"Face of God"
That picture on the article - I really feel strongly that we should take it down. Must He be reduced to an image? --Soga 13:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I agree. We shouldn't depict God as a human. We then implicate that the image *is* God. And as Soga said, we should not reduce Him to that. --A. Morris 14:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I concur.--Zephyr Axiom 16:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Okay. So... I guess I'm going to delete it, then. --Soga 20:02, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
My apologies. Learn something new every day. :) --Soga 14:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I can understand the reluctance to have God reduced to an image. But Michelangelo's artistic contributions are still worth remembering. Why not move the image down toward the bottom of the page? Better yet, why not create a gallery and put it there? In that way, you're not suggesting that the image really is God, but only that Michelangelo thought of God that way.--TemlakosTalk 21:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Seems reasonable. --Zephyr Axiom 21:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- I agree. I have another objection: why are we saying that Allah is the same as the God of the Bible? Allah is an evil dictator, never incarnated in the Son, Jesus. Muslims don't even believe he has the same character as the God of the OT. If anything, Allah is the name of the demon that lead Mohamed astray. --Aquatiki 06:00, 16 April 2008 (PDT)
- Actually the word Allah was used by Syrian Christians long before Muslims ever adopted it as their own. Correct me if im wrong please. --Tony 13:02, 16 April 2008 (PDT)
- I don't know if Syrian Christians used that word or not, but I do know that "Allah" is simply the word "God" in Arabic. It is cognate to the Hebrew "El" (as in El-Shaddai, "God Almighty"). ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (PDT)
Coming back to the image of God. I too have very, very big reservations towards displaying this image here. In my opinion it is very much at the limit of violating the commandment that we are not to make any images from anything in heaven etc. (Commandment number 2). Whenever you open the page, that image pops up first, and I really don't feel comfortable when Michelangelos perception of God is what we give the reader here. Images always stuck in mind and I think it is not helpful to have it here - despite Michelangelos artistic genius. We are not here to pay hommage to sth. created, but to worship and honour the creator. That's why I vote to delete the image.
Michi953 09:52 CET, 07 Dezember 2011
Ok, I'll now delete it. If you are convinced of the necessity that the picture should stay, reinstate it. But I'll feel a lot more comfortable without it. Michi953 11:31 CET, 13 Dezember 2011
- I have an acceptable substitute in mine I'll try to obtain. --Ashcraft - (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2011 (PST)
- Image updated with "names of God" graphic.--Ashcraft - (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2012 (PST)
Assyrians left out
In the first section, it seems that the Assyrians were left out. They were also polytheistic, weren't they? EriK 08:51, 28 September 2011 (PDT)
dEISM vs tHEISM
This will be a bit more difficult to follow given how long people have made this distinction but, the definition for Theism is not "An active, interventionist god". Theism simply means you believe in a god or gods. All else, from Polytheism to Deism, are just forms of Theism.
Theism is not distinct from Deism, and all Deists are Theists, but not all Theists are Deists.
I think that the section explaining this should thus be altered.