Talk:Oneness vs Trinity

Name change

Please lets rename this article! Any suggestions? Ltwin (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

NeoPraxeus (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) I am an Oneness Pentecostal and I concur that the title should change. Perhaps more of an informative title as opposed to a divisive title would be better? The goal is for people to read the article, become educated, and grow from it. The content of the article is more important than the title, however a different title could be more inviting. The title could read, "Oneness Theology and Trinitarian Theology: Contrasts and Comparisons". Lengthy I know, but this could potentially quell these unnecessary disputes. So much more work needs to be geared toward the accuracy of the article. This isn't a sand-kicking contest. Let us agree to disagree, but work together to present an informed and accurate position for both sides. NeoPraxeus (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oneness Response

Why is it that trinitarians want to decide what Oneness believe, write it in their bias and falsehood, and them complain when Oneness correct them? Why is it that Oneness are not allowed to say what they teach without a trinitarian trying to edit them, and then add perversions the only purpose of which is to lie and deceive? Oneness should have just as much right to present their views as trinitarians do on thousands of other Wiki pages, where Oneness do not even try to correct or pervert. This Wiki entry is one that grants Oneness an open forum to speak what they believe and present their views. To be fair to us, do not edit what we believe and paste in your own construction and or false beliefs of what we beleive. Why censor us and take out what you do not like?

I corrected the edit where it is claimed Oneness believe God the Father created a Divine will in Jesus and then claimed this made Jesus a created God. Oneness have never claimed Jesus had a created Divine will. They do claim he was born of the seed of David according to the flesh from his mother Mary. As the son, he was fully human, he was created with a human will. That is what Oneness teach. We teach it was the Father incarnate in this Son and in this hypostatic union there was fused the Divine will of the Father and the human will of the Son. Therefore, we teach the humanity of Jesus and his Deity, The Father and the Son. We confess the Father and the Son but not in the manner trinitarians attempt to beat us up to confess after the trinitarian model.

I have asked what the NPOV issues are that some find fault with as trinitarians. So far the list has not been provided. I think the problem here is trinitarian bias and then claim it needs to be edited and some things censored out, the purpose of which is to make Oneness look like they are a cult and in heresy. Well, so long as I have entry here I will not allow this to happen.

Should this Wiki entry be renamed? No! What needs to be done here is for trinatarians to allow Oneness to state what we believe and stop spreading lies about what we believe.Dr. Gary Reckart, Sr. Acts0412 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion this artilce's name does need to be changed for the following reasons:

1. This is not a court case. It is a Wikipedia article.
2. This title should be about the differences between Oneness and Trinitarian understandings about God. The best way to further that is to state what both sides believe and offer the response from the other side. The "verses" thing is not what wikipedia is in the business of promoting. It is not a contest.

I will agree with you that I am the first to say that this article is not accurate. It has alot of problems. So before you start blaming "trinitarians" it may be easier for you to just fix what is wrong. However, there has been alot of collaboration on the Oneness Pentecostal articles lately and alot of productive work has been done. This article has not benefited from that collaboration however, but you can began that work here. I would like to remind you, however, that this is not a strictly Oneness Pentecostalism article. It is a comparison and contrast between the doctrines of Oneness and the Trinity. OP's do not own this article or any other article for that matter. I'm glad that you are here and can contribute. Ltwin (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Things to work on

This definitely needs an extensive copyedit or needs to be completely rewritten and reorgainized. We also need reliable sources from both Oneness Pentecostal and Trinitarian perspectives. I also believe this article needs a name change as stated above. I would welcome all ideas and assistance. Please make all the constructive changes you want. I have made small changes in the introduction, but I am finding it a horrifying experience reading the whole thing through!

Another important question I think needs to be answered before constructive change can take place is what is the scope of this article? Is it for showing the back and forth arguments between OPs and Trins or is it to compare and contrast both views on God? I prefer the latter and that is why I support a name change as the current one doesn't express that goal. What are other editors views? Ltwin (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Needs sourcing and probably needs to be split into other sections or the material should be moved to appropriate places in the article. Ltwin (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind of God section

I've made minor (hopefully helpful) edits to the Mind of God section (formerly known as More than one consciousness within God). Currently, the main issues I see is that it appears to have been written from a Oneness Pentecostal pov. Also, there maybe some inaccurate information here. There is one citation given listed at number 2 in the References section, however, it is a mixture of commentary and qoutes from scholars and is has an OP bias which is ok but there are no counter references supporting the Trin view. It is also extremely long and may cause confusion when trying to edit the article, as editors may, mistakenly, edit the reference thinking they are editing the article. The main issue with this section, as I see it then, is 1) sourcing, and 2) pov. Ltwin (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Trinitarian Interpretation and Oneness Reply section

I've split this section into the Patripassianism section and the Common viewpoints section, as it seemed to be dealing with 2 different topics. I am moving the Patripassianism section to the bottom of the article and the Common viewpoints section immediately below the introduction. Ltwin (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Patripassianism

The main problem with this section (and with much of the article) is that it seems to be written from the perspective of Oneness Pentecostalism defending its views from Trinitarian arguments. It is not written in a neutral tone. There is only one citation given, listed as #13 in the References section. Ltwin (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Common viewpoints

Both viewpoints offered here need to be sourced. Ltwin (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of God section and subsections

The Name of God section and subsections (formerly known as "In the Name of...") are written from an entirely Oneness Pentecostal view and no discription of the Trinitarian views and counter arguments are given. These sections need a copyedit, better sourcing, and a balanced presentation of beliefs. Ltwin (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Revision

This is a horrible, horrible article. It is massively unreferenced. It makes statements about Trinitarian belief that are clearly untrue. What it looks like is a Oneness believer making an apologetic case for his beliefs, mostly while setting up a 'hypothetical' Trinitarian to argue with. Unless it is turned into a genuine comparison of the two beliefs (including, incidentally, an explanation of how Oneness differs from Modalism) then it really should go. In any case it needs a massive rewrite. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have worked on it somewhat today, but I'm not sure it has any hope. DJ Clayworth says it well. I propose immediate deletion unless other users commit to clean-up and making it a scholarly article.Afaprof01 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Unless we see some very prompt and acceptable edits to provide reliable sources, removal of so much POV and one-sidedness, further cleanup is fruitless. I suggest that we set a deadline of one month from now: JULY 09, 2009. Unless very major and significant improvement is made by that date, the article should be deleted. It is an embarrassment as it now stands.Afaprof01 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I don't know if we need to go through AFD, or if we can just redirect to Oneness Pentecostalism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've attempted to rally support for rewrite but I'm not capable of doing it on my own as my knowledge is limited. Ltwin (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys should delete it. It reflects badly on Wikipedia, and needs to be completely redone (it's not just the lack of citations or the editorial slant). But until that time (which could be never) you shouldn't just leave it here. 75.4.147.244 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The cleanup template overload is kinda funny though.. At least there's not one that says "Mind of God is missing citations or needs footnotes" heh. 75.4.147.244 (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with doing something major, such as deletion or redirect to Oneness Pentecostalism. Perhaps we should also follow through "What links here" and start removing references to this article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact most of the 'What links here' were the result of a template. I've tidied that reference, and removed a ref. from another article; the remainder seem to be from non-article pages. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's take the simple route here - a redirect to Oneness Pentecostalism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)