Talk:God and Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe: Difference between pages

Revision as of 16:10, 12 November 2004

Revision as of 16:20, 25 June 2005

Line 1:

{{cleanup}}

==archives==

*An archive of older discussion can be found at [[Talk:God/archive 1]].

*An archive of discussions from year 2003 can be found at [[Talk:God/archive 2]]

*An archive of discussions from 1st quarter of 2004 (from January to March) can be found at [[Talk:God/archive 3]]

*[[Talk:God/Archive 4]]

*[[Talk:God/Archive 5]]

'''Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe''' (born [[1940]]) is a contemporary [[France|French]] [[philosopher]], [[literary critic]], and translator.

==article focus!==

ok. at the moment there is this disclaimer: ''This article is not about the concept of [[gods]], [[goddess]]es and [[deity|deities]] in general.''. It's fair enought to have the ''main'' articles [[deity]], [[goddess]], and to make this article mainly about capital-G "God" (i.e. monotheistic god). But we cannot possibly give an account of any historical depth without referring to polytheism. Why, already the etymology section is forcibly at variance with the disclaimer. I suggest therefore we remove the disclaimer, and make a short '''History of Monotheism''' (or similar) section. After that, much material should be exported to main articles, such as to [[Names of God]], [[Proofs of God's existence]] etc. where we can give more detail. The article will still be about capital-G-God, but even this reduced focus cannot be exhaustively covered in a single article. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 10:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

===Summary===

:I don't understand that perfectly, but what I do hear (splitting off smaller articles, maintaining a focus on the monotheistic God, providing some explanation of / comparison w polytheism, etc.. ) I agree with. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Influences and associations==

Lacoue-Labarthe is influenced by and has written extensively on [[Martin Heidegger]], [[Jacques Derrida]], [[Jacques Lacan]], [[German Romanticism]], [[Paul Celan]], and [[deconstruction]]. He is also a French [[translator]] of Heidegger, Celan, [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Friedrich Hölderlin]], and [[Walter Benjamin]]. In 1980 Lacoue-Labarthe and [[Jean-Luc Nancy]] co-organised a Cerisy-la-Salle conference on Derrida, named after Derrida's 1968 paper ''Les fins de l'homme''. Following on from discussion at this conference and at Derrida's request, they then founded the [[Centre of Philosophical Research on the Political]] in November 1980. This Centre would remain active for four years, providing alternative lines of enquiry to the empirical approach of political sciences. Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy are colleagues at the Université Marc Bloch in [[Strasbourg]], France. Lacoue-Labarthe is also a member of the [[International College of Philosophy]].

==Professional milestones==

::The article already links to "main articles" in some sections (such as [[God#The existence of God]]). However these sections could and should probably be shortened and merged if necessary into their main articles. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas]] [[User talk:Whosyourjudas|(talk)]] 21:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lacoue-Labarthe received his ''docteur d'état'' in 1987 with a jury led by Gérard Granel and including Derrida and [[Jean-François Lyotard]]. The monograph submitted for that degree was ''La fiction du politique'' (English translation, ''Heidegger, Art, Politics''), a study of Heidegger's long-abiding allegiances to his vision of [[National Socialism]]. It followed shortly after a book on Celan and Heidegger, ''Poetry as Experience''. Both of these works immediately predate the explosion of interest in the political dimensions of Heidegger's thought and his personal responsibility as Rector of the University of Freiburg under the Nazi regime, an interest generated by [[Victor Farías]]'s book that appeared in 1987. Scholars such as Derrida (in "Deconciliation," ''Shibboleth,'' and ''Of Spirit'') , Lyotard (in ''Heidegger and "the jews"''), and [[Pierre Joris]] (see [http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Joris89a/index.html]) have strongly commended these works as authoritative.

== Recent edits Bibliography==

===Works by Lacoue-Labarthe===

{| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="center"

|-

! colspan="4" | French

! colspan="4" | English

|-

| ''Le Titre de la lettre: une lecture de Lacan''

| 1973

| ISBN 2718600020

| w/ Jean-Luc Nancy

| ''The Title of the Letter: a Reading of Lacan''

| 1992

| ISBN 0791409627

| trans. François Raffoul and David Pettigrew

|-

| ''L'Absolu littéraire: théorie de la littérature du romantisme allemand''

| 1978

| ISBN 2020049368

| w/ Jean-Luc Nancy

| ''The literary absolute: the Theory of Literature in German romanticism''

| 1988

| ISBN 0887066615

| trans. Philip Barnard and Cheryl Lester

|-

| ''Portrait de l'artiste, en général''

| 1979

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2267001624

| colspan="4" |

|-

| ''Le Sujet de la philosophie: Typographies 1''

| 1979

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2082260119

| ''The Subject of Philosophy''

| 1993

| ISBN 0816616981

| trans. Thomas Trezise et al*

|-

| ''Les Fins de l'homme à partir du travail de Jacques Derrida: colloque de Cerisy, 23 juillet-2 août 1980'' (ed.)

| 1981

| ISBN 2718602074

| w/ Jean-Luc Nancy

| colspan="4" | see ''Retreating the Political'' below for translations of their contributions

|-

| ''Retrait de l’artiste en deux personnes''

| 1985

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2904546049

| colspan="4" |

|-

| ''L'Imitation des modernes: Typographies 2''

| 1985

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2082260119

| ''Typography: mimesis, philosophy, politics''

| 1989 (Harvard), 1998 (Stanford)

| ISBN 0804732825

| ed. Christopher Fynsk*

|-

| ''La Poésie comme expérience''

| 1986

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2267004380

| ''Poetry as Experience''

| 1999

| ISBN 0804734275

| trans. Andrea Tarnowski

|-

| ''La Fiction du politique: Heidegger, l'art et la politique''

| 1988, revised

| colspan="2" | ISBN 226700531X

| ''Heidegger, Art, and Politics: the Fiction of the Political''

| 1990

| ISBN 063117155X

| trans. Chris Turner

|-

| ''Sit venia verbo''

| 1988

| ISBN 2267005654

| w/ Michel Deutsch

| colspan="4" |

|-

| ''Musica ficta: figures de Wagner''

| 1991

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2267008637

| ''Musica ficta: Figures of Wagner''

| 1994

| ISBN 0804723850

| trans. Felicia McCarren

|-

| ''Le mythe nazi''

| 1991

| ISBN 287678078X

| w/ Jean-Luc Nancy

| colspan="4" |

|-

| ''Pasolini, une improvisation : d’une sainteté''

| 1995

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2841030377

| colspan="3" |

|-

| colspan="4" |

| ''Retreating the Political''

| 1997

| ISBN 0415151635

| w/ Jean-Luc Nancy, ed. Simon Sparks**

|-

| ''Métaphrasis; suivi de Le théâtre de Hölderlin''

| 1998

| colspan="2" | ISBN 213049336X

| colspan="4" |

|-

| ''Phrase''

| 2000

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2267015617

| colspan="4" |

|-

| ''Poétique de l'histoire''

| 2002

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2718605782

| colspan="4" |

|-

| ''Heidegger: la politique du poème''

| 2002

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2718605936

| colspan="4" |

|-

| ''Agonie terminée, agonie interminable''

| 2004

| colspan="2" | ISBN 2718606266

| colspan="4" |

|}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> contents of this book do not correspond exactly to those of the book it otherwise translates

<nowiki>**</nowiki> collects essays from 1979, 1981, and 1983 and others not previously published

===Works on or about Lacoue-Labarthe===

[[User:The Rev of Bru]], you must respect wikipedia policy if you are to remain here. One good starting point would be to discuss major changes in talk, and obey the concensus you find there. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 15:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*[[Avital Ronell]], "The Differends of Man," in ''Finitude's Score''

*[[Pierre Joris]], [http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Joris89a/index.html "Heidegger, France, Politics, The University"]

==External Links==

:[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] is absolutely correct about that. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] 20:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*[http://lacoue-labarthe.cjb.cc/ International Colloquium] on his work, scheduled to take place at the [[Sorbonne]] in January [[2006]]

:agreed (well, the same applies to all of us). I made a few changes now, on being invited to do so; just to indicate the direction I would take to resolve recent issues (god vs God; monotheism vs polytheism; are 'gods' universal)? Feel free to alter and/or criticize. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 22:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*A [[2004]] film, ''[[The Ister]],'' is based on Heidegger's 1942 lectures on Friedrich [[Friedrich Hölderlin|Hölderlin]], and features Jean-Luc Nancy, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, [[Bernard Stiegler]], and [[Hans-Juergen Syberberg]]. * [http://www.theister.com/ Official site]

*[http://multitudes.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=675 "Monogrammes X" (an exchange of letters with Nancy, in French)]

*[http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/avoixnue/fiche.php?diffusion_id=20175 Radio France coverage]

[[Category:1940 births|Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe]]

