E=mc2 the God in Einstein and Zen: A Skeptic's Search for the Meaning of Life and Personal Redemption [N. M. Reyes] on leondumoulin.nl *FREE* shipping on.
Table of contents
I am not an historian and could not attempt such a section myself. I just noticed that the page on Superman starts, "Superman is a fictional character. I know this is not supposed to be discussed here, but I am arrogant and feel my views should take precedence over others' views, since I am arrogant, and have been shown through special powers the entire knowledge of the world.
Oh wait, doesn't that mean I also believe in the supernatural? Jews and Christians except Mormons generally figure that the image of something incorporeal would likewise be incorporeal. It says in the caption right below it "a well known example of the depiction of God the Father in Western art. If your problem was that there's a painting of God and you thought that it didn't clarify that it's an artistic depiction, you should have tried, oh I don't know, actually stating it.
If you honestly thought that that is a real picture of God, we don't need you here. Any more comments that are not about article improvement will be removed. Talk pages are for article improvement. Do you have any comments relating to article improvment in any way? There is an error in the Etymological part of the article, it is assumed that the word used by Arab Christians and Muslims is the same, due to nothing more than the sounds of the words, but they are two completely different words, though based on the same proto-Semitic roots. The AUDITORY similarities, and that's the limit of the similarities, are due to the fact of close relationship between Syrio-Aramaic which was a very high cultural language and much borrowing and development by Arabs for their language, which eventually became "classical" Arabic, Arabic originally being a very low cultural language, with no standardization until well after Islam was established, as well as both political and religious missionary reasons.
The following passage has been removed: Thanks for the information, I'll keep that in mind. I'll stick to writing pages on novels. I apologize for the inconvenience. The statement "In itself, the idea that there is objective knowledge about God is a fringe theory. No serious theologian or scholar of religion would agree with it. First, "fringe" implies crackpot, which tends to dehumanize someone you disagree with.
Instead of "No serious Some Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and other religious scholars consider the material world an illusion, therefore the "objective" does not exist; everything is subjective. The last sentence implied that there was a vigorous debate in Medieval times, presumably Christian Europe and the Muslim lands, in any case whatever the unstated but implicit cultural context is with atheistic viewpoints authentically defended as would later be the case.
This is patently false. Atheism is of course much older than the European Enlightenment and there are whole large areas of the Earth that are essentially atheist now and were at least in the classes that could have expressed an opinion in the European medieval period, but that is beside the point. The point is, in the Medieval European period of world history, atheism and arguments for the existence of god were not given the balanced treatment the former text implied.
Where gods and demons had already been put aside in scholarly debate it was a non-issue. Where the Abrahamic god held sway no serious disbelief was tolerated. Would be noteworthy as an example of ignorance of history of Atheism in the west if it wasn't. As this article is open to attracting complaints of a bias for or against whatever worldview you like, and such complaints almost never come with any real evidence, perhaps we could have a sign at the top of the page to the effect of "please provide evidence in line with guidelines or policies such as WP: NPOV when making complaints of bias, or your post will appear to be trolling or an attempt to insert your own bias.
I know it wouldn't eliminate all the unevidenced or biased complaints , but it would at least give us something to point to when they occur. An image used in this article, File: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status. Don't panic ; you should have time to contest the deletion although please review deletion guidelines before doing so. The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page File: After reading through this article I feel there are some general concerns which I will throw in right away.
I have a long list of specific concerns that I will add below during the course of the week. I foresee that a thorough review is going to take me several days I cannot devote all day to WP. I hope that you will stay on board for longer than the usual 7 days. A quote from User: God probably best summarises this concern:. In contrast, Islamic ideas appear in 6 sections, Jewish ideas in 7 sections, and Hindu ideas in 5 sections, and disbelief is discussed in 4 sections.
I agree that this is not undue, but it is likewise not broad. Within all general topics under discussion, there should be respective representation of the main religions. Which religions to cover, and which to only link somewhere under see-also, should probably be determined by consensus. It would then still be appropriate to include particular views of minor religions in sections that specifically concern their difference, but a situation that one section covers Christianity and Islam, while another only mentions Hinduism and Shikism is not good.
The structure seems to be not entirely thought through, preventing a smooth flow of prose and confusing the reader. Would it therefore make sense to have a general structure according to the Attributes omnipotence, existence, Not the other way round, that's what religion should cover. I am aware that this is essentially requesting a complete rewrite but I am willing to accompany the process as reviewer. Still, I see entire paragraphs without references, and the pattern of which propositions carry a reference, and which ones don't, is unclear to me. Per good article criteria every assertion that is "likely to be challenged" must be referenced.
It is hard for me to see which ones that would be, but the current pattern makes no sense. I'll give an example for clarity:. However, if by its essential nature, free will is not predetermined, then the effect of its will can never be perfectly predicted by anyone, regardless of intelligence and knowledge. This is a very difficult topic; I have a concern also in this section: Which sources have been picked to create the article seems to be, for lack of a better expression, somewhat haphazard.
