Talk:Holy Spirit/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit

The long lists of gifts listed under another another understanding don't say whoose understanding. It sounds suspiciouly evangelical, but I would be surprised if the lists were uniformly applicable acoss all such denominations. Also shouldn't there be a breakout for RC, Anglican/Episcopal, Mainline Protestsant etc.? (Abelian 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

Indeed. Except for the mention of Catholicism at the beginning, the section doesn't mention which branches of Christianity it is referrin to. Also, it provides no sources . And Direct Bible citations don't count as sources, we need 3rd party interpretations. Ashmoo (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a surprising amount of agreement between denominations about the Holy Spirit. The Fruit of the Holy Spirit are pretty widely recognised, and the gifts are generally reckoned as being diverse. In each case there are (partial) lists in scripture. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Spirit of the Lord (OT)

Shouldn't there be an OT background as well? Of course it should be noted that this is a christian not a jewish interpretation since Judaism rejects the notion of the Trinity. Examples are Samuel annointing David, 1 Samuel 15:13, the various references where a prophet is said to under the Spirit of the Lord. Also, the Holy Spirit is said to have spoken by the prophets, in the Nicene creed for example, so this was the view of the early Christian Fathers.

Other possible references are Exodus 13:21, 19:16-18, although this POV is shared by Trinitarian christian denominations. 2 Kings 2:9, Job 38:1 are possible also,as is Daniel 3:24-25. (Abelian 06:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

still confused

I've just read it, and I still don't understand how the HG is different from God (the father). No one has ever been able to offer a clear explanation, which is strange since it's such a key aspect of Christian theology and symbolism. The lead should provide this explanation of differences in a nutshell.

There's a logical glitch in the lead—later development doesn't necessary lead to less cohesive attitudes to it: that causality needs to be properly fleshed out.

There are MOS breaches all over.

Tony (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

These gifts can not be viewed as purely charismatic however.

Not sure what the intention of this sentence is. In the context is seemed to be saying that charismatic gifts cannot be viewed as charismatic.

It needs expansion and references or removal. Any thoughts ? johnmark† 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream Christianity"

I don't think "mainstream Christianity" is sufficient here. What constitutes the "mainstream" is not the same from place to place, and the lead is perfectly applicable to many churches that, in most parts of the world, cannot reasonably be called "mainstream". "Nicene Christianity" is more accurate, but may confuse the reader. Any other suggestions? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just drop the modifier? The discussion we just had on Christianity's talk page would support that move. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to try this and see what happens. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Minority Christians such as LDS and JWs don't seem to mind the term "mainstream Christianity".

Nicene Christianity is a perfectly good term, especially if it's Wiki'd. Being able to Wiki is one of the features that makes Wikipedia easy to use! If that term is offputting to beginners, an alternative is obviously, but...

Is "Trinitarian Christianity" an offensive term?--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to offset Trinitarian in parentheses. The reader can then infer either that the parenthetical statement is implicit to the term Christianity (without parentheses, it may be seen as a blunt tautology), or that it simply specifies which branch of Christianity is intended.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Answered

If anyone wants to know where the Christian template it is below the image.--Angel David (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy Spirit in Judaism

I would like to edit the segment on Holy Spirit in Judaism. I have never edited before, but I am knowledgeable on this subject, mainly because I am writing my doctoral dissertation on it (based on classic Rabbinic sources). The segment on Judaism in this article is brief and expresses the notion that Judaism has little to say on the subject. But actually, Rabbinic sources have numerous references to Ruah HaQodesh or the Holy Spirit, in three major ways: as a source of prophetic ability or divine inspiration, as a name for God (a kind of hypostasis or metonym for God), and as a midrashic representation of the voice of Scripture. It is indeed connected to the idea of Shekhinah, and sometimes interchanged with her: identified but not identical. I see that a basic rule of Wikipedia editing that one cannot publish original research. However, I could cite the Encyclopedia Judaica article and an oft-cited book, "The Immanence of God in Rabbinic Literature." I could also cite the pertinant primary sources. When my dissertation is published, maybe I would be allowed to add some of it? I would appreciate any guidance of how to format my contribution, because I think that the section on Holy Spirit in Judaism gives a falsely limiting impression.Wellsprings (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just add what you want to; citing secondary sources is encouraged. Your dissertation would likely be counted as a reliable source. Some citation of primary sources is ok, but it's generally best not to do a whole lot of it, becuase people end up looking at it and saying that you're interpreting the primaries however you want and that that's original research. Other than that, just be bold. What you add will likely be edited ruthlessly, but you can always discuss it in the talk page. Good luck on your dissertation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am am planning to go in and edit the section on Holy Spirit in Judaism, just making sure that I don't use it as an excuse to procrastinate on my dissertation rewrites.Wellsprings (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"I completely trashed the previous Incorrect input" -- March 2nd 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.70.61 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-trinitarianism

Non-trinitarianism is a tiny island off the mainland of Christianity, and it is not reasonable for this article to treat them as if they were both equally significant historically or theologically. This is the religious equivalent of a WP:FRINGE issue. This is an article about a core Christian doctrine, and accordingly should discuss mainstream views first, and then variances from those views; it is POV to propose that non-trinitarian understandings of the Holy Spirit are on equal ground. Tb (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Scriptures from the Bible needed in the first paragraph instead of views

The scriptures from the Bible need to be considered while putting the information in the frist paragraph of this article. The article talks about views most of the time. The first passage is also the views from a group in the christianity called 'trinitarian'. If the verses from the Bible are used to put together the fist paragraph of the article, the reader who might be new to the term Holy Spirit will not get to read the opinion of one of the groups (trinitarian). The bible never used the word trinity. (Please confirm in any version of the Bible.) If so, there is no point in stating the trinitarian views in the first paragraph of the article even if they are called as 'beliefs of the mainstream christianity'.

I would like to mark this article as not neutral. But, if most of the editors of this article are trinitarians, they are going to change my edits and force there views. So, marking this article as not neutral will not make any sense. If anybody is sensible enough to understand my views, they would help to make the first paragraph of the article real neutral. My defintion of neutral here is 'in exact words as in the Bible with references if required' and not some references from writings of any biased theological scholars. I believe, every christian in the world believes in the Bible and will not have any objection to the exact biblical words in the first paragraph of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.4.55 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly right that the Bible never uses the word "Trinity", but this is an encyclopedia, not a Bible Study lesson. The point is not about whether most editors are trinitarian, the point is that most Christians are trinitarian. Non-trinitarian views are a tiny minority, and the article is correct if it

1. mentions the views, and
2. makes clear that they are a minority view, and
3. doesn't treat them as of equal importance when they are not in the world out there.