I am ready to remove the [[NPOV]] dispute since the article is fine as it is. If howver some one... wants to make severe changes unilaterally, it will need to stay disputed, and be coupled w a request for protection. Talk page discussion is cool, severe unilateral, concensus defying changes are not. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 00:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[Category:20th century philosophers|Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe]]

:while you have remained civil under attack, some of your changes were quite unilateral themselves (you stubbornly kept re-introducing "all cultures" in spite of and without reference to the ongoing discussion, which was what triggered Rev Bru's - admittedly too rude - complaints. I hope we can agree on a more detailed account of what sorts of cultures there actually are, now. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 09:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[Category:Continental philosophers|Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe]]

[[Category:Deconstruction|Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe]]

:RevBru, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=God&diff=7054204&oldid=7053519 this] edit of yours annoys me; why "POV deletion of things sam doesnt agree with - again. Repaired."? You deleted the section I proposed to deal with the "all cultures" thing in more detail, which we don't know whether or not Sam agrees with because he didn't get the chance to see it. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 12:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[Category:Fascist/Nazi era scholars and writers|Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe]]

::Dab: Umm, I was mainly removing the POV section with the erroneous theistic 'definition' of atheism. If I did delete something of yours, it was not intentional, I was still not quite used to the edit system at that time. Apologies for the spelling mistakes also, I didnt notice espouse was spelt as expose. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

[[Category:French philosophers|Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe]]

[[Category:Literary critics|Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe]]

::[[User: Sam Spade|Sam]], you must ALSO respect wikipedia policy if you are to remain here. One good starting point might be to explain why you keep deleting anything you disagree with, or discuss concerns you have in talk. (not simply claiming that the others are not.) I have not commented here because the objection is to do with atheism and the erroneous definition sam insists on. All cultures dispute is elsewhere also and seems to agree on the consensus that not all cultures have/ had a belief in god(s)(desses).[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]] 19:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[Category:Living philosophers|Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe]]

From Emergence of Monotheism:

"Sizeable minorities, mainly in industrialized countries, are secularized, agnostic or atheist."

I think that [[secularized]] should redirect to [[secularism]] instead of the disambiguaton page for [[secular]] simply because of the context. I'd do it myself, but I'm new here.

- [[User:Thorns among our leaves|Thorns among our leaves]], 14:14, 7 November 2004.

----

Nevermind, I fixed it myself.

- [[User:Thorns among our leaves|Thorns among our leaves]], 14:21, 7 November 2004. (UTC)

==Atheism==

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. The only one claiming it is a belief is Sam Spade. He will admitted hating atheists (irrationally.) I would not allow a national socialist to define the word 'Jew.' All he is interested in, in this case, is pushing his erroneous assertion of what atheism entails on the wikipedia. Weak atheists lack belief in gods/ etc. Strong Atheists also lack belief in gods/ etc with the addition that specific gods are thought- not believed - to be impossible, self contradictory, disproven, etc. Some may even think that the notion of a supernatural entity in any form is inherently impossible, and think that all 'gods' are impossible. They do not, however, 'believe' that gods do not exist in a faith sense.

== Style ==

Is it in the default style to bold something in disambig section? I have never seen it done and it looks really bad if we are bolding the "God" right after it. --[[User:Sunborn|{{User:Sunborn/sig}}]] 16:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:I'm not really clear what you mean, are you referring to the wikilinks? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 16:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::he means that '''God''' is bold now in the disambiguatiopn header. I don't know why it is bold now, but I think we have more difficult issues to resolve first.... [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 18:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Dab got it right. ''but I think we have more difficult issues to resolve first....'' Yeah, probably. --[[User:Sunborn|The Sunborn]]

==reverts==

guys, if you keep it up at this pace, the article will be protected soon. Sam Spade, Rev Bru, how about putting the case on RfC and leaving it to other eyes and hands to weed out POVs? I don't think we are in a very productive stage, at the moment. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 18:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:All I am doing is trying to keep NPOV. Sam Spade is completely biased against Atheists (see his contributions page and talk - he claims to 'revile atheists' etc. I am happy with the majority of the article, it is only the section on

'Atheists do not believe in any of the monotheistic 'God's, gods or goddesses.' being changed to a theistic POV that I really disagree with. See Talk-Atheism etc. Atheists do not believe (in the faith sense). [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

:I've already requested protection, and if I am to put anything on RfC, it will be bru himself. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::It's a long article, and only minor parts are disputed. Protection of the page will stop the work also on undisputed parts that need work. I can see the issues you have with Bru's edits (and style of discourse!), while I can also see Bru's concerns. It seems a rather personal battle between you and Bru, right now, seeing that you just can't stand each other's style. If you could both agree to refrain from editing for some time and raise your points on the Talk page, and let others decide on a compromise, the situation might calm down. I don't know if you would accept me as a neutral intermediary; I would certainly try to address your concerns, and I would also step down and refrain from editing if you think I am biased. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 09:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==try differently==

:Atheists do not believe in any of the monotheistic 'God's, gods or goddesses.

delete gods or godesses since this is an article about "God"; atheists can not believe in godesses on another page.

change to "believe in the existence" since it's more clear.

Now, if you have something against that, ''please'' state it clearly here where we can all attempt to understand it... [[User:Mozzerati|Mozzerati]] 22:49, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

:first of all: Bru: yes! ''please'' do not label your edits as simple "repairs", "vandalism reverts", "spelling fixes" etc. Try to reach consensus here, first. If it is really just a minor spelling issue, ''it may as well wait'' until we agree on the wording itself. Your edits are not as straightforward as you claim to think.

:Mozzerati, this article is (in my understanding) about

:*the word ''god'' (Etymology)

:*the meaning of "God" vs. "god" (Capitalisation)

:*the concept of singular God

:It cannot be not about "gods", because the concepts are interwoven. The point about the atheist part in the intro is that atheists do not believe in any of the concepts we are about to lay out. We need to say "God or gods" because the relation of the terms will only become clear after a lengthy paragraph. However, for "atheist" the subtleties do not matter, because by definition they reject the concept of "god" altogether. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 12:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===Atheists do not believe in the existence of God...===

This is true, but if you have a look at [[Atheism]], it is currently protected, and [[talk:atheism]] appears to be hopelessly bogged down on this very particular. "Atheists do not believe in the existence of God. " is problematic because it is rather broad, and apparently there is no concensus on what limits there are to the catagory "atheist", where the line is drawn w agnosticism and ignorance (like say a person who hasn't made up their mind). Due to all of this, I suggest we remove the reference to atheism until [[atheism]] provides a concensus definition we can comfortably refer to. I won't do this unilaterally however due to recent tensions here. [[User:Sam Spade|'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson]] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new President]''''']] 23:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:We can still link to Atheism, and we do not need to go into details here. For our purposes the basic meaning is enough: We only mention atheists to get out of the way the fact that to some people, the subject matter of this article has no validity as a concept. The existence of such a view has no further bearing on the article. An atheist is somebody who rejects theism, i.e. it is somebody who (a) has heard about the concept of god and (b) rejects it. If he rejects it because he positively believes something else, or because he sees no sufficient reason to believe anything need not concern us here (although "they do not believe in god" is preferabe to "believe that god does not exist", because it avoids a positive statements about their beliefs. "lack of belief" is not good: it implies that they 'should' believe, and that their 'lack' of belief is somehow a defect). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 12:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:: The reason [[atheism]] is protected is because Sam Spade (or Jefferson For President as he now calls himself) (who, I might as well point out again,has repeatedly said that he hates atheists), and a couple of other theists, disagrees with the definition of atheism; not because atheists disagree with it.

:: Imagine if Nazis had a say in what the definition of Jew was. I know I have no call to define what christians believe; which is why I dont change those sections; I change the statements which are supposed to be NPOV and statements about atheism. If I went around changing the definition of 'Christian' to 'Someone who believes in an invisible bearded fairy living in the sky, in opposition with reality' then I would be breaking the rules, as well as not being civil. Yet this bigot is allowed to claim he is the only authority who knows what atheism is?? RFC him, and me if you like. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

:::Bru, just leave the bloody Nazis out of this, ok? It may be true that it is difficult to draw a line between atheism and agnosticism, but how does that justify protection of this page? A person who says "there is no God" is an atheist. A person who says "I really don't know whether or not there is a God" is an Agnostic. A person who says "Well, whether or not I believe that we can decide God's existence very much depends on your definition of God..." may be either. Now, as a theist, I would wisely shut up about "ignorance (like say a person who hasn't made up their mind)", because if we start to argue this, the Christian headcount will dwindle dramatically! [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

: Check your sources Dab. Historically, an Agnostic believed that it was impossible to know whether or not (a) God existed, not someone who was not sure. Don't attempt to redefine words, please. A person who says 'God X cannot exist' is a strong atheist. A person who says 'I have no belief in god X' for whatever reason, is a weak atheist. Sorry, but with Sam Spades complete hatred of Atheists and Atheism, I do not think his POV can be anywhere near NPOV. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

::I agree completely. That's just what I said. Where am I redefining terms, here? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 08:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can we not just bloody agree on the fact that [[atheism]] is the opposite of [[theism]] (thus an atheist expresses no belief in a God/god/goddess/Higher Power/etc. [or respective pluralities]) and just leave it at that? Atheism has a particular relevance to the God page because the concept is not steadfast in atheism!

