Talk:God the Father/Archive 1

Untitled
I'm moving this block of comments by anonymous user 63.24.60.136 from the article to the talk page. --Avoidance 19:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't understand how this works, but Zeus is not a father God. He is the oldest brother of all the Gods.  This is important to understanding democracy.  When Athenians debated how the gods resolve their differences, they concluded, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech.  Democracy began as an imitation of the gods.  This is completely different from what comes out of the belief of monotheism, an absolute law giver who is to be obeyed.  Democracy does not come from Christianity and a belief in father god.  Zeus is a brother and the family of gods aruged with each other until there was a consensus on the best reasoning.  This is what put an end to kings ruling by whim.  However, the Christian God has no equals, and is free to rule to by whim, and tends towards authoritianism.


 * ... By the way, a lot of folks feel that the term "Mormon" is incorrect verging on offensive, I'm neutral on that and most everything religious myself. Pakaran 19:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pakaran - great point. I'll change to Latter-day Saint.

(Request for use of word Person in opening.)

Good call. I've added in the word Persons into the intro, however kept the others as they are used by other Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants. However, please feel free to edit/alter if you have better words. Although this article includes a Mormon perspective, hopefully other Christian religions will show up on the page as well. "Manifestations" is not a word that Mormons would use to describe the Godhead (Latter-day Saints would actually prefer "persons" or "personages"), but the word came from the Trinity page - as well as in a discussion with an evangelical friend (American Protestant). It sounds like you have some good ideas that could help the flow. Feel free to share them in the article. -Visorstuff 23:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Minor unrelated suggestions: "Most Christians believe that God the Father has always existed in His current forms, whatever they may be (see Nicene Creed. ". #1) Shouldn't that be "form" rather than "forms", and #2) shouldn't there be a closing paren, and #3), shouldn't Nicene (or Niocene ?) be a link ? -- ll

"many Christians" and androgeny?
"From the late twentieth century onwards, many Christians and Jews have become uncomfortable with the traditionally male representation of God and have sought to androgenize God by de-emphasising or eliminating gender-specific references to God, as well as his masculine traits."

I'm not sure what the Jews' view on that is, but I haven't ever heard of "many" Christians doing that. Maybe some politically correct ones. I'm a Christiand and I know lots of other Christians, but none of the Christians I know or even have heard of go so far as the article implies by refering to God as "she" or anything. I don't even remember meeting or hearing of any Christians that dispute the masculine implications of God. Is the assertation that "many Christians" try to androgenize God inaccurate then as it seems to me? Or have I just not heard about this because of where I live? TheMrFrog 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundant
It's redundant to state that God is omnibenevolent and then state that "He is also merciful, kind and just and full of love." All of those characteristics and more are included in the meaning of omnibenevolent. B 02:00, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Where did this statement come from? The Father is the being or object of devotion and worship that Christians worship in the name of Jesus Christ. Trinitarian Christians worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit equally; when they say that they worship God, they mean that they worship all three persons of the Trinity. This is made explicitly clear over and over throughout the prayers of the Orthodox Church, and consistent with the teachings of most Christians down through the centuries. Who is it that worships only the Father in the name of the Son?? This needs to be identified so that the proper distinction can be made, or the appropriate qualifications added. Wesley 13:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This page is very quirky. Is it supposed to be an LDS POV or, is that an accident? I suggest that it be moved to become a sub-topic of the LDS articles.Mkmcconn 23:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please respond to the suggestion that this article should be moved to God the Father (Mormonism). The entire article is heavily affected by that perspective. Mkmcconn 16:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article should be moved; It should be revised to make it NPOV. I started working in that direction, adding some trinitarian, feminist, and secular philosophical views, but it needs more work, and some filling-out. COGDEN 03:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Reading through it, I find no place to put the Trinitarian view. It's simply too far afield - really alien. Maybe someone with more imagination than myself can tackle it. Mkmcconn 05:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem is that the article is about God the Father only, and not the Trinity, which is a separate article. Thus, to avoid redundancy, this article has to focus on areas in which God the Father is distinct from the Trinity or from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This puts the trinitarian POV in a difficult situation. Probably the best place to put in the trinitarian view is in the ontology section. I know, ontology isn't a perfect heading for all POVs, but you could argue there that God the Father isn't really within the reach of ontology, because he is incomprehensible and far beyond human analysis, but there is something called the Nicene Creed that explains how trinitarians describe God. COGDEN 03:38, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think there is some rationale for keeping this page, since there are well established articles regarding Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It may take some real work to NPOV it though. Wesley 03:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Many"??
Regarding this sentence: ''A minority of Christians, and many historical Christians, have described the Father as either a distinct Being (tritheism), or as a different "manifestation" of a single Being (modalism). '' Many historical Christians? Seriously, can you name ten each who supported each view, prior to 1800 or so? And better yet, why are these two very different and opposing views lumped together this way? Each of these two opposing views are held by a minority of Christians today, and each by a small minority of Christians in every or almost every century of Christianity's history; there are probably some centuries when it dropped out of sight altogether. Wesley 03:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Go back lots further to the period 1AD to about 500 AD, and there are lots of Christians with either of these views, and lots of still different views as well. That's half what all those ecumenical councils were about. Most were anonymous, but I could probably name their leaders. COGDEN 03:38, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sabellius is well known as being a leading proponent of modalism; I don't know of others. I'm not aware of any proponents of tritheism per se; some trinitarians were accused of this, but they denied that they were teaching tritheism. My point is that even between 1 and 500 AD, I doubt that either of these movements were significant enough to attract ten leaders whose names are on record as supporting these views. I may well be wrong, but if I am, I'd love to be educated. So please, name their leaders. Wesley 04:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