There are frequent text patterns such as Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A. McGrath, argue , or Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach and Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that How have these representatives been elected? Are they the leading theologians of their time, are their views representative? This concludes my initial assessment. I put the GAN on hold to see whether any improvement is going to take place, currently it looks a bit like a fly-by nomination.
If you have any questions please contact me here or on my talk page. Cheers, Pgallert talk Hi all, it has been nine days now without anyone improving the article in any substantial way. I fail this nomination for lack of broadness and inconsistency. I don't desire to edit articles but to add SBT pages to them for further Biblical historical facts that clears up Myths to Wikipedia articles on any of the references quoted if neededCan some help me get stated doing that for the Articles on GOD or god And John 1: I CAN get all others done without assistance.
This is quite complex. My hope of convincing any majority that the first sentence in this article about God should better be changed is not strong. Obviously God is for most English speaking people regarded as a name, or even The Name cf. Hashim lest of the singular being for which there is no way to express; except, for the indications of the tetragrammaton ; but I do question wether the accuracy which is sought, of the first line in the article, hits the point: God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.
It seem to compromise, and suffer from a lacking consistency. I find that the sentence is trying to be accurate. It is difficult to say it is a good sentence though. It doesn't feel good neither in the mouth, when reading it loud, nor in the ear, when hearing it. Please try, taste it. I think most people will agree, independently on standpoint, religiously, theologically or academically.
On the other side, what to expect from a wikipedia article on God? First thing that comes to my mind is the problem of truth-tentativity. The expression "God is the English name given to I believe they sought, in communication, in dialogues, word-name s that could express the divine character, but not attach specificity, nor a particular image of a god. God is not that, this or anyone to which we can reduce, the early messengers would hold. The God is rather like a gate, a door, an index; but only the fool looks at the indexfinger pointing to the moon.
The proper theological tradition of the Abrahamitic Religion will point to the fact that the name of God is hidden, and protected most dearly. The force in, and the taboo of revealing, the Name s , Hashim , are expressed most poetically in the Song of Songs, an allusion to the nature of God, without ever mentioning Gods name but the name s , Hashim, in the opening verses Salomo was bearer og the title Messiah, remember.
Jews normally refer to God, just by saying Hashim, the Name s. The name s itself tetragrammaton s are only to be named in the holiest of holy, in ritual, or in prayer. When speaking about God, in conversation, Hashim is what to be used.
Navigation menu
This was revered by the earlier christians too. It seems to be rather forgotten in the contemporary world. I would say, on the basis of intuition that true names hardly can be translated. I will say this is even a feature of names. When I was young the Capital of China was called Peking. Now it is renamed Beijing in order to be more sounding as Chinese people expresses the name. Translation of names, I regard as a de- and reconstruction. Which may lead to a renaming at best. It is not on a theological ground, nor a religio-historic basis that I will argue that the first sentence in the article is partly misleading.
I may hold that God is not a name, but a word used primarily as translation of the Hebrew word Hashim, which simply means the Name s.
Page not found · GitHub Pages
That is not the point. For some, or most people it is a name. Thus it is not wrong to say it is the name of the singularity, or of a singular being. My suggestion for an alternative opening line simply comes from the fact that as it stand now In other words the mysterious, the anonymous. God is the English rendition of the Names given to a singular being of primarily Abrahamitic religions, but not exclusively. There doesn't appear to be any mention of the fact Yahweh was clearly described as a volcano. Is the Bible not a reliable enough source? It contains all the proof needed except the word 'volcano'.
If not the Bible then how about this Flashes of lightning and sounds like trumpet blasts also occurred. The description fits a a volcanic eruption. The emission of hot gases from fissures can produce trumpet-like sounds, and observers have reported seeing massive electrical displays emanating from volcanic clouds. No volcanoes are known to have erupted during that period in the Sinai Peninsula, but Arabia has many volcanoes. One volcanic mountain in the western Arabian Peninsula, Hala al Bedr Mount Bedr , is according to this theory a particularly promising candidate for ancient Mount Sinai.
Wikipedia is intended to be a source of neutral information, not a source of one-sided conjectures. Therefore, in order to improve the neutrality of this article, I propose the following changes: Conceived means "to bring forth," which inclines human creation and falsehood thereof. Instead of stating anything about God's Biblically stated gender, I propose the statement be removed entirely. To remove this statement would make the article much more objective, effectively neutral, and much more reliable due to the removal of possible conjecture - plus, the statement seems quite out of place from a literary standpoint.
According to my propositions I have made such revisions. I have made such edits as stated above in other sections as well to improve neutrality and remove argumental fallacies statements which incline one side of the argument is "more right" than another. There is much more work to be done, however, before the article is more objective than subjective. Please note my use of objective refers to the following definition: This article is a mess. It purports to be about "God in the context of monotheism and henotheism. In fact, this article is redundant as other articles handle the subject perfectly well, in manageable semantic and historical scope.
I propose that this page be gutted and remain as a disambiguation page, only.