- [[user:Thorns among our leaves|Thorns among our leaves]]

The atheism Talkpage is buggered, I don't go there :) let's not have that spill over here. For our purposes here it is indeed enough to say that atheists don't believe in God, and link to [[Atheism]], and let that be the end of it. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 08:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Opening para ==

Hey, I was just wandering by and thought the opening paragraph could use a little tweaking. It's nothing substantial (I don't think), but there seems to be a bit of tension on this page, and I didn't want to accidentally cause a revert war. Here's my suggested text:

'''God''' is a term referring to a '''supreme being''', generally believed to be the ruler or [[Creator god|creator]] of, and/or [[immanent]] within, the [[universe]]. The concept of a singular God is characteristic of [[monotheism]], but it is not always possible to draw a sharp distinction between some forms of monotheism and some forms of [[polytheism|polytheistic]] (see also [[Henotheism]]).

Happy editing, [[User:Kukkurovaca| -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;]]|[[User talk:Kukkurovaca|Talk&#8253;]] 23:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks, I incorporated it, w a subtle distinction. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson]] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new President]''''']] 23:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==what exactly are the disputed points at this moment?==

I feel we need to start over and discuss which specific points at this moment are felt to be biased / underrepresented / in need of clarification. I hope we can do this without any personal accusations or attacks. Of course we are all biased. Believers and Atheists will both inadvertedly come up with wordings that somehow imply their presuppositions. As long as this isn't done in bad faith, it should be enough to patiently and friendly point out the problems, back up the issue with references, and propose an improvement. Obviously, Believers of various faiths as well as atheists should all work together here, and all their conceptions of God should be equally present in the finished article.

We can argue about particular passages, as well as the overall toc arrangement. I am representing the toc structure below. Please insert any issues that you have with the present revision below:

===intro===

Are there any problems with this left? The source of the dispute used to be a statement "all cultures have gods", which has been moved to "emergence of monotheism" for more detailed discussion.

:Sorry, minor problems, although it is more NPOV than it was.

:* "The supreme being" - which one? Is there one? This is a statement. It is POV. Polytheists etc will disagree. Should be a supreme being.

::Not so much POV than mathematical implication of "supreme". See [[Gödel's ontological proof#Derivation]]. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: I disagree, I'm afraid. Never mind the arguments 'disproving' Godel, its still a belief that there is a supreme being; its still a point of view, it is not a fact, it is not something which people agree on. And I refer to every non- monotheist here.[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

:* Much use of improper capitalisation on common noun version of God. When used as a proper noun, should be capitalised. When a common noun, shouldnt. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

::::you have a point. "a supreme being" is an arguable wording. "the supreme being" is, too: atheists may take it to mean "the supreme being as defined by Godel's entirely academic model". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]]

::God is systematically capitalized when referring to the singular/supreme God: ''"a singular God", ''"Some concepts of God"'' (vs concepts of some gods), ''"to imagine God"'' (vs. to imagine a god) etc. I agree that "God" is mentioned too often for such a short paragraph (matter of style) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Yes, I know Theists do that: its still grammatically incorrect; or 'a special rule.' At this stage, the article is still talking about different perspectives on different monotheistic gods, is it not? Different, seperate, discrete gods.[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

::::I insist on 'special rule'. English is a natural language, and if "God" evolved as a special case, that's how it is. I also insist that it is an important, even for atheists, for disambiguating different concepts. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:* secular interpretation of god: who does? Is this using the word secular in the modern, common use sense or in the outdated "not in church' sense? If the latter, I suggest something along the lines of 'private, personal interpretation of god, not affiliated with organised religion,' or something like that. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

::Good question. I think I inserted this. I was using it to mean "outside religion/church". It may be better to remove the "sometimes even secular" bit. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: You had better do it, my stalker will change it back if I do. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

::::sorry, the changes here are too rapid for me to keep up. I would rather approve if people sought consensus before editing. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===etymology===

This should be the easiest section, and is afaik undisputed.

===capitalisation===

spellings "God" vs. "god" in the intro led to disagreement in the intro, and this section is suppose to cleanly discuss the issue. it is still incomplete. Bru wanted to have a reference to (polytheistic) ''god'' used as a [[common noun]]. His statement has somehow disappeared again, but I don't think there's a problem with it (believers and atheists alike will agree that in polytheism, ''god'' is a common noun). As for "God" as a proper noun, I think it is better to say "like a proper noun", because it is a special case (the only noun that went through a stage of being written in ALL CAPS, so that "God" is not just "god" with capital G, it is (historically) "GOD" with lowercase "od".

:yes, but my actual point was that if one were not referring to any specific god, then the word is also a common noun. One could be talking about one of the monotheistic gods, but not one in particular, and still use it as a common noun. When referring to Yahweh, Allah etc specifically, it should be capitalised. Hence the quotation marks around 'God,' this was a compromise because some Theists were refusing to accept the proper grammatical usage in "Atheists do not believe in a god, gods or goddesses." Common noun. Like 'cat' or 'dog'. Its only a proper noun when referring to a specific cat which is called 'Cat.' Likewise god is only a proper noun when referring to a god called 'God.' I also agree with the part about the proper noun being historically 'GOD.' If this is debated any more, would it not be more feasible to change the instances of 'God' with the proper name of the god being discussed? (YHWH, Yahweh, Allah, etc etc etc.)[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

::well, the point of this section is really that "God" is just the English translation of both YHWH and Allah (Jews and Muslims will also agree that YHWH/Elohim and Allah translate each other; Allah and Elohim are even etymologically related). I agree that 'God' is a proper noun, so you cannot say 'a God', and 'god' is a common noun. Therefore, I think it is correct to say that "atheists do not believe in the existence of either God or gods or goddesses". This could also be replaced by "atheists do not believe in the existence of any [[deity]]". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: But the gods that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in are not always held to be the same 'God' - they have different properties, different stories about them, different areas of belief. Some think they are the same god, some do not. The 'God' of each of these belief systems is a proper noun. But when it is not referring to the name of one of these gods, it is not a proper noun, it is a common noun. There are different concepts of a monotheistic god. Atheists believe in none of these. Atheists do not believe in any of the myths of 'a god.' (a god which some people call God, some call Allah, etc - no matter which of these it is.) When using god as a common noun, it is not capitalised. This is the point. It should be a fairly minor point, but some people cannot accept that. If you want to change the statement to 'atheists do not believe in the existence of any [[deity|deities]]' to avoid using the term in the correct, but contested way, then feel free.[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

:::: More regarding the capitalisation para; mention should be made that using a capital letter to indicate a common noun is incorrect grammatically, '''although''' believers do so to to their own god(s).

:::::The point is: "god" is a common noun. "God" is a proper noun. I'm adding a reference to the capitalised pronouns, as they illustrate that it's a special case anyway. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 12:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::: Para is good, but is there any reason why there shouldnt be a clarification on when it is and is not a common noun? [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

This section focuses too much on english speaking Christianity, and Abrahamic religions in general. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Sam, are you sure you understand the point that is made in this section? It is about the English ''word'' "God" and its history in the English language. So, necessarily, this account must be centered on the English language, and its (Christian!) history. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Thats a completely false assumption. Many non-christians speak english, and even more english speakers discuss the God of other religions. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 16:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===emergence of monotheism===

this section should give an overview of the historical development of the concept, especially the relations between "God" and "gods". The aim should be that after this section, the terminology has been cleared up, and the following sections can actually discuss the concept of "singular God".

: Sizeable minorities? Some countries have larger irreligious or atheistic populations than those who are religious. (China, or Russia for example. Scotland also is roughly half and half, which is not a minority.) Also, parity with the rest of the document, 'denial of other gods' is a POV term. Disbelief, perhaps. This is minor quibbling though.[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

===existence of God===

Arguments for and against God's existence with links to the two main articles.

