Talk:Christianity and pandeism

Reliability of sources and WP:SYNTH
Hello, there appears to be some confusion about what is a reliable source. claims that "blogs by experts are reliable sources", but this is a drastic oversimplification of our policy. WP:SPS reads, in part, So, the WP:BURDEN would be squarely on Hyperbolick to prove to us other editors that (1) his "experts" have been previously reliably published, AND (2) that there is a compelling reason to use their blog, over and above their reliably published material. It especially strains my credulity that we should be heeding the rants posted at such gems as "biblefalseprophet.com" much less the free-for-all known as "gloria.tv" often cited by crackpots and rad-trads.
 * Secondly, what is WP:SYNTH? Simply put, it's taking perfectly good information in reliable secondary sources, putting them together in some fashion, and drawing out conclusions which do not exist in the sources. Textbook synth is occurring here when Hyperbolic chooses to cite information about Deism and Pantheism, "elements" of Pandeism, and then claims that this is a commentary on Pandeism itself. No, sorry! Pandeism must be specifically discussed in the sources if you expect to relate them to the current topic. Unfortunately, good sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not make a whiff of a mention of Pandeism, so they are inadmissible here, all things being equal.
 * I hope this helps to clear things up. I understand that Hyperbolick is a passionate defender and proponent of Pandeism, but I hope he can temper his enthusiasm a little bit in view of observing Wikipedia policies and improving articles according to those criteria. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have today been admonished to follow WP:BRD but I am afraid that WP:BLPREMOVE outweighs the need to discuss the outlandish and scurrilious accusations against living people which are proposed to be added. If they can be reliably sourced, by all means add them back. But rogue crackpots using self-published websites are not sufficient for extraordinary claims about the faith and teachings of living, notable people. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve taken out the Pope. Hope you find this an agreeable place to settle while the rest is discussed. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you insist on using ridiculous crackpots such as "biblefalseprophet" for anything at all then we will not come to an agreement. You need to abide by Wikipedia's key policy of verifiability, instead of finding sources that say what you want them to. It boggles my mind; Pandeism and related articles have plenty of scholarly and published sources, such as from Google Books, and public domain works from hundreds of years ago; I do not know the credentials of these authors, but they are far better than "renegade priests", so you do seem to know valid sources when you see them... why have you gone so far off the reservation this week? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As for this edit where you scrupulously avoid mentioning Pope Francis by name -- have you read WP:WEASEL? You can't just say things in Wikipedia's voice that vaguely insinuates stuff. "Some people have said that certain leaders have a certain view" is a non-assertion. It's worse than useless. It's not encyclopedic and doesn't belong on this site. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked for more eyes on this page per your post at WP:FTN. The first thing I can say is that based on the discussion above, you need to look through WP:NPA. This is not optional in Wikipedia. We discuss content on talk pages, not editors. Things like "why have you gone so far off the reservation this week" cross the line in my opinion. WP:CIVIL needs to be adhered to in all discussions on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is in no way an attack; I don't know why you're taking it that way. I'm just questioning this behavior change, and it's actually a compliment: we know quite well that Hyperbolick knows how to find and use reliable sources, so why the really horrible ones being added recently? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A personal attack is subjective. Saying it isn't one is different than how it can be perceived. That is exactly why we discuss content, not editors. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All this stuff is still hanging around in Draft:Criticism of Pandeism - WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:V, WP:RS apply there as well. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I started a talk page for the draft. Here is the wrong place to discuss there. