Talk:God in Christianity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rationale for this article

If someone wants to learn about "God in Christianity", we shouldn't send them on an unguided tour of six or seven articles about different aspects of the concept of God in Christianity. That's what Christian God does right now. What we should do is provide a guided overview of all the major aspects of God in Christianity with links to the main articles on each aspect. That's what this article tries to do.

--Richard 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, glad you did this, but the ToC needs work. It needs to discuss Trinity vs. Unitarianism, and various topics of Christology, without being a WP:CFORK of either Trinity or Christology. Trinity and Christology are the two heavyweight main articles for this, and this article here needs to act as a hinge between the two. On top of that, it can discuss Christian mysticism and stuff. --dab (𒁳) 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

right, the discussion of Trinity is altogether too long right now. It should be a very brief summary of Trinity focussing conflicts with Nontrinitarian schools of thought. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This merger should have been preceded by some notice on the talk pages of all articles moved here. I can appreciate that the articles were related, but the elements may not have been properly harmonized here. (There are also some easily fixed issues: double redirects, etc.) We now have an infinitely large topic, and it will take some work to preserve the value and meaning (not that I'm overrating these) of its constituent parts. As the author of once sentence in Godhead (Christianity) - "In the later Neoplatonic mystical tradition (in Pseudo-Dionysius, for example), the term θεαρχία thearchia is used.[1]" - it was a little jolting to see material like this in the context of the lead of this new mega-article. I'm of the opinion that status quo ante would be better, at least until someone has created a better framework into which to do the merges (especially since proper discussion was not initiated prior to the merges). A better solution would have been improved cross-references. Wareh 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the goal of this article. It is NOT intended to be a super-mega-merger of all the constituent articles. It is meant to be a SUMMARY article that provides a grand overview of the key points of those articles with {{main}} article links to the other articles. Dbachmann was right in putting the {{toolong}} tag on this article. I have made an effort to cut out non-essential text that the reader can access by reading the subsidiary articles.

Personally, I think the current outline is a pretty good framework (if I do say so myself). I'm sure can be improved but I think it covers the bases pretty well. If you have suggestions for improvement, please present them for discussion.

--Richard 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my surprise was expressed too harshly (the merging of pages without discussion still seems to me a departure from good practice). Perhaps I can put my real concern more constructively. Now that this article is on so general a topic, as it gets edited back down to a manageable size for its new function, I think everything edited out needs to be looked at conservatively and carefully: is it really treated somewhere else? It would be a bit perverse to combine content into a new article, only to use the new article as the criterion for exclusion of material that was reasonably included in the previous disposition. I say all this fully recognizing that some of the content here is poor, and that we still have an irrational structure of related articles. My hope is that, whatever gets edited out here, gets a clear link to the article that really does treat it and an explanation of how it relates. In some cases this may require the creation of new stubs or else creative searching for existing articles that are appropriate. Wareh 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Wareh. I do think we need this article. I do think it is a good idea to merge Godhead (Christianity) into this. But I must also agree that the present version should probably be rewritten from scratch. The point of this article cannot be to rehash random points of Trinity. What we need is a coherent summary of the question as a whole, that is, briefly and cleanly lay out the key topics ot Trinity, Christology, Christian theology and Christian mysticism. Perhaps we should start from a mere list of key topis and expand it from there. dab (𒁳) 14:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SECisek removed the Christianity navbox, appropriately enough, because the article is not listed on the template. See Template talk:Christianity. If this article is really going to do the job suggested by others in this discussion, it ought to have the importance to be added to that template. Perhaps this can be a useful lens through which to evaluate the place of this article: is it doing a new an important job not already parceled out in the articles listed in Template:Christianity? Wareh (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. If consensus says it merits inclusion, by all means, let's add it. I did not because I have noticed that being bold with the Chritianity nav box seems to provoke Massive retaliation from some editors. It is best to see if we have a consensus first. -- SECisek (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

May I also suggest it talk about more than just the Trinity? Is this meant to be an all-encompassing explanation of the Christian God, a central summary of other articles, or a summary of the differences to other deities? Or something else? The Trinity is but one aspect of difference or similarities. aragond 58.165.32.222 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Just a cursory look at the article and it needs some work. The header has God as transcendant without mention of immanence. Also, I reverted an edit that is theologically correct but may need some better wording or placement than what was put in. How many people are active here? Don't want to step on any toes. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking through the article a little and trying to ammend some theological errances, and I'm more concerned with it being right than wording, so feel free to brush up the mechanics or placement of my edits if you see the need, because I just want to make sure this article correctly portrays the God of the Bible. Thebestlaidplans (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence currently says:

Most Christian groups see God as the eternal being who created the universe and all there is.

Why is the word "most" included there? Almost all Christians are monotheistic, so to them, the creator is necessarily God. It's true that some small percentage of Christians have pagan influences, but polytheistic Christianity seems like such a small segment that it's not worth mentioning in the lead, let alone on the first word. WP:LEAD says "avoid ... over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."

The remainder of this first sentence seems like it's duplicating what's already at the article God, and is widely understood when one says "God", especially in the context of a monotheistic religion. It may be better to just link to that article and instead focus on the issues specific to this article. (for better examples, see the leads at God in Judaism and God in Islam) --Underpants (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead can definitely be improved, but I always assumed the "most" was there not to exclude any polytheistic Christians, but rather to exclude atheistic (or at least non-theistic) groups that consider themselves Christians (like Unitarians, who don't really seem to believe in anything). —Angr 21:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I Second the lead Sentence Change... In Fact the lead sentence falls into the category of Weasel Words So I am Going to flag it as such. Please correct it asap so the quality of the Article does not suffer. Perhaps the entire article can become a fork to the various christian Religions Wiki Pages... IE: God of Catholics, God of Mormons, God of evangelicals, God of Protestants, ECT....... So a Rewrite is probably (B)Best(\B) because the Cristian god is different for every Cristian religious Denomination. 216.180.189.229 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

God as three forms? <- Heresy

Note that the idea that God is like water having three different forms, one for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is actually a centuries old heresy defeated by Tertullian in the 2nd Century. Its best to just leave it as "three persons, one God", than give a belief that isn't actually held by anyone. Gabr-el 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That particular analogy may apply to Oneness Pentecostal doctrine. But, agreed -- that doesn't apply to mainstream Christians.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not care for heresy, or see any specifically on this article but, I too saw in particular the sentence "The Christian God is understood as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". I think that removing mention of the Trinity as some sort of heresy would be nonesense rubbish but, it is unfair to imply in summary, the lead is a summarisation of the topic thus the totality, that God the father is not presented as the sumpreme onely being all through the whole bible and that is, is it not (I will be going checking this now) monotheism? This one supreme being existence does not apply to Jesus or the Holy Ghost (well, the Holy Ghost could be anything really, I guess). I think what I am suggesting is clear... ? We do not need to say "The other two are not God" but they are not exactly are they? I think in bibles and stuff attention was often paid to this sort of thing. ~ R.T.G 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing Image

