Talk:List of people who have been considered deities/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

The Pope is God on Earth

I am the one who posted the direct OFFICIAL Doctrines of Catholicism regarding the Godhead of the Pope of Rome. These ARE the OFFICIAL doctrines of Catholicism AND it has been this way for CENTURIES. The Pope claims all power in heaven and earth and has stated as much. Now, you may not believe me, but you had better RECOGNIZE. The Pope DOES CLAIM to be GOD on earth and if this DIRECT QUOTE does not prove the argument, then I simply ask you, what evidence will suffice for self proclaimed deities? "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Barclay Cap. XXVII p. 218 Cities Petrus Bertanous, Pius V)

The Pope, according to Catholic Doctrine, is the SUPREME POLITICAL RULER of earth [Temporal Power of the Pope], ruling ALL governments on earth. Now mind you, I'm merely telling you the OFFICIAL DOCTRINES of the Catholic Church and all of your IGNORANCE of this issue IS TRULY STAGGERING.

Please do not tell me that you all are SO IGNORANT on the OFFICAL DOCTRINES of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Check them out yourselves and when you REALIZE that you all have been IGNORANT of these Doctrines, then perhaps you'll see things in a little different perspective concering the "New World Order", Protestantism [the Epistle to James I of England identified the Pope as "that man of sin" in the book of Revelation] and, most importantly, the Book of Revelation.

I'm telling you all one more time - YOU HAD BETTER RECOGNIZE.

Unfortunately, these references are so obscure as to be unverifiable by anyone here. Would you be able to scan in these quotes or provide photos of them? At any rate, your attitude earns nothing for your vendetta. Maybe a couple popes were off their rockers, but jumping off with them isn't going to help you prove it, IMO. --Alterego 17:35, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
My, thats a rant the likes of which I've rarely seen outside of professional wrasslin' speeches. Good work, you should get a career in broadcasting, anon. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 19:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"At any rate, your attitude earns nothing for your vendetta." Well, the only Vendetta that I have is to tell you the truth, and if you happen to be light years ignorant of the truth of this matter, I can see how it would be an epiphany to you. As for Proof, try CANNON LAW. I cited the writings from the CANNON LAW. How much more proof can one give you?
I find it rather hard to believe that NOWHERE in the Bible did Jesus ever claim to be God, yet you include him on the list as a person who is a self proclaimed deity. Now I challenge you DIRECTLY - SHOW ME THE PASSAGE WHERE JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD - now that should be easy for any SCHOLAR to do, since you have OBVIOUSLY all the evidence to put him on the list in the first instance.
Then when it comes to the POPE, even though SEVERAL DIRECT QUOTES and even the writings on CANNON LAW were presented to you (the Official Doctrines of the Catholic Church), you refuse to put the Pope on the list.
Now, my LOGICAL question to you is: Why did you put Jesus on the list even though you can't show me ANYWHERE in the Bible where he claimed to BE God, and refuse to put the Pope on the list even though DIRECT QUOTES from the Popes themselves which are EASILY VERIFYABLE were given to you claiming the Pope is GOD ON EARTH?
You see, your HYPOCRISY is a SHINING EXAMPLE to POSTERITY that you are an absolute IDIOT on this issue. By your FRUITS I know you are an IDIOT, as your actions concerning the censorship of the official doctrines of the Catholic Church and your slander of Jesus claiming he said, unequivocably and unconditionally, that he WAS God testifies to FOR ALL POSTERITY.
Are you a member of some strange Cult? (I'll be adding Catholicism to that subject shortly. After all, cults worship men as God)
Now, PROVE ME WRONG, and I'm adding the Pope BACK to the list and taking Jesus OFF until you do.
Comprende?
The article states a fact concerning Jesus, namely, that according to the Christian interpretation of his words, believed he was the son of God. . This nonsense concerning the Pope is only your interpretation, and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If you would like to have an 'official' opinion, perhaps you should write a book, start a transnational cult, author an academic paper, or lastly and probably most likely, take your Jesse Ventura style shouting and convince fans of the WWF of your point. --Alterego 23:14, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Listen idiot, I didn't give you MY OPIONION. I gave you THE OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINES on the issue. I GAVE YOU THEIR OPINION. You're a complete IDIOT on the issue. THAT's MY OPINION. Now, what is it but your opinion that I'm wrong. I posted you THEIR OPINION in the CANNON LAW.

The Pope is going BACK ON until you PROVE ME WRONG. Notice also, POSTERITY, that this idiot didn't answer ONE SINGLE QUESTION I ASKED him.