Another way to think of this is that the article is not there to tell people "correct theology", it is there to describe the theologies that actual Christians happen to have, whether right or wrong. Since nearly all Christians are trinitarian, the article is right to present trinitarian views as the typical Christian views, and non-trinitarian views as the unusual variations from what is most common.

I understand you have a different understanding of neutral, but "in exact words as in the Bible with references if required" is not the Wikipedia standard. You can read what Wikipedia means by neutral at WP:NPOV.

All that said, I would invite you to see if there are ways of improving the section on non-trinitarian views. Tb (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaism

I removed some comments in the Judaism section about how God does not have a body and the Messiah is not God (because the Holy Spirit is not the Messiah and does not have a body, even in Christian doctrine). I would have thought there was room for more information regarding the Jewish concept of the Spirit of God. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that last sentence. It would need to be in a separate article with a brief summary here and a link, as with the case of Islam or Mandaeanism. Tb (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed Mandaeanism as it had no text in this article. Mandaeism is based more on a common heritage than on any set of religious creeds and doctrines. Apparently, no basic guide to its beliefs exists.--Trelawnie (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Judaism and the Holy Spirit

The article under Judaism and the Holy Spirit contains a common misrepresentation. "In Judaism the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical." Jesus is the messiah of the Jews according to himself and according to Christianity. The New Testament is a part of Judaism, just as Jesus does not renounce, but clarify what is Judaic doctrine. In conclusion, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, do form a trinity in Judaism. This is true despite the fact that many ethnic Jews deny Christ and that rabbinic Judaism has continued to progress. If the article just ignores the argument that the Old Testament testifies to the Holy Trinity, which is mainstream Christianity, then it is biased. Also, Isaiah 63:10,11 mention the term Ruah Ha-kodesh though the article mentions only Talmudic and midrashic sources. Also there are important references in other places to the "Spirit of God." --Asherdallas (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit did appear like a dove Matthew 3:16 Mark 1:10 Luke 3:22

But it also appeared tongues as of fire Acts 2:1-4--JoshuaMD (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

See Also section

Most of the entries in the See also section don't relate directly to the Holy Spirit, and the section is becoming a vague catch-all for subjects related to Christianity in general. Entries that don't have direct relevance to this article should be removed from the list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed so. Please count me as a vote for a 80% reduction. It is so long, it looks like the Long Island Expressway now. History2007 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit and Enoch

I would be looking for any type of scriptural/traditional relationship between Enoch and the Holy Spirit, if ever the two are found to be related in any way. For instance, the ancient Jews were said to venerate Enoch much like contemporary charismatic Christians worship the Holy Spirit. ADM (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That last is very unlikely. Christians today believe that the Holy Spirit is literally God. I'm pretty sure that ancient Jews never treated Enoch like that: it would have been a violation of the first commandment. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence however from ancient rabbinic sources that Jews worshipped Metatron/Enoch in ways that are close to what we call the Holy Spirit. For instance, Metatron is described as the divine Archangel, he would be one of the three super-Angels that appearin in Abraham's tent. Also, Metatron/Enoch also appears in parts of the New Testament, before Jesus gets arrested. ADM (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mis-translation

Isn't the "Holy Spirit" a textual mis-translation and a later theological addition and revision of the original, quaint and ancient imagery: "the breath of God?" Acts 2:2 "Suddenly from up in the sky there came a noise like a strong, driving wind which was heard all through the house where they were seated." New American Bible, 1970. If it is, shouldn't this be explained at the beginning of the Holy Spirit entry? So that the history of the later phrase "Holy Spirit" is given some sort of honest textual and historical explanation to the reader. Why are the words and meanings of the original ancient writer abused and changed by later (2nd or 3rd century?) theologians and not be openly examined in a 21st century scholarly encyclopedia? I am confused. Is the God of Christianity no longer residing in the sky? Kazuba (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article relates to religious beliefs about an entity that in all probability doesn't actually exist, and whose existence cannot be proven by any reliable means. The article can therefore only indicate what is believed about this particular entity. What was originally believed and what is currently believed should both be represented in the article, so long as all points are properly referenced from reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion of Jeffro77 that the article should remain as is, but not the reasoning used to arrive there. However, there is no point in starting an unending debate. So let me just point out that the word "exist" can be subject to debate for ever, as the term "in all probability" and similar concerns can be raised about a good number of elementary particles (specially newer ones) and subjects such as M Theory. But those issues are beside the point in this article, unless we all want to start to look for the M-theoretic dimensions to see if they "exist". History2007 (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual situation with the translation is that it's not that simple. The word translated "spirit" can mean "breath" (and sometimes is translated as such), but it can also mean "spirit" as we would think of it. Translation of words like this is difficult and has to be done from context. In the passage discussed "spirit" is chosen by the vast majority of translators.

What is certainly not true is that the word originally meant "breath" and was mistranslated into "spirit". If you look at the places where it is used you will find that the "spirit" has attributes that we would associate with "spirit" and not "breath". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly comment about "the breath of God" and the spirit's connection with wind are noticeably absent (for the most part) from the article. Feel free to contribute that! ... ... I don't think it needs introduce the article...

Regarding the supposed "mistranslation" of the original language words... Where ideas of "breath" and "wind" are explicit, most translations render the words that way (eg Job 4:9 KJV, "By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed." and Ps 33:6 KJV, "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.").

Interestingly, Jehovah's Witnesses understand "spirit" as 'that which is invisible but with visible effects'. The more you dabble with that definition, the more you realize it works amazingly well even in English, where spirits can be anything from morale to wind to colorless alcohol. More significantly, that definition fits the Bible usage in every instance.

"Spirit", Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 380, "The Hebrew word ru′ach and the Greek pneu′ma, which are often translated “spirit,” have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion."

More relevant, of course, is that the English word "spirit(s)" does an amazingly good job of retaining the connotation range of the original Hebrew and Greek words. As an article title, "spirit" gets my nod over "breath".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Obviously this page contains an abundance of bible references. Is it worth the effort , I wonder, to re-work these scripture so they links to Wikisource, which has access to a significant number of different bible translations (and also to plug that region of wikidom)?

Trinity navigation box

I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Trinity. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Please feel free to make any comments you see fit on any of the other templates on that page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I removed that "Christ" is a term used for the Holy Spirit. Christ is simply the Latinisation of Messiah, which is a title usually given to Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. Christ is only used for the Holy Spirit in dualistic theology, where the human Jesus supposedly has the divine "Christ" added to him. Less than 1% of Christians hold to this view.