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the WP:SYNTH issue, if pandeism is one kind of deism, and there is no article on "Catholic Church and deism," why not move this article to "Catholic Church and deism"? Make pandeism one section of that article and redirect "Catholic Church and pandeism" to the section. By the way, deism and pandeism are not capitalized in other articles, and should not be capitalized here. CNMall41 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone could’ve written that article. This is the one that got done. If it suits people to move and rearrange and redirect, and that will alleviate criticism of deism being here, so be it. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Asked User:Editor2020 about it. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with writing an article about the Catholic church and deism is that it would be more historical; pandeism is a better fit because it both incompasses the historical and present-day controversy/relationship. In other words, the way deists viewed the Catholic church three hundred years ago is not quite the same as the way a modern pandeist would see things.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. The Church has not viewed them so differently. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since WP:SYNTH has been acknowledged, let us remove the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catechism passages which do not cover pandeism, until such time as the deism or pantheism-related articles can be written. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that the large sections on Eriugena and Giordano Bruno hinge completely on the evaluation of Max Bernhard Weinstein's retroactive analysis, separated by hundreds of years. Weinstein was employed as a physicist, and his writing on pandeism was indeed criticized for tarring many with the brush of pandeism. It seems that if we are going to discuss the Catholic Church's attitude to something, we should not be banking so heavily on such a source - Weinstein's Wikipedia article does not indicate a religious affiliation at all. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody else proposes removing the Catholic Encyclopedia or Catechism passages. Clearly others looked at the article without flagging this, so let’s pause and get consensus before changing. Wouldn’t object to splitting out Deism material into a Deism-specific article, but what purpose is served to remove altogether, so nobody can learn about it? Seems to be a case of either split, or get off the pot. Neither Eriugena nor Bruno is solely dependent on Weinstein, and his religion is irrelevant in this context. Yes, Weinstein was a physicist, but also wrote thoroughly on religion, several books, which were published. That a single review (by who, again?) criticizes his analysis is of light weight. If that is a problem, why not add the fact that Weinstein was criticized to this article. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's remember the scope of this article - "Catholic Church and pandeism". Yes, I think that it is a problem to rely solely on non-Catholic non-theologian sources to identify adherents to pandeism in the distant past, when it had neither a name nor a formulation. Likewise, the Catechism and the Encyclopedia are critiquing things which are not pandeism. Out of scope! Off topic! You want to pause and wait for "consensus" to remove the stuff - where is the consensus to keep it in? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus to keep in is inherent in others looking at the article and seeing nothing comment-worthy on it being there for well over half a year. The one solution proffered, split the page, involves reworking but not deletion. As to a non-Catholic (non-theologian is debatable) identifying who is a Pandeist — are you saying somebody must be Catholic to write about Pandeism? If a policy supports that, or even supports needing Catholic writers to write on Catholicism, please show me, I would very much like to see this policy. It would definitely inform my thinking on this. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is another tool wikipedia has that can deal with what you are wrestling with. It is very common for academic or historian types to categorize things similarly, but with different terms or slightly different slants. I noticed this when dealing with Nudge theory, and made a Template:Nudge Theory to combine them. Very quickly after making this template, I was thanked, and shortly later I noticed someone had translated the template into another language. There are other articles, though, which combine multiple categories together, even without express warrant to do so by any source. For example, Reformation attempts to explain different definitions and concepts of the Reformation period in the lead--they are all combined in the same article rather than separated into separate articles such as "Reformation in Protestantism," "Reformation in the history of nationalism" and "Reformation in warfare."