Deleted bits
I'm removing this because it's so imprecise as to be inaccurate as an expression of Christian theology at least, and I don't see how to salvage it:
 * God the Father is thought to be the Father of Jesus Christ through a miraculous conception and virgin birth. Most sects of Christianity believe that Jesus was conceived by God the Father through the supernatural action of the Holy Spirit, and not by the act of sex or the union of a sperm and an egg.

Who believes that Jesus Christ came into being only when Mary conceived him? Muslims maybe? All these things need to be attributed. Wesley 04:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This bit was removed from the Ontology section because it is not what most Christians believe:


 * Most Christians also believe that God the Father is immutable, meaning that he has always existed in his current form, and never changes. By contrast, the person of Jesus Christ underwent physical change through his Incarnation, life, and death.

The classical position is that God does not change; never has, never will. Jesus is God; therefore, Jesus does not change, at least not in His divinity. Prior to His Incarnation, he had no physical form whatsoever, so Incarnation itself was not a physical change; Incarnation involved adding a human body, human nature, and human will. Jesus' subsequent human changes, such as eating, growing, etc., were changes in his humanity, not changes in his divinity. Leo the Great explained this in great detail in the famous Tome of Leo, which was largely affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon, which became recognized as the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The idea is summarized in the Chalcedonian Creed.

Nicene Creed removed
Having said all that, I don't think that any of the Christology I just went into really belongs in an article about God the Father. Therefore I suggest that the part I remove stay deleted. Wesley 04:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed this part because it seemed to be more about God or the Trinity than about God the Father:
 * ==Relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit==


 * The Nicene Creed, a popular conceptualization of the Trinity, states that Jesus Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father", indicating that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father, and that the Father-Son relationship has existed for all eternity and did not begin with Jesus' human birth.

I think I put it back in, accidentally; in an edit conflict. Sorry. I'll go yank it out again. Mkmcconn 05:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please help me fix the colon-itis in the second paragraph. I'm spent. Mkmcconn 05:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ontology removed
I removed the section on Ontology, as it now appears to be redundant. Mkmcconn 20:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * ===Ontology===
 * Much as been written about the Being, or ontology, of God. Typically, Christians assert that God the Father shares the same "substance" with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, that is, a single divine nature, as well as a single divine will, so that they are three "persons" (Greek hypostases), yet one God. This form of God's existence is often referred to as the Trinity; "Holy Trinity" is also a form of personal address used when praying to God as He exists in three persons.

uncertain of intent
What is the intent of this sentence? Mkmcconn 21:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The titles of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are at times used interchangeably.

