Reviewer:Aircorn (talk·contribs) 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to review this article. I should let you know that I know next to nothing about the topic. However I think this is not a bad thing as good articles should be accessible to everyone. The only issue I see with my lack of knowledge would be broadness, but I see that it has undergone extensive reviews before and has been expanded since the last nomination so I am not too worried from a first glance. AIRcorn(talk)01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just finished my first read through and must say I am impressed. It was interesting and well written. I have left a few minor comments below. Don't feel you have to make every change, if you disagree with a comment just let me know underneath it. I will do the sources and other requirements shortly. AIRcorn(talk)02:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ireneus
a distance between God and humans far enough that belief is God remains a free choice Grammar
For Irenaeus, then, suffering is a useful moral concept.
It is claimed that those who do not attain moral perfection in their lives will go to Hell to continue their development until, eventually, they reach the likeness of God.
This would mean that, ultimately, all people will enter heaven, regardless of their life on earth.
"then", "eventually" and "ultimately" seem superfluous . Not a big deal at all and if this is how you like to write keeping them in won't affect GA status.
Partly done"Then" and "eventually" removed. I kept "ultimately" in, as it clarifies his view that all people will eventually reach heaven, but not initially go there. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of how suffering can be beneficial, Irenaeus cites the Biblical example of Jonah whose suffering (in being swallowed by a whale) both enabled God's plan for the world to be fulfilled and also brought Jonah closer to God. Would it be possible to expand on this slightly for us non-bibliophiles. How did it enable gods plan for the world to be enabled and how was Jonah brought closer to God?
Gottfried Leibniz presented a form of the Irenaean theodicy in 1710, in his work, Théodicée. The double commas could be a bit confusing. Is the second one necessary.
Although its proponents attempt to justify God, he is given as the reason for evil. This sentence did not fit very well. It is almost repeating what the previous sentence said.
Schleiermacher was also a proponent of universalism, suggesting that every person is predestined to go to heaven; this cannot fail. This read wrong to me. Should it be "thus cannot fail"?
Thanks for your assessment. I've made most of the changes you've suggested - I've put individual comments below each point you've made. Let me know if you notice anything else. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sure about Philosophy online, but it isn't referencing anything controversial. May be an issue if you push for FA. Other than that I am happy to pass this. AIRcorn(talk)06:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]