I also added the Trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit (a view held by 98% of Christians) at the start of the lead. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit and kundalini

I have read some people had made links between the two notions/beliefs. The article should maybe look into that. ADM (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs that the Holy Spirit is male

The article should maybe allow a space for those who believe that the Holy Spirit is specifically male, as well as those who don't. One argument in favour of this is that Mary is sometimes called the spouse of the Holy Spirit. This would mean that the Holy Spirit is male, since he is described as Mary's divine husband. [1] ADM (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference you provide is one guy's blog, and so not a reliable source. The number of people who believe that the HS is specifically and exclusively male is very small (after all, he is a spirit!). If you can find a reference to support the idea that a significant number of people hold to this view then you can add something. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it really matter if its a male or female, as long as your filled with it then it shouldn't matter. Mary is not now nor will ever be the spouse of the Holy Ghost Ryngleighdar (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For Ryngleighdar. Yes, Mary IS called the "Spouse Of the Holy Spirit," because Mary Conceived the Son Of God By the Holy Spirit, according to both the Gospels of Sts. Matthew & Luke. --174.91.80.32 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed unexplained tag

I removed a number of tags which were added without explanation. I could not determine what specially was being complained about - for example it said the article 'lacked references', while in fact the article has many references. If someone wants to put this back I have no problem, but you have to say on this page what things aren't referenced, for example.DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The tags are pretty self-explanatory with even a brief review of the article. The vast majority of the article is lacking citation to reliable sources. There is heavy direct referencing to Biblical texts, but very little referencing to modern reliable experts (primary sources tag). The text is filled with editorial observations unsupported by reliable sources and other assertions are based on unreferenced interpretation of Bible references (original research tag). Facts are juxtaposed to present conclusions that are not cited to reliable sources (synthesis tag). The article needs immense work, likely requiring a near-complete tear down and rewrite based on modern reliable sources. --Vassyana (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana you are being over-critical here. By comparison with other Wikipedia articles this one is a model of good referencing. Excluding the direct Biblical references there are still more than twenty references, more than many larger articles. Maybe you could list the 'synthesis' and 'editorial observations'? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would in no way refer to this article as "a model of good referencing", even by comparison. Again, the vast majority of the article is unreferenced. Touching on the non-Bible citations: It cites a news piece about education curriculum that doesn't support the accompanying article text regarding the "spirit" v. "ghost" terminology. There are four citations to the Branch Davidian association website (supporting the same good-sized block of material), which absent outside sources is questionable amount of weight to a very tiny minority. There are four citations to Geocities websites, which are certainly not reliable sources. The citation to the Quartz School supports an editorial observation, not a reporting of what the source states. The Christadelphian reference is self-published and hardly a reliable source. The Jehovah's Witness reference supports a broad editorial observation about typical usage that is not stated by the source. There's an unclear citation to Early Christian Writings, which regardless supports an explicit editorial observation. The Baha'i references are reliable, support the text, and compromise a single concise paragraph. Thus, it is among the least concerning portion of the article, though it still leaves room to question the proper weighting of the section due to lack of independent sourcing. The Islam citations do not support the article text as written (which appears to be a compromise between the two sources with some editorial observation) and one of them is a source over a century old (in an academic field where the conventional wisdom has changed drastically in that time). The Judaism references are decent, but as with the Baha'i section, the proper weighting remains questionable in the absence of independent sources. As a further example of the deep problems that plague this article, the "Mainstream Christianity" is entirely editorial opinion and the "Catholic opinion of Unitarian Holy Spirit" section uses a 4th century church father to illustrate the views of modern mainstream Christianity and Catholicism. --Vassyana (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I've got into the habit of not expecting much from Wikipedia references. I would maintain that there are plenty worse. Anyway, since it could do with improvement, let's let the tag stand. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Church of God

I removed a specific section on the Church of God beliefs because they agree in every way with the remainder of Protestantism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pentecostalism

I put the sentence on Penticostalism in the lead deliberately. Pentecostalism has been a significant movement within Christianity, and has a huge focus on the Holy Spirit. I think it deserves a mention, as it may well be one of the things people are coming to find out about. It is certainly more deserving of a mention in the lead then it being "the last piece of Trinitarian theology to be fully explored and developed", which is pretty obscure. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant. See Talk:Holy_Spirit#Holy_Spirit_in_Pentecostalism--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why was the capitalization changed in one section but not in another? It's not Wikipedia policy to change the way we write about a subject just because a particular group happens to write it differently. We don't write Mohammed (pbuh) in articles about Islam, and we shouldn't change the way we capitalize Holy Spirit just because the JWs do it differently. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An article or statement about Mohammed is about a particular individual, but this article is about different views of a biblical subject, so the two ideas aren't directly comparable. When a label can function as both a proper noun (as a term of address for a member of the Trinity), or not (as used by JWs), it would seem appropriate to use the form according to the context of the section. See also Fairy godmother#In fiction for contrasting examples of capitalized and uncapitalized use of a term in an article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit is a proper noun, whether it refers to a person or not. If it were talking about a holy spirit rather than the Holy Spirit it would be correct not to capitlaize. But that is not the case - the JW usage is deliberately grammatically incorrect to make a point. We don't bow to idiosyntractic grammatical usages - for example we don't capitalize pronouns when they refer to God in Christian articles, even though Christians do that. (Incidentally, I have no idea what the Fairy Godmother article relevance is). DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion about articles (the or a) has no direct bearing as to capitalization - if we were talking about a sun or the sun (for example), the term doesn't need to be capitalized regardless. The original text from which the term is derived does not contain upper and lower case characters. Capitalization of pronouns is not relevant in this discussion. (If you can't discern the difference in capitalization in the first paragraph of the section of the other article cited, I can't help you.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly sun turns out to be a good parallel. When writing about suns in general the term is usually lowercase. But when writing about our particular sun (the Sun) it is generally capitalized. It isn't the article used that makes the difference but the subject. See [2] as an example. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I try to suppress laughter, I have to note my disagreement with the assertion that "when writing about our particular sun (the Sun) it is generally capitalized". That's simply not true.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there more than one "mediator" between God and men? Why isn't that term capitalized?--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks as though you may be trying to set theological traps here. But to answer your question, mediator is not a proper noun. In Christianity there is only one mediator between God and man, but that doesn't mean you capitalize the word. Maybe the best parallel is the word president; it is capitalized when it specifically refers to the President of the United States; if it isn't capitalized it might refer to the president of any organization. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

To further that example, an article on President might (and does) refer to a person who does not customarily use the term as a title preceding his name, such as a corporate president. Would what is customarily done for governmental presidents be insisted upon? Even in discussions unique to a single corporation, do reports state that "the President said this and so", or "the president said this and so"?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We're in danger of getting off topic here. president is a descriptor and admits of the existence of many presidents. President is a title. The simple thing is that the lowercase is when the words is not used as a proper noun, when it is one among many; the uppercase is when it is used as a proper noun. To use holy spirit not as a proper noun implies that it is one among many holy spirits. Notice that other unitarian denominations do use capitals, even though their beliefs are pretty much the same as JWs [3]. Now the JWs are welcome to capitalize things in their own literature any way they see fit, but Wikipedia does not follow their usage just because we're writing about them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

By whom did the President analogy enter this thread? Didn't someone recently (earlier today?) write, "Maybe the best parallel is the word president" [original italics retained]?