I am surprised that the Pope (as an institution) is not on the list. He has been, historically the [sic]Representative of God on Earth [1] --Zappaz 20:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

There is also plenty of references about "The Pope and God and the same". Google: [2]] and some very specific quotations from Popes trhoughout history about it: [3]--Zappaz 20:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

When we have waves of Roman Catholic editors coming here demanding that the Pope be recognized as God, then I will agreee it makes sense to put him on the list.--Pharos 21:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I lived in Italy for two years and have spent a significant amount of time at the Vatican Museum. In Rome, the Pope is characterized, and this is verbatim, as Christ's representative on Earth. --Alterego 21:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Parla italiano? Alora! perdoni prego povero Zappaz... I think that there are plenty of references to warrant the inclusion Pope, if one judges by reading sites like this: http://www.lightministries.com/id523.htm --Zappaz 21:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Where can we read these texts? Where did the authors of these web pages get these quotes? --Alterego 22:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
The vatican library has an online catalog. It's really slow. link. --Alterego 21:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
I submitted a request to the LOC's Ask a Librarian service requesting help locating these texts, if they exist. --Alterego 22:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Have you visited that site [4]. Their references are clearly cited. For example one of the citations is from Pope Gregory XIII, his Canon law, in which "Lord God the Pope" is found. (just google "Canon Law lord god the pope Gregory XIII") --Zappaz 00:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's do as much as we can to avoid original research. If you can more books, such as the one I will cite below, I will order them on interlibrary loan if I can find them. Now that I am starting to pick up some bread crumbs I might be able to piece this history together. Adding any pope to this article is goin to bring about a Catholic shitstorm. I'd like to be able to reason for or against properly. None of those websites seem particularly worth citing to me for such a racy topic. By the way, I have no idea in hell where to get this 20 page book. Very obscure. Found it via Amazon.
  • Charles Hastings Collette (1896). Lord God our Pope (Dominus Deus Noster Papa) Another God on Earth (Alter Deus in Terris): And a reply to a Pamphlet by the Rev. Sydney F. Smith, S.J., entitled Does the Pope claim to the God?. Protestant Alliance. ISBN B0008A1EZC. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
also of interest --Alterego 02:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Another thing, the Extravagantes, which is the cite for that quote, is not official. It is considered something extra and not blessed by the church, I think. I'm not saying he didn't say it, but I certainly am not trusting all these crazy sounding websites. --Alterego 02:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Some useful latin:

  • "Dominus Deus noster papa" means "Our Lord God the pope"
  • "Deus alter in terrâ" or "Alter Deus in Terris" means "Another God on earth"
  • "Idem est dominium Dei et papae" means "The dominion of God and the pope is the same?"
  • seach

--Alterego 02:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, i requested this thing! Here's the info on where it can be located (one library worldwide 0.o) 

Location 	        Library 	              Code 
GA	                EMORY UNIV, PITTS THEOL LIBR  EMT 
Title:  	        Lord God our Pope (Dominus Deus Noster Papa) another God on earth \
                        (Alter Deus in Terris) and a reply to a pamphlet by the \
                        Rev. Sydney F. Smith, S.J., entitled Does the Pope claim to be God? \
Author(s): 	        Collette, Charles Hastings, 1816-1901. 
Publication: 	        London : Protestant Alliance,
Year: 	                1896
Description: 	        20 p. ; 19 cm.
Language: 	        English
Series: 	        Variation: SOLINET/ASERL Cooperative Microfilming Project \
                        (NEH PS-21089) ;; SOL MN06540.18 EMT.
Named Person: 	        Smith, Sydney F. (Sydney Fenn), 1843-1922. Does the Pope claim to be God? 
Named Corp: 	        Catholic Church -- Controversial literature. 
Title Subject: 	        Does the Pope claim to be God? 
Note(s): 	        Printing Master 241./ Includes bibliographical references./ 
                        Reproduction: Microfilm./ Atlanta, Ga. :/ SOLINET,/ 1997./ 
                        1 microfilm reel ; 35 mm./ 
                        (SOLINET/ASERL Cooperative Microfilming Project (NEH PS-21089) \
                        ; SOL MN06540.18 EMT)
Class Descriptors: 	LC: BR55
Responsibility: 	by Charles Hastings Collette.
Material Type: 	        Microfilm (mfl); Master microform (mmc)
Document Type: 	        Book
Entry: 	19970313
Update: 	        20040330
Accession No: 	        OCLC: 36544203
Database: 	        WorldCat

