User talk:Cunado19/Conceptions of God

color scheme
I messed around with the ugly color scheme and created this, and an anon changed it to this. I reverted. Although I admit mine is not perfect, I like it better. Any opinions? Cuñado  -  Talk  20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the other person's color scheme better (less of a doom-laden Goth vibe), but the blue fleur-de-lis is not particularly appropriate as an image... AnonMoos 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well compare to the version of a few days ago here. The black image on white background looked horrible, and that's just about the only image we could agree on. Cuñado  [[image:Bahai star.svg|20px]] -  Talk  01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The dark gray background of the box seems to suggest somberness... AnonMoos 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, how about the Caduceus symbol in blue tone, representing the paths (the long spiral path and the straight and narrow one) that leads to God? (the example) Thank you. --213.58.54.32 14:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It suggests medicine more than it does God, and is highly culture-specific... AnonMoos 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, as even Wikipedia recognizes it at the article on the Rosicrucian Physician Paracelsus «He summarized his own views: "Many have said of Alchemy, that it is for the making of gold and silver. For me such is not the aim, but to consider only what virtue and power may lie in medicines." (...) Indeed, the remnants of alchemical traditions can still be seen in modern medicine. For instance, the Caduceus has been adopted as the prime symbol of western medicine.» Yet, the Caduceus symbolism, which crosses different civilizations, since its inception has always been of God, our Father, the Great Physician of the Universe.
 * Wasn't Christ's command: "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Matthew X, "Preach the gospel and heal the sick")? All in all, from this perspective, the universal Caduceus symbol also as a symbol applied to cure the sick becomes a major reason to be here presented as symbol of the conceptions of God (the other one being the currently misunderstood all-seeing-eye). Thanks. --213.58.54.32 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can spare us your original research. That symbol is not known as a conception of God. Furthermore, it is rather confusing given its primary use in medicine.--Agha Nader (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please allow a brief explanation: you are intitled to regard it as OR also, but it is drawn solely from Wikipedia's articles on this subject. In spite of the Caduceus symbol being usually thought as a primary symbol of medicine, it is not(!): the symbol of medicine, coming from ancient times, is the Rod of Asclepius; a brief explanation is provided in Rod of Asclepius & Caduceus. The Caduceus (one of the main alchemical symbols; data in Alchemy in history: "philosophical traditions spanning some four millennia and three continents") is - as you may read from the related wikiarticle - the symbol depicted (being carried on the left hand) in the painted, sculptural and literary representations of Hermes, from ancient Greece, though the origin is thought to be rooted in Mesopotamia (commonly known as the "Cradle of civilization"). Hermes is always portrayed as the Mercurian messenger-herald of the gods to mankind... Some of the currently derived etymology are: Hermeneutics (study of theories of the interpretation and understanding of texts, i.e. religious texts) and Hermeticism (philosophical studies based primarily upon the writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus and the Corpus Hermeticum, in which Hermes-Thoth enlightens a disciple...). And much more: indeed "There are more things in heaven and earth, [my friend], Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."; but the intention of these brief lines is only to try to clarify the above misconception. Hope this may help; though I believe Goodman Dull's words will instead apply: "No" ... "nor understood none neither.". Thanks. :-) --195.23.166.93 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

