Jump to content

Talk:God

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleGod was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 13, 2005Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 15, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


Should the image used for the Christian God be changed?

[edit]

After a quick back and forth edit between VenusFeuerFalle and I relating to the image used for God, we agreed to take this issue/topic to the talk page. I think the image representing the Christian God should be replaced from the current one, which depicts God in a humanoid form with facial-hair, to a more suitable one which depicts the Tetragrammaton YHWH יהוה‎, the name of God. I agree that the bearded depiction of God is a more typical artistic depiction of God in Western culture, but it is very biblically inaccurate. Many Christians consider him to be invisible, and it is generally believed he has no form. It is best to use an accurate image like the other Abrahamic religions use on this page. RileyXeon (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick introduction. I agree partly with the proposition. The "bearded man" may not be the best representation for the Christian God. Many theologicans, including Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Augustine of Hippo, and deistic philosophers from Christian culture, do conceptualized God as an abstract entity. An example is the concept of God as the first mover in the Five Ways by Aquinas. However, I do not think that a personal name does much better than the depiction of God as a person. The image needs to be representative for the Christian concept of God, such as a symbol. Next, I would argue that the Tetragrammaton, even if used as a symbol or representation rather than a proper name, it poorly reflects Christian tradition, given that the Tetragrammaton is rarely used in Christian writings. The idea that the Tetragrammaton should be used by Christians might be a rather modern phenomenon and might be motivated by Christian Zionism:

The book is divided into three chronological sections: “The Eclipse of the Name” (roughly 300 bce–500 ce), “Times of Ignorance” (500 ce–1400 ce) and “The Rediscovery of the Name” (1400 ce–1700 ce). The first section derives its title from the fact that whereas the Tetragrammaton routinely appears in Jewish biblical texts, in both Hebrew and Greek, it virtually never appears in biblical texts of Christian origin, being represented instead by the surrogate kyrios, or, more precisely, by the distinctively Christian abbreviation ΚΣ. The implications of “eclipse” notwithstanding, however, the author makes the important point that this shift in scribal convention does not signal a lack of Christian interest in the Tetragrammaton.(

R. Kendall Soulen 2015) Although the author states that the lack of 'Yahweh' should not be used as evidence for its lack of importance, we see that the term is hardly representative for the concept of God in Christian tradition. The author also calls the time of absence of the Tetragrammaton a "time of ignorance". Althought he author interpretes the importance of 'YHWH' into the Christian tradition, the term is factually (almost) non-existent in traditional Christianity. Where might be a better suggestion for an image, which does accurately reflect Christian tradition. If no better one is aviable, I think the portray of God as a man will do it as well, due to its prominence in Western culture. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Humans cannot agree on what God looks like. Having no image at all is the only sensible approach. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image shows very well that humans do not agree, therefore it is even better to include anthropomorphic depictions as well. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depicting God as an old bearded man is very inaccurate and doesn't support biblical writings. Using the Hebrew name for God again would be far more suitable to use instead of a depiction which isn't supported. If it's more suitable maybe we could use an image of Jesus to replace instead? Jesus being God and having divinity is a key and common Christian belief, and an image of Jesus is already used on the Deity page. RileyXeon (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would second that, except, this page is not confined only to Christian interpretation. (Unlike God_in_Christianity) 102.211.127.104 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current Michelangelo depiction. This isn't an article about biblical or Christian interpretations of God's appearance, it's about God as a single monotheistic entity and how he is or has been depicted across societies. Debating the Bible isn't relevant here. The depiction shown from Michelangelo is of one of the most famous depictions of the subject of this article ("God") in human history, probably the most widely recognizable, regardless of whether some Christian sects or sources may object that it represents what is "biblically accurate". It absolutely should remain.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The depiction of God the Father by Michelangelo has been replaced by the Trinity depiction a long ago. The God in Christianity is mainly represented through trinity. This topic is not relevant anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.37.238 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 'Definitions' section for this article

[edit]

I was wondering if this article would benefit from a short section regarding the various definitions of God provided by religious traditions. I can provide one from the Westminster Shorter Catechism (a famous definition given which Anne of Green Gables quotes at some point) representing Presbyterianism, and another the Belgic Confession, a confessional standard of Continental Reformed Protestantism, both representing authoritative expressions of Reformed Protestantism which is a major form of Protestantism along with Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Baptist theology. These definitions also have Biblical citations for each point.

Westminster: 'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Belgic Confession: 'We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good and the overflowing fountain of all good.'

I believe a short and authoritative definition from each religious tradition would give readers a good idea of how God is conceived and also a useful point of comparison. Perhaps it could also be pointed out what doctrines or concept are taught in each definition, e.g. divine simplicity in the Belgic Confession ('one only simple and spiritual Being'). For this example, I would also mention that the Confession cites parts of Scripture such as Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 as sources of this doctrine. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image of God

[edit]

Image of the Christian God as of the current version (July 29, 2024) is the actual depiction of the Christian God. Don't change it with the painting of The Creation of Adam, also known as The Creation of Man, by Italian artist Michelangelo as it only consist the image of God the father. But the actual God in Christianity is represented through the the Christian Trinity, as a three faced head (Father, Son and Holy spirit). AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, God in Christianity is a Trinity, but the depiction of the Most Holy Trinity (a 3-faced Jesus) currently is considered heretical even by the very church it came from. It is a very fringe depiction of the Most Holy Trinity, supported by practically no one.
I suggest it should be replaced with the Trinity icon by St. Andrei Rublev ASAP. Bis-Serjetà? (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bis-Serjetà?: I agree that choosing the tricephalous depiction of the Trinity is... rather odd. From my preliminary research, it appears to be theologically controversial, and was even condemned by popes Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