Re.Justification for removing the South American image: "..Latin American artists sometimes responded to uniqe American concerns in their Trinitarian images [native polytheism and animal deities]... This translated into images of the Trinity as three identical human figures...this representation of the Trinity did not comply, however, with church guidelines...Pope Benedict XIV again prohibited representations of the identical Trinity in 1778" (Art and architecture of viceregal Latin America, 1521-1821 By Kelly Donahue-Wallace). If the image is to remain, it must be clear that this painting represents an heretical subsection of Roman Catholicism, not in conformity with that Church, and of course has nothing to do with Protestantism or any other forms of Christianity. However, because it is heretical and so particular to a specific cultural situation, I don't see any reason to keep it in this article, especially in such a prominent place. It obfuscates the issue and lends nothing to the argument, except as a curiosity. Perhaps a new section, something like "Depictions of the Trinity in Art", could be added. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not confined to Latin American artists as evidenced by the example of the 15th century fresco found in the church of St Peter and St. Paul in Vercelli, Italy - see Trinity. And I think talking about heresy is not a very helpful approach, nor would I support the removal of the image purely on the grounds that it might give offence to some. There is room in this article to cover lots of interpretations/ visualisations of the trinity. There is no 'right' approach. But I agree we could make clear for example papal prohibitions on images (which seem to have been frequently ignored or at least not universally understood). And while the image may not be common in the post-18th century Roman Catholic Church, I understand it is a common image in the Ethiopian Coptic Church. That's already 3 separate cultures I've identified (so doesn't seem that specific to one culture?) Wikipedia has so few images, I think we should be a bit more careful about scrapping those we come across. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've just read something that has clarified this for me. "Benedict XIV on October 1st, 1745, issued a Bull, Sollicitudini Nostrae which set out in some detail what depictions were permitted of the Holy Trinity and the persons who composed it. For Benedict XIV, the key test for depicting the Trinity was Scripture. Therefore, in depicting the Holy Spirit, a dove (the baptism of Jesus) or tongues of fire (Pentecost) were the only applicable images. However he did go on to say that the image of the Trinity as three identical men (based on the three visitors appearing to Abraham) would be tolerated. What would not be allowed would be: the Holy Spirit as a human being; the Trinity as a man with three faces or double-headed with a dove in the middle." I suspect this settles it. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus the disputed image is from the sanctuary of the Blessed Trinity in Agnani just outside Rome. Not even Latin America! Contaldo80 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll correct the grammatical mistakes; I see how its inclusion can be helpful, in light of Benedict XIV's statements. However if the image had been specific to a particular group, it should be clearly referenced as such. Regarding it being a painting from Agnani, where's the source for that? I can't see that info, but if it's true it would be worth mentioning in the image caption. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

God as Father

An anon IP editor removed the "God as Father" section. In reviewing the section, I judged it to be worth keeping although it relies too heavily on primary sources and only cites one of its secondary sources (i.e. identifies secondary sources but doesn't provide references to them). I restored the text and put a {{refimprove section}} tag on the section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And I replaced it with cited text from God the Father. The main source of the old text seemed to be Floyd McClung, a pastor/missionary but not the sort of source we should be using in this article. And it didn't reflect the text at God the Father, which it should have done. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

God is believed by some Christians to be immanent

Apparently we need to add citations to the lede to clarify the phrase "God is believed by some Christians to be immanent...". I understand that the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ludwig Feuerbach among others has led to a different view of God than traditional orthodoxy, however I don't have any references. Would anyone offer an expansion of this liberal thought, ideally in the body of the article so we can remove the citation request from the lede, and avoid the argument over the term? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A different view of God by whom? You?

"Liberal thought" does not make it "Christian" thought. You seem to be thinking of deism, but most deists do not even call it Christianity. And even someone holds such views-- and still considered it Christianity-- does not make it Christianity in any meaningful way.

And this is all dependent you finding the citations for your theory and estaplishing it is not a fringe theory.

Needless to say-- even if this was all true, or at least WP:verifiability, it does not have WP:consensus. Until and unless it has consensus, stop reverting the text to what you want to verify or want to consensus for-- per WP:BRD.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialog. You are changing the consensus of the article. It has been in this state for over a year. Please offer proof that all Christians believe that God is immanent. I am at work and don't have any documentation that there are a few (but R.C. Sproull has a podcast where, on the topic of the immanence of God indicates that some do not believe in it). Let's leave it and allow someone with a source one way or another to comment. Otherwise it's just an edit war, and you're going against the consensus created even if I don't have a source. Tagging the phrase is the best way to go for now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I applogize for not reading you text closly. I gather you are dropping the issue of if some or all Christians believe there is a God. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ}

Not quite sure what you mean by dropping, but I disagree that some hold this view. Orthodox Christianity (or traditional if orthodox holds other meanings for you) holds the immanence of God as foundational. A small minority disagree but are orthodox in other ways. I don't know if that makes it more clear. Perhaps we could accurately reflect this idea and so as to offend the casual reader of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

English

Original Latin

Diagram

Didn't know this article existed until just now, but since the Trinity is discussed quite a bit, it may be helpful to include an image of the Shield of the Trinity diagram... AnonMoos (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Article improvements

Needless to say, this article is central to WikiProject Christianity. Fortunately there seems to be no contention on the talk page, but the article seems to be suffering from "neglect" - the first sentence in the article has a citation-needed tag, images and templates are thrown around at random, there are many unsourced paragraphs and even sections - and it is anyone's guess how correct the content may be.

I think it would be good if an overall discussion regarding content improvement and even structure starts, for among the many pages in WikiProject Christianity, this one should get to be in good shape ahead of the rest. History2007 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

In the light of the previous comment, I have reworked the lead section. If acceptable as a guideline for the structure of the article, it will be necessary to include a section on the Attributes of God before the current trinitarian section.

In Christianity, God is the eternal being that created and preserves the universe. Christians believe he is transcendent (meaning that he is outside space-time, eternal and not controlled in any way by forces within the universe). However, over against Deism, he is also considered to be immanent in a variety of ways in the different areas of his creation; but his immanence is not pantheistic in that God's being is not the substance of the created universe.

The Christian Bible always speaks of God in personal terms— as one who is, who speaks, who sees, hears, acts, and loves and has a will and personality. He is represented in Scripture as being primarily concerned with people and their salvation. In more philosophical language, in so far as it may be appropriate to speak of the "attributes of God", he is usually held to have, among others, those of holiness, justice, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence and immortality. However, it has been held that it is preferable to say: God is ....

God is understood by trinitarian Christians as God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit; an infinite Godhead of three distinct persons (the term is used "not because it expresses what we want to say, but because we must say something"). Prestige justified the doctrine as a "legitimate rational construction founded on the facts of Christian experience" and McGrath explains it as the outcome "of sustained and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in Scripture, and continued in Christian experience. This is not to say that Scripture contains a doctrine of the Trinity; rather, Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a Trinitarian manner". Less commonly, nontrinitarian denominations define the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit differently.

Although largely anticipated by Tertullian, the doctrine of the Trinity did not receive its complete and final formulation until the later part of the fourth century and this, while clearly affirming the divinity of Jesus, left pending the problem of how the Incarnation should be understood as maintaining both the full humanity and the full divinity of Jesus.. This was supplied by the Chalcedonian Definition of 451 which completed the basic classical formulations. These were framed against the back-ground of greco-roman philosophy and while they have "contributions of permanent value to theological thought" later shifts in philosophical thinking, particularly ontology, have led to alternative proposals in a radically altered cultural context.

