Talk:God/archive 2

This page is an archive of older discussion from Talk:God. Previous discussions can be found in Talk:God/archive 1.

---

Regarding using the word "mainstream" vs. "traditional" to describe the Christianity that calls God a Trinity, I believe that "traditional" is much more appropriate. It implies that this is the Christian belief that has been literally "handed down" (Greek tradutio or close to it), or the historical understanding. Mainstream merely denotes the prevailing current of thought, which can change over time. Wesley 23:45 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

My concern is whether the word "traditional" implies "original". If it does, then I would disagree with its use, and would prefer to use the word "mainstream". soulpatch

Traditional is commonly used by mainstream denominations for exluding non-mainstream denominations in exactly the manner to which soulpatch refers...in the sense of original, and Wes' use includes this sense as well. However, non-mainstream denominations are no less traditional but don't necessarily accept the trinity. On the otherhand, mainstream denominations, clearly do accept the trinity. This has already been covered elsewhere: traditional, historical, original, etc. are not always appropriate uses when it comes to presenting claims held by the mainstream but not necessarily other denominations. B

If you're equating it with historicity, there is no historical evidence that non-trinitarian Christianity is traditional beyond the last 200 years or so; their history is very fragmented and discontinuous. There is ample historical evidence that trinitarian beliefs have been handed down for at least 1600 years. This is a simple objective record of the historical records that we have available to us. It does not even contradict the historical claims of "non-mainstream" denominations, who generally agree that their teaching did not get handed down over the bulk of the last 2000 years, for one reason or another depending on the denomination. Wesley 00:12 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think your comments really answer the concern I raised, nor does it really deal with a second concern that I have. No one disagrees that trinitarian Christianity has been the prevailing view over a large part of Christian history. However, does "traditional" imply "original"? That is one concern I have. The other concern is highlighted by the your "200 years comment"; in fact, non-trinitarian beliefs have been around for longer than that. Michael Servetus, for example, was burned at the stake by Calvin for being a Unitarian, and that is longer than 200 years ago. In other words, trinitarian beliefs were the prevailing doctrine, but not the exclusive one. "Mainstream" is preferable to "traditional" because it acknowledges the existence of minority views within the body of Christian traditions, while "traditional" pretends that such minority views never existed. Thus we have two problems with traditional--does it imply original, and does it imply exclusivity? On both counts, I think that "traditional" falls short and is inappropriate. soulpatch

"Traditional" does not pretend that other views never existed. Only that they have not been handed down continuously. How many generations immediately before and after Michael Servetus held his views, for example? If we talk about a certain culture's traditional songs, does that also imply that no one in that culture's history ever attempted a different style of music? No, just that these particular songs called "traditional" are the ones that have been around a while and that somehow made it down to us. See RK's explanation below. Wesley 17:26 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the term "traditional" doesn't have anything at all to do with the idea of a religion's original beliefs. The original beliefs of the Israelites and early Jews had a lot to do with animal sacrifices and an anthropomorphic conception of God. However, traditional Judaism is quite different! The term traditional Judaism would refer to the Judaism of the past milennia, perhaps the last two milennia, yet it certainly would not be mistaken (except by Jewish fundamentalists) for the beliefs that existed in the days of Moses. The same is true for Christianity; traditional Christianity has been pretty much defined by Trinitarianism. Was that the original view taught be Jesus? Historians would say probably not, but that is a separate question. While Christianity could have evolved in a different way, the historical outcome was that it became trinitarian early on and stayed that way, with only relatively small groups holding other views. I would thus favor Wesley's wording. RK

RK's example is interesting because it seems to suggest that both "traditional Judaism" and "traditional Christianity" began anew; that is, there wasn't an original semblance (of the relevant matter) handed down to the traditional one. But as soulpatch questions, "traditional Christianity" is not used only in the sense RK suggests. Traditional Christiantity does carry the meaning of originalness with it. For this reason, that term and others (like historical) that imply originalness are not appropriate. (In answer to Wes' question, to be sure, I am not equating tradition with history or anything else. The objection is to the meaning of originalness attached to these terms.) While mainstream does not necessarily capture the fact that the trinity doctrine was held during a certain period in the past (or will be held in the future), mainstream does NOT denote merely present thought either. The drawback to mainstream is not particularly crucial while the drawback to traditional is. B

Both "traditional" and "mainstream" have NPOV problems in this context. One objective term is "Nicene Christianity", since the Nicene Creed is where the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized. Another objective term is "most Christians". Stephen C. Carlson