--Alterego 22:47, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I may be receiving a photocopy. --Alterego 18:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Avatars

As it is quite a considerable task (editing the article in table format and alternated row color is not that easy), I'm asking for any objections to adding notable avatars such as Narasimha, Parashurama and Balarama and contemporary ones such as Chaitanya, Shirdi Sai Baba and Meher Baba. Thanks. --Zappaz 14:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

We need to add to the article avatars such as Narasimha, Rama and Krishna, Vishnu, Parashurama, Balarama, Buddha and contemporary ones such as Chaitanya, Shirdi Sai Baba, Meher Baba, Adi Da, Mother Meera and others. Maybe Andries can help with these as well. For those not familiar with Hinduism, an avatar is the incarnation of an immortal being, or of the ultimate supreme being a.k.a God. All these fit the stated criteria. --Zappaz 04:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is not absolutely necessary to enumerate every single one, inclusion of a category such as is done with pharoahs is fine --Alterego 18:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
You canot lump all the Avatars together. Maybe Rama and Vishnu, but some of the others listed are quite specific and many of them are quite contemporary (e.g. Adi Da). What about adding people like the Pope (to whom many billions consider him to be the representative of God on earth)? --38.119.107.72 20:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that one cannot lump all avatars together. For example, I have read the holy book Sri Sai Satcharita of Shirdi Sai Baba and scholarly literature by Antonio Rigopoulos about him and do not remember any self-proclamation. Same for Chaitanya. I dunno Meera well enough. Adi Da should be added, I think. He even authorized a book with the telling title "The promised Godman is here". The pope has already been discussed and rejected. Pope is the successor of St. Peter. Andries 20:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Adi Da is already there. But I think that we can still add Shirdi Sai Baba, Meher Baba and others. Why was the Pope "rejected"? --Zappaz 20:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
There is a big discussion above about Pope. Nevertheless, some Popes deserve to be included. Wasn't Pope Nicholas (one of them, was it Nicholas V?) who said that he could do anything that God could? --38.119.107.72 20:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks (how could I have missed that...?) There is a lot of controversy coming from non-Roman Caholic Christians. For example read this interesting article about the Papacy [5] --Zappaz 21:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
We were provided (above, by jesse ventura) with quotations that do bring certain Pope's into question. The problem is, at that time I went and polled around various Catholic messageboards for ways to verify those quotes, and was repeatedly told they were too obscure to be verified. I will attempt to ask a librarian at the LOC, but failing that (they don't have everything) it is a sticky situation. --Alterego 21:17, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
What message boards? If these were from Roman Catholic Christians, I would understand their reticence. The fact is thst some Popes said and did pretty "interesting" things throughout the history of the Papacy.--38.119.107.72 15:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What is up?

Hello, I am back. What happened to the Pope controversy? Any decision on this issue? Given the data we have available, we need to include some of these Popes. Same about some of the Avatars as dicussed. --Zappaz 20:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, we've been waiting for you to get back. Welcome. -Willmcw 20:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
As you can see above, I attempted to find a credible source for the quotes, in addition to hacking through the latin. I object to simply adding any Pope, as nearly all of the information available on the Internet is in the tone of criticizing Catholicism. Further, they don't make it clear where they got the information. It has been handed around from website to website in a sort of telephone game. This is a problem because all of these quotes are first in Latin and then translated into English...by who? I posted a citation above for a rare book that directly addresses the topic. The author wrote many books on Catholocism in the late 1800s, and some of his others seem to be available. If this one could be found it would shed much light on the subject and the source would be something that could be reported on, without us doing original research. --Alterego 14:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I also wanted to point out the todo list at the beginning. It could probably be largely taken care of with six hours of work...i'm a full time college student with a job so it will take me quite some time to do it whimsically (e.g, help?) --Alterego 01:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Anderson

He apparently claims to be a "reincarnation of the historical Jesus", but the article on him is somewhat POV. Bovlb 04:55, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I searched the local Wisconsin news sources via Lexis Nexus and, while Endeavor Academy was mentioned a few times as a faith organization (with no overtones, just as a faith organization), Chuck Anderson was never mentioned himself personally. His name in that context is also not present on any .edu or .gov websites. --Alterego 14:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
The "historical" Jesus sounds like a man, as opposed to a god. Are all Jesus re-incarnations deities? Or do they have to wait until they get to heaven? They didn't teach us about this in religion class. Willmcw 16:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