References

Jpacobb (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, modesty aside, you already know that you know more about this topic than the other people who have edited this page, combined. I think your rework is great in a theological sense, just the last paragraph needs to be simplified, for it will lose some readers. Minor items are: I would change universe to "world" in the first paragraph and link it to the beginning of John. The use of the term space time may be a liability and may start debates, so an alternative and simpler term needs to be found. I have a feeling that some nontrinatarians will consider the 3rd and 4th paragraphs as too Trinity oriented, so if you could tone that to be less Trinitarian that would be great. And somehow the 4th paragraph needs to be simpler. But overall, just great. Thanks for your attention to this. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My immediate reactions are:

1. "Universe" is used in the actual version and it is technically more precise. The beginning of John seems to me to be more trinitarian and a bit out of place in the first paragraph. Have you any detailed suggestion?
2. "Space-time" - if problematic, omit the whole phrase.
3. The trinitarian aspect is not as simple to handle as the non-trinitarian. If a problem, I suggest omit the reference/quote from Prestige to slim it down a bit.
4. Last paragraph - how about?
   

Tertullian, writing about the year 200, formulated a version of the doctrine of the Trinity which came close to the later definitive one. This was finally completed in the later part of the fourth century.. This clearly affirmed the divinity of Jesus but left pending the problem explaining how Jesus could be both fully human and, at the same time, truly divine.. This was supplied by the Chalcedonian Definition of 451 which completed the basic classical formulations.

[New paragraph]Modern scholarship has recognised that all these traditional definitions and terms were framed against the back-ground of greco-roman philosophy and drew on its particular concepts. While they have made "contributions of permanent value to theological thought", more recent shifts in philosophical thinking (particularly ontology- the study of being) have led to new ways of expressing the doctrines since the traditional ones are apparently unintelligible in a radically altered cultural context.

I also suggest we remove the link to Act of God in paragraph #2 and that I spell out a little more fully its final sentence so that it ends ': "God is holy, just ..." since to speak of God having the attribute 'X' might imply that there is something prior to God which determines what X is so that the term can be applied to him" Jpacobb (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that instead of talking about it, now that we have the theme figured out you can just go ahead and fix it in the article. Minor changes can be made as we go along. I think the Tertulian item is much better now. But please do take my word for it that universe opens wikidoors you do not want to walk into - no need to link to John, but could say the whole word or something else. But overall this should work out fine if you just move it into the article. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite of Trinitarianism

I am trying to give clear shape to this section and reinforce the weak points. The original version was extremely repetitious and some of the contents, in my opinion, were not really Trinitarian as such and I will them into the new section already suggested "Attributes and Nature of God". Perhaps some of the material should be in more specific articles, rather than in this overview. The section titles "God as Father" would sound better as God the Father etc. "As" might imply Sabellianism

02:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpacobb (talk • contribs)

Yes, I changed the section titles anyway. And I think the material that does not fit and you think needs to be in other articles, should just get commented out, and at the end of the day we can figure out where to park those - if anywhere. I think the key is to get this article to be shorter, and "correct", then we worry about the remnant text etc. and can auction it among the other articles if there are any takers. But now that this is progressing so well I think we should focus on this article and worry about the others later, given that God should take priority... History2007 (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Having had a further look as the problem, apart from the multiple repetitions, the heart of the matter lies in the fact that the three (sub)sections 'God the Father/Son/Holy Spirit' were included under Trinitarianism and a section on the Trinity but have accumulated material which corresponds better Christology and Pneumatology. I now see the article as having the following main sections.

1. Attributes and Nature of God
2. Trinitarianism
3. Non-Trinitarianism
4. Person and Work of Christ
5. Person and Work of the Holy Spirit

These last two are Christology and Pneumatology under older names which are more comprehensible for the non-specialist reader. | Jpacobb (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is a Person and Work of Christ section title that implies God the Son. Right? Else it should not be in this article. That section title seems unusual to me at first reading. After thinking about it, it is clear that the structure addresses the three components o fthe Trinity on by one, but as is that issue requires thinking and I would suggest making the section titles more easy to grasp, given that the readers may be new to the topic. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the God as the God of Jesus section just with a Benedict quote seems lost there. Shall we just delete it, or is it a key theological issue? It is probably too Catholic a source for this wid topic anyway. History2007 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment it out for the moment, it might find a small place in some sub-section when we have reworked things more completely - it is at least suggestive! How about 4 - "Person and work of Christ, the Son of God"? | Jpacobb (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Person and work of Christ, the Son of God" is very good. I was about to suggest "God the Son: the Person and work of Jesus Christ" before you typed this... History2007 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I remembered this page again and noticed that nothing new has happened. If you have almost finished with what you wanted to do Jpacobb, I will go ahead and touch up other things, add material, etc. Else please let me know. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I got bogged down on the "Attributes and Nature of God" section, left it on one side to clear my head and then got involved in other articles, so it is still pending. I have just reordered the article as per the scheme suggested above. Might I suggest you don't touch the "Attributes" section for the moment and I will restart work on it? Why don't you tackle the rest of the article first? Jpacobb (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do not really want to tackle any of it if you are planning to finish it. As on my user page, I have been liberated now, and will not be doing major things. But I do not like to leave loose ends, so I checked this. So I will wait for you to finish it. You know more about it, as I said, and I will only fix it if you don't want to finish it all. History2007 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, for section grouping, I would suggest:

2 Trinitarianism

2.1 The development of Trinitarian doctrine

2.2 Person and work of God the Son

2.3 Person and work of God the Holy Spirit

3 Nontrinitarianism

3.1 Criticism of the doctrine of the Trinity

3.2 etc....

Does that look more logical? History2007 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Theological logic" is a tricky thing to handle. It might be argued that is it illogical not to include God the Father in your trinitarian scheme (as 2.2). I'll risk saying that most(some?) traditional outlines of theology started by dealing with the monotheistic aspect of the doctrine of God and then introduced the Trinity before moving on to the second and third persons in detail but these latter sections dealt with far more than the Trinity and it is for that reason that I kept them apart from section 2. Calvinist/reformed theology tended to insert the doctrine of Man in relation to God before moving to the person and work sections on Christ and the Holy Spirit. (Their logic is Creation, Fall, Redemption, Sanctification) Logically one could also go: 1. Father; 2. Son: 3; Holy Spirit; 4; Trinity. The risk with this last is implying near tritheism despite formally denying it.

Frankly I am not sure which is best for making Wikipedia comprehensible to the average reader. Since it is now well past midnight here, I'll sleep on it. All comments and suggestions welcome! Jpacobb (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is also the question of the audience. These days most of the world lives on soundbites and tweets, so you have to telegram the message upfront. And the section structure does that. So I might suggest

0. Lede (90% will read half of this, 50% will read it all)

1. Attributes and Nature of God (the Father) (this needs to cover both Trinitarian and non and 25% will read)

2 Trinitarianism

2.1 The development of Trinitarian doctrine (down to 15% of audience)

2.2 Trinitarian views of God the Father (brief section)

2.3 Person and work of God the Son

2.4 Person and work of God the Holy Spirit

3 Nontrinitarianism

3.1 Criticism of the doctrine of the Trinity

3.2 etc....

But the table of contents that 100% of the audience will look at telegrams the idea. History2007 (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of what readers will and won't look at, but I would like to know if those are educated guesses or actual stats you have from somewhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

They were uneducated guesses. Knowledge of that type of stats is only an attribute of God, not myself.... History2007 (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

State of the play

I touched up the images, and tried moving nontriniatarians to their own section. Looks better to me, but please also suggest. I did not change any text.