new image
Maybe this will work (left). Compare to what's on the template now (right). Cuñado  -  Talk  20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of inappropriate picture
I propose removing the picture. Several people have expressed the belief that no picture is better than a bad picture. The current one of an eclipse is no good. Some religions in the template do not conceive God as being a sun. Indeed, some of the religions do not believe God should be depicted. In any case the picture of an eclipse can confuse readers' understanding of a certain religion's conception of God. So far no picture has been provided that is worth having. Once, and if, such a picture is found, it can be included.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, the sun would be the most appropriate, because the sun is often an analogy for God's attributes: the source of life, exalted above our understanding, and shining on rich and poor alike. But that's not why that picture was chosen. It actually doesn't even look like a sun. I was looking for something that represented infinity, and a circular shape seemed appropriate. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "the sun is often an analogy for God's attributes," is this true for all religions in the template? Indeed, the picture is contradictory to the Islamic conception of God. "No symbol is fine too" --Cuñado--Agha Nader (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A year ago people disputed over what image to use and this picture of an eclipse was agreeable to everyone then. Just because one person comes along and dislikes its use, I don't see a need to change it. You're welcome to gain consensus and change it, but it's been used for a year without dispute. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to consider responding to my rebuttal instead of claiming that there is consensus on this issue. Michael Crichton has said, "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."--Agha Nader (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get an RFC and vote. I don't think I'll change my mind any time soon about the picture. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that that sort of attitude is not conducive in a cooperative encyclopedia. Moreover, no one on this talk page has supported the image except you. Therefore, I would suggest you not add the picture unilaterally. Following, WP:PROVEIT, please provide a source that the image is appropriate for a template for the conception of God. --Agha Nader (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Prove that it is not appropriate. I already mentioned my reasoning and you disagree. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  01:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thats not how it works. You claim it is appropriate. You are making the affirmative statement. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. I can explain this issue further if you do not understand. Mayhap you missed one of my responses. I shall quote it bellow for your convenience. It provides some reasons why the image of an eclipse is inappropriate. "You say 'the sun is often an analogy for God's attributes,' is this true for all religions in the template? Indeed, the picture is contradictory to the Islamic conception of God. 'No symbol is fine too'"--Agha Nader (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the picture is particularly offensive, but agree that no picture is best. Also, the black color scheme is, IMO, needlessly stylistic. How about this?


 * Mdiamante (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the template you created. While the picture may or may not be offensive, it is not appropriate. This is because an eclipse (or sun) has nothing to do with some of the religion's conception of God.--Agha Nader (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

unilateral editions
« 03:31, 22 January 2008 Agha Nader: revert unilateral edit against the wishes of others and me »
 * Dear editor Agha Nader, your action and the explanation you have provided are absolutely right-logical and were entirely understood. Please be kind to accept my sincere apologies. I should have used sandbox, not the template itself. Meanwhile, I have made a personal backup of my previous editions into the user article User:Tekto9/Template:Caduceus, Conceptions of God for my own experimental purposes concerning the Conceptions of God available at the Wikipedia free encyclopedia. Best wishes unto your efforts. Thank you. --195.23.166.93 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts. If the template is to have a picture, it should be appropriate (i.e. it should be relevant to the contents of the template).--Agha Nader (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormon? Suggest change.
I believe that the template should list either "Latter-day Saint," "Godhead," or possibly "LDS" rather than "Mormon." It is my understanding that the term "Mormon" was originally a perjorative term and generally refers to particular branches of the LDS church; the Mormonism page agrees with me: "Today, Mormonism is used in reference to the Utah-based LDS Church, including cultural Mormons, several smaller denominations, and sects of Mormon fundamentalism whose adherents embrace the term despite opposition by the LDS Church. Most other Latter Day Saint movement denominations oppose use of the term in reference to their faith, and such usage is now rare even though that is what they have been called until modern usage." Subsequently, I suggest we change the mention in the listing to either "Godhead" (for the name of the particular concept of God) or "Latter-day Saint" (for the common and approved name of the group). Thoughts? -Elizabennet | talk 16:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea to change it to "Latter-day Saint."--Agha Nader (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree; "Mormonism" is inclusive of sects apart from the LDS that are just as theologically valid (if not more so, for following the teachings of Joseph Smith) than the biggest LDS Church. We wouldn't replace "Christian" with "Catholic", for instance. Mdiamante (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it links to "Godhead (Latter Day Saints)." And that article primarily discusses the LDS conception of God.--Agha Nader (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either Latter-day Saints (better than the acronym) or Mormons/Mormonism but the template should not endorse the idea that Mormonism/LDS is a form of Christianity as the latest version did. Simply writing LDS or Mormonism says nothing this way or that way. Str1977 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)