I think Nicene Christianity fits nicely. Trinitarian is fine too.B

I'd like to thank RK for explaining 'traditional' better than I could; it's just what's been handed down to us, regardless of whether what we've received is identical to the 'original'. The term makes no predictions of the future. "Nicene Christianity" is ok, although the uninformed reader could mistakenly think that Nicene Christianity only existed in the first Millenium, around the time that creed was formulated. "Most Christians" suffers the opposite problem, in that an uninformed reader could think it's only the majority view in recent years or decades. And incidentally, "Trinity" is a name for God, or at least a term of address; in the Trisagion (thrice-holy) prayer, God is addressed thus: "O most holy Trinity, have mercy on us." In the same prayer he is also addressed as "holy God, holy Mighty, holy Immortal One", and as "Lord", "Master", and "Holy One". Wesley 17:26 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that "Trinity" is a name (as well as a concept). I didn't realize until later that Stephen removed the name when he made the other change. Should the name be put back? I've understood that in some uses traditional merely means what has been handed down. I've only indicated it's not used only in that sense. It is also used in the sense of what has been handed down from the original. Without getting into the philosophy of language debate about whether meaning is derived from usage or whether meaning comes from the word itself, I think we do agree that Trinitarian is an ok compromise at least for now. If some one comes up with something better, then great. B

"Holy trinity" is one of the names given to the divine, and I don't have a problem with that, although it is not commonly used as a name at least among Protestants and it would misleading therefore to label it a "mainstream" or even a "traditional" name in all Nicene Christian traditions. It is just that the purpose here in the God article is to list a few of the major names for God that one outside each of the religions may commonly encounter. Christian liturgy has lots of names (or terms of address for God), and every group has names that they tend to use uniquely or more frequently than others, and that's what the separate article is for. Stephen C. Carlson

Using "Holy Trinity" with a brief explanation of who uses that name would seem to avoid any disadvantages of a looking for a particular catch phrase. B

Changing the neologism "suitheism" to the proper "autotheism" as in the note

at NeoPaganism. Freeman 19:40 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

I propose to add a link to Omnipresence in the "Omnipotent and Omniscient" section, something to the effect of "see also Omnipresence" Samw 03:08 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go for it. Wesley

---

I propose to break this page into multiple articles. I am getting: WARNING: This page is 30 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. (I also personally like smaller articles.) Samw

Done! And more editing in a similar vein will occur soon. RK

I know this is off topic, but which browsers have trouble with longer articles? Has this policy been discussed at length anywhere? (so I can move discussion there) Mozilla and Phoenix have never given me any trouble in this regard. Now, when certain sections of an article grow to the point that they can stand on their own, I have no objections to dividing them up. I think the limit annoys me more on Talk pages, where I'd rather let the page get a bit longer than 32k before archiving. Wesley

Many browsers cause the page to become blanked out when people who have problems with long articles try to edit them. So it's not just an inconvenience, it actually causes problems. -- Zoe

Thanks for the added info. Here's a toast to the ultimate eradication of all browser bugs! Wesley

---

I just added a paragraph comparing the Kabbalah with Gregory Palamas' idea of essence and energies. As I finished it, I realized that as far as I know, I may be the first to make the comparison. I'm not exactly an expert on either the Kabbalah or Palamas, but I think the idea there would stand up. However, I won't object if someone wants to remove the material, especially if I'm badly misunderstanding either of them. Wesley

Looks fine to me (though I know nothing about Palamas, and only the broad outlines of Kabbalah.) RK

I am curious to know if it is a more than coincidental similarity. Was Palamas a neo-platonist, or influenced by neo-platonists or gnostics? That is the source of much Kabbalah (e.g. the spherot). Slrubenstein

I think at least some historians have connected him with Pseudo-Dyonisius (sp??), who I think was a neo-platonist, so yes there's likely at least some influence from that direction. I'm not sure how much Palamas directly quotes Pseudo-Dyonisius, or if that's conjecture by later readers though... I'll try to refresh my memory. Off hand though I think the ideas of energies and emanations may be similar from similar influences. Wesley

Well, this might provide another way to organize the material. The days when I could speak with any confidence about Jewish theology are long past, and I certainly am no expert on early Christian theology or Gnosticism. BUT it seems to be that the whole question is, "What possibility is there for a complete, unmediate encounter with God?" The Hebrew Biblical answer, as I understand it, is that one can have unmediate contact with God, but not with all of God -- some part of God will be hidden, and usually all we can encounter directly is His voice. As I understand the NT answer, we can have direct access with one of God's manifestations (the Son) but not the others -- again, thee is some direct access but it is partial. In contrast to these I think gnosticism suggests that what appear to be parts of God to which we can have direct access are just shells, disguises, perhaps even corruptions, and that certain techniques (and only such techniques) can lead one to direct and complee access to God. Does this fit in with what other people know? Slrubenstein