Overall I think Jpacobb did a great deal of improvement - really. The only question now is the section "The development of Trinitarian doctrine". That should really be more in the trinity article than here, and in any case, we should probably just remove the heading and have one section about the Trinity. The lede is just too long and is 5 parags while the limit per WP:LEDE is 4. Needs a serious trim to just telegram the basic ideas.

Then it will look like a pretty nice article. There are comments in the text and some may deserve to be uncommented. That is all. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done, History2007! I am happy about moving the non-trinitarians to their own section. With regard to the lead-section, four paragraph "rule" is really a guide-line and I would in general prefer five telegraphic paragraphs to four longer and artificially structured ones. However in this case the fourth paragraph "Tertullian, writing ...." is probably redundant and I will edit it out later today. I take your point about the length and detail of the development of Trinitarian doctrine and will also have a go at fusing the two sections later: it is important not just to state the final form of the classical doctrine, the fact of development over time should be included. Finally, some editors might object that there are still too many primary sources in some parts of the article. Jpacobb (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you just trim the lede I guess we can live with 5 parags. The Tertullian item in the lede can probably move elsewhere anyway. As for primary sources, please just finish it all and I will add secondary sources. I can do that in a day or so after you have finished the text. Then we should be set. It will be far better than most Wiki pages on the topic, so we can leave it that way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit each need their own parallel section or subsection. Also, the section hinden in comment should be used or elminated. It seems unneeded to me. tahc ^chat 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Let us see what Jpacobb wants to do with the hidden comments. Give him a day or two, given that he did so many improvements. There are two subsections already for Son and Spirit. The Father is shared. I see no problem in the current section structure. History2007 (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Father is shared with who? If that section is about all three then why is only the Father mentioned in the heading? tahc ^chat 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The nontrinatarians also believe in God the Father, but not in God the spirit. That is the idea. And please discuss these before sudden re-arrangements. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So why not just call that section "Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Spirit"? tahc ^chat 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because this article is about its "God-ness". This was "carefully" discussed on talk over the last month. And please read the article carefully. That may clarify the issues. Also reading the article on Trinity may clarify it. Also please read God the Son. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to be off here for a while. Please see what other users have to say here before major reshuffles. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Trinitarianism is orthodox. All other forms should be explained as exceptions but not promoted as orthodox. When they're denounced as heresy by the early church fathers, we can assume that they are correct. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar Trinitarianism and Nontrinitarianism. It is the anti-Trinitarian bias in the article format that I object to. You (History2007) seem to be avoiding my critisim simply because I didn't bring it up before now. If the whole article is about God, you don't have to name God in each heading. tahc ^chat 17:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tahc: To whom was that directed? Hopefully not me since I don't believe I've weighed-in here in a long while. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No. tahc ^chat 18:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not avoiding it, and it was the first time you used the word bias was after my comment. Anyway, the structure you had placed nontrin under Trinitarianism. That was why I said I could not see the logic in that. Anyway, the situation in this topic is as follows:

• There are two groups Trinitarians and nontrinatarians. Each needs a section for itself. Nontrinatarians should not be within the Ttrinatarianism section. So each gets its own piece of real estate.

• The two groups agree on God the father. That is what these traditions "share" - hence it had its own main section, separate from both, because it is a common belief.

• The two groups do not share "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit", although nontrinatarians do acknowledge the "Holy Spirit". So those are within the realm of Trinitarianism and should be subsectiosn therein.

Seems logical, right? Now where is the bias? History2007 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't seem logical. As stated above, it gives WP:UNDUE weight to non-trinitarian views. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So this is interesting. You think it is biased towards non-trinitarians, Tahc thinks it is biased against them. So the two of you are on completely opposite sides, with me half way in between. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, wait a minute. I misread that comment. Tahc seems to also think it is biased towards non-trinitarians. Now why is that? The point is that given that I edit so many Roman Catholic articles, I try to be sure not to go against non-trinitarians, or other non-Catholics. So it would be funny for me to look pro non-trinitarian. But anyway, you want to cut the non-trinitarian section? Because putting it under Trinatarians is a conflict, of course. History2007 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to cut it, but I do want to move the trinity to the same level, but admit that acceptance of the trinity is not universal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not understand that. Can you sketch what you like below. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the best option would be to summarize the trinitarian debate and then display the trinitarian view as primary. Then we can enter into minority views. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant can you show a section structure on the talk page? History2007 (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The logical structure of the article as it stands is as follows. It deals with the monotheistic aspect of God's nature and attributes, it is essentially 'natural' or 'philosophical theology'. The words "the Father" are bracketed in the title of the first section because, as the opening paragraph states, "Father" has three distinct emphases but only one, the creator/source-of-all-being is dealt with in the section apart from the bridging towards trinitarianism in its last paragraph. As such it is essentially common ground to the whole range of beliefs classed as christian by Wikipedia including Unitarianism and mormon tritheism. The next section explains the Trinitarian development and goes on in two subsections to describe the person and the work of the second and third persons of the Trinity as understood within Trinitarianism since these are intimately linked to the doctrine. (History2007 has suggested that some of the historical material on the development of Trinitarian doctrine might be better placed in the main article, and I hope to work towards doing that soon.) The non-trinitarian section picks up where the first section on the Attributes and nature of God (the Father) ends and attempts an overview of an number of distinct, differing and incompatible positions. While the trinitarian doctrine of main-stream christianity is reasonably homogeneous and can be summarised adequately, giving what might be considered "reasonable space" to the varied non-trinitarian positions is a difficult task. Perhaps we should try to put more into the appropriate main articles. Jpacobb (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There are numuous issues here.

1. Trinitarians and nontrinatarians do not agree on the God the Father.

2. There is not a group of non-trinatarians per se. Rather, non-trinatarians groups do not agree with each other anymore that they agree with Trinitarians.

3. Trinitarianism is the longstanding and dominate view of God in Christianity, and should be the main perpective and focus of the article.

For all these reasons-- each person of the Trinity needs it own parrellel section. We could (a) have a Nontrinatarian perpective of on each person, or (b) just consolinate the nontrinatarian perpective(s) in a separate section, but either way, each person of the Trinity needs it own parrellel section. tahc ^chat 01:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is of course no "total agreement" among Christian groups on God the Father, even among Trinatarians, as shown on that page. I had a long discussion on the page. In fact, to balance things out and achieve uniformity, could you guys please take a look at God the Father as well?

As you can see that page has a lot of emphasis on non-trin. In fact I had a long discussion there with a user who added a lot of non-trin, and was later indef-blocked - twice. There I was told we had too little non-trin. So we should probably coordinate these two pages. I think that page gives too much emphasis to small non-trin groups such as Binitarianism, etc. And of course, the non-trin views change/broaden every few years, as new groups appear.

But if there is too little non-trin on that page , or here, in 3-6 months a non-trin editor will arrive, complain about that and a long debate starts again. So we need to face that fact as well.

I have been intending to do some work and cleanup on the God the Father page but have not had a chance. And if you guys (including Jpacobb) could type a couple of paragraphs there about the situation on that page an assessment of that page's situation that would achieve uniformity. That may be the best way to do this, given that this page refers to it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

God the Father

• Per History2007's request above, I have looked at the God the Father page I would say that it spends too little text on the other Attributes of God in Christianity, too much on Trinitarianism-v.-non-trinitarianism, and too much of the Trinitarian-related text on the non-trinitarianism views. Likewise, I would also say that that the current God in Christianity page spends too little on the other Attributes, and too much on non-trinitarianism.
• We have a nice Trinity article and we don't need to include or recreate it (even in minuture form) for the "related" pages.
• Rather than making bold edits there and then using that as the basis for changes here I would like to stay here and make the best changes possible here first. tahc ^chat 04:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My view is that is the non-trin gets too small, it is a question of a debate 3-6 months down the road. I think the Trinity article is gigantic, and I have hence not even read it! It is so long, it is just an invitation not to read...