Various suggestions brought up on my talk page

The following were brought up on my user page by Scott P. --Alterego 00:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Emperors

Roman Emperors

  • The emperors of the Roman empire, starting around the time of Augustus, when emperors began to assume power by heredity or by coup, rather than by the election of the senate, and up until the time of Constantine the Great. The veneration of the emperor as a god was practiced in Rome up until this time as I understand it. --Scott P. 17:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Apotheosis was typically performed by an emperors successor upon his predecessor, so we have elected to add them on a one by one basis as relevant quotes are available --Alterego 00:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Elagabalus seems to be a particularly outrageous example, at least as Gibbons tells it.

Japanese Emperors

  • The emperors of the Japanese empire up until 1945, when the Japanese emperor Hirohito finally renounced his divinity (oddly enough, just as the US military was caught slightly twisting his arm behind his back. Forsooth!). --Scott P. 17:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • This sounds interesting --Alterego 00:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems odd to have the Egyptian pharoahs but not the Japanese emperors, as the two groups seems to have held similar places in their religions. -Willmcw 21:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
See the todo list --Alterego 23:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Persian Emperors

  • Aside from the Roman and Japanese emperors, I beleive I recall reading this of the Persian emperors, the Aztec, Incan and Mayan emperors and kings, and the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie, whom I believe the Rastafari movement still worships his now departed soul to this day. --Scott P. 17:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

  • Prem Rawat who received much nationwide press in the 70's, but has since attempted to avoid the press at all costs. He did and still does make the claim to be God. --Scott P. 17:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Scott, your comment is completely untrue. PR talking in Toronto, Canada; September, 1971 "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk" . PR Peace Bomb Satsang -"So dear premies, receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God is within your own heart". PR talking Westminster 1971 - "The world thinks, people think, that God is man. People think that God has got ears, nose, teeth, and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And they think he is an old man and has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". PR talking in Colorado 1971 - "Some people think that God is a human being but he is not. God hasn't got ears like us. nose like us,teeth, tongue, lungs, chest, bones. He isn't like that".
  • His article mentions that it is possible to interpret a quote exerpted from a speech he made when he was 12 years old as a personal claim of divinity. If there is nothing more direct than that I don't think it's enough to suffice. --Alterego 00:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As with many who start cults and proclaim themselves to be God, Prem Rawat does not like to spread the word too broadly, as obviously publicising this claim to the "unwashed" would only result in negative publicity for him. I was a member of his cult from 1975 until 1982, leaving when he was approximately 27 years old. Over the years, as he began to realize this fact, he began to hesitate to announce to the national press that he was God.
The last time I recall that he made this announcement to the national press was in approximately 1974 on the 'Good Morning America' show, when he would have been about 17 years old. At the time he was married, and living independently. I saw the clip when I was a follower, but it had been made a year or two before I joined. Afterwards, up until the time I left, he continued to teach inside the cult that he was God. This could be documented via numerous internal publications that are still available on some of the websites critical to him. I am told by those who still follow him that he still makes this claim, but only after one has been with the organization for a few years, and no longer even in print on internal documents. I can say with certainty that at the time I left, in 1982, we were still required to sing songs before him, to him, proclaiming him as the Lord of the Universe.
Check out the critical site: ex-premie.org.
Rawat's claims were at least very suggestive and came close to claims of divinity and worst thing is that he now refuses to take responsibility for his suggestive claims and puts all the blame on his (former) followers and the Indian Mahatmas and the Indian tradition.

The greatest problem all around the world today, whether in America, Japan, China, Russia, India or anywhere else in the world, is that people are not in peace. People want peace. Today, if two people fight, the government is supposed to settle them down. But when governments fight, who is going to settle them down? The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind. by Guru Maharaj Ji (now called Prem Rawat) at Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (in the magazine And it is Divine, July 1973)

Andries 18:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These allegations are fully explored in the Prem Rawat articles, in particular here: Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Alleged_claims_of_personal_divinity:

[...]such as in a proclamation published in 1975, "I do not claim to be God, but do claim I can establish peace on this Earth by our Lord's Grace, and everyone's joint effort", in 1985, "I am not sitting here saying, 'I am the messiah, I am the prophet,' " in 1999, "When people asked, 'What is your qualification?', I said, 'Judge me by what I offer,' " and in 2001, "I’m me. I am a human being. ... I’m proud to be a human being.[...]