 * It has occurred to me that there are distinctive Kantian vs. Hegelian forms of WP:SYNTH, both on Wikipedia and in real life. Even on the policy page, different subheadings come from different angles, making the entire policy inconsistent. This is problematic because epistemological differences tend to be ingrained. Change happens slowly over years, if at all. Someone used to defining synthesis in terms of Kant's Analytic–synthetic distinction will not label things the same as someone using the Thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad. For the most part, this should not be a problem because math and hard science articles are going to be edited mostly by editors with the former distinction, while politics, pop-culture, history, and art will be dominated by editors with the latter distinction.


 * If you haven't figured it out already, I see Hyperbolick as using the Analytic–synthetic distinction (in a practical sense), while Hyperbolick's critics would be more along the lines of the triad. The solution to this problem would be to integrate C. West Churchman's inquiring systems approach to clarify when each definition of synthesis should apply. The different angles discussed on the WP:What_SYNTH_is_not page go down this path halfway already. But since it is only Wikipedia I doubt it is necessary to solve the problem.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The relation between deism and pandeism is similar to the issue in the Reformation article or the concepts related to the Nudge Theory article. There is more than one way to solve it. You can say, this is not WP:SYNTH, this is WP:Blue and keep the article as is, or you can separate the topics and link them by template. I prefer to keep the article as is.


 * Both of these are preferable to playing an intellectual game of Zeno%27s_paradoxes, where all improvements are inadequate because the connection hasn't been adequately proved, and no article can progress because the half-way step violates someone's interpretation of an imprecise rule. Another way to describe this game would be a pernicious use of the regressive fork of the Münchhausen trilemma rather than seeking a balanced response.


 * Lastly, if there was a side-bar template, appropriate articles could include
 * "Deism and the Catholic Church,"
 * what is left of this article
 * "Catholicism and New Age" (not written yet)
 * Crypto-paganism
 * Christianity among Hispanic and Latino Americans
 * Christianity_and_Paganism
 * Great_Apostasy
 * Folk Catholicism
 * Lacnunga
 * Esoteric_Christianity
 * Origins_of_Christianity
 * Neoplatonism and Christianity
 * Buddhist influences on Christianity
 * Buddhism_and_Christianity
 * New_Age
 * Religion_in_ancient_Rome
 * Freedom_of_religion_in_Germany (maybe, due to the paragraph below the wedding picture)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Epiphyllumlover, I agree with your preference for keeping as is. Very thorough rationale on the subject.  I see it as if we have a king who commands extermination of all bears in his kingdom. Perhaps there are many kinds, but if he had particularly choice words for one kind, and we had an article on the King’s feelings about that one kind of bear, would be folly to exclude mentioning he wanted all bears, including that kind, exterminated. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot, I’d started a Draft:Template:Deism sidebar, but the draft has since been deleted. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weighing in:


 * 1. I agree with you on the WP:SYNTH issues, and have made efforts to come up with a compromise solution: a contextual sentence that covers the Catholic Church's positions on deism and pantheism (and preserves the long Catholic Encyclopedia and Catechism blockquotes in references) that I hope is clearly demarcated enough from statements about pandeism to not seem like a synthesis.  I also agree with you on the over-reliance on Weinstein.
 * 2. I heartily agree with the proposals to create or adapt this article into one on the Catholic Church and deism. I think such an article would have a far better chance of being sourced properly than this, and would probably be much more meaty and cohesive since deism has a far more widely understood and agreed upon definition.  I don't think you can say the same about pandeism, especially historically.
 * - GretLomborg (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Will try to do some work on putting together that day is an idea, but still think it best to have two articles, then. Need not be meaty to be worthy. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and deism listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catholic Church and deism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. GretLomborg (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitions
It seems like there might be at least three definitions of "pan-deism" that may be relevant here:

1. The definition used in the Pandeism article (i.e. a fusion of pantheism and deism).

2. A definition of "advocating or involving the union of" theists.

3. The definition of pantheism, but swapping the Greek theos for the Latin synonym deus (this one I'm less sure of). Seems like this might especially likely in areas with heavy Latin influence, like the Catholic Church (with its Church Latin) and speakers of Romance languages like Italian.