It seems clear that JWs don't force others to write "holy spirit" in all minuscules. It seems intolerant of others to suggest the term "Holy Spirit" can ONLY be written with initial majuscules. The complainant's own analogy exposes his faulty reasoning, and it is the mark of intellectual dishonesty that the analogy's ramifications are now being dismissed.

Just as the complainant's "President" may be different from the "president" of others, so too the complainant's "Holy Spirit" seems different from the "holy spirit" of others.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never suggested that anyone force the use of 'majuscules' on anyone. However it is Wikipedia policy that naming be consistent, especially consistent throughout an article. Therefore we should use initial caps everywhere or nowhere. Up until very recently the name was in initial caps everywhere - you were the person who changed that, using lowercase in the section on JWs. Why did you do that, if it wasn't about JW policy on capitalization? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Going ahead and changing the capitalizations in the section at issue certain seems like "forcing".

It is not a trivial thing to ignore on ongoing Talk topic in which one is involved, and go ahead and do whatever one wants even if not a single other editor agrees. See Holy_Spirit#Jehovah.27s_Witness_views.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also not a trivial thing to go ahead and make changes that appear to be altering Wikipedia to conform to the usage preferred by a particular religious group. I noticed that you seemed to have stopped discussing this point, even though you were discussing other points. So let's go back to the discussion, since you are here again. Why do you think the capitalization in the section on Jehovah's Witnesses should be different from how it is in the rest of the article? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My change (uncapitalizing "holy spirit" only regarding JWs) was intended to more-accurately discuss the section's topic using terminology actually used by the group being discussed. To use terms they avoid would wrongly imply that they embrace the term(s). No other sections were edited.

Furthermore, my change did not flout 'consensus' and the spirit of Talk.

My change was indeed 'trivial' by comparison with that of DJ Clayworth.

Unless/until there is consensus to change what is there now, it should remain.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy to alter the usage of terms to reflect a religious group's preferences. This has been discussed many times elsewhere. If the group doesn't accept the usage of the term then that can be explained in the text. I don't see a 'consensus' here, I just see you trying to change things to suit the beliefs of a religious group. (and since 'my change' was to undo your change, I fail to see how mine is less 'trivial' than yours.) DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization II

Wikipedia, much as it might seem is not a place for each group to publish their own veiws on whatever subject. It is a place where everyone together publishes every notable view according to Wikipedia guidlines of professionalism and a NPOV. As such no one owns their own articles or section. We do not get to write it the any way we want. And professionalism in an encyclopedia (rather than a bulletin board) dictates that things like capitalization of the same thing stays the same throghout the same article (at least). If you want want to say it is POV to capitalize HS in the article at all, I would disagree but at least such a change could be a consitent use of capitalization.

For example, Orthodox Jews do not spell out the "God" or "Lord," even on their own web pages since someone could print out the Web page and mistreat the document. Yet the Wikipedia articles related to Orthodox Judaism do not spell God as "G-d" because Orthodox Judaism does not own the articles. --Carlaude ^(talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion (implied suggestion)...

Checking references for rules on capitalizing. Have you pro-majuscule advocates done that in this case?

If you check a reference work about rules for capitalization, it'll say that the name or title of a Deity should be capitalized. Insisting that "Holy Spirit" must be capitalized is, therefore, indeed a nonneutral POV, since it insists that the Holy Spirit is a Deity.

It seems rather obvious that when the writer intends the Deity "Holy Spirit", he should capitalize the term.

It seems equally obvious that when the writer intends something other than the Deity, he should NOT capitalize the term "holy spirit".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The names of non-deities are also capitalized. The names of some non-persons are capitalized, e.g. The Bible. (Orginally is was just a word for books.) Some capitalization is just done by convention; things is capitalized becaused they are always capitalized. As such, the Holy Spirit can be capitalized without the need to equate it to indicating deity-status. --Carlaude ^(talk) 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd submit that the term is NOT "always capitalized". Are you saying that if a secular reference work can be found which doesn't insist on capitalizing "holy spirit", than the term need not be capitalized when it is pointedly NOT referring to the Deity? I'd agree to that; in fact, the opposite idea would plainly reek of non-neutrality. Wouldn't it?

Incidentally, could we be more careful to jog our comments over? Some tend to align theirs with the comments above, which makes it harder to follow the thread.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am saying the article should be all one way or the other and there is no reason to make it all unncapitalized just because

1. some consider the the HS not a deity / not a person, and
2. if the HS is or was a deity we would capitalize it— if we were not doing so already, and
3. we are seeking to be NPOV, and
4. you think— it would seem— this means we have to indicate its deity-status as either yes or no.

Just because deities are capitalized does not make all capitalized things deities.

The capitalizing status of HS in reference works could only matter if the overwelming majority of general reference works used one capitalizing status and we were already using the other. --Carlaude ^(talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So Judaism considers the Holy Spirit, not a deity, nor a divine person, but they do capitalize Ruach HaKodesh, which they use for it.

Again Islam considers the Holy Spirit, not a deity, nor a divine person, but they do capitalize Ruhul Qudus and Gabriel, their names for it.--Carlaude ^(talk) 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlaude is precisely correct here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) writes...

Incidentally, could we be more careful to jog our comments over? Some tend to shift left instead of right, or align theirs with the comments above; either makes it harder to follow the thread.

Someone above suggests that capitalization for the term "Holy Spirit" must be consistent throughout the article. I'd submit that's true to discourage arbitrary mixing of capitalizations, but not for an exception included specifically to make explicit comparisons of various forms.

Has anyone suggested that "Holy Spirit" should never be capitalized? I don't recall that suggestion.

Has anyone suggested there is "reason to make it all unncapitalized [sic]"? I don't recall that suggestion, either.