I would not suggest expanding the attributes here, but if there is expansion to be done, have it in the Attributes article. Make it too long and it will not be read.

So the real decision now is how to do non-trin in a way that it does not give it WP:Undue attention, but be pragmatic in that there are non-trin editors who will feel that the small attention to that subject is anti non-trin. History2007 (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• God in Christianity

• Attributes and Nature of God

• The Trinity

• The Father

• The Son

• The Holy Spirit

• Nontrinitarianism

• See also

Something like this above. tahc ^chat 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How about

Attributes and nature of God

Trinitarianism

The Father

The Son

The Holy Spirit

Nontrinitarianism

See also

I would make a deal on that. History2007 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism section

Based on the discussion above, I started looking at the Nontrinitarianism section again more carefully, and the text there is both correct and well written, but is effectively a history of the non-trin movements, execution of Michael Servetus, etc. I am beginning to agree that it is getting off topic here because the history of nontrinitarianism should be in its own article, not here. History of Nontrinitarianism does not say much about their views on God. And given that their views are so very diverse one could not do it justice in a summary, unless it is a short summary. What if we overcome the WP:Due issues by really reducing that section to 2 or 3 paragraphs, and just referring to the appropriate articles? Then it would be "just a mention" and not a WP:Undue issue. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Messiah vs God the Son

Tahc you re-inserted the childhood and messiah item with the comment that it is about God the Son. It is not. Even the nontrinitarian Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah, so it is not a God the Son issue. And what is known about his childhood is also not about God the Son because the nontrinitarian also use the same. That section has to be Trinatrian based. Right? History2007 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to strip all information about the God the Son/Jesus in Christianity (or any person of the Godhead) from the artcle just because it is also agree on by non-Trinitarian Christians. Both JWs and Mormons (and others I expect) hold Jesus to be a God. They just don't consider him to be the eternal God. Jesus is thus a topic for God in Christianity even to (many, or at least the main) non-Trinitarian groups. But even if this were not the case, there would still be no need to remove non Trinitarian-specific information about Jesus, because Trinitarian Christianity is by far the main type of Christianity.

There is also no reason to strip information about any person of the Godhead from Trinitarian section just because it is also agree to by non-Trinitarian Christians. For example, the God the Father section begins with a paragraph of information all Christians agree on ("To Christians, God the Father's relationship with humanity is...") and then the 2nd paragraph begins the theology that is (in general) Trinitarian-specific ("In Trinitarian theology, God the Father is..."). There is no reason to treat God the Son differently. tahc ^chat 02:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason is the same reason as the existence of three separate articles (and others):

• Son of God
• God the Son
• Jesus

Each of these has a separate focus. The focus in that section is God the Son. I was actually trimming that because I was about to add more theology rather than life narrative. In any case, that section needs to be a "summary of the God the Son" article. Right? History2007 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I thought perhaps the reason this was not clear was that the article does not explain it anyway. So I have started clarifying it in the article and the distinction should become clearer soon, as I do that with sources. History2007 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw you did another fast revert... how nice. Think of it this way: if you look at Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament you will see that God the Son does not appear there. It is not in the NT. But Son of God is. Now the Trinity has 3 components: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. So that section should be about God the Son, not the Son of God. And the section name "God the son" may even be more appropriate. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

World to come

Interesting changes coming from Reno. It's unquestionably an omission in the article that we don't deal with the relation of God with the eschaton. Perhaps we should address that rather than debate it in edit summaries. The article is about God in Christianity and it now tends to focus on the attributes of God in Christianity. The way God will behave in the future is an important difference. However an in-depth discussion of heaven is not appropriate for this article and has already been discussed in heaven and heaven (Christianity). However, describing God's role as maker of the world to come would not be out of question, provided it carries references. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Another option would be to introduce the phrase Kingdom of God in the intro. Seems rather central to Christian beliefs in God imho. While apparently some editors object to the phrase World to Come, I can't imagine much objection to "Kingdom of God" (which is of course directly related), but who knows. 75.14.212.99 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have said this so many times now: there seems to be no salvation in sight for Wiki-articles on End Times, Eschatology, etc. etc. They are an absolute magnate for diverging opinions, and some pages such as Second Coming have seen every possible loony bin idea thrown into them. Some time ago, I moved some of the more lunatic items here, just to give that some stability, but I no longer even watch it. Getting into that topic here is an invitation to wear out keyboards for by the nature of Wikipedia it is a magnate for amazing debates until the Second Coming actually takes place. I think a very small section that says there are so many ideas but there is no harmony/agreement may be added with a link to the "idea Jambalaya", but introducing it into the lede is certainly not a good idea, both from a pragmatic stand and per WP:Due in any case. And I do not see "God in Christianity" as having a key element about End Times in any case, if you look a the major books on the topic. And of course per WP:LEDE can not have things in the lede, unless already in the body. History2007 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to impose a limit on the article, shouldn't it be retitled, to something like: "God in Christianity excluding Eschatology"? Also, Kingdom of God includes non-eschatological notions, why should these be excluded from an article on God in Christianity? This article doesn't need to go into detail about the Kingdom of God, but excluding even a mention and link seems to be censorship. Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Kingdom of God has nothing to do with God in Christianity? 75.14.212.99 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

How many times did my post include Kingdom of God? Zero. I was referring to Second Coming as peripheral to this. However, if K of G is to be included, it will need discussion in the body. And if you look a that marvelous article will see that it needs much work. But in any case, unless a good discussion is included in the body, can not go in the lede. If you want to do a section, be my guest. However, note that there is little agreement on what K of G means... History2007 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about little agreement, but it's not universally agreed. Perhaps we could discuss, as part of eternal, that God desires to have us, as his created beings, be with him for eternity. Again, focusing on the difference of this view in Christianity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Eternity is a different Pandora's box. Some time ago, I made the mistake of fixing Eternal life (Christianity) because there was no article for it and was pointing to a rock album. But as you can see there are arguments that eternity starts now, etc. Christians are experts at disagreeing with each other. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The article already mentions that God is both eternal and infinite so it shouldn't be difficult to stretch that a bit. However, I would like to know what anon from Reno thinks.