- GretLomborg (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Definition in the Pandeism article is the formal definition (compare Encyclopedia Britannica‘s, which article precedes our own by some years). “Pandeism” and “Deism” both have some historic fluidity in how intently writers have used them. If not clearly definite differently, don’t see how we decide that writers meant other than the meaning known to educated philosophers. These are, by and large, people well enough studied in the area. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * When I follow that Britannica link to their pandeism page, the page says "THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic." The preview text seems to indicate that there's some mention of it in their Deism article under a section "Influence of Deism since the early 20th century." In any case, we should be careful not to imply an old source used a particular definition when it's unclear, especially when that definition may have been established after that source was written or when variant definitions exist. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I get something different from Britannica, snippet of the Deism article, “Further, such modern variants as “pandeism,” which attempted to unite aspects of Deism with pantheism, held that through the act of creation God became the universe. There is thus no theological need to posit any special relationship between God and creation; rather, God is the universe and not a transcendent entity that created and subsequently governs it...” Goes on to talk about Charles Hartshorne and Antony Flew. Agree care must be taken to avoid implying definition (for this and other terms in the genre), but the best way to do that may be to be thorough in documenting what users of the term claimed to mean by it. You’ve done some of this, which is very good. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Definition #1 is very similar to the Death of God theology, so if there are any Catholic sources talking about the Death of God theology, they might be added to the article under this understanding.
 * In the practical sense (a Definition #4?), the only Catholic pandeists I have encountered focus largely on the Holy Spirit, who is spoken of in a non-personal (not the orthodox understanding) sense. This Spirit is all pervasive and worshipped by non-Christians too. Possibly it could be pantheistic in a Hegelian sense, but this is not obviously stated (maybe it sounds to heretical). The Father and Son exist too in this view, but are not described in a non-personal sense. This view of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily limited to Catholics; I could imagine some Episcopalians and other Mainline Protestants talking this way.


 * Because there is both historic fluidity and some non-compatible ideas all mixed together here, don't expect it to be entirely consistent between writers and historical periods. The important thing is that the article not confuse the issues even more. The current article does this by describing perspectives of pandeism over history. It doesn't inherently mean that they must agree with each other.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete this article
This article is gibberish and should be deleted. It consists almost entirely of the thought of Eriugena and Bruno, which belong in their own articles. And then at the end is the obligatory Catholic bashing citing the Calvinist and Adventist polemicists. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you don’t like unpleasant information about the Catholic Church. Find more pleasing information to add if you can find something sourced. Nobody in Wikipedia’s fault sources “bashing” the Church exist — tho “bashing” often seems used to describe giving accurate historical facts and doctrines. In sum, sources identify the ideas of Erigena and Bruno as Pandeist. They were condemned for those ideas. Perhaps the Church thought Bruno to be Catholic-bashing; when they nailed his tongue in his mouth, burned him at the stake, he probably felt it was they who were bashing him. Provide more context to the presentation if you like. Can’t sweep it under the rug. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, so a Calvinist calling the Pope a Ghibelline Pope who allowed the "virus" of Hellenic thought to infect the Catholic Church is considered encyclopedic content, and not mere insults? What are "WCC Circles"? --PluniaZ (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A very notable Calvinist publishing a book wherein this conclusion is drawn, yes, definitely. And Bolton, whether he left the Church or no, his piece was published in a Catholic journal, was it not? If not feel free to note the bias of the periodical. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll see if any impartial users chime in. Then we'll do an RfC. --PluniaZ (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An RfC on whether to exclude sources content because it’s not nice to the Church? Ought to be interesting. But I’m not your enemy here. Just want the most complete and informative page on this we can have. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am more comfortable putting the article on Articles for deletion directly than doing RfCs. I'm 95% sure it would survive a deletion nomination. WCC is World Council of Churches, who were part of VII and represented an ecumenically minded Protestant viewpoint in the council I will wikilink to it to improve this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent content removal
The recent removal of large amounts of content is 1. unwarranted 2. it prevents an honest discussion of the merger proposal. I suggest to revert to the last good version of this page several days ago until the merger discussion is finished, and then discuss the content removals.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, there exists no "last good version". Whether the merger takes place or not is irrelevant to whether inane nonsense should remain in the article. It is easier to do a merge w/o it. As to the content removed:

