Talk:Cataphatic theology

Christianity: Theology / Eastern O. 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.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggested Development

As the stub that this article currently is, one would consider merging it with the page on apophatic theology and creating a page on knowledge/definitions of the divine in general, which it is largely discussed in relation to throughout.

This I think neglects the considerable potential of the article. Absent from here entirely is the surely cataphatic practice of knowledge/definition of God by analogy, in the philosophy of Descartes and Berkeley for instance, or even Spinoza, for a non-Christian and more purely philosophical conception. I can provide material for this, if it is thought appropriate. Absent from the description is any link with the concept of knowledge of "things in themselves/dingen an sich" in Kant's theology, and the possibility of such knowledge. The Roman Catholic texts merely listed present scope for further expansion. Finally, the introductory text and section on terminology don't define the religious context in which they speak, and the terminology section, which one would imagine to be "vanilla" theology unless stated otherwise, discusses (very considerable) implications of apophatic on conceptions of the Christian Trinity - off topic, too suddenly in depth, and too inexplicably Christian. Ocarrollcian (talk) 14:37, 01 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this RfC is about. If you would like to modify or add to the article, please do so - I think what you suggest above look like good improvements. RfC's are usually for resolving conflicts with other editors, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

If you need assistance editing in the material, let me know. I;m happy to help. --Ludwigs2 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks Ludwigs2, I took the view that a major shake-up of a page merited external comment. I suppose I worried this talk page wouldn't generate it. I'll try develop things myself, and hope they prompt activity rather than disagreement.

Ocarrollcian (talk) 22:26, 03 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miscited sources:

The Life of Moses is a by St. Gregory of Nyssa, not St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus). Also, Patristic texts are pre-Great schism and should not simply be classified as "Roman Catholic" (or, for that matter, "Eastern Orthodox"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.70.235 (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]