: I have no problem with it the way you have edited it, but someone (guess who) has a habit of deleting the links to the 'Arguments against God's existence.' OK with the NPOV, as is, with both sides being discussed.[[User:The Rev of

Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

:not to nitpick, but how does "gratuitous" clarify the point? It sounds sarcastic, because the word usually refers to positive rewards given undeservedly, and not to punishment. It may be in order, however, to emphasize the severe level of suffering present in the world. Theologians of course have answers to this, in any case ;) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 12:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:: Gratuitous serves to clarify the point be meaning the suffering that is clearly not for a 'greater good.' For example, some might say that certain insects laying their eggs inside other living creatures in order that they might eat the creature from inside when they hatch, might seem evil to us - but it serves a greater good in that the insects get to reproduce etc. Gratuitous evil, on the other hand, is evil which serves no purpose at all: a child being raped, tortured, mutilated and killed, or a fawn burning to death in a forest fire. Its an important distinction in the argument. Its not meant in the way I think you thought it was. Maybe it is the wrong word, if people are misunderstanding it. I shall change it to 'unnecessary.'[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

:::well, a hard-boiled Darwinist would say that the suffering is for the greater good of improving overall fitness. And a theist would of course say that it may not be unnecessary at all, because God's ways are unknown to man. "unnecessary" thus implies presuppositions. How about replacement by "severe"? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 18:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Cobblers. A Darwinist would say no such thing. Evolution is not teleological, so suffering has no “purpose”. The theist’s response you give amounts to nothing more than “I don’t know”. You appear to confuses “gratuitous” with “gratuity”. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 20:14, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

:::::correct me, but imho gratuitous is the adjective to gratuity. I did check webster's before commenting. A (hardcore) Darwinist would say: Suffering is selected for, because it is the mechanism that encourages organisms to avoid threatening situations. Therefore, the *capacity* for suffering has a "purpose" in the sense of increasing fitness. The actual presence of suffering is a mere consequence of this, as selection takes place (because if the threshold for suffering was so high that suffering were only to occur infrequently, a lowering of the threshold of suffering would be selected for in the interest of fitness). There will be no consensus for "unnecessary" or "gratuitous" anyway, so we can as well end the discussion here. that suffering or even severe suffering is present in the world is undisputable, and should be enough for the point at hand. Any additional 'rhetorical' adjective will lead to disputes. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 13:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::::: What exactly is a 'darwinist'? Its not a religion, you know! Dabs.... where exactly are you taking this from? There is no 'purpose' to evolution. The organisms who survive and reproduce more effeciently tend to survive and reproduce more. The argument has little to do with the capacity of organisms to feel suffering, it has to do with gratuitous, unnecessary suffering. Evolution has no say on gratuitous, unnecessary suffering, such as forest fires. No consensus on what constitutes unnecessary? Is there anyone who thinks that a child being raped, tortured, mutilated and killed is necessary? I seriously doubt it, even fundamentalists have some human emotions. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

:::::::: I know Darwinism is not a religion. But then I'm not religious either. The point here was whether suffering is necessarily "unnecessary". I answered that ''even'' (or ''especially'') Darwinists could argue that it isn't, and that alone preculdes our portraying suffering as unnecessary. This discussion doesn't belong here. But "unnecessary" implies at least the possibility of "necessity". "necessity" may either mean 'logical unavoidability' or 'required for a particular purpose'. If we dispute the existence of any purpose altogether, "unnecessary" means simply "avoidable". Is suffering avoidable? For individuals, maybe. Globally, judging from a purely scientific, i.e. empirical viewpoint, no. In my argument above, in a darwinist picture, I took 'necessary' to mean 'conductive to improved fitness'. While optimizing fitness may not be the 'purpose' of 'blind' evolution, it is purely descriptively its outcome, or, figuratively, its aim. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This section neglects non-[[Abrahamic]] faiths. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 23:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===theology===

<s>this section should maybe have its title changed, maybe to "theology" as it deals with theology, i.e. classification of different conceptions to be discussed in the following sections.</s>

: Theism: belief in God or gods. Someone seems to have inserted a lot of information on the catholic belief system. Should it not go elsewhere, since Theism is a very, very broad umbrella and not all Theists have similar conceptions of their gods? Don't delete the part, just move it to a more appropriate place, and have the basic definition of Theism that everyone should agree on. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

::section renamed. Bru's suggestion remains unanswered. It may have to do with the different meanings of [[theism]], or with confusion of [[deism]] with [[theism]]. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===conceptions of god===

list of conceptions, roughly historical. It should be cleaned up, e.g. the Hindu terms should get their own subsection.

[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 07:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

: Perhaps a little more information on the Biblical section, regarding God having emotions, etc? [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

====unity or trinity====

<s>this section should in my view be merged with the following section, as it is already about particular "conceptions of God".</s> &mdash; nobody objected, so I did it. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== gratuitous ==

who sez suffering is ever gratuitous? why can't it all be deserved, or [[karma]]? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Ahh. A good point, but the line says “The problem of evil argues that gratuitous suffering is inconsistent with an omnipotent but benevolent God.” It states an apparent inconsistency between gratuitous suffering and a benevolent, omnipotent god, without stating that gratuitous suffering exists. Is this not NPOV enough? [[User:Banno|Banno]] 22:17, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

::OK. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 22:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::I can live with what it says now too. --{{User:Sunborn/s}}

:::In this form it is obviously ok. It used to say "the presence of gratuitous suffering present....", but in your version, the claim is properly NPOV-contained ;) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 13:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was always referring to the argument, so I didnt see a problem with it, but if it is clearer to some now then fine. [[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]

== Negative theology ==

I don't understand why such an obscure view aught be present in the intro. Similarly, I don't really agree with Atheism being mentioned there either, but at least atheism has some adherants to speak of, who is a negative theologist? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:well, you wouldn't call Christianity a minority religion, would you? [[Negative theology]] is at the very core of Christianity, unless you want to dismiss figures as venerable as [[Gregory of Nyssa]], [[John Chrysostom]], [[Basil the Great]]. See also [http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/my.papers/apophatic.html]. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::I read over those links, and saw nothing about [[negative theology]]. Also, even if these guys thought God was "all-evil" (which I doubt), how does that make the concept notable enough to include in the ''intro'' (notice I don't suggest its complete removal, only from the intro). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Oh, I guess I have no clue what "negative theology" means. I now even more strongly feel that it aught not be discussed in the intro, esp. in the way it was, which had me thinking it ment people thinking God was evil, and whatnot. By negative they ment... we should describe God by what he is ''not''? Sorry, I need to read up more, but clearly what was there was very misleading. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Calm down. there was nothing about 'all evil' there at all. You cut out:

:::*[[Negative theology]] holds that God cannot be described by any positive attributes at all

:::You seem quite trigger-happy tonight; not all people editing this article are out to ridicule believers. This statement was completely harmless and factual. I imagine you misread it because of the moral connotations of 'positive', but something 'positive' is simply something that is 'posited'. Both etymologically and in actual use. We may try to clarify though, if you so whish. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Surely. And I'm [[Be bold|being bold]], not trigger happy, and I'm pretty clam, and not assuming anything negatory about you, or whoever wrote that sentance. I just think it was misleading. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::ok. being bold is fine if you find a heartbreakingly dilapidated article somewhere in the backwaters of WP. After a level of tension has been reached, and this article is on the verge of being protected, it is not recommended to 'be bold'. rather, you should seek consensus before making further edits. We have no deadline for finishing this article, so let's sort this out cleanly. Look, you cannot just toss [[Negative theology]] just because you don't like the idea. The sentence means: "Some people believe that we can no true statement about what God is like. We can at most make true statements about what God is ''not'' like, because this is equivalent to our ability to make ''false'' statements about what God is like. Important early Christian saints argued like this." [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::::I didn't say I didn't like the idea, I said the sentance that was there was blatently misleading. And if you think we need consensus prior to editing, request page protection. Thats what its for. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::::No, page protection is called for if people disregard consensus, or refuse discussion. If we are mature enough to talk prior to editing, we won't have to call for an uninvolved admin to un-protect and re-protect every time we agree to make a change. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 08:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::::::If the page is not protected, I will edit it at will. I will of course discuss any differences of opinion. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 16:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::::::a practice very likely to get you into heated arguments, or even likely to get you flamed, but you know this, of course. Protected pages are the ''exception'' on WP, unpotected ones are the rule. Just because it's unprotected doesn't mean it should be edited at will. Pages with long histories will not like a passer-by to make random edits. But it's up to you, of course. And I do appreciate that you are willing to discuss your edits. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm certainly no passerby, I'd challenge you to find a more involved user on this page (or this talk page for that matter ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::::::::sorry, no offence. I was talkin about policy, and I stand by my statement, but I did not have you in mind in particular. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 19:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== recent edits to "Emergence of Monotheism" ==

*Emergence of Monotheism

:This section makes many false claims, and utterly neglects the status of Hinduism as a religion with a one God concept ([[Brahman]] and / or the [[Hindu trinity]]) as well as Hinduism being the oldest existant religion!

:[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::OK, I rewrote it, moving back to article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::[cutting verbatim quote to save space]

::ok, so it seems you see the following statements as false claims:

::*Historically, the concept of a singular God is relatively recent.