-Which of these do you dispute? Manannan67 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Relations between the "Catholic Church and Pandeism" ...one cannot have "relations" with a belief/rationalist attitude.
 * "Johannes Scotus Erigena (um das 9. Jahrhundert in Irland geboren) läßt in einer seiner mehreren Ansichten alles von Gott emaniert sein...." A lengthy quote in the footnotes in German is not particularly useful to the average reader of English wiki. If it's there to verify Weinstein said it, that is not being challenged. If it's an attempt to explain Eriguena's philosophy, that is better explicated on Eriguena's page -in English. Same for "Also darf man vielleicht glauben, daß das ganze System eine Erhebung des Physischen aus seiner Natur in das Göttliche ist oder eine Durchstrahlung des Physischen durch das Göttliche; beides eine Art Pandeismus…"
 * captions need to identify the image, not recapitulate content already in the adjoining text.
 * the information on Bruno consolidated two paragraphs into one; all of which is available in the Bruno article from which it was copied without attribution -as was noted by another user on August 14, 2018.
 * the long quote from the CCC: after much verbiage and listing five different "isms", winds up with the observation "This inquiry is distinctively human." -but does not state anything other than sympathy for inquisitive people.
 * the long quote fr Aveling in the CE is about the reaction of the Church of England, not Catholicism.
 * the quote fr Pace in the CE is about PanTHeism.
 * Everything, until the merger discussion is complete. Revert to the June 28th version so that the participants can evaluate the merger proposal in a straightforward manner. This is particularly significant that you are the one proposing the merger.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Vico
1) Why is Vico a "Catholic thinker" as opposed to a Neapolitan Humanist Theist?, and 2} if he is, shouldn't then his ideas be mentioned before some anonymous rebuttal? Manannan67 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you’re edit-warring, will end badly for you. These edits make you seem insincere and scheming in requesting a merge at the same time. If you had any faith in your position, why do this before the outcome of that discussion? Noticed your edits have recklessly broken template formatting, not surprising. Vico is categorized in his article as both an “Italian Roman Catholic” and a “Roman Catholic Philosopher.” Vico died about 40 years before the word who is coined later use here to describe his views, not at all unusual in historical discourse, where for example some identify Jesus as a “socialist,” though the word “socialism” was not conceived until centuries later. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That must be why Lorenzo Cardinal Corsini backed out of subsidizing publication of Scienza nuova. Vico is only a "Catholic philosopher" by the broadest interpretation of the term. He was a philosopher that happened to be Catholic, as were no doubt most of his neighbors. But as a philosopher he was an anti-Cartesian rhetorician. "As illustrated by The Universal Law, Vico clearly held that God existed and that it is God’s order that history passes through. So there is good reason to think Vico had a theistic foundation." This article reads as if you googled the term "pandeism" and then threw in any mention of it. You lodge baseless accusations as blithely as you post "alternative facts". So pray tell, just what did Giambattista Vico say about "pandeism" or anything like it? Manannan67 (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not up to me to interpret Vico. That’s been done by another person who died long before you or I. Pointing out that such an interpretation has been made. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Non responsive. Who is the "another person" and what did he say about Vico and pandeism? Manannan67 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The author of a piece published at a time when publication was not an easy thing to do. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Still not responsive. Did Vico say anything remotely related to pandeism, or not? Manannan67 (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes he did —- according to quoted source. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep this simple. "Within a few years thereafter came the 1838 publication of an anonymous treatise, Il legato di un vecchio ai giovani della sua patria ("The Legacy of an Old Man to the Young People of his Country"), whose author, discussing the theory of religion presented by Giambattista Vico a century earlier, mused that when man first saw meteor showers, "his robust imagination recognized the effects as a cause, then deifying natural phenomena, he became a Pandeist, an instructor of Mythology, a priest, an Augur."
