Jump to content

Talk:God

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:God, monotheistic)
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


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]
I've noticed the same thing, God in this article is mostly shown on pictures as the Muslim God, i'm not speaking against the religion but the fact that the images are stereotypical and could be revolved about the author's beliefs. BenidictusW (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BenidictusW, I think you are too concerned about the preview of the article which depicts Allah (God in Islam) which you said is stereotypical and revolve about the author's beliefs. But, wouldn't the use of the image of the old bearded man (Christian God the Father) or Trinity of Christianity as the preview be also stereotypical and revolve about the author's beliefs? Moreover, you said, "God in this article is mostly shown on pictures as the Muslim God" which is not true because from Left to right, top to bottom: representations of God in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Baháʼí Faith, Zoroastrianism, and Vaishnava Hinduism is shown in the lead section. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2025 (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]
Vishnu's image has been restored. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to revert Special:Diff/995970156 to archive 10

[edit]

See title. See this page for context. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this is not an attempt to forum shop, any edit that I will or will not make to the archive will be made after the thing is resolved Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treading lightly on Image of God

[edit]

Hi: Prior to today when you google "God Wikipedia" on mobile the image was of the Christian western artistic rendition. Today it only shows the Islamic writing in Hagia Sophia. Could we revert it or have something that is more unifying be the default photo like a white light or galaxy? SAGOUB ELTOTSIRA (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:SAGOUB ELTOTSIRA, I can't tell what you see or what you saw, but nothing in the article has changed in the last week or so. Some people have been messing around with the sixth image, apparently, but you're talking about the first two images in that composite picture. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SAGOUB ELTOTSIRA, You can't choose the first image you see when you search for "God Wikipedia" on any given search engine. It is chosen at random. SpooklesMan (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism

[edit]

I believe, in the initial collage, there should be a photograph corresponding to Sikhism. This is one of the largest world religion's. One possibility is the main image in the Ik Onkar article. Since this is a significant change I will wait for approval for proceeding per WP:BOLD. JDiala (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be World's 5th mediumest religion, not any of the largest. See Major religious groups. And which religion would you want to substract from that collage? YBSOne (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would subtract them all. Collages are one of Wikipedia's worst feature. Useless on phone screens. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems counting isn't your strong suit. There are six images in the collage, so it would make sense to include the fifth largest religion. JDiala (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems counting isn't your strong suit. There are five largerst religions and Sikhism is NOT one of them. It is in fact 10th largest religion. So I ask, why there should be a photograph corresponding to Sikhism? YBSOne (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons with non-monotheistic faiths are irrelevant as this is about the monotheistic conception of God. It's also ahead of Judaism and Baháʼí, so why are those included? JDiala (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that "mediumest" isn't really a word used for ordinal rankings in the English language. Using strange words like that does contribute to the confusion of other editors, which happened here. JDiala (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out to you on multiple occasions that you tend to make anti-Jewish edits. Maybe you'd like to refrain from removing Judaism pictures to not be seen as tendetious editing on your part? You have not provided any rationale, other than size, why to add Sikhism, as it is 10th largest religion so out of 6 spots for illustrations it would be rational to want to include any of the 9 larger than Sikhism religions, if the number of followers is still your rationale? So why Sikhism of all of them? Is it because you have a personal interest in it and Wikipedia should be edited to your personal preferences? Or is it that you'd rather remove Judaism at all cost? YBSOne (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "pointed out", it was claimed and clearly not taken seriously by anyone with authority because I am still able to edit on Jewish topics. As for why Sikhism should be preferred, it is because it is the larger monotheistic religion by number of adherents. JDiala (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Remove File:Blake God Blessing.jpg from the Article as it does not meet Wikipedia’s or Commons' standards for relevance, educational value, or neutrality

[edit]

I suggest that the image "God Blessing the Seventh Day, 1805 watercolor painting " be removed from this article. Despite the fact that the image is in the public domain, its use raises encyclopedic and editorial concerns:

The image is irrelevant to the article’s content and does not support or illustrate any specific point made in the text. Its inclusion violates WP:IMAGE , as it serves no clear encyclopedic purpose and adds no educational value. The article stands without it, making the image unnecessary and misleading.

1. Interpretive Bias: The painting is a very specific and personal representation of God by William Blake based on his mystical Christian worldview. It is not a generic or widely representative image of "God," nor is it a neutral or culturally diverse view for general or interfaith use.

Excessive Weight and Neutrality WP:NPOV:It represents a specific Christian interpretation of God and the 7th Day of Creation. Its inclusion in an article discussing God or Creation violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy by giving undue weight to a single religious perspective.


2. Absence of Encyclopedic Necessity WP:IMAGES , WP:NFCC and Commons guidelines: The image does not add vital educational content in situations where the idea of God reflected using a broader range of views, is abstract, philosophical, or inter-tradition. Text is more suitable and accurate in these instances, and the image would even lead to confusion and take away from context. The image is in contradiction to the context of the article.

2 Commons Scope : Where the image is not used in a meaningful encyclopedic or educational way and is essentially artistic or devotional in content, it can be beyond Commons' project scope.

There is Interpretive Bias as the painting is a very specific and personal representation of God by William Blake based on his mystical Christian worldview. It is not a generic or widely representative image of "God," nor is it a neutral or culturally diverse view for general or interfaith use

Wikipedia discourages the use of redundant images. If an image doesn't significantly add to the understanding of an article , it may be deemed unnecessary 182.184.255.241 (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God&oldid=1285704830"