Rather that restarting the controversy here, I would ask editors to explore these articles in full. --Zappaz 19:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good evidence to leave him out. Not researching further. --Alterego 22:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hans Ji Maharaj

Prem Rawat's father Hans_Ji_Maharaj did clearly claim to have all the qualities of a purna avatar and hence can be listed here. Hans said in 1966

"Lord Rama was an incarnation of God who possessed fourteen types of divine power. Lord Krishna was an incarnation of God who possessed twentysix types of divine power. But I am fully perfect and the master of all the sixtyfour divine powers."

(translated from Dutch to English by user:Andries) in Dr. Reender Kranenborg's Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern faith movements in the West (Dutch langauge) who quotes from Jeanne Messer The New religious consciousness by C.Y. Glock and R.N. Bellah (Berkeley, 1976) pages 59, 60 Andries 18:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not see why Hans Ji Maharaj needs to stand alone. There are hundreds of Gurus in India that have claimed ort claim similar powers . Divine power is part and parcel of the role of a guru, and in the Hindu context perfectly acceptable. Read Guru. If we list Hans Ji Maharaj, we need to list hundred others. --Zappaz 19:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gurus are not self-proclaimed deities in virtue of being Gurus. Gurus are teachers. From the article:
    ..there is an understanding in some sects that if the devotee were presented with the guru and God, first he would pay respects to the guru since the guru had been instrumental in leading him to God
    Notwithstanding extreme cases where firsthand quotes are available, it would be a misrepresentation to bulk-categorize all Gurus as self-proclaimed deities, as they clearly distinguish themselves from God, acting as a proxy to the realization of God. --Alterego 20:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rajneesh

  • Rajneesh who was notorious in the US in the mid 80's, when he was forced to leave the US due to charges aimed at his followers of attempted murder, and for himself, immigration related charges. --Scott P. 17:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know of Osho and am not aware of him every claiming to be a deity. Certainly nothing on his wikiquote page indicates it --Alterego 00:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • As with Prem Rawat, it seems that Indian Gurus have generally learned that it doesn't pay to be too open to Westerners about their claims to divinity. With Rajneesh however, in Hindi the term Bhagwan actually means God, but again, few Westerners know much Hindi. Rajneesh assumed the title Bhagwan by self proclamation. Here is an excerpt written by a former associate of his who describes being in Rajneesh's circle of acquaintences around about the time that Rajneesh made the switch from college professor to Guru and added the God prefix to his name:
"When former university professor Acharya Rajneesh suddenly changed his name to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, I was dismayed. The famous enlightened sage Ramana Maharshi was called Bhagwan by his disciples as a spontaneous term of endearment. Rajneesh simply declared that everyone should start calling him Bhagwan, a title which can mean anything from 'divine one' to God. Rajneesh became irritated when I would politely correct his mispronunciations of English words after his lectures, so I felt in no position to tell him that I thought his new name was inappropriate and dishonest. That change in name marked a turning point in Rajneesh's level of honesty and was the first of many big lies to come."
To see the source of this quote, you could visit Rajneesh and the Lost Truth
In my own former cult, (and I believe probably with nearly all followers of self proclaimed divines) we were instructed to tell the white lie to inquisitive outsiders that our leader was simply a humanitarian leader, a person of some spiritual accomplishment, etc. etc... The sweet little secret that he was supposedly actually God was only supposed to be discussed between us followers. In this way the tender sensibilities of those who were still ignorant would be spared from the knowledge of the full power of our Guru until the day finally arrived when they too would finally be ready to bear such a supremely wonderful understanding and awareness of the full truth about our Guru (as it were).
Accordingly, it appears that Rajneesh's disciples were probably taught to inform the public that the title Bhagwan only meant Blessed One wherein by asking any Hindi speaker God will be the most accurate translation.
Scott P. 21:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've marked this for further research in the todo list. --Alterego 22:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Osho's autobiography is online --Alterego 23:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who reads the chapter I just linked to from Osho's autobiography will agree he doesn't belong on the list --Alterego 23:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Marshall Applewhite

Indian Spiritual Teachers

  • Probably the majority of Indian spiritual teachers, as the attribution of divinity to spiritual teachers there is a tradition that is deeply rooted in Indian history.--Scott P. 17:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not marked for further research. Divinity was never intended to be a criteria for inclusion. --Alterego 22:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Anderson