:::there is hardly *any* evidence of monotheism earier than [[Hellenism]]. If you insist that the [[Kingdom of Israel]] was monotheistic (rather than henotheistic), that was a big exception. I think this claim is about as factual as you can get.

::::Why not Hinduism? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::*Other early examples of emerging monotheism around roughly [[1000 BC]]

:::logically, if you contest that monotheism is younger than polytheism, you have to contest that it was 'emerging' at this time. But why keep the 'early examples' phrase, then?

::::Because Judaism and Zoroasterism ''were'' emerging around this time. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::*The worship of polytheistic gods, on the other hand, much predates monotheism

:::if this is 'seen by some', they must be the people that actually look at the records. Of course some may ''not'' see this, but that would be their personal choice of ignoring history. Somehow it seems you feel that monotheism is portrayed as inferior because it came later, but this is not implied here at all. It is rather a 'more civilized' form of religion, and you may consider its emergence as progress. of course the historical presence of monotheism says ''nothing'' about the existence, or eternity, of God.

::::I disagree, but its irrelevant if you accept my point about Hinduism. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::I agree that you may define 'sanatana dharma' to extend to 2000 BC, but that has no bearing on monotheism at all. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::::That POV seems to be our primary sticking point. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::*Sizeable minorities, mainly in industrialized countries, are [[secularism|secularized]], [[agnostic]] or [[atheist]].

:::I'm quite nonplussed how you can view this as a false claim

::::I didn't say it was false (altho it is), rather I removed it as irrelevant to the "emergence of monotheism". [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::it was connected with the statement that both polytheism and animism survive, but fine, cut it out. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Concerning Hinduism, it has a history. It is a successor of the [[Vedic]] religion. And the earliest instance of a remotely monotheistic concept, in the ''precursor'' of Hinduism, is right there in the paragraph, you didn't toss it as a false claim either, namely the rigvedic hymns to a creator god. Hinduism is not a single religion, not to mention the 'oldest extant religion'. The customs summarized as Hinduism mostly originated ''after'' [[Christ]], with memorized [[Vedic]] scripture that goes back to maybe [[1500 BC]]. This puts Vedic religion (clearly polytheistic) among the oldest ''attested'' (but not ''extant''; or, ok, extant in very remote areas, as described by [[Frits Staal]]) religions, a couple centuries older than Judaism.

::regards, [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::We don't agree regarding the distinction of "vedic" and "hinduism" religions, nor about the status of vedic religions as polytheistic (the lesser gods are more like "angels" or "djinn" from other religions). Hinduism is a misnomer, the proper name is "[[sanatana dharma]]", and it has been existant for at least 4000 yrs (I would argue much longer, but I don't need to here, as w other spurious debates listed above ;). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Hinduism is not a misnomer if used properly. It is a collective term for 'native Indian religions'. "sanatana dharma" is simply Sanskrit for, well "[[Forn Sed]]". If you use Indian concepts of history, all our attempts to reach consensus on ''any'' date will be doomed. You may of course ''define'' Hinduism to include all religions of the past 4000 years, but by this you gain nothing. 4000 years ago, the [[Aryans]] were hardly even in India, the [[Rigveda]] and comparative studies give us a glimpse of what they believed. They were polytheists if there ever was polytheism (yes, the lower gods were 'like angels', but there is no 'higher' God)! I ''do'' mention the earliest occurrence of remotely polytheistic concepts in that culture, so I really don't know what you are missing. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::You seem to disregard Brahman as being God. I find this a POV which unfortunately permeates the article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:: The early Chinese worship of [[Shang Ti]] could be viewed as either monotheistic or henotheistic, as well. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 18:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::brilliant! by all means include! perfectly fits the 1000 BC timeline... [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 18:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Sam, I don't want to harry you here, but you ''are'' on a campaign of edit first, ask questions later, here. If you are so very sceptical of historical accounts to doubt the recent emergence of monotheism, how can you turn around and portray customs of the *paleolithic* as well-understood?? All we have of the paleolithic are objects. Archaelolgical finds. We have figurines, but we have *not the slightest idea* if they are at all connected with a concept of god. We simply don't know. At most, we can infer that people believed in an afterlife (judging from burials), and to surmise that there was *some* form of worship, most likely [[ancestor worship]]. Even with the 'possibly', the statement was bold. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 18:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::They buried people, made supernatural representations in art, and carved lots of fat ladies and horned men. That tells me (and every expert I've ever heard from) they had religion. But this isn't an important debate here, as with many others I mentioned, this discussion isn't vital to the article at hand, [[God]]. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::I should say so. The point is that you changed 'polytheism ''possibly'' goes back to the paleolithic' to ''polytheism goes back to the paleolithic', thus making a statement both about gods and about the paleolithic religions. You seem to continue to imply that religion implies God, which may be at the base of most of the disagreements on this page. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 20:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::Hm, well I at lest ment that relgion assumes the supernatural, esp. when that religion involves giant fat ladies and guys w deer antlers and hooves. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::::we have no disagreement about the supernatural. If this was about [[Spirituality]] I would have you say that it was present at least since [[homo erectus]] without any qualifier. Unfortunately, this is a article is about ''gods'', and we do not know how early this became a concept independent from [[spirit]]. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 08:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::::Actually the article is about [[God]], and references to early spirituality are as useful as references to polytheism, gods, atheism, or what-have-you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 16:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===Spirit===

Why do you think the concept of God is independant from the concept of [[spirit]]? I don't agree at all. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:spirits are a superset of gods: A god may be seen as a sort of spirit, but a spirit is not necessarily a god. It is therefore easily possible (and indeed attested in aboriginal cultures) for a concept of spirit to have existed without a concept of god. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::I would say that the spirit is God. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::but then you are a theist. would you call God the spirit of a tree, a fountain, or a stone? [[Shamanism]]. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 08:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Yes, I would. I'd go further, to say that everything is God. I'm a monist, btw. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Sam, I respect your position. However, I believe you benefit from millenia of modern thought. The question is, would ancient people believe the same thing? I would think not, given monotheism is generally considered to be a much more recent development. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 08:59, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

::::millennia of 'modern' thought? wow... or maybe just from a couple of centuries of brahmanic thought, as the case may be :-D [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 10:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::: I meant "modern" in the relative sense: compared to early humans. ;) [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 10:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

: Just a note... following the later Upanishads (still pre-Buddha) Brahman became firmly established as neutral, attributeless, not really 'God' in the monotheistic sense. "Brahma" is the creator god, and yes, there's a big difference. In that sense, "saguna brahman" is ultimately a monotheistic concept, but "nirguna brahman" can't properly be defined as monotheistic, but rather goes a step beyond. --[[User:LordSuryaofShropshire|LordSuryaofShropshire]] 19:14, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

::I think our primary question here is the timeline on when "[[saguna brahman]]" and "[[nirguna brahman]]" first became present in Hindu theology. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Brahman==

The disagreement between Sam and me seems to mainly surround the status of monotheism in India. If I understand Sam correctly, he thinks that worship of Brahman as monotheistic God is at least 4000 years old. Clearly, this is supported by the Upanishads. But then in the Upanishads you easily find numbers like 640,000 years. I don't dispute that Brahman is God at all. Why, I have listed him on [[Names of God]] as a member of the [[Trimurti]]. But this section is about the historical development of monotheism, so the question is not, is Brahman God, but "for how long has he been worshipped in this form". The answer to this is, probably less than 2000 years. Even Indian tradition admits that the [[Rigveda]] is the oldest source they have. The text of the Rigveda is aged 3200-3500 years, and may contain memories and verses as old as some 4000 years. I have studied Sanskrit and the Vedas for quite a few years now, and I am familiar with the opinions of different scholars. Let's cut to the chase: 'brahman' is not a creator God in the Rigveda. I have fought for the etymology section on [[Brahman]], some time ago. Take a minute to read it. In the Rigveda, brahman means prayer or worship. See also [http://flaez.ch/cgi-bin/mw.pl?query=brahman]. Now of course you may say it is POV to say that pre-vedic religion didn't have monotheism, because we don't have any sources. But this leads to madness. You may as well say that it is POV if we don't say that 6000 years ago, monotheistic God was worshipped as a green winged Elephant in the Amazonas, because I cannot prove it wasn't so. I admit I am a bit impatient to have to go through the facts about this, because this is something you can educate yourself about by reading [[Rigveda]], [[Brahman]] and related stuff (also, books, if you don't trust WP), and I shouldn't have to burden this page with background knowledge. The beautiful thing is that monotheism was ''emerging'' when our sources set in, i.e. it wasn't there as an established fact. Records allow us to trace how starting at around 1000 BC, the concept slowly gained ground (while our earliest sources go back to 2000-3000 BC!). Of course, the practice of ''dating'' (i.e. History) is much younger ([[Herodotus]]). For this reason, we don't date the texts by the numbers in them (which may be any number up to millions of years) but by text-external criteria like languge and material. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 08:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:I'm sorry that you think my opinion is rooted in lack of research. Perhaps I can explain this again: Sanatana Dharma is known to be the oldest proven existant religion. Brahman is the Godhead of Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana Dharama claims to have been existant for far longer than 4,000 yrs (actually by definition it claims to have always existed). It is very POV to suggest that Brahman was not worshipped as the panentheistic creator God 4,000yrs ago. You have no evidence of that, and we ''do have'' the claims of a religion which is proven to have existed since then to contridict you.