Some claim that Judaism insists on capitalizing "Holy Spirit". No! English-speaking Jews routinely write "holy spirit" uncapitalized. It would be straightforward to find a hundred examples of that from scholarly works of Judaism.

Islam teaches that Gabriel of the Gospels is a quasi-angel also known as "the Holy Spirit". While Islamic theology is somewhat off-topic, it seems disingenuous to pretend that "the Holy Spirit" is not a named divine figure in Islam.

What seems best is to acknowledge that "the Holy Spirit" is a figure to some but not to others. If the figure is being referred to, then capitalize. If the reference is something other than a figure, then there is no need to capitalize, although some may choose to.

Consider the example of "nature"...

What does nature teach us? is a perfectly acceptable sentence.

What does Nature teach us? is also a perfectly acceptable sentence.

It must be admitted that the sentences convey slightly different ideas. An atheist who had written the first sentence, for example, might well object if theists insisted on capitalizing his instance of "nature". Their insistence would constitute a nonneutral POV.

Those who insist upon intra-article capitalization-consistency might prefer the article on Holy Spirit to be split into "Holy Spirit (person)" and "Holy spirit (thing)". Thoughts?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, you are welcome to continue the debate here. However please do not modify the article to suit your particular beliefs in the face of what is clearly a majority view.

It is clearly Wikipedia policy that capitalization be consistent throughout an article. It is clearly Wikipedia policy that we do not change usage of a term to reflect a religious practice.

The use of Holy Spirit with initial capitalisation does not imply acceptance of either personification or deity. Plenty of things that are neither personal nor divine are capitalised.

Here is a source where Jews refer to the Holy Spirit capitalised. (No-one said they insisted on it, merely that many of them did.) Here is a reference where an atheist capitalises Holy Spirit. You can look for, and probably find, cases where it is not the case, but overall capitalisation is clearly the norm.

If you want to split the article in two then feel free to try to get a consensus for this. However I would strongly oppose it because there is, in my opinion, not enough material to warrant a separate article. The only motivation for it would be your desire to avoid writing Holy Spirit with capitals. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

After a lot of thought I agree with Carlude and DJ; the article should treat the capitalization the same throughout the article. Doing so does not take away from what the JWs teach or believe. More importantly, this equal treatment does not demonstrate any disrespect to the beliefs of the JWs. Please do not pursue this further unless a specific policy can be brought forward and consensus is reached to do otherwise. We have more important things going on currently; let's focus on those.--^StormRider 19:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

After consideration of the above, particularly with regard to use of 'G-d' etc, I'm happy to go with capitalized HS consistently in the article. JW section mentions that they don't capitalize the term themselves so that'll do.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-Trinitarian Views

There are several sections describing various non-trinitarian views (JW, Oneness, Unity...) which really don't differ much from each other. Would it make more sense to describe the "power of God" view point once and then mention which churches subscribe to it? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

While nontrinitarianism includes what you call "power of God" theology, the two aren't synonymous.

The Oneness concept is quite different from "impersonal power". So-called Unitarianism has too many branches to be put in a "yes/no" box. Mormons actually believe the Holy Ghost is a person, which seems the opposite of "impersonal".

You could try to create an umbrella as you describe, but it might suffer 'death by edit' until it's finally split back up.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two common non-trinitarian views: namely a) that the Holy Spirit is a separate being from the Father and the Son and b) that the Holy Spirit is the impersonal 'power of God'. Those two actually cover most of the beliefs, and the variations within it are minor. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that those two supposedly "common nontrinitarian views" aren't as common as you suppose. Mormons believe the HS is personal, Oneness folks believe the HS is not separate from Father and Son.

To repeat myself, you could try to create an umbrella as you describe, but it might suffer 'death by edit' until it's finally split back up.

Incidentally, could we be more careful to jog our comments over? Some tend to align theirs with the comments above, which makes it harder to follow the thread.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To repeat myself, there are two common non-trinitarian views. The Mormons fall into a), the Oneness into b). Please read comments before replying. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, could we be more careful to jog our comments over? Some tend to align theirs with the comments above, which makes it harder to follow the thread.

Are you saying your proposal is easier/better, that is, easier/better than simply giving each nontrinitarian faith a section as is done now? The article has four major nontrinitarian denominations now, plus Christadelphianism (significantly smaller number of adherents than other four). Presenting each of your two supposed "common" nontrinitarian beliefs with its dichotomous opposite would be (two times two)...four discussion topics.

What is it you want? You've already been welcomed to try to do as you describe, but warned it might suffer 'death by edit' until it's finally split back up.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine, as long as the subsections don't get too long. It should summarize the main points and link to more specific articles on those topics. Ltwin (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In reality there are only a few different concepts in the of doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit. I can support DJ's proposal, but would actually implement across the entire article. For example, explain the Trinitarian beliefs and the groups that support it and then follow suit with the positions of smaller groups. In both the Catholic and LDS sections we currently have a lot of biblical verses to support their positions; these could all probably be deleted. What is needed is just quotes/summaries of reliable sources. Question: what on earth do we have a rather large section on the Branch Davidians? They number a few thousand and yet that group seems to have an inordinate amount of information; it seems out of balance. Pentecostals have a rather orthdox view of the Holy Spirit; their focus is not on the Holy Spirit per se, but the gifts of the Spirit; which is different from the topic of this article. --^StormRider 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be a presentation of Non-Trinitarian views, but not the arguments for Non-Trinitarian views. There are too many views and their views can be argued for elsewhere.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlaude, you make an excellent point. I would be happy to make an attempt. There are of course problems. One is that to combine the views I'll need to find a scholarly work that talk about the synthesis as a reference. That won't be easy. Finding a reference for the individual views is of course easy, but each denomination will preach its distinctiveness. I'll have a go at trimming the 'support' sections too.