Who uses those titles interchangably?? This passive voice has to be eliminated. The Church Fathers were emphatic that they not be used interchangably; although the Father is God, and Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, the Father is NOT the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son; at least according to the holy orthodox tradition; I think the Athanasian Creed spends some time on this point.

If someone else uses the titles interchangably, they should be identified. If we can't come up with anyone, then the sentence needs to be removed. Wesley 02:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New edits
COGDEN, I can see that it is not fully a conscious effort that results in a Mormon bent continually being re-inserted in the article. So, I'll just leave it be for a day or two and think it over, so that I don't step all over other editors and unnecessarily revert their contributions. Mkmcconn 21:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed this sentence because it's wrong, and reflects a misunderstanding of the virgin birth:
 * Yet, Christ is also called the Only Begotten Son of the Father, because of the Father's role as the father of his human body, via a mysterious virgin birth.

God the Father actually wasn't directly involved in the virgin birth; according to the Gospels, it was the Holy Spirit who "overshadowed" Mary and caused her to conceive. Jesus being begotten of the Father has nothing to do with His human birth. This point is also important in demonstrating that the Holy Spirit does not "proceed from the Father and the Son" as the filioque clause says; for although the Spirit was sent by Jesus to the Church after Jesus' ascension, the Holy Spirit had first sent Jesus into the world through the former's role in the Incarnation. They remain equally divine. Wesley 02:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

kudos to COGDEN
COGDEN, with the benefit of a day's analysis I think that your edits provided a much improved structure for the article. Thanks for the work. Mkmcconn 19:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Patriarchy
I removed several references to masculinity and patriarchy as dominant themes. While personally I believe that these are supportable, and even important, the article also significantly says that God is not generally considered gender-sexual. It seems to me that the article has to choose between these two supportable statements, and give weight to one foot or the other as we go forward, or else get tripped up. Besides more minor edits that de-emphasized masculinity, I removed two significant sentences:


 * In most forms of Christianity, the nature of God the Father (or the fatherly nature of God) is considered an incomprehensible mystery, except for the few statements about his nature found in the Bible and some creeds, which ascribe him with patriarchal attributes. 


 * Indeed, God the Father is considered an archetype for the Christian patriarchal family. 

absence is feminine?
May I have this statement explained, please? Mkmcconn 16:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * feminine qualities such as ... absence ... 

indistinct role
This sentence, like a previous, similar one, is hard to understand. God is always acting as Father, Son and Spirit (in Trinitarianism); where there is no distinction of roles, there is no interest intended in speaking of God's actions. These distinctions are mentioned when they are important to understanding God in an intimate way. Thus, it seemed to me that the following sentence is best left out of the article. Mkmcconn 19:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, while the role of God the Father (or the fatherly role of God) is often indistinct from the role of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, there are certain instances in which God the Father has a unique role as part of the Christian Godhead or Trinity. 

Holy Father
Hello, due to disputes in the Holy Father article, I would like to add in this article that the Messiah says Holy Father to the Father of the Messiah in John 17:11. I would also like to add other content from the Holy Father article here also unless you would suggest we keep the content in the Holy Father article, then can you tell TCC (talk) (contribs) because he thinks we should separate the content. I would also like to add the relate controversy of the use of Holy Father as a title for the rcc's pope.

Since the Holy Father article is currently a disambiguation page, please see Holy Father (Holy Father). Is there anyone here that objects to a merge? Can anyone suggest an appropriate section for the merge? --jeolmeun 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Renaming
"God the Father" is used as a title. Christians do not address the "Paternal view of God" when they pray to the First Person of the Trinity, they pray to "God the Father". That was the original subject of this article. Other editors have seen fit to add information to it concerning God as a father-figure in other religions; this is all to the good of NPOV as far as I'm concerned. But that's no reason to make the article about something other than it is. Article names necessarily require some POV if they're describing the POV of a group or groups.