And Pandora's boxes can be avoided by coming to consensus here, hopefully with more than three editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is solid substance in terms of theological agreement in WP:RS sources, consensus here can change every month as IPs from Tibet to Palm Beach show up. If you want to write a section that discusses that, go for it. But just talk page consensus sans well sourced text in the body can not stretch the lede. What stretches today, will shrink tomorrow unless backed up with solid and well source material.History2007 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I assumed RSes would be supplied. If anon would like to a stab at the section, with references, that would be a good starting point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Done deal. Less talk, more action. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

An interesting interchange of ideas and views! Here are some suggestions which I hope are helpful:

1. As this is an "overview" article, let's try and shunt the more conflictive details to the corresponding main one;
2. The range of this article could be limited to the contents of the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, the expanded Nicene Creed as (apparently approved at Chalcedon on the basis of the Council of Constantinople in 381) and, where necessary, the Definition of 451 and what can clearly be seen as corollaries of their teaching;
3. This means that the Kingship of God, the Kingdom of God (both consequences of the creation) need to be included as does eschatology. I suggest the inclusion of a subsection on the Kingship of God and judgement in the OT within the section on "God", Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven and basic eschatology as subsections of "God the Son"
4. Care needs to be taken when talking about the "world" - although the word "world" is used in some translations of the "Nicene" creed the original Greek is literally "age". Jpacobb (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. Except for the fragmentation, which will create long term debate as duplicate material gets added by people who "type first, read later" - plenty of them on Wikipedia. And if we separate the NT items into God the Son, it will fall within the Trinitarian subsection, and excludes the nontrinitarians who still read Matthew. I think the path to a relatively headache-free solution may be to do a section on the Kingship of God and add a minimal amount of eschatology there with a Main link, again because dealing with eschatology in Wikipedia is the end of sanity. I think what can work is:

1 Development of the theology of God

1.1 Overview

1.2 Attributes and nature of God

1.3 Kingship and Kingdom of God

2 Trinitarianism

You know the topic very well, so please do it, now that you have suggested it. I will certainly not even attempt it, given the diversity of the interpretations of K of G and the eschatological nightmares. History2007 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's really not that hard. Change the first sentence to:

God in Christianity is the eternal being that created and preserves the world and established or will establish the Kingdom of God.

Somewhere in the body add this section:

--Kingdom of God--

The Kingdom of God is a foundational concept in Christanity and the other Abrahamic religions as well. Interpretations of the phrase range from the restoration of the Land of Israel to a world-wide kingdom, from a theocratic monarchy to an egalitarian utopia, and from an earthly kingdom to one in the afterlife or heavens.

75.14.217.91 (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that hard, but also not that right. The use of future tense there in the lede is a problem for some Christians and the hidden trap door to Futurism has no text in the article and pushes what may be a minority view. Next step within 6 months: A newly predicted date for the Second Coming will show up in the lede sans explanation. I think there needs to be a comment in the lede not to add material there unless justified in the body, per WP:LEDE. History2007 (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Kingdom of God means something different for Jews than it does for Christians. And withing Christianity, it means different things to different groups. I'm not even sure that it has any meaning in Islam. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. Even if we overlook the OT and Judaism issues, the Christian interpretations of it are diverse as the attempted overview at Kingdom_of_god#Christianity (which just scratches the surface) shows. The whole issue is really more related to Christian theology than this article. There should probably be a brief mention of it, that says it is anyone's guess what it means to "Christians" but the main issues should be left to the free for all in the Kingdom of God article. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the point I'm trying to make is that while God is eternal is not unique to Christianity, the fact that God desires mankind (or at least elements of mankind) to be with God for eternity is unique to Christianity. It is cosmological, it is anthropological, but it also touches on the nature of God. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, then change the first sentence to:

God in Christianity is the immortal who created and provides for the cosmos, establishing the Kingdom of God.

75.14.215.9 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the barrier is that until there is a good section on K of G, should not go in the lede, without support in the body. History2007 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just use the section already suggested. As you yourself stated, most of the topic of Kingdom of God is handled at Kingdom of God. It's no different than God, Christianity, Immortality, Genesis creation narrative, Divine providence, etc. These topics are covered at their respective articles, no need to reinvent the wheel here. 75.14.219.56 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that the most of the topic of Kingdom of God is handled at Kingdom of God. I think is mishandled there. Look, if we are to do this, let us do it right. Let someone write 7 good paragraphs on it here (unlike the mess at Kingdom of God) then we will summarize it. The problem is that we have no volunteer for those 7 paragraphs. History2007 (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that's definitely backwards. Kingdom of God should cover the topic of "Kingdom of God", this article only needs to mention its conection to "God in Christianity" and provide the link to the main article. The summary section I provided above does just that. If somebody wants to write 7 paragraphs or more on the "Kingdom of God", that needs to get done at Kingdom of God, not here. 75.0.3.35 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What you wrote is "unsourced" and not exactly correct the way it would apply to here. So with no source and obvious confusion in it, what is the point? The way Jpacobb explained it as the consequence of creation as Kingship and Kingdom is the right way to do it. So if you can talk him into writing it, it will get done right. Else do more research please and get it together with good sources. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it looks like it will take less effort to do a simple version than to play ping-pong with you here. So I wrote 2 sourced paragraphs, but a few more are really needed and the eschatological aspects are yet to be mishandled, ... I mean handled. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Saw them. Excellent. Not sure what Reno thinks, but that seems to be a moot point now.

Can't imagine agreement on eschatological matters if the article has a difficult enough time wading through tinitarian issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I even toned down how R. T. France described the disagreements on the basic issues. But at least the term is now mentioned here. I made a passing suggestion on the K of G talk page to split that, but I will leave it to them to do. History2007 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you. 75.14.210.222 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I will try to add 2 more parags to round it out, then stop. I really want to stop working on this topic. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it ended up being 4 parags to explainit, could not telegram it in any less. But this should be enough to give an idea of the main eschatological approaches, lack of scholarly agreement, etc. I have pretty much finished with this topic now, and any more will probably make the page hard to read. These days unless you can tweet it, it is too long anyway. So my guess is that it is done now. History2007 (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation/style reversions

Firstly, to get it out of the way quickly, here's the policy on common noun uses of words like 'god', as in "there is one god":

"Common nouns should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god."

That aside, it's not great form to blanket-revert a person's changes and then simply give them permission to redo some of them - it comes across as domineering and obstructive. If you object to a subset of changes, it's much more constructive to just revert those ones. As it stands, there's no way for me to know exactly which ones you take issue with. For instance, you talk about theological inaccuracies. I talk about encyclopedic presentation. Presumably there's some way to satisfy both concerns. Take my issue here:

"God were expressed in the Pauline Epistles and the early (perhaps pre-Pauline) creeds which proclaimed one God and the divinity of Jesus almost in the same breath"

"in the same breath" is not at all encyclopedic language. If the article wishes to say that two things are considered interlinked, that must be supported by sources, not by their being referenced near to one another in a single sentence. The latter is WP:OR.

There are other cases in my edit, but like I say, I have no idea which of them you accept and which you reject.

Please discuss on the article talk page, which is more relevant. FYI same breath came from the source, tandem did not. But discuss on talk is better. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Transplanted.

In response to the "same breath" point: Our job is not to directly copy the words of the source material. Sources are journals, textbooks, occasionally direct interviews, etc. They are never encyclopedias. We have to adapt them to an encyclopedic style. Ilkali (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the same breath, but I see tandem as having a slightly different connotation. So let us wait and see what other users may think. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we've really discussed this yet. The problem with "in the same breath" is that it does not express an actual proposition. What is a reader supposed to interpret from that phrase? What is its actual explanatory value? Is it notable that two statements were made close to one another (which is the literal meaning of the phrase), or is there some idiomatic meaning intended here? And if the latter, why not just express that meaning directly?

What is your response to the common/proper noun capitalisation clarification? Ilkali (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My comments:

1. "Messiah" definitely needs a capital letter
2. Not sure about "Kingship"
3. 'faith in "one God"' is much better than 'faith in a single god", because the former is what is much more commonly used; "one God" should have a capital letter
4. The change from "the Creator" to "God" depends largely on the source - what did Irenaeus actually say? Looking at the text, he uses the word "Creator", but I think "God" is more faithful to the text.
5. I think the "same breath" bit sounds unencyclopedic

Hope this helps. StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting out of the way.