Would you also mind commenting on the section above, where AuthorityTam requests that the words "holy spirit" not be capitalized in the Jehovah's Witness section, on the grounds that JWs don't capitalise. I've explained that Wikipedia policy doesn't do that, but he's not buying it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that most groups could have there own section/paragraph/sencence (depending on the need) but the groups could just be by similarity of belef on the subject. --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree the Biblical quotes could easily be removed and replaced with a link to another sight displaying the quote in full, like this: Matthew 1:1. I can also reasonably see that it might be best to break up the entire article by theological positions, and then including in the sections on each position a sentence or so detailing that group's specific thinking regarding the matter. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Scriptures are open to interpretation; for that reason I do not support citing a scripture unless it is crystal clear and without possibility for an alternative interpretation. DJ, is it your objectiive to group all groups by concept of belief or just group the nontrinitarians? If so, I strongly reject that action. I don't think we need to find sources that support grouping, but rather individuals sources that demonstrate a unity of belief. All Trinitarians share a unity of belief regarding the Holy Spirit and they all can be grouped together. The major theological trends in the smaller groups could then be covered and the fringe concepts ignored. Are we on the same page? --^StormRider 21:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that we shouldn't use scripture as sourcing I think that showing what scriptures a particular group bases its beliefs on are fine as long as its made clear that it is thier interpretation and there is a source which says they believe it. Ltwin (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to see all groups grouped by belief, though I don't pretend I'm going to have time to actually do it. As I understand it there isn't a lot of difference between the mainstream denominations, with the exception of beliefs about the gifts. In my opinion the section about Catholicism would do pretty well as an overall summary, but I don't have a reference to show that is the case. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A rewrite, with references, is underway. I'm starting with the overall views,applicable to all mainstream denominations, which are easier to find references for. Please be patient. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do include the Unitarians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The views of the Unitarians will certainly be included in the general description of non-Trinitarian vews. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism and Unity Church are sometimes confused because of the similarity of the names. Many beliefs are held in common, including the importance of individual freedom in the quest for Truth. This very freedom, however, makes it difficult to determine the basic differences. In a very general way, it might be said that the two differ mainly in their beliefs regarding Jesus Christ. Unity Church is Christian. Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal religion, which means it encompasses people with many different beliefs and from many different faith traditions. --Trelawnie (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a rewrite with a longer Trinitarian intro instead of such a long Roman Cathlic section is badly needed and will be a big improvement.--Carlaude ^(talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is my intention to merge the RC section into a larger more general section, especially the symbols which are more general than that. However it will take a little time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do with the long "Catholic opinion of the Unitarian Holy Spirit" section. It's basicly one long explanation of why Catholics think the Unitarian position is wrong. I'm not sure if anything useful can be salvaged from it. Should I just delete it? DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. It is a bit confusing to me. It pops up from nowhere to make a rebuttal to an issue that has not been specifically claimed. It may belong elsewhere, but this is not the place for such a discussion.

On a side note, I added some references; the second one resulted from a search of the LDS website. It provides a wealth of relevent information and instead of choosing I just use the link. It was a lazy decision I know and the reference should probably be much more focused. I will get to it. --^StormRider 19:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good additions. The second paragraph of the LDS section may also require cleanup - I interpreted it as a reiteration of the statement you removed from Holy Ghost, and if that's not true it may need to be fixed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In an earlier version of the article, "Catholic opinion of the Unitarian Holy Spirit" was a section in the Unitarian area of the article, which seemed to add undue weight to Catholic views where they obviously didn't belong. The section is certainly better placed in the Catholic section, but I wouldn't complain if the section were deleted altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlaude, you added a specific sentence on Nontrinitarianism into the intro. May I remind you that Nontrinitarians represent about 2% of Christianity. When I tried to add a sentence about Pentecostalism (which represents a much higher percentage of Christians, and is directly relevant to the Holy Spirit) I was criticised for "Promotionalism". Putting a minority view in the intro is Wikipedia:Undue weight. I have no objection to the existing section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight is not a basis for entirely eliminating discussion about the issue. It's just a basis for reducing its prominence. I believe the intro should at least mention nontrinitarian views, or define Holy Spirit in a way that includes both Trinitarian and nontrinitarian views, and then discuss the Trinitarian perspective specifically (which is what the current version, as of now, almost does). The introduciton should be a summary of all the main topics presented in the article. There are a lot of topics in this article (e.g., gifts of the spirit, etc.), and the intro really needs to be filled out. COGDEN 18:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about eliminating discussion - I have welcomed sections on nonTrinitarian views in the main articles. But does a 2% minority really deserve equal time here? The into is only four sentences (one of which is about the history of pneumatology, and should really be got rid of) Think of all the other articles you would have to put things into the intro of if 2% merited a mention. Are there any 2% minorities in groups you belong to who you think should get equal time in the intro to the subject? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Filioque

I believe most Protestants also subscribe to Filioque. They certainly use the Filioque form of the Creeds, and the reference is from a Protestant publication. Therefore we should note the exceptional case of the Orthodox, who don't subscribe to it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything on the talk page why my reasoning above is incorrect. However the wording has been changed. While not all Protestants make use of the Nicene Creed, those that do follow the Western form, in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Thus two out of the three main divisions of Christianity use it. (The remaining Protestants don't make the proceeding definition a matter of doctrine anyway, so don't fall within either camp). DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can find a reference for you of Protestants that object to the Filioque but I think— in reallity— even Protestants that use the Filioque do not make the proceeding definition a matter of doctrine anyway. In fact most do not even know there is any other version. That would make it one of the three main divisions of Christianity hold to Filioque, one does not, and one does not hold a view or even talk about it.--Carlaude ^(talk) 05:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most Protestants don't make proceeding a matter of doctrine, but a good number do. I went looking for which ones take the Nicene Creed as doctrine. Anglicans do from extensive personal experience - I'll let people find their own references ; Lutherans do [4]; URC do [5]. I'm pretty certain that the Baptists and Mennonites don't. All of those that quote the Nicene Creed quote the Western version.

Maybe we can be more specific. I'll put another suggested version in the article - see what you think. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews Welcome

I've done enough rewriting to welcome input from others. The main focus has been to add references to back up the correct things written, and remove the things that are not referenced. I've taken pains to keep statements of what groups believe, leaving out the statements of why they believe them, which become arguments. I haven't worked on:

• Pentecostalism
• Oneness Pentecostalism
• Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

I guess one thing to comment is is how many of the notices at the top of the article can we remove? DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the first 2 items, I think the "Pentecostalism" and "Oneness Pentecostalism" should have similar amounts of text as the other mentioned denominations for NPOV; thus I copyedited "Oneness Pentecostalism". As for the last item, I merged "Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit" with the "Doctrine" section; it seemed out of place all by itself as a short section. --Trelawnie (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles

User:ADM wrote:"I don't think it would be a bad idea to have an entry on gender of the Holy Spirit or religious views on the Holy Spirit. The first one is about a modern theological debate, while the second one is a useful article on comparative religion." I don't disagree with this in principle, but in actual practice we don't have enough information to make either one worthwhile yet. The total referenced information on Gender and the Holy spirit is about a paragraph (and it's a very minor topic).