  • I think that Chuck Anderson might make a good candidate for you there, however I am not quite certain as to whether or not he meets your notoriety standards for that page. Comment? --Scott P. 17:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • His name never comes up in Lexis Nexus, which goes to show that locally (at least in Wisconson) he is not known as a self-proclaimed deity. I spent about 20 minutes reading old news stories about Endeavor Academy this morning and it was never referred to as more than a faith organization. Certainly he is not well known. Can you enumerate the quotes where he proclaims to be a deity and state exactly where they came from? Also, the article on him is distinctly POV against him. --Alterego 01:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are correct that I feel I may have incomplete information on EA. Certainly someone else, perhaps yourself, might know of some more positive info about EA that could be added to the article. The academy did feature in a CBS 48 Hours special presentation in the late 90's, if that qualifies it for notoriety, I don't know. Regarding your questions about Anderson, for whatever it may be worth, I have forwarded these questions to Bodhi, the fellow who was an ex-cult member who initiated all of the most recent edits on that page, and will see what he does with them.
Cheers,
Scott P. 17:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Being NPOV is not about positive or negative iformation, but about reporting facts as if you had no vested interest in them whatsoever. The idea that there is some negative information to be reported in the article is what makes it sound POV --Alterego 16:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have marked this for further research as details on Chunk Anderson and his teachings specifically are somewhat hard to come by. --Alterego 23:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I have found absolutely nothing indicating chuck anderson is a human deity. done researching him --Alterego 23:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Possible additions

Central to Hinduism --Zappaz 19:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

To be honest i'm not up to speed on Hinduism. I've got an encyclopedia of world religions at home that I will dig through this evening, but more information on these guys would be helpful. Can we determine who actually existed and who didn't? It's one thing if someone's historicity is hotly debated, and quite another if there are just one billion devotees. I don't really know and their articles don't help much. --Alterego 23:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rama

Hindu incarnation of God, said to be one of the ten avatars of Vishnu. There is debate, existing mainly in the Western countries, as to whether he was a real or mythical king in ancient India. In Eastern countries, he is largely regarded as real. His life and heroic deeds are related in the Hindu Sanskrit epic the Ramayana.
Marked for research. Sounds similar in nature to the inclusion of Jesus Christ --Alterego 23:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Balarama

the elder brother of Sri Krishna. Most South Indian Hindu sects and some Vaishnava sects based in eastern India regard Balarama as being the ninth avatar of Vishnu. In either tradition, Balarama is acknowledged as being a manifestation of Adishesha, the divine serpent on whom Vishnu rests.
The sacred Hindu scripture Bhagavata Purana explains how Krishna is the supreme personality of Godhead and from whom everything emanates. In doing so, his first expansion is Balarama. From Balarama all other incarnations of God appear.
What evidence is there that Balarama is not fictional? --Alterego 23:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
As much evidence as there is for Jesus. If Jesus is included, then Balarama, Hanuman and Lakshman need to be included as well.--Zappaz 16:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Information on Jesus is relatively abundant. Several historians wrote on him, although none of them knew him personally, always one link off. There is a fierce debate as to whether or not he existed, and the detractors must have strong arguments because the protractors also have strong arguments. To properly cite Krishna and the others, we will need to have a good understanding of their historicity as well. Towards the bottom of the Krishna article, it mentions that he is said to have lived to 125 years of age. I hope you realize how unlikely this is! The oldest person with actual documentation lived to 122 years, and that is with modern day nutrition. This would lead me to believe that there may not be credible evidence, or that if some believe there is credible evidence that there is a fierce argument behind it. If there is not a fierce argument behind Krishna and other's in his family, then we should not include them because there is no question whatsoever that they did not exist. That said, I have asked and am asking for assistance in finding this information. --Alterego 02:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This argument is definitively strange. The age of Lord Krishna has nothing to do with it! Krishna, Balarama, Hanuman are as real historical persons as Jesus. Hey... tell one of the billions of Hindus that Krishna or Rama where not real persons... and you will get a fierce argument. :) --Zappaz 02:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
That's good! But if the argument is not yet in the encyclopedia we will have to fend for ourselves. A single citation will do. Consider, for example, a single book that contains text which purports that in the year 400BC a man existed. There are 1 billion people who believe what is said in this book is true - that this man really existed. However, they have no other evidence aside from this book. Clearly, it is not satisfactory even to say that this man probably existed. You could only say that he might have existed, but there really is no evidence for it. On the other hand, if several independant historians documented this mans existence, we could say that yes, there is a chance he is a real person. There is room for argument, and the most that can be said is that there is a chance he could have existed, and a chance he didn't. So where I am going with this is to say that with Jesus, the latter is the case. However, I don't know if it is the case with Krishna. Is he only said to have existed in the Baghavad Gita? Did any historians document his existence? Is his existence merely assumed by followers based on these writings and not contested by anyone? Certainly we could find an example of a pagan god who was said to have really existed, because he is written about in a book. But if that single book or source of information is the single scrap of evidence that he is real, then we have nothing more than a mere story with which to base the statement on. Jesus is contentious because there is more than one source, and also, and importantly, because he is contentious. A one-sided and undebated claim about a human being who is said to be a god and have powers that other human beings do not have, and who is further said to have lived longer than any other documented human being (Methuselah, is, after all, merely from a single story), will need several different people to have independently said he existed for the stake to be properly made as contentious. --Alterego 03:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Of course. What I am ment is that there is plenty of discussion and evidence on the historicity of Balarama (and in fact about the Mahabharat, where these people/gods played their roles). Just some: [6], [7], [8]], [[9]]. You can even find some archeological data supporting the historicity of Mahabharat in WP at Haryana#History --Zappaz 03:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Lakshman

