7%
• Paul Tillich school 7%
• Others 9%

I give you my percentages merely to start our discussion. I would go with any of your percentages as long as they seem fair and unbiased against the POV that the published scholar held about God. How shall we proceed? --Rednblu 17:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Since God is not the same as us, and we cannot classify or define Him by our standards, I'd (i'd?) say He's entitled to decide how He wants us to identify Him, and since many Christians believe that Scripture was written, by humans, on the inspiration of God, that if He inspired them to reverence as a sort of father of humanity, then a male gender seems logical, as all fathers are male. To my amusement, a local in my city likes to write letters to the editor (one in reply to a letter I wrote) in which he writes of God as though God suffers gender confusion ("he/she")! GBC 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Need a citation for this excellent edit by September 13

In my opinion, this edit is a very promising line for developing a truly reasonable and excellent NPOV page on God. But we need a good citation to a reliable published scholar for that edit by September 13 or else that edit should be reverted to the prior nonsense but cited POV. --Rednblu 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WTF? That's not NPOV. It's the BS Atheist perspective. One of the many examples of Atheists trying to force their religion onto other people. Trueblue9999 10:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)