Wikipedia:Capitalization#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents So it's not correct to say one god since it's one God, by name.

Changing the nature of "Creator" to "God" is wrong.

In fact, the only reasonable edit was changing "God's Kingship in which" to "God's kingship in which", since Messiah in this case is the name of a person, which when translated into modern English would be Christ. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments to StAnselm, regarding capitalisation. Please elaborate on Creator vs God - it's not much help to just say that an edit is "wrong". Ilkali (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Creator = God is a theo-assertion, and hence keeping Creator is necessary. History2007 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

StAnselm:

1. Messiah's an edge case - it depends on how it's intended. I'm not especially invested in it.
2. "one God" is incorrect per the manual of style. The noun in that phrase is a common noun, a synonym for 'deity'. Consider a sentence like "There is one god, and he is God". The latter 'God' should be capitalised because it's a proper noun. The former could be replaced with 'deity' without changing the meaning of the sentence, so it is a common noun. The MoS says common nouns should not be capitalised.
3. Agreed on 'creator'. The effort in many of these cases was to reduce the diversity of theological synonyms. If a term - the Creator, the Divine Being, etc - can be replaced with 'God' without changing the meaning then it should be.

Ilkali (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia eats life... Long discussions on peripheral, trivial issues while errors float everywhere. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Believe me, I hadn't intended a few simple stylistic corrections to cause such a ruckus. Ilkali (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph in question was discussing the Creator father. I lost my edit in an edit conflict and so I won't try to recreate it, but it's not correct, in this paragraph at least, to simply substitute "God". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Could we have some arguments? Any arguments? Ilkali (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I already expressed my views above, so I do not know that I need to argue for the sake of arguing. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, we're not operating in a democracy. Articles can't be allowed to ignore policies of neutrality and style and tone because someone has "views". You're putting me in a difficult situation here. How would you handle an obstructive editor who reverts changes and doesn't address arguments for why they're positive? Ilkali (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I would not call others who disagree with me obstructive. Then wait to see what other people say. If a number of users disagree, I would follow the majority, specially if it is a trivial little item like this. That is what I would do. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with following the majority is it perpetuates a bias. If we "follow the majority" in articles on homeopathic healing, we get atrocious, polarised articles, because the people drawn to those pages tend to have skewed views. Policies need to be applied even in articles with editors who would rather overrule them, and what might seem trivial can be fairly important. In particular, regarding this case, the sermon-like tone of many religion articles detracts powerfully from Wikipedia's intended image as an academic resource. Ilkali (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Many people think others are biased, and in the end they just keep repeating the same things until one of them runs into WP:HEAR in the end. As stated before, as Walter Görlitz said the only possible issue will be the capitalization of kingship, nothing more, as stated above. You have already conceded Creator on theological grounds, and same breath is just your own opinion, nothing more. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"You have already conceded Creator on theological grounds, and same breath is just your own opinion". The statement I agreed with was "I think "God" is more faithful to the text". You seem to have completely glossed over the fact that StAnselm disagreed with you on this? And on the 'same breath' issue? It's comical that in all this typing you haven't once addressed any of the actual article issues - preferring to endlessly repeat your opinion. I don't have the energy for this. My editorial agenda has far less emotional investment, I think, than your religious agenda. Ilkali (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to clarify, I was talking about faithfulness to the Irenaeus text. I have not looked at the Kärkkäinen book that quotes it. The sentence currently read, in part, Irenaeus had emphasized (Book 4, chapter 5) that the Creator is the "one and only God" and the "maker of heaven and earth". At the moment, "Creator" sounds a bit redundant, since we have "maker" later in the sentence, just as "God" may sound redundant since we have "one and only God". StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Although we are talking about minute details, the book does try to generate a flow from Clement's use of Creator to Irenaeus and that was why it was summarized that way. Of course, the issue of Athenagoras and Pre-existence is also mingled in there, but we should probably not open that Pandora's box now. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ilkali, the only difficult situation here is of your own creating. We have tried to respond to your concerns. If you disagree, there are many avenues to deal with dispute resolution. The clear issue here is that a consensus of editors familiar with both the guideline and this article disagree with you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not want to say that, but now I should. I think it is clear that a good 2-3 month detailed study of Christian theology will probably help Ilkali understand the underlying issues regarding God, Creator, etc. in the field discussed here. That would help. History2007 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea what my qualifications are. No amount of further study will invest in me the poor judgement and bias you demonstrate here. Ilkali (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ilkali is correct. We don't know what qualifications are being brought to the article, but we can clearly see a bias that shows no knowledge on the topic or of Wikipedia:Capitalization#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Names of God section

Not sure it's an ideal section, but it's not necessarily unconstructive to add it. It play a part in some fringe protestant theologies. It would definitely need references. Not sure why we would remove it though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Because there is Names of God in Christianity where the IP added the same material as well. And that page was no gem, as I had commented on 14 November 2012, if you look on talk. I have done my best not to touch that page, it has so many problems. This just added to them, by adding items such as "Great" as a name for God, etc. And it is just full of theological errors, e.g. Son of Man is not a name for God, given that it has never been part of any confession of faith in Christianity, as explained on its own page - which was cleaned up a month or two ago. So as is, the list in not just WP:OR but blatantly incorrect in many cases. And it has obscene jokes about David in there! Just look. I think the IP was making a fool of the readers. It just reduces the overall quality of an article that was fully sourced as of yesterday. If and when the Names of God in Christianity is cleaned up, a mention of that should take place here with a Main, I think. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I looked it up in Berkhof's book and interestingly, he explains that there are very few essential names and 177 names overall which are derived from the "attributes of God". So his statement naturally blends into the attributes section here, so I added it that way with a Main link. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That may suffice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for now I think so. I also looked it up in the Mercer Dictionary and says the same type of things. The Names of God article may need clean up, but I do not really wan to go off on that. My guess is that in 15 days some IP will add a section: Prayers to God and 15 days after that a section on Depictions of God, then a number of other items... So at some point might as well add brief mentions of that with Main links before the IP brouhahas. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The names of God issue is somewhat important to the name. I've heard it said that in Hebrew, when you name something, you show ownership over it. Not sure how that works with the names of God.

Since this article is about who God is in Christian terms, I would have no problems removing those two subjects. Names is a borderline inclusion issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, but it is just one paragraph and not having it is an invitation for more WP:OR later. So might as well just keep it and move on. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Every time an IP comes around, something else gets fixed. I ended up fixing the names of God article, and it resulted in material that may fit here. So I will extend the paragraph here to a few and hopefully that will be the end of it. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

surely someone somewhere has been critical of the god concept this article should have a criticism section squiglesquiglesquiglesquigle (damn keyboard doesn't have squigle-key) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.190.169 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Trinitarianism, The Holy Spirit

My main comment relates to describing the Holy Spirit as "it" and "which" instead of "He", "Him" and "Who". The Holy Spirit is a person in every way that defines a person. He has a will, He has emotions and He has a mind! He works and acts on behalf of the Christian believer to enable the believer to grow and develop in their relationship with God. He is a person the same way God the Father is a person and Jesus, God the Son, is a person. He communicates with us through our spirit and our conscience and He responds to us when we pray or seek God's guidance. So please correct the text and replace the "it" and "which" references to the Holy Spirit with "He", "Him" and "Who." Joy from Trinidad and Tobago. March 15, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.191.66 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken Jpacobb (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Tertullian

There was an issue with Tertullian's "contribution" and I think the 2ndary sources do suggest that he formalized ideas that were floating around in the early Church, but he was more than just a reporter or bystander, and did have a hand in the formation of the concept. By the way, I have not been watching this page, and will not watch any more, was just passing through to see what happened. You guys take care... History2007 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Keeping an unbiased/neutral tone in this article

Considering the neutral point of view (one of the three core content policies) of Wikipedia, I think you should reformulate the last part of the first paragraph. I'm talking about "while compromising on the rather pagan concepts of God as human". This doesn't sound neutral at all. It sounds like someone is judging the Christian approach of God by saying it compromises on the rather pagan concepts.

