Talk:Three onenesses

Three Onenesses
Is there a source for this statement?-


 * "The Three Onenesses are three core assertions central to the theology of the Bahá'í Faith."

. Davecornell 02:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple


 * "Central Baha'i teachings are: the "oneness of God," that there is only one God and that God is actively concerned about the development of humanity; the "oneness of religion," that God sends messengers such as Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah to humanity to educate it in morals and in social values; and the "oneness of humanity," that all humans come from the same original stock and deserve equal opportunities and treatment."
 * (The Baha'i Faith: A Portrait, Dr. Robert H. Stockman, Originally published in A SourceBook for Earth's Community of Religions, ed. Joel Beversluis (Grand Rapids, MI: CoNexus Press, 1995), also published as A Sourcebook for the Community of Religions, ed. Joel Beversluis (Chicago: The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, 1993)).


 * "Bahá'u'lláh a spiritual teacher who lived about 150 years ago. He was the Founder of the Bahá'í Faith. He brought the same message as Jesus Christ and taught how it should be applied to modern times. He proclaimed the nearness of an age of worldwide peace and brotherhood between all peoples. As a result He was severely persecuted and spent His life in prison and in exile. His message emphasized three eternal truths. The Oneness of God, the Oneness of Humanity and the Oneness of Religion."
 * (Facilitating Spiritual Joy: A Biblical Introduction To The Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, Ted Brownstein, prepared for the Magdalene Carney Bahá'í Institute) -- Jeff3000 03:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to "the oneness of God". Is there a source for the phrase "the three onenesses"? And referring to it as a "theology"? It reads like the "three-in-one" trinity doctrine which is not found in the Baha'i Writings and has no place in the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Teachings about the oneness of God make it distinct from the trinity. If there is no source for the phrase "the three onenesses" it should be changed to "The Oneness of God". Davecornell 12:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not only about the Oneness of God, and has nothing to do with the trinity. There are three major statements of unity (onenesses) in the Baha'i writings, which academics have stated are fundamental in Baha'i belief (as shown above).  They are the Oneness of God, the Oneness of Mankind, and the Oneness of Religion. This is not at all like the trinity, three is not being equated with one.  There are three different sets of unity which are not equated. -- Jeff3000 13:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the word theology, but the term "Three Onenesses" is used. See, , ,  and  -- Jeff3000 13:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the use of "theology" was mine, and I regret it, as it's not really what I meant. I couldn't think of how to phrase it at the time.  The current reading is quite a bit cleaner. -- Christian Edward Gruber 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination On Hold
This article is nicely done, but the lead needs work to bring it up to standard. See WP:LEAD and Bulleted items for help. Basically, I'm looking for two things: two or three paragraphs summarizing the whole article and the removal of the bullets, which mixes the styles and looks out of place. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One other matter that I'd like to see improved, but is not needed to pass this: please use the new in line style of references and move all references to notes. That will improve the look of the article. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Next week, when I am back at home, I'll have some extra time, and will work toward implementing your suggestsions. Thanks for the points. -- Jeff3000 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I've made the recommended changes. -- Jeff3000 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! That does it. I've promoted the article. If you decide to move it towards featured article status, may I suggest that you try to replace as many passive constructions with active ones as is possible. For English readers, it is easier to read prose with few passives and participles and that contains short sentences. This isn't always possible in religious writing, of course, where it is sometimes important for humans to be passive. This doesn't hinder GA status, IMHO, but would likely get in the way with an FA nom; most of those fail.

Perhaps the next step would be to invite peer review. Anyway: good work! --CTS Wyneken (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)