::we have the claim of "aged 4000" of a religion ... ''claimed'' to be aged 4000. why proven? this is like "the Bible is true: the Bible says so". The claim (or definition) of having existed forever is not exactly evidence that they are anxious to get their dating right, it's more like redefining "right" or "forever" or "existed" (or all of these terms) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Your example of "green winged Elephant" is as useless as the pink unicorn of atheism, its a red herring of no value. The fact is, it is very POV of you to suggest that Sanatana Dharma was polytheist 4,000yrs ago. the best evidence we have is either inconclusive (archaeology, etc.. afaik) or contridicts you (The teachings of Sanatana Dharma itself). Please reconsider your stance. BTW, I have no problem w you clarifying the origins of '''western''' or middle eastern monotheism, your facts are correct on that. Its the POV that that was the first monotheism ever which I take stern issue with. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 16:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::well, I would be very interested what evidence you can present that looks even remotely admissible in a scientific discussion about anything called sanatana dharma in 2000 BC, worship of a god called brahman, or indeed any positive evidence of the form of spirituality practiced at that time. Do you reject Rigveda as the earliest source for Indo-Iranian religion? Do you contest that there is no god brahman in the RV? The only evidence we have concerning the time preceding the Rigveda is based on the ''indirect'' method of assuming that whatever is present in both indic and iranian tradition will probably have been present then. this includes the word "deva", the gods Mitra, Varuna, Dyaus, and possibly some others, ''maybe'' a concept of "form" called "brahman". I assume you are familiar with Mayrhofer's etymological dictionary? Let me cite it for you:

:::''brahman: in ältester Bedeutung etwa "Formung, Gestaltung, Formulierung (der Wahrheit)... in jüngerer Sprache personifiziert ('Gott Brahman'). ... IIr. mp. parth. brahm "Form, Erscheinung, Verhalten, Tracht".... neuisländisch bragur "Weise, Art, Sitte, Ton, Gedicht, Melodie".''

::inadmissible, of course, is just a random guru saying "it was so" without showing any proof: this is my Green Elephant. Just because your guru told you doesn't make it encyclopedic. We may, of course, good cultural relativists that we are, insert a cautionary statement that Hindu teaching claims to go back such-and-such a number of millennia. But seeing that all other POVs need to present their evidence, I don't think this is a very powerful argument in a ''historical'' section (as opposed in an article on Hindu mytholgy of course). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::I placed a note on [[Talk:Hinduism]], and am certain we will have enough educated involvement to form a proper concensus shortly :). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::He said, smiling :) (sound of the trample of the approaching Hindutva hordes... *ducks* ;) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 17:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The concept of Brahman has been present from the time of the Vedas. In the Vedas, it has been recognized throughout there is one undefinable Ultimate Reality called Brahman who controls the forces of natures, such as devas. A famous verse from the [[Taitrya Upanishad states]]:

“From fear of It the wind blows; from fear of Him the sun rises; from fear of Him [[Agni]] and [[Indra]] and Death, the fifth, run."

But for practical purposes, in many of the Vedas, there was a concious effort to equate Brahman with a personal supreme Being. For example, Shri Rudram, in the Vedas, the most ancient verse praising Shiva describes Rudra as this supreme Brahman.

Also a similar pattern as identifing Rudra with Supreme Brahman comes in the Kena Upanishad.

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/kena.htm

Vaishnavites stress Vishnu was the supreme Being from a passage in the Vedas, called Purusha Suktma. see http://www.sanskrit.org/Ramanuja/Ramanuja&vaishna.html

So early on there was an attempt to identify Brahman with a personal Supreme Being. I would say Shaivism, specifically, is the oldest Hindu religion. Shiva has the most temples in India. Varnasi or Benares, the most sacred site of Hinduism and dedicated to Shiva has been in existence easily more than 2000 years, possibly 4000 years or more.

I disgree with Sam about Brahman per se being worshipped. Early on, there was an attempt to identify Brahman with a personal supreme Being, i.e., Shiva and Vishnu.

Brahman also is to be distinguished with a creator god, i.e., Brahma. Brahma was never worshipped although he was recognized as a member of the Trimurti. This pattern is similar to Christianity. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is worshipped directly.

The great debate between followers among the major Hindu philosophical school, Vedanta, from followers of Advaita philosophy on one hand and the strict theistic schools such as those of Ramanuja and Madhva on the other, focused on the true nature of Brahman, on whether Brahman was essentially attributeless or with attributes, i.e., a personal Supreme Being. Sankara believed that Brahman was essentially attributeless but becomes a personal God through association with Maya. Ramaunja and Madhva vehemetenly disagreed and stated that Brahaman was with attributes, i.e., a personal God, Vishnu. They argued that passages that suggest attributelessness meant that Vishnu was devoid of the three Gunas, i.e., Satvic, Rajasic and Tamas which humans or matter is conditioned with. (one example) See a very informative article, http://www.nalanda.demon.co.uk/vedanta.htm#The%20Theist%20Revolt (Hindu response against Buddhism) and http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_93

So early on, Hindus recognized that there was an Ultimate Reality-being-non-being, i.e., Brahman that was the source of everything. So Brahman, as a abstract reality was '''not per se w'''worshipped for 4000 years. It was Shiva or Vishnu that was worshipped for 4000 years or more. The Vishnu sahasranama identified Vishnu with the supreme Brahman and comes from the Mahabharata which schollars argues is at least 3500 years old. (many state that it is 5000 years old.) As I have stated, the concept of Brahman per se was too abstract so early on there was an attempt to identify this Brahman with a personal supreme Being, either Shiva (i.e., Rudra) or Vishnu.

Hope these references help.

[[Raj2004]]

:Much, thanks, insightful comments as always, Raj. I don't agree about the precise nature of the worship of Brahman (I would argue that [[Brahminism]] is the oldest branch of Hinduism, and that worship of, and the developing of a relationship with Brahman ''directly'', and without an excess focus on Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna or others, is the true heart of Sanatana Dharma) but I think it is clear from his statement and links that knowledge of of Brahman existed very far into the past. Even if this POV is disputed or countered, it must be expressed alongside the others w neutrality. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 14:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:let's see. I readily concede your points about the Upanisads, and about "2000 years ago". The dispute surrounds "3000 or 4000 years ago" (not to mention "forever"), i.e. times ''earlier'' than the Upanisads. The earliest hymn to Rudra would be RV 2.33 [http://flaez.ch/rv/rv.pl?nr=224&txt=shppgr]. The earliest verse praising Rudra:

:*2.33.3 ''Chief of all born art thou in glory, Rudra, armed with the thunder, mightiest of the mighty.''

:This ''tavástamas tavásaam'' is indeed worthy praise for a supreme God, but of course similar praise is also addressed to Indra, Soma and whatnot. But it's a nice preconception, so to speak, to the great success of the future Shiva, and I am glad you drew my attention to this verse. As to association of Rudra with brahman, the only place where I found Rudra mentioned next to, not 'Brahman' but, Brahmanaspati is in 10.65 [http://flaez.ch/rv/rv.pl?nr=891&txt=shppgr], which hymn is not in praise of Rudra at all, but simply a list of gods, viz.

:*''May Agni, Indra, Mitra, Varuna consent, Aryaman, Vayu, Pusan, and Sarasvati, Adityas, Maruts, Visnu, Soma, lofty Sky, Rudra and Aditi, and Brahmanaspati.''

:where, I would say, Rudras humble postition in the list is in fact strong evidence against his 'supreme' status. But maybe you have another verse in mind, which I could not find? In that case, could I ask you to cite it? Or if you want to argue that Brahmanaspati/Brhaspati rather than Rudra, was 'supreme', we would of course need to start over, and I would have to show you that Brahmanaspati, just like Rudra, is one among many (polytheistic) gods of the Rigveda. Obviously the facts about the Upanisads etc. need full attention, and should be detailed in articles on Brahmanism, Upanisads, Hinduism, and even in this article under 'conceptions of God', no doubt about that. But please not in a ''historical'' section about the ''emergence of Monotheism''!. In any case, I am still not sure if the claim here is that there is monotheism in the RV, or rather that the Upanisads themselves are 4000 years old

:[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 14:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, the concept of reaching [[Brahman]], directly through Jnana (or knowledge), Sam was alway recognized as a difficlt path. Lord Krishna said in the Gita, Diffiult is tbe path of those seeking the Unmanifested, for those who are embodied. So allthough Brahmanism was practiced by a few for thousands of years, at the same time, worship of a personal supreme Being (Shiva or Vishnu) was contemporaneous.