Please do not ignore this.

Yes I agree, see below, but it would be best if you would "sign" your comments. tahc ^chat 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting and not explaining

I reverted an unexplained change to God in Christianity. I also fixed a poorly added citation needed tag. I explained why I reverted. You simply reverted my changes and removed a maintenance tag, without supplying a reference. It should have a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Next time please discus on the page in question. As I said,

{cn} is the real issue here... but even if this was found I don't see how this is useful information. If you find a cite for this please move it to the section "The Son" of the article or better yet, just move it to Incarnation_(Christianity)

This so-called fact does really need citation as a fact. That the identity of who "they" are is useful has yet to be seen, but first we need citations.

To state "restore material but change CN tag to who tag" is not to have "explained why I reverted".

I however did explain why I removed the text of fact itself. That the incarnation, as a concept, is considered by some to have pagan origins is just not important to the topic of the article-- even when and if it is cited. The article is about God in Christianity... a God with many traits... and the incarnation is an important one, but just one trait. Theories as to "why" any or every trait is considered a trait are too far from the topic of God in Christianity. Even if many editors came forward claim it "whys" were needed in the article, it would not belong in the lead section.

Reasons for the incarnation of the more scriptural, theological, and historical sort would be needed first, and if the idea that it was of pagan origin could be cited with mainstream RS, then we could include it in that context... but in the body of the article, not the lead.

Lastly I am rather confused why you approved removal of "{cn}" with this edit, but then wrote as quoted above "It should have a reference." tahc ^chat 06:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This is uncited, and as it stands it should be removed. I can see how it might get a citation, but I don't think the statement belongs in the lead. I's a rather fringe view. The supposed pagan origins of the concept of the incarnation isn't even mentioned at Incarnation (Christianity). StAnselm (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor is it mentioned at Origins of Christianity, Christianity and Paganism, or Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. And, of course, it isn't mentioned in the body of this article, which means it shouldn't be in the lead anyway. I see the initial reference to paganism was added by an IP editor in August. It was sourced to unreliable sources. Those references were removed with this edit. And what we are left with is original research and/or personal opinion. StAnselm (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"God and Satan"

The usage and primary topic of God and Satan is under discussion, see talk:God and Satan (song) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Very recent additions that fail WP:V

Per another editor's request, the first sentence in the recent addition I'm contesting has no citation given. Per WP:ONUS, there is no obligation by any editor to leave in the text while we wait for an source to be provided. Similar to the first sentence, I'm worried that the second sentence implies that these traits and virtue in every instance and in every human being are always sourced to the Holy Spirit. I think that when you look at what Fung writes, he doesn't really support this - he does state that "the qualities enumerated are not the result of strenuous observance of an external legal code, but the natural produce ("harves") of a life controlled and guided by the Spirit." The text is close, but appears to me that it was written without actually looking at the cited source. A similar thing appears to have happened with the second half of that sentence and the Erickson reference. I cannot find in Erickson where he states that individual abilities (like understanding and knowledge) are labelled as the Spirit's "gifts" and connects this to the Greek "charisma". Maybe I'm missing it, but I can't find it. Again, it looks like the sentence was written without actually looking at the sources cited. Additionally, the two sentence paragraph is a minor aspect of the Holy Spirit in Christian theology (it's small section further down in the main article) and its inclusion here seems a bit undue weight IMO. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• i have moved the existing content and the proposed content here (neither is in the article now) so they can be discussed:

existing content

The sacredness of the Holy Spirit is affirmed in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 12:30-32, Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:8-10) which proclaim that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. The participation of the Holy Spirit in the tripartite nature of conversion is apparent in Jesus' final post-Resurrection instruction to his disciples at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (28:19): "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit plays a key role in the Pauline epistles, to the point that their pneumatology is almost inseparable from their Christology. In the Johannine writings, three separate terms, namely Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth and Paraclete are used.

References

new content

The Holy Spirit is described as the (source of the) goodness, intelligence, and talent found in the human being. A good, intelligent, prodigious, understanding, or humble person is said to be "graced by the Holy Spirit". The virtuous characteristics (goodness, love, joy, self-control,etc.) of a person are thought of as the "fruits" of the Holy Spirit, while the individual abilities (like understanding and knowledge) are labelled as the Spirit's "gifts" (Greek charisma, in English charism).

References

In my view the "existing content" is inappropriate for WP - it is confessional, not encyclopedic, and is sourced to the bible in some parts. The "new content" is an effort to write encyclopedic content and if it were better sourced, would be much better. Please discuss here rather than edit warring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - I think you do raise some serious points about the paragraph you removed. I'm curious why you didn't also remove the paragraph that has been the source of the current disagreement, which is the "new content" you describe above? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

whoops, missed it.  Done Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the things I like to do is go back in an article's history to see where the POV was introduced. In this case, it was four years ago by a single user doing a massive overhaul of the page. Not all of the overhaul was bad, but it does seem to have introduced a lot of the wording that is more confessional than encyclopedic. IMO opinion, the second paragraph in this version is a better starting point. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems with having God's true name on the page

Im a Christian, but his true name needs to be removed because Christians and Jews can find it offensive and don't want to see it. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

see WP:NOTCENSORED; we likewise do not avoid pictures of Mohammed. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What Jytdog said. WP is by design full of many sorts of possible-to-see-as-objectionable things, see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede change

Recently the lede changed from "God in Christianity", the article's title to "In Christianity, God". MOS:BOLDTITLE requests that we "include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English", which it can be. I request restoring the article title. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe the revision is grammatically better as it is Mediatech492 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you stated that in your edits, but it's not stylistically correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proper grammar is not "stylistically correct"? Really? Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing grammatically incorrect about the way it was before Editor2020' preferential "grammar" was applied. That editor never claimed it to be a grammatical change. Rather, "altered title term to be only 'God', more accurate". @StAnselm: You made the change the first time on 2016-09-21 at 02:33:49Z and referenced WP:TITLEABSENTBOLD. @Editor2020: restored the previous format on 2016-09-21 at 02:33:49Z. The topic of the article is not only God, it is about the concept of God in Christianity. I'd reference God in Judaism, which prior to this edit less than six months ago was in the title's form. God in Islam has to somehow incorporate the word "theology", and since you shouldn't bold a link, has not had it linked. There is no God in Buddhism article, but that term redirects to Creator in Buddhism and starts with a negation of the thought. God in Hinduism starts with, "the concept of", and then launches into the article's title. Shall I run through additional religions? Since the title can easily be accommodated, and is grammatically correct that way, we would need a compelling reason to move away from the BOLDTITLE MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)