Talk:God
From Theopedia
I deleted Chad Inman's essay. It belongs to a sub-topic. -AaronShaf
Blurbs in the various sections would be nice, of course. -Aaronshaf 16:06, 29 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Contents |
Redemptive History
What are you looking for in this section? This article could prove to be very long due to the generality of the topic. So what are you thinking? JordanBarrett 16:14, 29 Sep 2005 (EDT)
- My motivation is to show God through narrative history rather than merely a list of attributes. So... yeah... something in that direction. -Aaronshaf 16:17, 29 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Um... ok. Anything else you'd like to add? Are you talking about an outline of God's work throughout human history? A kind of organization of God's actions in the OT and NT? OR - can we just do whatever? :) JordanBarrett 17:08, 29 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Transcendence and Immanence
What do we want to do with God's transcendence and immanence? A few Systematic Theology books have confirmed for me that they're not to be considered attributes of God, so how do we want to classify them? JordanBarrett 14:51, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)
- If they are not to be considered attributes, maybe they describe God's relationship with his creation -- He is separate from creation but intimately involved in every aspect of it. Gomarus 15:29, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)
That's what I'm thinking. What I meant by "how should we classify them" is "where should we stick the article?" I'm thinking under the basic article God, put a section called "God and Creation". Cool? JordanBarrett 16:02, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Intro statement
I can't say I'm wild about the first quote I used, however, I struggled to think and even find some kind of definition for "God". When I found that I actually felt a sigh of relief. So, don't hesitate to change it around, although I did find it helpful after I read that, and I wonder if it be either helpful or hindering to a laymen who reads that line. I don't want them to go universalist on us if they think God can't be defined! :-) JordanBarrett 23:43, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)
- I personally think it sounds great. -Aaronshaf 23:46, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)
Nice work, Jordan... looks awesome. Praise God. -Aaronshaf 23:49, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)
Can we know God?
I wonder if the knowability (intelligibility?) of God should have its own section here, since that is bound to be such a relevant issue... Many will feel like Theopedia's effort to document, define God, exegete God's Word about God, etc., is arrogant, since God is so BIG. -Aaronshaf 15:45, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)
- Good call. JordanBarrett 16:29, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)
- Sweet. Looks great. -Aaronshaf 16:41, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)
Turning section titles into propositions?
Existence of God -> God exists. Thoughts? -Aaronshaf 19:22, 25 February 2006 (EST)
- I'm not a fan. The "existence of God" seems more clear than "God exists". Plus, I don't see any theologically-loaded-words (e.g., immutability) that deserve to be explained. Why do you want to change it? JordanBarrett (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2006 (EST)
- Yeah, I can see that. I guess I just REALLY liked how good it looked to use something other than nouns under Attributes of God. -Aaronshaf 23:06, 25 February 2006 (EST)
- I think you can still do it for the more necessary ones, but this one is ok to leave (in my opinion). JordanBarrett (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2006 (EST)