 * You will observe that (1) the treatise is anonymous. (2) the anonymous editor purports to respond to Vico's alleged theory of religion without giving any indication of what that theory is, let alone if his understanding be accurate. The only mention of "pandeism" is in the treatise not Vico (at least as presented). You can't bootstrap some spurious connection to Catholicism w/o showing (A) that the anonymous writer was Catholic, and (B) that Vico said anything at all about pandeism or anything remotely like it. That is why it may remain in the Pandeism article, but not here as there is no demonstrable connection to the Catholic Church. To maintain that it's in the quoted source is not at all true, and fails verifiability. Manannan67 (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt you have evidence this was controverted back in the 19th century. Until then, Hyperbolick has fulfilled the burden of proof.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Swamped now, but will rewrite entirely at the end of the month. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED as proposed. Red  Slash  23:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pandeism and Christianity → Christianity and pandeism – Christianity is the leading topic alphabetically, chronologically by over 1700 years, and by historical significance. We also have many titles in the "Christianity and" format (for example Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and gender, Christianity and Paganism); very few go the other way. Lastly, the article itself primarily examines views of Christian thinkers about pandeism, and has little to no content on views of self-declared pandeist thinkers. Note that "pandeism" must be lowercase, per MOS:DOCTCAPS ("Doctrines, philosophies, theologies, ...are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name"). CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral Honestly, I don't find any of these arguments compelling. We don't have any rule that says titles are better if they're in alphabetical order, or that entities in titles should be listed in chronological order. The consistency angle is the strongest, but its basis in fact seems weak. By my count there are about 19 "Christianity and..." titles, and 9 "... and Christianity" titles (or 12 if you count proper names like Journal of Psychology and Christianity). Hardly a consistently observed 'rule'. Colin M (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of those results appear consistent with the principles I have noted. If, as you note, we eliminate proper names of works, and if we eliminate the two articles about specific people (Constantine the Great and Christianity and Philip the Arab and Christianity), that leaves seven with "and Christianity" titles. Three of those are already are consistent with both alphabetical and chronological ordering (Abortion and Christianity, Buddhism and Christianity, and Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity). That leaves only three out of thirty-one that are really inconsistent (Multiculturalism, Neoplatonism, Mormonism). There are also numerous topics with "Christian views on" titles, to which some of those listed could probably be moved.CNMall41 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This reads like special pleading. Why not count "X and Christianity" titles if X is the name of a person? You previously said "very few go the other way" (i.e. are of the form "X and Christianity") - now you're saying very few are of that form AND have the property that X comes later alphabetically/chronologically. Are you taking the position that alphabetical/chronological ordering is more important than following the general pattern of putting "Christianity" first? Does that mean we should move Christianity and animal rights to Animal rights and Christianity? This all seems very complicated and ad-hoc. Colin M (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Without opining on the higher matter Christianity and animal rights clearly should be at Christian views on animal rights, akin to Christian views on environmentalism, Christian views on cloning, Christian views on poverty and wealth. Difference comes between comparison of ideologies. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Fair ordering by contemporary notability. PPEMES (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection in principal to proposed reordering, but perhaps MOS:DOCTCAPS needs revisiting? What to do where sources often capitalize? Hyperbolick (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

--Relisting. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Karl Jaspers
Dropping here: Hyperbolick (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The 'Olson' here is Alan M. Olson. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's the whole quote.

"According to [Alan M.] Olson, Jaspers's perception of ciphers stresses the centrality of the individual experiencing the constitution of the symbol and activity involved in interpreting it, compared with Christian theology, which grants a different weight to the individual and to the symbolic aspects of religion. In his opinion, the fear that pandeism or the tendency to reduce faith into the external means by which it is obtained would eventually lead to the viewing of these means as having purely subjective, and also mutable, validity, was behind the Catholic church's emphasis on the objective truth of the symbols themselves in relation to the individual religious experience."

- Ronny Miron, Karl Jaspers: From Selfhood to Being (Rodopi 2012), p. 249, ISBN 9042035315.