Some information on different beliefs about the Spirit needs to be in this article; I don't think what we have here is too much, and since we don't have additional information it makes no sense to make a whole new article. What I would suggest is that if you can find more well-referenced information about the differences between views of the HS, and add it in, and if that makes the section too large then we can split it out into a new article. We should retain a summary even if we split it though. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it does give too much prominence to fairly small groups like Non-Trinitarian and Pentecostal sects. And while it is maybe okay to mention other religions like Judaism, Islam or Rastafarianism, their views are very similar to the non-Trinitarian groups that are not accepted within mainstream Trinitarian Christianity. The Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant Church should get the most space because it has 99 % of all Christian believers. ADM (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how moving the contents to a different article would fix any of the issues you mention. If you think the contents is badly weighted I suggest you discuss it here, and we'll see if we can improve it here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a category:Jesus, which contains several articles on Christ. In the same way that there is an entire series of articles on Jesus, there should also be one on the Holy Spirit. In fact, the entry religious views on the Holy Spirit that I had created was based on the article religious perspectives on Jesus. According to the shield of the Trinity, both are substantially one with the Father and are equally divine ; therefore they should get similar coverage in terms of writing. ADM (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"should" and "is" are different things. The article on Jesus is huge, and it's entirely appropriate to split it up. This article is small by comparison. If we can find enough well-referenced things to write about the Holy Spirit so this article gets to be a similar size, I will certainly support splitting it. In the meantime I think focussing on the content will be much more productive. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You say you want to improve the article, but I think you are cutting it up, when I look at the difference in edits. [6] ADM (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

DJ is at the front end of the rewrite process and has basically laid out the bones to flesh out. He has been quite clear that he is seeking assistance in doing that. You may want to withhold final judgment until consensus feels the article is further along and closer to being "finished". --^StormRider 16:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ADM's suggestion, assuming that we leave a sufficient summary in this article. There ought to be a Religious perspectives on the Holy Spirit article which would focus on the divergent views, and include both nontrinitarian and non-Christian views. This article should focus on the Trinitarian view, and summarize the other views in enough detail (doesn't have to be that much) that the reader knows the main issues of divergence. However, to avoid confusion and maintain WP:NPOV, this article should always make it clear, at least from the context, that it is referring to the Trinitarian view, and avoid endorsing Trinitarianism or assuming that it is the only view. COGDEN 18:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be enough information to warrant an article on gender of the holy spirit, which should be covered in this article, maybe with a link to Gender of God#Christianity.

If Religious perspectives on the Holy Spirit is recreated, I recommend a different title - maybe something like 'Denominational...' or 'Comparitive...' rather than 'Religious...'. All perspectives of the Holy Spirit are religious. Unlike the concept of 'god' which has broader philosophical implications, or Jesus, who is generally accepted at least as a historical figure, the holy spirit has no context outside of religious belief.

There does not need to be an entire category on the holy spirit merely because there is a category for Jesus, and the basis for doing so seems to be merely that both are members of the trinity. The basis for having a category is that there is sufficient information about the holy spirit, not a theological belief that it is "equally divine".

I agree with DJ Clayworth that "Some information on different beliefs" should be presented; however, groups that have essentially the same view as others don't necessarily need their own section. For example, the JW section has a lengthy quote from a source (requoted in one of their own publications) that would apply to any non-trinitarian view of the holy spirit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Nontrinitarian conceptions of the Holy Spirit. That would include nontrinitarian (and early "heretical") Christianity and non-Christianity. These conceptions of the Holy Spirit in this new article would not just be a list of denominations and what they believe. Rather, it would be organized topically. For example, there woudld be sections like (1) Holy Spirit as a force, (2) Holy Spirit as a distinct being, (3) Holy Spirit as a modalist manifestation of the One God. COGDEN 00:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Paraclete

Carlaude: Sorry about the seealso:Paraclete. I figured it wasn't necessary as several links to Paraclete are made in the article, where it talks about the Holy Spirit's function. Paraclete is only one part of the Spirit's role, and I thought it would make sense to link there from where it was discussed. Do you think it should be linked from the main doctrine section? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As Paraclete is a parallel article, I think it should be in a WP:Hatnote somewhere, and yes the "main" section is better but my effort is more to have it list in a Hatnote somewhere— and not just in (the one place I can see in) the text. --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy vs. Spirit

Some theological writers have argued that the principal characteristic of the Holy Spirit is not that he is a Spirit, but rather that he is Holy, as in divine, such as in the Sanctus or the Trisagion. It would interesting if we could find sources on this and include in the article. ADM (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The general view is that the key characteristic of the Holy Spirit is he is both holy (divine) and spirit. Other things are holy (the Father and the Son) and other things are spirit. Only he is both. We should have to show that a view of one characteristic being more important than another is a significant viewpoint. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Symbols

The "Symbols of the Holy Spirit" are actually about doctrine, not depiction, although the section didn't make that clear. I'm going to move it back into the doctrine section - feel free to disagree. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Symbols of the Holy Spirit" section is about both doctrine AND depiction. However, the Doctrine section is overly long (with all the denominational differences), so I moved Symbols closer to the Art section so that the Art section could be better viewed as religious in nature. --Trelawnie (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Welling up in us"

The Water sub-heading under "Symbols of the Holy Spirit" refers to, "living water...welling up in us to eternal life." The third person plural pronoun is inappropriate here unless the passage is a direct quote from another text. It should be replaced with "Christians" or another specific term explaining who experiences this welling up. Vanwaffle (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct (though I think you mean first person plural (us) rather than third person plural (them). You can change this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Image placement

Placement of the very relevant artwork images obscures the text and makes the text hard to read due to random text alignment. Does anyone have any ideas how to make this better? I was thinking of creating a gallery of images.
--Trelawnie (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Holy Ghost

If we who are the created have such knowledge enough to know the Creator so intimately as to determine His person. Then how is it that we are so confused about how is Spirit moves among us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.59.131 (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article only. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues Tag

I believe that this article has improved to the point where the issues tag is no longer necessary. Does anyone have any disagreements? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Protestantism

