Talk:God

Template:WP1.0

Incorrect use of "deistic" should be changed

In the introduction of this article, it says "God is a deity in deistic religions...". Deism refers to the belief that there is a "non-interfering" dvine creator, rather than any divine creator as would be implied here. As such, it should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.149.62 (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

GOD I LOVE YOU!!!!! DONT YOU DARE NOT BELIEVE IN HIM!!!!! IM WATCHING YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The article is using theism for two different conclusions when it could be better expressed using agnostic-theism and gnostic-theism.

"Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[16] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (theism). There are numerous variations on these positions."

It's using theism for two completely different views.

"It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

So with that it should be:

"Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[16] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (agnostic-theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (gnostic-theism). There are numerous variations on these positions."

Bravo! By bravo I mean you speak nonsense.--209.80.246.3 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we might offend some atheists who say that atheism is not a belief. Or some agnostics who say that agnosticism means "not taking a position because it's impossible to know" Or you might take my route, and see no purpose in the terms "agnostic-theism" or "gnostic-thesm," since they are both, for all intents and purposes, the same thing since belief exists (what follows does not change the fact they believe in God or not). Or maybe I'm overthinking it. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of belief in god

Using Abrahamic as a conglomeration is misleading. Abrahamic has to do with a ´father´ figure orientation. Older people are given the title abraham. Abrahamic is sinonimous to rulership by the ancients, the old or older (no wisdom or intelligence required). Most, if not all, theologies include references of respect to elders, abrahams. That would include the chineese, CHODEbudhism, hinduism. The percentage of abrahamic theologies is close to 100%. Usage of abrahamic solely for cristianity, moslem and (sic) judaism (they know better), is a clear demarkation of the usage of abrahamic as a marketing ploy. Theologies are regional dependancies, impacted and molded through distinct ethnical, social, cultural and environmental conditions of the times when they where created through, and to, the current times. Almost CHODE all of them are abrahamic through necesity.

The worship of Maria, a maternal basis, is cristian and definitely not abrahamic.

(Fractalhints (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

A de-vile/ment, villagers, has been detected. Blasphemous, des-picable, not worthy of de-mon/ation.

Thou arth certains that chode is not the equivalent of toad, warths of hog and trolloping?

(Fractalhints (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Not sure what you're saying. By "Abrahamic," this article is referring to the three "Abrahamic Religions": Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Your definition is different than that. However, if you are saying that belief in a single God is not exclusive to those religions, than you are correct. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Either remove the reference to distribution or do it the way it should be done, this is theology mongering and is linked to REAL theological terrorism.

Is it your intend to scare moslems, budhist, hindu´s and other theological belief systems through conglomeration of what are clearly distinct and seperate facets, mainstream and sects, of cristianity? Bigger might be better if you want that to become a social target and unite all other theologies against cristianity. If that is your intend, then we need to be ready for a theological war and prepair the Knights Templar and Knights Counter-Templar. Let me know.(Fractalhints (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

More significant relationships.

It would be nice if you added the relationship of the significance of god as a reference to chief/parent, angels as combatting forces in favor of god, adam and eve as civil society. These days, Cat and Dog have more relevance, especially as a symbolic reference to man and woman. Demons and Angels as symbolic references to the same. We are not living in the middle ages or in those times when the literate could pull the wool over anyone´s head and conglomerate opinion was forced on the population by a select few or through the premasticated opinion of one or two media writs as reference for the whole. Do check the relevance on polytheism, multiple distinct cristian sects IS polytheism, each depiction is sufficiently distinct to cause god to be distinct. The same name does not imply the same deity. If you need proof of this, I´ll be more than glad to provide similitudes of any name in relation. You are not the carrier of the only name of your sort. (Fractalhints (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC))