Talk:Classical theism

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Philosophy of religion

Theology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Greek Philosophy

Irrelevent interpolation- "Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by Greek philosophy and focus on God in the abstract and metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile with the "near, caring, and compassionate" view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible.[3]"

The insertion of the above is an interpolation that appears to grant priority to the Bible, as though Greek Philosophy 'should' be reconciled with it. Whilst this is, or may be, an issue for Christian philosophers, it isnt an issue for Classical Theism per se. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Theism began with the Greek Philosophers and can be considered apart from Christian Theology which developed out of a synthesis of Classical Theism and Biblical theology. Therefore whilst it is correct to feature Christian considerations and developments as a part of Classical Theism, Classical Theism can be considered seperately and independently of Christian theology. This should be appropriately reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Issues

The second sentence is grammatically incorrect.--99.16.65.43 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About this Word "Omnibenevolent"

"Omnibenevolent" is not a word used by theologians of note. It is mainly used by atheists who wish to disprove God's existence. There are, in fact, no Bible verses to support the idea that God is "omnibenevolent" if that word means giving only good things, and never punishment or trouble. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God, but that is not tantamount to saying that God sends only good things. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&version=NIV

To my knowledge, there are no people in this rather artificial category "classical theists" who do not believe that God either leads us into temptation sometimes, allows us to have troubles, curses us, controls when we die, punishes us, or sends certain people to hell, perhaps forever. None of those things are benevolent, therefore God is not "omnibenevolent," according to the "classical theist." God is benevolent to all in giving them life on earth and the pleasures this life can bring, but that is different from always being benevolent. The word "omnibenevolent" does not appear in the Bible, in any language. God is omniscient, omnipotent, holy, righteous, and just. Any thought of God's goodness must be balanced by an understanding of God's justice. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm

Therefore, because there is no source given for the edit, and I believe it to be false, I am undoing the edit that recently added the word "omnibenevolent." Pammalamma (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher's view

The current texts says some of the views of Plantinga, Swinburne and Craig which not only lack reference, but also seems to be incorrect. For instance, I don't remember ever Plantinga being held as someone who rejects divine simplicity nor Craig rejecting God's timelesness (in this last case, he only rejects timelessness with the universe, but not without it). I'ld recommend a review.

Momergil (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Theism VS Open Theism

Much of this article appears to be a defense of Classical Theism against Open Theism. I would argue that justifying one position against another, without presenting the other, lacks intellectual integrity. The writer appears to have a very obvious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramulose (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classical theism new article

@Omnesadeosustentantur, I've noticed that you are interested in the classical theism topic as that you have edited the draft article at my userpage, I think you might also be interested at improving the main page as I've moved the draft here. —कृष्णकुलि^Krsnaquli || Contact - 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I'll be checking it if possible in future. Omnesadeosustentantur (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeticism

I did some reorganizing of the information under Traditions and it seems that the reference to Hermeticism may be irrelevant or original research. I didn't delete it, and instead put it under it's own "Ancient Egypt" heading. However, we need to find a source that describes Hermeticism as classically theist otherwise it should be deleted. Squidroot2 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Squidroot2: I've almost totally redone the article; it seems like at one time someone tried to shoehorn Hermeticism and some other stuff in based on their own or minority theories; the bulk of the sources stick to Classical philosophers, Neoplatonists, Christianity, Judaism and Islam; Hermeticism is more varied and therefore more dubious; but my understanding is that it uses more of an emanationist model, which would I think be incompatible with classical theism? A lot of the previously used sources seemed like they'd been found by web searching for 2 words or phrases on the same page, rather than selected as general mainstream sources for the topic. Skyerise (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise Hello, I am the writer of first edition of the contemporary Classical theism article. I added Vaishnavism and Hermeticism per their scriptures. While I do not have any reference other than original source for Hermeticism, we can indeed observe classification of Vaishnava traditions and scholars as classical theist especially at works of David Bentley Hart. For that, I believe Vaishnavism should be included in classical theism article. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 15:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krsnaquli: the issue is that we may not cite to scripture: we have to cite to secondary sources, and as far as I can tell, secondary sources do not use the term with respect to these traditions. If you can find reliable academic sources which include these traditions within their discussion of classical theism, then please point out these sources. Skyerise (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]