I just replaced a statement that Protestant denominations mostly concur with Catholicism. This is certainly true, as an examination of the "Christian doctrine" section shows, since all the statements there apply to both Catholic and Protestant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where you studied theology, but most Protestant denominations disagree that the Holy Spirit works through their church. Wesley, for example, founded the Methodist Church while still a member of the Church of England. I am not sure what church he looked to or guidance of the Holy Spirit. Belief in the Holy Spirit as the third Person of the Godhead may be in agreement with Catholcsm, but the Reformation promoted the notion that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is directly to the believer, and not through a church or denomination. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that difference is stated in the very next sentence, as the main difference between Protestant and Catholic pneumatology. However apart from that one difference, there is a huge amount of common ground. Most of the Christian Doctrine section applies to both Catholic and Protestant, including conviction of sin, inspiration of the scriptures, etc. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some references to Protestants who believe that the Holy Spirit works through the church. "Most holding to the pre-trib position believe that 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 refers to the restraining ministry of the Holy Spirit through the agency of the Church"; [7] [8] Christ’s ministry is prophetic, priestly and kingly and by the Holy Spirit is continued through the Church "The [...] Lord gives his holy spirit through means of grace. In this way he continues his ministry in and through the church; "The Spirit works actively in and through the church". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This one difference is more than enough to eliminate that comparative statement, which is essentially not factual. This single distinction goes to the core of Protestant belief, and was one of the principles of the Reformation. Further, it is totally irrelevant to draw comparisons in this section. What Catholics believe is one section, and what Protestants believe is another. To compare them or contrast them is neither necessary nor encyclopedic. Please do not change this section again until a consensus is arrived upon. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect I disagree. One difference is one difference. The number of things that Protestants and Catholics agree on is much greater, and as I say is listed in the main section. What do you suggest we do with the entire section that lists beliefs common to Protestants and Catholics? Do you disbelieve it? Please check out the reference if you don't believe me.

It is highly encyclopedic to compare and contrast different views, and also necessary. So far I see only you as disagreeing with this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RakTai, please to not continue an edit war with the comment "don't start edit warring". The sentence you are complaining about was in there for nearly a month before you changed it, and you made several edits to the article before you took it out. So I suggest you seek consensus for the change you wish to make.

Also please don't remove references when they are being used to back up statements you disagree with, especially when you don't replace them with any references. OK, with that sorted out, now you can explain why you disagree with my statement. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

An easy way to solve this is to ask the question: Is the statement under dispute cited by a reliable source(s)? What ever is veriafiable should stay in the article, if a claim is not verifiable then it shouldn't be in the article. If both views have citations then say that authorities disagree on the subject.Ltwin (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference in question is the one that R/T-รัก-ไทย keeps removing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement is not included in the quote: "Protestantism hold similar views on the theology of the Holy Spirit as the Roman Catholic church". If Clayworth wants to include such a sweeping statement, it would be best to post the actual quote. (I cannot find it in the reference) My suspicion is that he is Roman Cathilic, and his personal views are causing him to taint the facts. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough of your suspicions of my motives. And enough of the edit warring. It was you who made the change here, so please stop insisting on your version. I clearly don't have the book with me right now. Which pages did you read? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make ad hominem attack on other editors. Critique edits on the merits of the edits. Rak-Tai, I have to agree with DJ here. His version of this section has cited sources. The edits you made were not sourced. The burden of proof is on the editor questioning a sources validity to give reasons why that source is not valid. Please do not revert this version with sources to a version with no sources. This is not the spirit of Wikipedia policy. Ltwin (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but my statement was not an intended as an attack, merely my suspicion as to why DJ or anyone would insist on an invalid premise. "His version of this section has cited sources." I am merely requesting the text of the source. The burden of proof lies on the one who listed the source. If and when the statement by a respected scholar is presented, I will continue to insist that the statement: "Protestantism holds similar views on the theology of the Holy Spirit as the Roman Catholic church", is, in my humble opinion, both erroneous and unverifiable. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that a source is unreliable, however, the source is there. If you have a source which differs present your source, put it in the article and there want be any problem. You removing information which has a source and replacing it with a claim that has no source and then saying that the information you removed is unverifiable is laughable. The source is there so that it can be verified. Wikipedia says that it is the claim without a source that is subject to indiscriminate removal, not the information that has a reliable source. You have not even given a reason why this source should not be considered reliable. Ltwin (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And I might add that someone is not bound to present in writing a quote from a source they cite. If you are suspicious of the source, then I would advise you to find a source they you know of and incorporate it into the article. If your view is not original research then you should have no problem finding a reliable source for your point of view. Ltwin (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Names of Movements and the Manual of Style

We have had a couple of back and forth edits that have de-capitalized the name of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, referring back to the Manual of Style. The relevant section of the manual says:

"Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter unless the name derives from a proper noun (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper noun (lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to one of several specific political parties or ideologies, such as the US Republican Party or Irish Republicanism). Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas (as distinguished from specific events) capitalized by some religious adherents are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin, or transubstantiation."

I believe these edits misunderstand both the manual of style and the use of the term Restoration Movement in the relevant literature. The statement "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter" is qualified with "unless the name derives from a proper noun. . . or has become a proper noun . . ." (emphasis added).

The academic literature on the movement, as well as the specific sources cited in this article, consistently uses the term "Restoration Movement" as a proper noun. So, for example, many religious movements have had restoration of the primitive church as a goal, and can be described as "restoration movements." But the upper case "Restoration Movement" (a.k.a. the "American Restoration Movement" and the "Stone-Campbell Movement") refers to a particular movement that originated around the turn of the 19th century. Similarly, lowercase "reformation" can be used to refer to any movement that tries to reform an existing church or other institution. The upper case Protestant Reformation (and often just the "Reformation") describes a particular reform movement from the 16th century. Lower case "reformation" and "restoration" are both doctrinal topics rather than specific events; the "Reformation" and the "Restoration Movement" are both specific movements originating in a particular time and place. Both terms are used as proper nouns in the histories that deal with those movements. This is exactly parallel to the example from the MOS of using lower case "republican" to describe a particular type of political thought, and upper case "Republican" to describe a specific party or ideology.

Other examples are easy to think of. The word "pilgrim" is a perfectly good common noun, but we also have the "Pilgrims" who settled Massachusetts; "congregationalist" is a perfectly good lower case noun or adjective describing someone who supports a particular form of church organization, but we also have "Congregationalists" who are members of a particular family of denominations (and who also happen to be lower case "congregationalists"); "presbyterian" is an adjective that can be used to describe a particular form of church organization, but we can also have the "Presbyterian" church; and lower case "catholic" simply means "universal," but we can also ask "is the Pope Catholic?" It seems to me to be a serious mistake, and results in an awkward style that's inconsistent with the literature on the subject, to mechanically say "is it a movement - then by golly, we're gonna use a lower-case noun" without stopping to ask "is it a description of the movement or the name of the movement?" (i.e., is it a common noun or a proper noun?)

Bottom line, I believe that capitalizing the term Restoration Movement in this article is fully consistent with the manual of style because it reflects the use of that terms as a proper noun in the academic literature that studies the movement.EastTN (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)