That's certainly very close to my understanding. Some Hebrew Bible exceptions may include Moses, Enoch, and a couple others, but even they were limited in their contact with God. I believe the NT says we can have access to all three persons of the Trinity, but that access is partial. (Jesus told Philip, 'he who has seen me has seen the Father', and later breathed on them and said 'receive the Holy Spirit', both in the Gospel of John; see also Acts 2. Also if God is indivisible, one cannot have contact with one person of the Trinity without having contact with all three. ) I think the early Fathers believed we could have progressively greater contact with God, especially the monastics, and talked about it in terms of "theosis" or "divinization". Gregory Palamas built on this when he staked out the boundaries a bit more clearly, in drawing a distinction between knowing God "in his energies" (possible due to God's immanence and actions in the world) versus knowing him "in his essence" (impossible due to God's transcendance and complete otherness). As for gnosticism, what you said doesn't conflict with what little I know, but I don't know that much about it. Wesley

This strikes me as being an exactly right thing to say, Wesley. The New Testament does not permit an idea of the three persons of the Trinity as three "parts" of God, so that knowing one "part" is knowledge of only a portion or segment of God. To know God is to know the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. " ... no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Luke 10:22) "No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also."(1Jn 2:23) " ... I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever -- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him ..." (John 14:16-17).

Also, the Gospel of John declares that the eternal "Word", the self-explanation of God, by which God makes himself known, is incarnate in Jesus Christ, tabernacled among his people as God met Moses in the Tent of Meeting. The people of God, according to John, do not see a reflection of glory as in Moses' face, fading after his face-to-face encounter with God; instead they are face-to-face witnesses of the glory of God's own self-explanation, "glory as of the Son of God" (as John puts it). I think you have pointed to something all trinitarian Christians should agree with, Wesley; as did Slrubenstein (but not intentionally), when he said that "all we can encounter directly is His voice", if we add that Jesus is the speech of God. Mkmcconn 16:45 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

No, the Torah is the speech of God! ;). Look, I am not trying to argue with anyone, and I do think there are important differences between orthodox (small o) Judaism and Christianity -- my point is that people have argued over how to have access to God, and my position is that Jews (and I thought Christians) think that access to God is easy but incomplete, whereas esoteric and sometimes heretical approaches claim that absolute access to God is possible but difficult. If I am right, this provides one way to organize some of the article. And I would further conjecture (this is how the exchange started) that for both Jews and CHristians, the latter (esoteric) approach derives from gnosticism. Slrubenstein

I think that both of you are on the right track. Mkmcconn

Christians I think would agree that access to God is easy but incomplete, and that absolute access to God in His essence is impossible. However, Christianity or at least Eastern Orthodoxy would say that access to God can grow in increasing measure, and probably believe in greater access to God than would orthodox Judaism. According to Christianity, this is only made possible by the incarnation and work of Jesus Christ, which "fused" (possibly a poor word choice) our human nature with the divine nature, as well as beginning the healing of the imago dei in which we are made. Stories of a few of the saints include visible manifestations of this while they were still alive, including Gregory Palamas himself visibly glowing. This progression of closer communion with God can continue after death, and this is what we anticipate (not just lazy harp strumming!). So it is somewhat esoteric, and can be mistaken for gnosticism, but I don't think it is at all. On the contrary, Palamas argued strenuously that the light on Mt. Tabor was God's divine, uncreated light which the disciples were given the grace to see, and not something created or fabricated as Barlaam of Calabria insisted. But he balanced this by also affirming that they did not and could not see God's essence. (Yet again walking a line between two opposing errors.) Wesley 20:23 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Orthodoxy does have room for the possiblity of esoteric or mystical knowledge of a sort; but the norm is knowledge gained by ordinary experience, wisdom gained by acquaintance with the ways of God through the ordinary issues of life. Belief in the "very good"-ness of creation, rejecting docetism and dualism, makes orthodoxy hostile to the most important gnostic assumptions; and the most important expression of this belief is in the doctrine of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is the central fact upon which Palamas basis his teaching on theosis. Incarnation means that the fullness of God is made accessible for mankind's sake, historically, tangibly, intelligibly and without distortion - thereby emphatically affirming the goodness of created things, and the usefulness of all created things in revealing God. So, the truth is not locked away from observation or intellection, ineffable, and unutterable. The truth is on open display and deserves to be spoken of openly; but, it is hard to do so, only because we are afraid to, because we are unsure in the face of opposition, and because we have a selfish interest in holding down the truth if it condemns us. The knowledge of God is difficult, according to orthodox Christianity - and some may think that extraordinary means are needed to overcome it; but it is a very different conception of the problem, compared to gnosticism. (I don't know if I'm at all helpful in adding this, but there you have my thoughts on the topic) Mkmcconn 23:53 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

---

Why no mention of monism?

