Talk:Unification theology

Comments[edit]

Still needs Christology section . . . [00:11, 5 June 2005 User:Billlund]

The article needs to say something about the Unificationist literal, historical, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. [23 May 2006 User:24.22.111.11]

You could say something like: "Unificationists have a literal, historical, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible." What you shouldn't do on Wikipedia is express an opinion about it like: "This makes them wonderful people of faith." or: "This makes them narrow-minded, old-fashioned bigots." Steve Dufour 03:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "literal" is only half correct, and "fundamentalist" is nearly 100% incorrect. -Exucmember 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the person posting the comment favors a humanistic, modernistic interpretation of the Bible and is comparing the DP to that. You are right that we are less literal than the average "fundamentalist" Christian. Steve Dufour 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of article[edit]

I think the article needs to be renamed "Unification Theology." I'm guessing whoever named it didn't have formal theological training. Also, this should be the main article for Unification Theology (not, for example, the Unification Church, which has a section for theology and a section for church teachings, and uses the two interchangably). It needs to be filled out a lot. At present it is very unbalanced in terms of which topics it addresses. -Exucmember 03:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the merge. Thanks! --Uncle Ed 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an article on this?[edit]

The Divine Principle is copyrighted (although its text is posted on the Internet for anyone to read) so we can not just repeat the exact words here. On the other hand, if we explain church teachings in our own words that would be original research. Steve Dufour 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, what are you talking about? By "this," (in section heading) I assume you mean this article page (not quite clear). Of course there has to be a page on Unification Theology. There are already dozens of pages on individual theological principles (even if some of these perhaps should be deleted as non-notable). Do the church teachings not matter? I think only the most cynical detractors who don't understand the church would say so. This article page is the logical home base for them. Of course there is no problem citing copyrighted material verbatim, even long passages (as long as you don't repeat the entire text!). And of course you can use your own words and back it up with citations from sources without it being original research. I'm really at a loss - what are you asking? -Exucmember 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I must agree with Exucmember against Steve Dufour. Putting something into our own words is not "original research" in the Wikipedian sense of the term.

Moreover copyright does not apply to ideas but to particular passages of text. Unification Thought is a set of philosophical ideas (based on DP, you know). Explaining Unification Thought]] is a book written by Dr. Lee. We cannot quote from his book without following the rules, such as giving him credit as the author and supplying book title and page number (or at least a web link). --Uncle Ed 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was being a little extreme. There should be articles about the Divine Principle and Unfication Theology. However, I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the place where we should explain what we believe. People can follow the link to where the whole of the Divine Principle is posted. Steve Dufour 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we don't explain what we believe, others will explain what they think we believe. The choice is yours. --Uncle Ed 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they do that we could delete it as original research. Steve Dufour 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if sources can't be found, it shouldn't[edit]

This article has exactly two citations (both to UC sources), so after tagging it for this fact in July, I have trimmed it down to only having the lead plus the two statements cited to them. If no improvement is made on sources/verifiable content, I will be putting this article up for merger shortly. Unification Thought, which likewise has only two, UC, citations, is in danger of going the same way. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]