Keep the first paragraph and the See Also section. It would be nice to see some links included to articles in the anthropology, archeology, and evolutionary psychology domains to fill out the picture with the science of the subject matterl Kcornwall talk Wiki is ment to be neutral, this does not mean it pretends there is any valid claims about or for god. It does mean it should treat the facts as they are.
God was created by humans. You dont get to claim fictional characters are true because of ther brain washing your recieved as a child! The page "God" gives false information. It implies in the first sentence of the article that the God in Islam is different than the one in Christianity. Allah is simply a title for God, NOT his name.
It only means the "One and Only God. The same god in Christianity is the same god in Islam. They are one and the same. The Quran is founded on Christianity. It is only an extension of the same religion, nothing more, or less. Instead of saying in a hatnote "For the Arabic version of this concept, see Allah" why not do as we do in other articles where different names apply and write a paragraph which covers some of these other names: I noticed that there have been several recent changes to the Lead , which I believe have a number of problems.
First, the Lead has been transformed from being a general overview on the subject of "God" to being an essay about what theists, agnostics, atheists, deists, pantheists, polytheists, henotheists, medieval philosophers, and modern philosophers believe about God. The result seems to be an article that sounds more controversial than it actually is: For instance, it goes without saying that " atheists believe that no deities exist", and we don't need to have that in the first paragraph of the Lead.
GO AHEAD - STEALING IS ALLOWED!!!
Additionally, "Allah" has been dropped as one of the names of God, while the "Tetragrammaton" has been kept, favoring a Judeo-Christian point of view. On a related note, the new section on "Evolution vs creationism" that was added today is using this article as a WP: The evolution debate should be mentioned in the article, perhaps in the See Also section, but it should not get its own subsection, and it should definitely not be under the section "General conceptions". The scope of the article is currently "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. If you don't believe me, read the hatnotes.
If you would like to change the scope of the article, then you should so state on the talk page and gain consensus for your change. I stated before that an entire section on "Evolution vs creationism" is using this article as a WP: It is a controversial debate that is an extension of the debate on whether or not God exists. It is tangentially related, but should not be "hung" on this article, because it's not about "God". The evolution debate in my opinion does deserve a sub-section since it is a major topics of discussion in both academic and legal circles.
Your rewrite of the Lead is still inappropriate for many reasons. It still makes it into an essay about what the many many groups think, while failing to give an adequate overview of the subject itself. If I were writing an article about Bananas, I would say what bananas are.
I wouldn't write an essay saying that group A likes bananas, group B hates bananas, group C doesn't care, group D grows them, group E boycotts them, group F denies that they exist. Also, another problem with your edit is that you are changing the meaning of sentences that are cited to sources.
- Join Kobo & start eReading today;
- The Four Pillars of Profit-Driven Marketing: How to Maximize Creativity, Accountability, and ROI;
- Access Denied;
- Site not found · GitHub Pages.
You changed the sentence "God is either the sole deity in monotheism or the monist deity in polytheism " to "God usually refers to either the single deity in monotheism or one of the plural deities in polytheism ". There is a big difference between a "monist deity in polytheism" and "one of the plural deities in polytheism". I'll bet the source only supports one of the statements, and I'll bet that it's not your rewrite. That said, I agree with you that the Lead needs some work, and I'm willing to make some concessions as well. It could use less about the names of God, and as you have pointed out, it could use less of a focus on Abrahamic views.
I'm going to revert your edit, and then see what I can do from there. I'd prefer, though, to start from the old, consensus version, because it's more likely to be quoting the sources accurately. The Buddha in Your Mirror: Practical Buddhism and the Search for Self. The Essential Spontaneous Fulfillment of Desire. From Science to God. Changing the Timeline of Our Destiny. Busting the Myths of Karma, Hell and Punishment. Sitting in the Lotus Blossom. The Sun My Heart.
The Book of Light. Ascension and the Nature of the Present Time.
- Praying My Faith;
- Tales of a Nympho Humiliation Pain Slut Volume 2?
- Special Education: A Summary of Legal Requirements, Terms, and Trends: A Summary of Legal Requiremen!
Intuition and the New Age. The Marriage of Spirit: A Spiritual Philosophy for the New World. The Power of Self. Seeing Through the Game of Life: A Practical Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment. The Instruction Manual for Receiving God. The Nature of Being: Thoughts from a Fellow Cosmic Traveler.
The Enigma of Self-Realization. The Carousel of Time. The Tao Te Ching.
Talk:God/Archive 22
A Guide to Sacred Awakenings. The Real Far Country. The Nature of Awareness. The Interface of Science and Spirituality. Reflecting Upon Life's Ultimate Questions. Conversations with a Friend. The Soul Of The Messenger. Removing Illusions to Find True Happiness. Freedom Comes from Understanding. Our Divine and Cosmic Identity, Volume 1. The Eternal Truth - with Study Guide. Way of the Heart. Principles to Remember and Apply. Cosmic Consciousness and Healing with the Quantum Field: Sacred Sites and Sacred Spaces.
As the Sun Rises. You Are the Universe. Open Mind, Open Heart. Beliefs of a Reasoning Mind.