Also, I object to the first non-bulleted paragraph in the middle of the big bulleted list. It seems to break it into two logical parts, whereas the division is mostly groundless. The second non-bulleted paragraph can stay - it follows a logical division. Smack 03:48 28 May 2003 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think monism isn't mentioned because monism doesn't necessarily entail any kind of belief about God; although I guess it implies that either everything is God (panentheism) or else nothing is God (atheism). So wouldn't it already be pretty much covered by mentioning panentheism and atheism?

I found the paragraph I think you were talking about, and moved it to the end of the bulleted list. Is that better? Wesley 13:28 28 May 2003 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph for the moment, because it is vague and needs clarification:

This is a very practical approach to christianity, Gaatm doesn't state that aliens will come to take us away or anything of that nature - purely that an advanced civilisation helped nurture our early growth - in much the same way that we as humans will do for other planets in the coming millenia.

Question. How does beliveing that God is a computer program be considered an approach to Christianity? It is a rejection of Christianity! And who or what is "Gaatm", and how does that tie into anything else into this article? RK 01:08 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The new paragraphs need to be re-written; but there should be a place for the various kinds of "naturalistic theism" (if that's the right term), or "atheistic religions" that have arisen. These are naturalistic revisions of religion, in light of space-age presuppositions: God is a space alien, whose superior technology and highly evolved form appeared divine to primitive humans of the past, who have witnessed them. It's a kind of space-age spirituality, with all supernaturality reinterpreted into the categories of science and science fiction. Some people seem to think that these explanations make Christianity (or the Bible, angels and "miracles" generally speaking) more credible.

I don't know how seriously people entertain these notions, but my impression is that they are dead serious. They are "theism" of a sort, but they are not supernaturalistic: Raelism, is this type of atheistic religion, for example. But, it's not the only one of its type. What do you call that? Mkmcconn

People could probably argue that it's a drastic reinterpretation of Christianity, rather than a rejection of it. One person's reinterpretation is another's rejection. It reminds of the Star Trek episode from the original series when they encountred the actual Greek gods of earth living on another planet, and discovered that these gods were just aliens who had used their technology to impress and manipulate humans. It also reminds of those people who are looking forward to when technology will allow us to transfer our brain patterns into some sort of machine, which machine would then be "us" and allow us to live for hundreds of years, travel great distances, and do all sorts of wonderful things. This isn't exactly a religion, although it does have its own anthropology and eschatology, and probably its own approach to morality as well.

But I still don't know how to classify these sorts of beliefs. Wesley 16:21 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It has been argued that, without postulating the existence of an eternal God, the origin of the universe appears inexplicable, since it is not logically possible for something to come from nothing.

I just woke up from a nap in an uncharacteristically gruff mood, and deleted this recent addition because it did not refer to the context. There is nothing wrong with the argument; it's only the placement of it that can be improved. Sorry. Mkmcconn 00:48 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Heh, OK, minor thing, hardly worth worrying about, but in response to Branko's edit: removed 'but', as there is no contradiction, the word "but" doesn't imply contradiction, it implies tension. There is a tension between there being no solid evidence for God yet belief being so widespread. It is at least prima facie odd, in need of explanation, etc... Evercat 22:24 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Moving highly POV material from article:

"Since you asked.... That is the only view with a sufficiently high probability of existence to be rationally believed, although only by someone with a desperate desire to believe. Such a god could evolve by natural selection rather than be produced by the random generation of worlds from nothing. That vastly increases the likelihood of developing intelligence, surviving, and acquiring social skills. It also allows the possibility of creating many universes with gods, thus increasing the probability that ours is such a universe. Since there is no return from a created universe, I envision such a species creating universes as places of exile for their criminals."

"Who holds this view?" should be answered by something like "Dr. Jophan of Miskatonic University has argued..." or "The thus-and-such group asserts..." not by a claim that the author's view is the only rational one. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:25 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Acctually, I think this is somewhat similar to the Mormon view of God the Father; see the article on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. - Efghij 02:39 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Also, what about the Raelians? Don't they believe something like this? Wesley 15:57 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

User:Reddi and User:MINDBOMB seem to be trying to describe Islam as a polytheistic religion -- this is, with respect, nonsense. Islam is a monotheistic religion, worshipping the same God as Judaism and Christianity. -- The Anome 21:38, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[MINDBOMB] The god of islam is not the same god as the Jews or Christians as according to the quran allah resides in hell overseeing the torture of the Jews and the Christian and none believers. In Christianity it is understood that hell is the separation from god the to ideas are incompatible there for not of the same source. The satanic verses something not denied in the quran was all about adopting polytheism stating that allah 3 daughters where pathways to paradise.