A reasonable alternative would be to split the article and reserve God the Father for the Trinitarian person and other views of a monotheistic God viewed as Father, and create Father god as a counterpart to Mother goddess for non-monotheistic divine father figures. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If God the Father is a title, then the title of the page should be "God the Father (title)". Otherwise, the title appears to advocate the position that God is a father - which is undisputedly controversial.  Whether to follow the NPOV rule is not something that is subject to requiring consensus - it is a non-negotiable rule.  Either the title violates NPOV, or it does not.  I find that it does.  Further, the comparison to Mother goddess is totally inapplicable, particularly because "God the Father" is used as a proper noun - an implicit assertion that there is one God and He is a father - in contrast, a "mother goddess" (describing any mother goddess - not capitalized either) is not.  Reswobslc 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Did God make this Article?

Fleur de lys
Can anyone explain the reason for linking to Fleur de lys in 'See Also' ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it, as I can't see any reason for it to be there, even after looking over the fleur-de-lis article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with the sky father article
"God the Father" is a separate concept from paternal gods. While the term "God the Father" is specific to Trinitarian Christianity, the idea that a god or gods have fatherly qualities is already addressed on the sky father article. The three-sentence polytheism section should be moved there. The Judaism section should be moved there as well. Jews do not call God "God the Father" because there is no need to differentiate. The short Islam section exists only to say that "God the Father" is not a Muslim concept. This article should primarily be about the member of the Godhead "God the Father" in Trinitarian Christianity, which obviously deserves an article unto itself. "God the Father" simply isn't the appropriate term for fatherly aspects of God/gods in other religions; that is the place of the sky father article. Neelix (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing that this article makes no mention of Zeus, "Father of gods and men", Father of the sky/heaven(ouranos). For a continuous period of 1,000 years prior to Christianity, the Greek world understood only one God to have the title "Father" and that of course was Zeus himself. Read Hesiod, Homer, the Orphic hymns, etc.

When Jesus introduced the terms "The Father" and "The Father in Heaven" to the masses, his audience, whether Jew, Greek, or Roman, would have understood him perfectly well. Though it may have been a new concept to Judaism, it was not unique and unheard of. Though the title "father" was nonexistent in Judaism, the Hellenistic world would have understood him perfectly well. The point being, this article should have made mention of this fact: God being a "Father" is a Hellenistic concept that seems to have its origins in India.70.19.172.172 (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Neelix that there is specific distinction between "god as father" and "God the Father". These three specific words put together in this manner, "God the Father", is a specific term in Christianity, specifically referring to one of the persons of the Holy Trinity. In other religions they may call god "Father", but unless a specific religion uses the three word "God the Father" in this manner it should not be mentioned here. If one wishes to have a general article on "god as father" one should start an article as such and then one should include all the references to god as father in different religions. As it is, the only reason to mention god as father in other religions in this article would be with the intention to distract from the Christian concept. If the article is about a Christian theological term, it would not be against NPOV to exclude other concepts of god as father, provided that a redirect link is provided to lead others to the generic consideration of god as father. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Trinity navigation box
I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Trinity. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Please feel free to make any comments you see fit on any of the other templates on that page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Art
There is some nice art provided, but perhaps excessive. The Marian Art section does not belong here. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, there are more depictions of God the Father in Marian masterpieces than on their own. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is wonderful art but belongs in Marian art in the Catholic Church, not this article on the Father. Grantmidnight (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Most are already there, since I wrote Marian art in the Catholic Church. However, cannot be grouped by Father there. It is hard to find Father images of that quality outside the Marian context, hence here they have a clear home with multiple images that show various viewpoints. History2007 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"God the Father in Art" needs more treatment.
Currently it is just a collection of images. A text describing the history of and varying theological views on Christian depictions of God the Father is needed. Please provide something if you're knowledeable about this. -- 92.229.252.71 (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Should probably be an article on its own. But I do not have the expertise yet... Give it time... However, what is clear is that there are far fewer major art pieces of God the Father than of Christ or the Blessed Virgin. History2007 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is great art but is far excessive. It is also covered eleswhere in WK.  Let's delete the Gallery because it does not add to this article.  Grantmidnight (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly who does it hurt by being there? Is someone going to trip over it and fall? No. Given that you admit it is great art, there is every reason to keep it. The other user above even wants it expanded. So if anything it needs expansion. Again, exactly how is this causing any one, or yourself, any pain? In any case, you probably did a great thing to remind me of this on Christmas Eve. I went ahead and added text as the other user had suggested, and the gallery accompanies the text now, so this discussion is now moot. And I learned a few things as I researched it. Thank you and Merry Christmas. History2007 (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the further discussion. My only point was that there is an existing main article on the subject and it does not need to be repeateted here in such detail.  Grantmidnight (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there an article? I guess there is now. Was there an article? I guess there was not then. I just wrote God the Father in Western art a few days ago after you guys kept talking about it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I must have been mixed up. thanks  Grantmidnight (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mother Goddess Vs. Father God
Mother Goddess page seems to be biased toward the neo/Pagan beliefs, where as the Father God page seems to be biased toward the monotheist, Christianity in particular.

