Talk:Transtheism

Untitled
the article needs to be reworked: there are too many quotes, its not exactly neutral (among others: "transtheism is <<(...) each of these doctrines being a more accurate description than the others under various conditions, but none being completely accurate on a consistent basis. (...)>>"; "(...) is absurd and unacceptable.")--Unkn0wn 22:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Please give more detail about which areas and why. So I can make changes

I thank this change should be acceptable: However, generally within a given religion, transtheism could be viewed as a doctrine that teaches that the true nature of Deity transcends the descriptive doctrines of that religion. Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism... and perhaps even Atheism, each having descriptive doctrines, comparatively they have strengths and weakness and each disputes the accuracy of the other. Transtheism differs from Agnosticism in that while the latter claims to be unable to make any definitive statements concerning Deity. Transtheism assumes the existence of Deity and asserts that there are specific instances in which the aforementioned doctrines may be accurate but are subject to human apprehension.

Which other statements are not neutral?

Why are we not God?
That seems an odd assumption. Whatever happened to the immanent or immenent God? tattvam asi. Sam Spade 17:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a question of neutrality. It seems to be a question of fundamental theological assumptions and their differences. I can add a section as to why Transtheism reject the immanent or imminent God theory. Wxj42


 * which God? The Abrahamic person-god is behaviourally anthropomorphous (thinks, speaks, reasons, kills, loves, reacts to actions, teaches, has will, urges, makes plans, experiences time as we do while following the human actions etc. etc.)
 * The Abrahamic god has a central control unit for all the Universe. We have the brain, he has the soul.
 * Not all kami are Abrahamic! Also some religions have zero gods, and one or more "divine fields".
 * Infinite abitrary opinions exist. Can one define arbitrariness? Yes, but at an ethological and psychological level. That's the problem with transtheism. Transtheism is "emotional" and not "genuinely analytical", and that's a very theistic approach!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8405:BA00:3131:9048:7A55:5364 (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

History
what is the history of transtheism and who 'created it' I mean, who are the theologians behind it, and also... I think that us not being god is too much of an asumption since we can't be sure of that.--Cosmic girl 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point on the history part. I will work on that and add it. Wxj42


 * In the unending process between thought and matter, if one end is God, we are far but not so different. Note that that end is unknowable and that plenty of time is spent trying, which already means that we are nearer than we think.--Harvestman 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have add this to the section that seem to be in most dispute "An example of some of the thought process a Transtheist might use to justify their position, could be two observations and a conclusion:" (keep in mind that observations are not true or false statements). Wxj42

Cleanup
Okay, I took some time to clean this article up back into headerings and what not without really altering the content. Please not that this is how an article should look like for future reference (headings are nice...) Thanks! (oh, and restored the "See also" section as there was no reason to delete it) Sasquatch t|c 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

no such term!
this article discusses transcendence (religion), and as such is a WP:CFORK. The term "transtheism" as coined by Zimmer has a very limited application within Jainism, viz., the existence of gods which can be transcended by moksha. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, i am not familiar with the term but a define google search located another definition. A definition is also on Wiktionary..  New words and concepts do enter into the language.  Dab you ARE a linguist aren't you?
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * do you read English? Have you seen our policies at WP:NOR, WP:SYN and WP:RS? This isn't a term you just made up (I suppose): even worse, it's an existing term which you have apparently misunderstood. Zimmer's "transtheism" is not about God transcending the universe at all, it is about humans transcending the gods! --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed it. There is, in fact, a term transtheistic (although not necessarily -ism), coined by Paul Tillich, and possibly independently by Heinrich Zimmer, but its meaning is completely different (almost opposite) of what the article used to claim it is. dab (𒁳) 16:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unclear
The initial gist I got was "the gods' nature (biological/spiritual makeup) is such that it is syncretic toward theism and atheism" which is how it is beyond theism and atheism. An oversimplification perhaps, but it is clear, unlike the article, about what exactly we're dealing with. The article as it stands is clear that transtheism is beyond theism and atheism but is not clear about what puts it there. It's a crucial detail. I may be taking away the wrong definition here since I'm not familiar with it otherwise but it still stands that the article is not clear on this point. On rereading I came away with a completely different gist, that it is beyond by being irrelevant to a/theism, and on a third reading concluded that it is simply any theism or atheism that holds something else as above and beyond gods or a set of gods. Which, if any, of these actually describe transtheism, and is really too much to ask someone who knows to make it clear in the article? PrincessPimpernel (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Undo by Editor2020
User:Editor2020 did and undo to my last revision claiming that I "messed it up" when my action was precisely the contrary:


 * 1) the note in the new place is more plausible since it talks about only the specific claim "Transtheism is a term coined by philosopher Paul Tillich or Indologist Heinrich Zimmer", having nothing to do with the sequel "referring to a system of thought or religious philosophy which is neither theistic, nor atheistic";
 * 2) the term "impossible" is totally innapropriate (good, old philosophy and also good sense teaches us that): it could very well be the case that a letter left by one of the writers has just the answer or just any other perfectly plausible way for us to know the real creator of the word. Just because we don't have such thing now doesn't make it "impossible" in any sensible meaning of that word, only "difficult" or words close to this.

Momergil (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Metatheism is usually a soft Transtheism, a little less metaphysical
Both metatheism and transtheism are open to metaphysics, and open to processes not accepted neither acceptable by physics. A metatheist might claim "I don't care so much about paranormal activities outside physics". Not carrying isn't a neural stance in a global society with so many migrants who flee also because of sect violence. Not thinking and not caring allows space for those who care, and they're plenty! That's the mistake of metatheism and transtheism; they don't acknowledge that blur opinions or not supporting reason or myth, have an impact on society because allow those with clear opinions to expand. Many articles have a controversy section. Especially this entry, this article is "controversial for mainstream society" thus avoiding speaking about the main issue is unwise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8405:BA00:3131:9048:7A55:5364 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)