I am NOT trying to describe Islam as a polytheistic religion, I am stating that Muhammad participated in polytheism. it not a controversial item, he did (before he "revcieved visions". Islam is a monotheistic religion, worshipping the same God as Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad was though @ one point in his life a polytheist. reddi 11:48, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you'll review the edit history, you'll see that User:MINDBOMB is more forthright about what it means to place this this material under "polytheism": properly reclassified islam as polytheism. The same material, placed under "monotheism", means something different - and the same material does appear there, as arguably it should. Let it rest, now. Mkmcconn 14:51, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, I in no means am trying to reclassified islam as polytheism, simply because it's not (mabey that was MINDBOMB's point, but it's not mine) .... stating the facts that Muhammad @ one time was a polytheist shouldn't be a problem (but appearantly it is (touchy touchy around here))

The material, placed under "monotheism", means what it should mean ... and the material, if placed under polytheism, would mean what it should mean [ala. the prophet was a polytheists at a point in his life ... ] (as arguably it should)

Let it rest? Ok [i'll try to refrain from editing in the data] ... but the facts only suffer ...

Sincerely, reddi

I agree. It is true that Islam (and Judaism) developed out of a polytheistic background. But that does not make Islam (or Judaism) polytheistic. These religions were responses to the polytheism that surrounded them. It may be true that some early Muslims (and in their day, early Jews) reacted to the early message of their prophets by worshipping their chief god, to the exclusion of all their other local gods; that would be henotheism, not monotheism. But that does not mean that Islam (or Judaism) preached henotheism. Rather, these religions preached monotheism, and it took a little time for this to fully catch on among the masses. RK 00:00, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I suspect that these users are deliberately seeking to insult Islam by making these absurd claims. I have no particular brief for Islam (as an atheist), but this should not be allowed. Islam and Judaism are the only pure monotheistic religion: Christianity with its strange three-headed deity only just scrapes into this category. This incidentally is why the majority of Christians in Syria and Egypt, who were monophysites (anti-trinitarians) happily converted to Islam after the Arab conquest. Adam 11:22, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your expectation are wrong on my account [I cannot speak for the other]. I am NOT seeking to insult Islam, but to state facts (if you like them or not).

Facts should not be allowed? hmmm ...

Islam and Judaism are the only pure monotheistic religion? IYNSHO ...

Christianity with its strange three-headed deity only just scrapes into this category? It seem that you have a convoluted view of christianity. (the 3 of onew consept isn't hard for other to view)

Sinceerely, reddi 11:48, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Reddi, give it a rest. The rest of us see your edits as an attempt to tar early Muslims, and their prophet, as polytheists, which is grossly out of line, as Muhammed apparently spent his life fighting polytheism. Oh, and by the way, most Christians also don't understand the trinity, either. In fact, most Christians I know told me that they find totally incomprehensible, and priests and nuns I know say that they don't understand it at all! Rather, they merely accept that it is true, even if they can't figure out what it means; that is precisely why Catholics (and many other Christians) refer to the concept as a mystery. Your mileage may vary. RK 14:54, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

The "rest " see my edits as an attempt to "tar" early Muslims? Umm ... not really ... because before Muhammad there were no muslims ...

The prophet was a polytheists at a point in his life [much like the early christians were jews (among others types) at one point in thier life] ... there isn't anything wrong with that, from what i can see, as he went on to found a monotheistic religion later ... you can call stating facts as "grossly out of line" ... but that is up to you ...

Most Christians also don't understand the trinity, either? Most Christians you know told you that they find totally incomprehensible? mabey you need to get to know different Christians ...

Priests and nuns you know say that they don't understand it at all? ... and ppl wonder why christinity split up ... (it's really that's kinda sad ... but thankfully not all are in that position)

"merely accept it"? "mystery"? Not I (but then ppl still don't get the wave/particle duality thing either) ... but as you said, YMMV ... seek an' ye shall find =-] reddi 17:10, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

BTW RK, Muhammed only spent the last 1/3 of his life fighting polytheism. [he didn't get a "'vision" till 2/3 of the way through his life (a bit after his marriage) ... and then didn't get into the "fight" till a few years later]