As for Rudra not being equated with Brahman, Dab, see this link. http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/shri_rudram/verses_from_the_shri_rudram-1.htm and http://www.mypurohith.com/Rituals/Namakam2.asp

Early on Shri Rudram identified Rudra with Brahman.

Regarding the shrI rudram, it is said:

vR^ixasya mUlakena shakhAH puShyanti vai yathA |

shive rudrajapAtprIte prItA evAsya devatAH |

ato rudrajapAdeva bhuktimuktiprasiddhyataH ||

Even as by (watering) the roots of a tree, all its branches are nourished, so by pleasing Shiva with the chant of the Rudram , all the gods are pleased. Therefore, the attainment of bhukti - enjoyment (not against dharma)- and mukti - liberation- is only through chanting the Rudram with devotion.

why would ancient peoples not identify Shiva with this supreme Brahman. I think we should read the Shir Rudram and its commentaries for answers.

The reason, There are many gods identified in the Vedas is that Rudra is seen as the source of all manifestations. see shaivite perspective, http://www.shaivam.org/shpvediy.htm and http://members.tripod.com/~saran/shpvediy.htmand for Vaishnavite persepective, http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/gita_sara/gs-007.html (only one God in Hinduism, #56 and see Shri Krishna is the supreme God; #57.)

Even the most sacred prayers for Hindus, state the Trimurti concept.

for example, the Shri Rudram, the most sacred prayer for Hindus and Shaivites in particular describe Vishnu as an aspect of Shiva. (Vishnu in Kaliasa) Likewise, two of the names in Vishnu sahasranama that refer to Shiva are Shiva itself, name #27 and name #114 Rudra. Using these two interpretations, and ignoring the occasional and rare tensions between Vaishnnvaites and Shaivites, these two prayers, from one point of view, indicate that Vishnu and Shiva are the one and the same.

[[Raj2004]]

:again, I completely concede all you say about Vedanta and Upanisads. There is really no need to cite this, because I completely agree. Shiva/Rudra ''was'' and ''is'' identified with Brahman ''in the Vedanta''. Please understand that this is not the point we debate here at all. My claim is:

:*the Vedanta texts are roughly 2000 (certainly less than 3000) years old.

:*there is no evidence of this identification of Rudra with Brahman in earlier texts

:*we do have earlier texts, prominently the RV, where Rudra is ''not'' identified with Brahman, but appears as a polytheistic god.

:Please tell me which, if any, of these three statements are disputed. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vishnu and Rudra same

Anuvaka 5

Namo bhavaya cha rudraya cha

namah sharvaya cha pashupataye cha

namo nilagrivaya cha shitikanthaya cha

namah kapardine cha vyuptakeshaya cha

namah sahasrakshaya cha shatadhanvane cha

namo girishaya cha shipivishhtaya cha

namo midhushhtamaya cheshhumate cha

namo hrasvaya cha vamanaya cha

namo brihate cha varshhiyase cha

namo vriddhaya cha samvridhdhvane cha

Salutations to Him who is the source of all things and to Him who is the destroyer of all ills. Salutations to the destroyer and to the protector of all beings in bondage. Salutations to Him whose throat is black and whose throat is also white. Salutations to Him of the matted locks, and to Him who is clean-shaven. Salutations to Him who has a Thousand eyes and a hundred bows. Salutations to Him who dwells on the mount and who is in the form of Vishnu. Salutations to Him who showers blessings very much and who bears arrows. Salutations to Him who assumes a small size, and Him who is in the form of a dwarf. Salutations to the great and majestic one, to Him who is full of all excellence. Salutations to the Ancient One who is loudly praised by the scriptures.

:could you please stop citing Vedanta texts? I already admitted above that there is not the slightest dispute about these! If you don't reply to my points about earlier texts above, I think this will all be quite pointless (although I dig your style of chanting mantras at me when I'm desperately trying to have a rational argument ;) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Hey, lets be calm, I think me and Raj have a similar point, which is that since Sanatana Dharma has been existant for such a very long time, we should be able to assume that certain fundamental aspects also have been constant. The lack of a clear stance in earlier texts in no way implies (in my interpretation) any disagreement w more modern texts, especially when the precise date of nearly all of these texts is questionable at best (and if need be, we can always fall back on "their eternal" as an argumnent ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 15:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for citing Vedanta texts. But Rudram is not part of Vedanta, or end of Veda, which are the Upanishads. Rudra is identified with supreme Brahman in the Rudram, which is part of Yajur Veda. http://www.geocities.com/parasu41/rudram_chamakam.html if Hindus didn't identify Him with the supreme Brahman, why would they go to Benares for 4000 years? As I recall, the Upanishads were written around 1800 BC , much more than 2000 years. The Yajur Veda is itself older than the Upanishads.

As for historical evidence, honestly, it is hard to prove anything more than 2000 years or after Christ. But the fact that shir rudram is part of yajur veda and the fact that Benares or Varnasi is the oldest pilgramge site for humans indicate a time span considerably greater than 2000 years. Why would Hindus go to Benares all this time if Rudra or Shiva was not the Supreme Brahman?

[[Raj2004]]

:''As I recall, the Upanishads were written around 1800 BC'' wow, you have a good memory ;o)

:anyway, not to lose from sight what we argue about here, how about a modified wording:

::''The monotheistic religions of today are of relatively recent origin, historically, although Eastern religions (notably [[Hinduism]], and religions of [[China]]) that have concepts of panentheism are difficult to classify along western notions of monotheism vs. polytheism, and sometimes have claims of being very ancient, if not eternal''

:I imagine your concerns are addressed here, as well as my point made? the cost is a slighlty lenghty wording, but maybe we can still reduce that. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean in that way. I recall reading about the writing of the Upanishads. The Vedas, like any religious texts have a lot of meanings and is subject to multiple interpetations. Monism, Monotheism, pantheism, panentheism all stem from the Vedas: I think you should incorporate these views. ''The monotheistic religions of today are of relatively recent origin, historically, although Hindu religious texts, the Vedas, as all religious texts are subject to multiple interpretations and exhibit various philosophical concepts, monism, monotheism, pantheism, and panentheism notably.

see also the wikpedia discussion about henotheism:

"While Hinduism is generally monistic or monotheistic admitting emanating deities, the early Rig Veda (undeveloped early Hinduism) was what Max Muller based his views of henotheism on. In the four Vedas, Muller believed that a striving towards One was being aimed at by the worship of different cosmic principles, such as Agni (fire), Vayu (wind), Indra (rain, thunder, the sky), etc. each of which was variously, by clearly different writers, hailed as supreme in different sections of the books. Indeed, however, what was confusing was an early idea of Rita, or supreme order, that bound all the gods. Other phrases such as Ekam Sat, Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti (Truth is One, though the sages know it as many) led to understandings that the Vedic people admitted to fundamental oneness. From this mix of monism, monotheism and naturalist polytheism Max Muller decided to name the early Vedic religion henotheistic.

This, however, is clearly a one-man view. Extremely advanced, indeed unprecedented and thitherto unduplicated ideas of pure monism are to be found in the early Vedas, notwithstanding clearly monist and monotheist movements of Hinduism that developed with the advent of the Upanishads. One such example of early Vedic monism is the Nasadiya hymn of the Rig Veda: " That One breathed by itself without breath, other than it there has been nothing." To collectively term the Vedas henotheistic, and thus further leaning towards polytheism, rather than monotheism, is to ignore the clearly monist bent of the Vedas that were thoroughly developed as early as 1000 BCE in the first Aranyakas and Upanishads."

[[Raj2004]]

:thank you! thank you! this is exactly what I had in my original paragraph: "monist bent of the Vedas were thoroughly developed as early as 1000 BCE", "One example of early Vedic monism is the Nasadiya hymn of the Rig Veda", viz. the hymns (10.129/130) I was referring to all along. I was only objecting to dates significantly earlier than 1000 BCE. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for dates older than 1000 BC, history older than 3000 years are hard to measure. what I object is your stating that Hindu monotheism is only 2000 years old. 1000BC means 3000 years ago. Why focus only on that Rig Vedic hymn? Instead focus on the Shri Rudram, which is the most sacred prayer for Shaivites. Shri Rudram must have been chanted earlier than 1000 BC. Let's examine the historical city of Mohenjo-Daro.

"Mohenjo-daro (literally, "mound of the dead"), like Harappa, was a city of the Indus Valley civilization. It is somewhat better preserved than Harappa, and therefore an informative source on its parent civilization. It was probably built between four and five thousand years ago, and was abandoned around 3700 years ago, probably due to a change of course of the river which supported the civilization. It was rediscovered in the 1920s by archaeologists." from wikpedia.