Is there no knowledge that could balance the pages out between the polytheists and monotheists? 2010-03-04T00:07 Z-8 76.90.226.194 (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But this article is not about the generic theological concept of a "Father God" but rather of the specific Christian theological concept of "God the Father." How about you start a separate article on "father god"? Chrisgaffrey (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Prajapita Brahma Kumaris
According to Prajapita Brahma Kumaris religion, Shiva is remembered as God the Father or "Baba" in Hindi language, as the only one God.


 * Actually neither is WP:RS, but I have no objection to this edit since it does not say much. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There are as many references as you want on Brahma Kumari WikipediA homepage here Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Please read, isn't it?

Januarythe18th (talk) 1:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is actually not my task to read that article and correct it. But it is clear to me now that these edits are in effect spam edits for a very small religious group, giving it attention way past WP:UNDUE. We will have to reduce the attention to that, and please read WP:UNDUE, given the number of adherents to Brahma Kumaris compared to Islam, Christianity, etc. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, I read some of that Brahma Kumaris article and it seems to have serious cult-like accusations in the article, and seems like a really a fringe-like group - so something about that may have to be mentioned as this Brahma Kumaris issue begins to get spammed. History2007 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If Islam has not God the Father, why not we remove it? (Januarythe18th (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC))


 * How many followers does Islam have? It is a major religion and needs to clear that it has no trinity. History2007 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IG
First, has the gallery bitten anyone yet? But seriously, the gallery tags exist in Wikipedia because galleries are not in general against policy. It is a question of deciding where they fit. E.g. see the galleries at: Flora, Munich, Rose, etc., etc. etc. So there is no "hard rule" in Wikipedia that galleries must be banished from everywhere, else please rapidly remove the other 3 galleries I mentioned here. Now, as to which images go in that will be a long discussion, but we can talk about that one image at a time. Should be fun to analyze them. Now that I look at what has piled up over time, it looks like 4 Coronation o fteh Virgin images are too many of that topic. So probably just one of those, but each of the others is a separate theme. I will trim the coronations anyway, no big deal. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article need any gallery at all when there is a main article, God the Father in Western art (that you created), that covers the topic in depth and has a far more extensive gallery (which makes sense). Is this consistent with WP:SUMMARY? I don't have a problem with all galleries. Novaseminary (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is consistent with WP:Summary, and being here gives a user a taste and incentive for clicking in the Main. And again, has it bitten anyone yet? There are so many, many errors floating in Wikipedia that need attention, I do not know why this discussion is necessary.History2007 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I didn't mean to ruin your day or enter into a long discussion. I just thought the gallery doesn't add to the article... and might even be contributing to the accumulation of cruft in the article. And others above have questioned the gallery (even before there was an extensive main article with gallery). You seem to be the only one on talk who has said it should stay. Novaseminary (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wrote that article because someone suggested it. And the prev comments were pre-Main. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)