@AimanAbir18plus: Can you justify your choice of this controversial depiction? How can it be "the actual depiction of the Christian God", as you claim, when it has been so condemned? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting really tired of the endless fiddling with the gallery here in general. We need to select three or four representative depictions that cover the gamut and stick with them. Remsense ‥ 论 07:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not choose the image. It was chosen by someone else. But this image is more accurate to represent the Trinity than an old bearded man as God. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED. It's fine to do iterative refinement.
As a practical matter, I suggest going with uncontroversial depictions (like my example below) to avoid unnecessary disputes. 50.221.225.231 (talk)

The Shield of the Trinity (e.g., this image) seems like an uncontroversial choice for depiction of the Trinity. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of iteration, but iteration has to have direction or purpose. I wonder if we can do better still—while what it represents is certainly not controversial in Eastern Orthodoxy, the diagram is still particularly Western—I remember reading a bit about Byzantine diagrams a while back, it was really interesting. Remsense ‥ 论 08:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AimanAbir18plus, I asked you to please discuss further changes to the main gallery before making them. Remsense ‥ 论 19:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AimanAbir18plus, why did you try to archive this thread instead of addressing me directly asking you about something? Remsense ‥ 论 20:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is no longer relevant as the 3 faced trinity depiction of Jesus is no longer used in the article as lede image. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I asked you to please discuss any changes to the lead images before making them, which you have ignored and made changes anyway. There was no reason for you to archive what is clearly generalized, ongoing discussion about the lead gallery. Remsense ‥ 论 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to edit war: @AimanAbir18plus could you please explain the reasoning for re-adding the Jewish and Baháʼí representations? I do not think previous appearance suffices, and I would like to have a gallery where there are as few examples with as broad a coverage as possible. Remsense ‥ 论 09:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Judaism and Bahai Faith is larger religion than Atenism (extinct religion) and Monad (philosophy). And the depictions of God in Judaism and Bahai Faith were used in the older versions of the article and are more important than Atenism or Monad. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the point is to represent the totality of the concept described in the article. Atenism was of great historical importance for its concept of God, which remains of great interest to scholars of religion. The Monad represents a distinct conception of God unique to the early modern period. I'm not saying we have to include either of these, but just reaching for different representations because you feel they have sufficient number of associated adherents is not really doing the concept justice, in my mind. Remsense ‥ 论 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You can replace the Jewish and Bahai depiction of God with Atenism and Monad. I have no problem. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think that the topic of "Don't change the image of the Christian God (Trinity)" is relevant anymore as the 3 faced trinity depiction of Jesus is no longer used in the article as lede image. So, do you think that it would be okay to remove this topic? AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to remove the topic, as it will be archived eventually like any other. It does not bother me that conversation flows naturally and other questions are addressed in the interim. Remsense ‥ 论 09:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: @AimanAbir18plus: @Bis-Serjetà?: Eastern Orthodoxy (one of the three major Christian denominations) rejects human depictions of God the Father. Let's replace the image with the obvious candidate, Christ, or the Shield of the Trinity, as suggested above. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
Stop it all of you. There are so many different beliefs, there is no obvious candidate. This article does not need, nor should it have any image at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? This is a premise you need to actually substantiate instead of demanding everybody trying to improve a highly visible part of a highly visible page should shut up. Remsense ‥ 论 05:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
God is a highly visual concept, so insisting on no visual illustration because figuring out what it should be is nontrivial is inane. Remsense ‥ 论 05:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? And how can God be a highly visual concept? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because a lot of visuals are associated with the concept? Remsense ‥ 论 06:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many depictions of God in many religions which are essential for this article to use as lede image. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an answer tome concerns at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're not expressing concerns that can be engaged with except by deference to your particular tastes and perspective. Remsense ‥ 论 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no image that will please people of every faith, so how about no image? HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the goal here. No definition will please everyone, and no choice of words will either, but I imagine you wouldn't say "don't bother to write an article". It's not within the remit of our encyclopedia to illustrate in an unfamiliar fashion, nor to defer on our own pretense that this subject is uniquely unillustratable without evidence. Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view: all we can do, exactly as with our prose, is be as representative of our sources as possible. Remsense ‥ 论 07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument. I did not and would not propose having no article. Stick to what I actually said please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind what you said. I literally said "I imagine you wouldn't say 'don't bother to write an article'". Remsense ‥ 论 08:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should stop speculating and discussing me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the purely editorial point I'm making is not clear to you, I apologize. I would like to see this argument as something more than obstructive, but I think it would be better if I desist here, since our rhetorical styles clearly aren't compatible. If you don't want to be understood, then don't speak, I guess. Remsense ‥ 论 08:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image used in the introduction for Hinduism

[edit]

In the introduction, I strongly recommend replacing the photo of a statue of Vishnu with the symbol of Brahman, since Vishnu is just one of the three manifestations of Brahman, together with Brahma and Shiva. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article uses an icon of Acintya, a deity of Balinese Hinduism. (Bali is a small island of Indonesia.) Is there a reason we're using this, specifically, to represent all of Hinduism? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not representing all of Hinduism. It's representing a specific Balinese Hindu deity Acintya. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why use Balinese Hinduism (~4.6 million adherents) rather than simply Hinduism (~1.2 billion adherents)? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images of Hindu deities such as Hanuman and Vishnu were used in the previous versions of the article. But, many people including you too were not happy about it. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote we restore the the image of Vishnu, and just write "Vaishnava Hinduism" in the description. This is the largest sect of the faith. Otherwise, could we use an image of the Trimurti as a sort of compromise? Zoozoor (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God&oldid=1253513255"