Mohenjo-daro is at least 3700 years old and I have heard there were images of Rudra even then.

What you could say that documentary evidence states the concepts of monism and monotheism is at least 3000 years old but undocumentary evidence (the existence of Shri Rudram in the Yajur Veda, which was composed earlier than the Upanishads) and the fact that Benares or Varnasi ( the oldest pilgramage site in the world and shrine to Shiva) indicate such concepts existed considerably earlier, perhaps 4000 years or more. http://www.templenet.com/Ganga/varanasi.html

Don't get me wrong. The concepts of monotheism may have evolved in Judaism as well.

Elohim from wikpedia: "The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine, but the construction is usually singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective when referring to the Hebrew god, but reverts to its normal plural when used of heathen divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7). There are two theories as to why the word is plural:

In another view that is more common among both secular scholars and polytheists, the word's plurality reflects early Judaic polytheism. Originally meaning "the gods", or the "sons of El," the supreme being, the word may have been singularized by later monotheist priests who sought to replace worship of the many gods with their own patron god YHWH alone. "

Secondly, as for the Aryans being not present 4000 years ago, the Aryan invasion theory is increasingly being discredited. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_invasion#Theory_of_migration_rather_than_invasion

Again, why are you focusing on that Rig Vedic verse, Why not focus on Shri Rudram? How about the Gayatri mantra? They must have been chanted earlier.

What about Vishnu saharanama which is part of the Mahabharata and identifies Vishnu with the supreme Brahman. That's older than 3000 years.

The concluding verse from Vishnu sahasranama is telling:

"The Rishis (great sages), ancestors, the Devas, the great elements, in fact, all things moving and unmoving constituting this universe, have originated from Narayana." (i.e.,Vishnu). This verse, if proof was necessary, is enough show that the Devas are subordinate to Vishnu or God.

wikpedia states The Mahabharata is thought to have been derived from what was originally a much shorter work, called Jaya (Victory). While the dating of these is unclear, the events of the story may be reliably placed in Vedic India around 1400 BCE. Scholars have studied the astronomical activities described in the Mahabharata (like eclipses) and have claimed to have dated it to around 3100 BCE.

so the presence of Vishnu sahasranama in the Mahabharata suggests monotheism at least 3500 years old.

As for Saivism, it is properly monistic theism, and monotheism which are defined in the lexicon, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/m.html and see panentheism, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/p-q.html

so really monotheism as defined by the West does not apply to Hindu thought.

The world is only part of Shiva or Vishnu; i.e., God is more than the universe but at the same time is not separate from nature. In fact, Nature is part of him.

so monistic theism is within a subcategory of monotheism but is the not the same monotheism as defined by Semitic religions. I think sam or you should put such a statement.

The same concepts apply in Vaishnavism.

So I think monistic theism is the type of monotheism found in Hinduism, about 3500 years ago.

The typical semitic monotheism is generally not found in Hinduism, except for Dvaita, which emerged later, around 1200AD. so anyting that was 3500 years or older was monistic theism.

I have created a wikpedia article on monistic theism discussing this.

That's what I would conclude.

[[Raj2004]]

:I would avoid drawing the Aryan invasion and Harappan dispute into this ''historical section about the emergence of monotheism'' if '''at all''' possible. Western scholars widely agree that the Aryans arrived in Inda some 3000-4000 years ago, that the RV is some 3500 years old and the Vedanta about 2000-2500 years. Of course there are native POVs, and they should be respected. My figure of 2000 was referring to the Vedanta, my figure of 3000 to the ''early stages'' of ''emerging'' monotheism in the ''late'' RV. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 15:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, then I would conclude, a specific type of monotheism, i.e., monistic theism was in the Vedas about 3000-3500 years ago but undocumentary evidence (i.e., oral tradition, the existence of the Gayatri mantra and shri rudram, Benares, and evidence of Rudra images in Mohenjo-daro suggest a longer history, perhaps ranges from 4000-8000 years.(according to Himayalan academy which states that saivism is the world's oldest religion.

How about stating that?

[[Raj2004]]

:[[Mythology]]. Have a look at [[Sumerian king list]]: Do you seriously suggest we edit every historical article on WP for the fact that there is a sumerian POV that claims their kings have reigned some 500,000 years etc.? If we have not contemporary source, we can claim our ignorance. Sure, we can write: possibly, humanity was entirely monotheistic in 35,360 BC, but monotheism died out everywhere except in Harappa, so that to historians it looks as if monotheism was only "emerging" around 1000 BC. ;) sorry, no offense. let's just keep this section simple. If you like, we can phrase it like "historians believe" or something similarly weasly. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 16:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Dispute header ==

I can't say I'm perfectly satisfied, but I think the article is more than neutral enough to remove the dispute header. What say you, good sirs... (and theoretical madam's ;) 01:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==ToC==

why for His sake are all 'conceptions' subsections to 'unity or trinity' now? This is either a typo or a very silly edit. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 08:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:I actually had it a bit different, but two people now seem to think this version is better. Whosyourjudas, who reverted me when I changed it from the current, and sunborn, one of whose edit summaries is "other than that, I see nothing wrong with the TOC", I assume refering to whosyourjudas's revert. Since there appear to be two people agreeing w the current state of things, and two (you and I, I assume?) disagreeing w it, we have a complete lack of concensus. I'd just as soon wait awhile, esp. since whosyourjudas has other ideas which I pretty strongly disagree with(<small>Having #Theology have exactly one subhead (#Conceptions of God), which has exactly one subhead (#God as Unity or Trinity), which then has the other sections, is ugly and illogical. I suggest combining the first two into one section (e.g. #Theological conceptions of God or #Theology and conceptions of God) and dropping #God as Unity or Trinity entirely. This would look and read much more cleanly.</small>), including deleteing the whole "trinity vrs. unity" section. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::this is obviously not a pov dispute, but one of layout, and common sense. the subsections to "God as unity or trinity" are not about the question of unity vs. trinity ''at all''. what gives?? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] 18:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Well [[Be bold]] and fix it, if it irks you so ;) I just don't want to since I got reverted, and there doesn't seem to be much agreement w the way I had intended it to be. Whosyourjudas thought what I did was ugly :( [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::OK, I tried again. Thoughts? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 14:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Worship of Brahman ==

I understand that it is rare, but some do worship Brahman directly. Also, I disagree that ''most'' Hindu's worship Vishnu or Shiva. Do we have any cite on that? Finially, I think the [[Trimurti]] link is a good one. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Yes, we do. Sam Most adherents worship Vishnu or Shiva. http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_303.html (70% Vaishnavites); http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_71 Most schools of theology in Hinduism are based on worship of Vishnu or Shiva. Most Hindus believe that Vishnu or Shiva are the same; Shakti is the way to reach Shiva; and Ganesh and Murugan are simply differents aspects of Shiva or Devi. It is hard to measure this because most Hindus are willing to accept different forms of God. I would suspect that most are [[Smarta]] in belief.

As for Brahman, practically no one worships the abstract reality directly so as a practical matter, and as the theological schools correctly pointed out, Brahman should be visualized as a personal supreme Being.

[[Raj2004]]

::Oh, ok. I took it that people were worshipping [[Shakti]] and [[Ganesh]], etc... as their personal god, I take it this is not the case. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 14:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it's such a small percentage of the Hindu population. The eighteen puranas mainly glorify Shiva and Vishnu. Besides the three divisions, shaivism, vaishnavism, and saktism, there hasn't been any theological school devoted to Ganesh and Murugan.(Skanda) In Hinduism, generally, a major theological branch has a major philosophical schools. The [[Agamas]] are another major theological texts that is devoted to worship of Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti. No such text exists for Ganesh or Murugan. Even the worship of the Sun is also denoted as worship of Vishnu or Shiva. THe sun is called Surya [[Naryana]]]. Similarly, the same goes with Shiva. Hope this helps.

As for your quote, no one worships Brahman directly.

see this quote by Bansi Pandit: "This doctrine recognizes that the Ultimate Reality possesses infinite potential, power and intelligence, and therefore cannot be limited by a single name or form. Thus, Hindus view the Ultimate Reality as having two aspects: impersonal and personal (see Figure 1). The impersonal aspect of the Ultimate Reality is called Nirguna Brahman in Hindu scriptures. Nirguna Brahman has no attributes and, as such, is not an object of prayer, but of meditation and knowledge. This aspect of the Ultimate Reality is beyond conception, beyond reasoning and beyond thought" http://www.ikashmir.org/hindudharma/2.html

as for worshiping Brahman, the Gayatri mantra is probably the best way of praying to this impersonal Absolute directly if that is what you mean by worshipping Brahman.

[[Raj2004]]