The Lord of Serpents, Sheshnag was incarnated to the earth in the form of Lakshmana and during the Dwapar Yuga, he incarnated as Balrama. He married the younger sister of Sita, wife of Rama, named Urmila.

Hanuman

In Hinduism, Hanuman is a god who aided Rama (an avatar of Vishnu) in rescuing his wife, Sita, from King Ravana of the Rakshasas. He symbolizes the pinnacle of bhakti, He is seen by some to have also been an avatar of Shiva

Article name

I intend to create a category "category:people who claimed to be divine" Hope that is okay. Andries 22:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another thing is that it is very significant that Zappaz and I agree that the name of this article should be changed into List of people who claimed to be divine Zappaz and I rarely agree about religious subjects so I request that editors here take our opinions seriously. Andries 22:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also, on second thought, I think that the Beltway snipers have to be removed because their claim is not notable and probably just to challenge the police. Andries 22:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I endorse the page title change, which we discussed in May. Talk:List of people who have been considered deities/Archive 1#Godly. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Resorting to a past argument which was not successful in swaying opinion as a reason to move the title is unsatisfactory. If you will recall, (or read the edit history if you don't recall), the page was violently moved before any point was agreed upon and an unvested third party came and reverted it back. They pointed out that if lack of clarity were a problem, the title the page had been moved to did not fix it.
I commend you on your drive to create a category of those who have claimed to be divine. This article, however, is not about people who have claimed to be divine.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the first recorded uses of the word Deity occurred in 1374 and was written by Chaucer: "But o {th}ow Ioue..Is {th}is an honour to {th}i deite," meaning "The estate or rank of a god; godhood; the personality of a god; godship; esp. with poss. pron Only slightly earlier, in 1372 it was used by William Langland: " {Th}us {th}ei drauelen on heore deys {th}e Deite to knowe.," meaning "The divine quality, character, or nature of God; Godhood, divinity; the divine nature and attributes, the Godhead."
Clearly at this point in time, the word divine was used to describe the character of God (as "He" pertained to Christians) and his nature, but not him specifically. Not him, but qualities and features of him.
The word Divine was used, again by Chaucer, in 1386: "By precept of the Messager diuyn," meaning "Given by or proceeding from God; having the sanction of or inspired by God." There are the notes, " divine right, a right conferred by or based on the ordinance or appointment of God. Divine right of kings, that claimed according to the doctrine that (legitimate) kings derive their power from God alone, unlimited by any rights on the part of their subjects. In English History, the phrase came into specific use in the 17th c., when the claim was prominently made for the Stuart kings."
It is apparant that in it's early usage, to be divine did not mean to literally be God, but to merely have characteristics of him or to be or to have something projected straight from him. The nuance between being him, and being something related to him is important and very relevant here.
According to the prescriptions of Webster's Dictionary, the primary usage of the word divine in contemporary usage is ": of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god". Note that it does not say, in the primary sense, that it is to be God or a god, but rather to relate to them or proceed directly from them. It is something wholly apart. I myself can say that I am divine. It does not mean that I am proclaiming myself to be a deity to be worshipped, but rather that I proceed directly from god or God. A very ambiguous claim, and likely not meant to be interpreted in the strong sense required for inclusion in this article.
Webster further states that the primary meaning of the word deity in contemporary usage is in line with it's original usage: "The rank or essential nature of a god". I think it is apparant after reading this that the word deity and divine are not synonymous. To be divine and To be a deity do not carry the same meaning.
Aside from that, even if they were precisely synonymous, what would cause you to prefer one over the other? The only reason would be to stir things up unnecessarily.
Any typos are apologetic (not in that sense =),--Alterego 00:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Interestng points. I hadn't mentioned the May conversation to foreclose a new conversation, only to indicate that I also agreed last time this was discussed. Words aside, what do we want the article to be about? People who think they are god? god-like? messianic? supernaturally gifted? -Willmcw 03:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Alterego, from a factual perspective there is nothing wrong with the current title (nor with the contents, possible exception is Moon) but the tone of of the expression "self-proclaimed deity" is too strong for the people who are included. Andries 10:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Having established that being a deity and being divine are not the same thing, if this article title is changed to be less contrary, others need to be changed as well. Specifically, List of avatar-claimants, and any title regarding a status that someone supposedly had, according to themselves, and where the title leaves any semblance of doubt that they may have not actually had it, but only claimed to. I could agree that it would be more towards neutral.
List of deities does not make a distinction between figures verified as deities or otherwise. Perhaps it should simply be 'List of deities manifested as human or somesuch. Any recognition that they are not actually what they say to be, is, after all, only an unprovable point of view, and saying that someone merely claimed to be something which most people would find absurd and impossible does not carry the tone of being simply unknown or unverified. --Alterego 14:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Alterego for a excellent backgrounder ondeity and divine. I would agree with you about the title List of deities manifested as human, if we include a disclaimer in the article's intro along the lines of of what you wrote above. --Zappaz 2 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
I imagine somewhere down the line there would be an argument as to whether or not "deities manifested as human" includes deities who were not necessarily human beings, or even contested (historicity) as human beings (out of a story for instance), so we might want to deal with that now. I personally would like to start hacking on the list of names above, and also finding academic citations for all the names in the todo list before another major change is done to the article. An immediate article title move is going to incite a lot of discussion and we have a lot of unresolved things that have to be worked on already. --Alterego July 4, 2005 00:18 (UTC)

Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah

I have removed Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. I also removed what I have found to be an erroneous sentence from the article on him. Namely, the unsubstantiated claim that Later mainstream Islamic doctrine alleges he encouraged his own deification. If you have evidence that he did, please present it. Otherwise, the following will stand: A golden throne had been set up for al-Hakim in the main hall, with a gilded mattress. He came out of his palace on horseback wearing a jeweled turban. Those present were standing on the floor of the hall. They kissed the ground before him and walked in front of him until he seated himself on the throne. Then those whose rule it was to stand, stood, and those whom usage allowed to sit, sat, and all of them hailed him as Imam. The regnal title chosen for him was Al-Hakim bi-amr Allah [he who governs by the order of God]. He was then eleven years, five months, and six days old.

As you can see, he was made a leader as a child (Imam means leader). That doesn't make him a deity. --Alterego July 6, 2005 01:50 (UTC)

List of godmen

Although the word 'godman' is not recognized by either Mirriam Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary it has fallen into popular usage with more than 150,000 results in Google (some of which are for the last name, albeit) and headline usage by major news sources, such as Time magazine (see Gurus and Godmen). In my research on the usage of 'self-proclaimed' I realized I found it was usually used in a perjorative context, and that I only knew of it because of that. I don't know and haven't necessarily found that the same connotation and context applies to the word godman. It certainly doesn't have the same skeptical ring to it that self-proclaimed does to my own personal perception. The word does exist in German, "Gottmensch", and possibly other languages. It is certainly a very direct way to express the criterion of the article and what you can expect to find inside. --Alterego

This is indeed a touchy subject: 40 uses of the phrase "self-proclaimed godmen" [10]. At any rate, I prefer List of godmen over List of self-proclaime deities or List of deities manifested as human. --Alterego July 8, 2005 23:25 (UTC)
We need to keep searching for the right title, none of the above proposal make sense as a good title. --Zappaz 9 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)
God-man is actually in the OED. God-manhood, the state or condition of being at once God and man. see also --Alterego July 9, 2005 06:33 (UTC)


Has there really only been one woman who claimed to be a god/goddess? Surely more than one has claimed to be the incarnate manifestation of Aphrodite, Ceres, etc. Though the list is overwhelmingly male, nonetheless a title should strive for gender neutrality. "List of godpersons"? That sounds a bit like "godparents", an entirely different concept. "Godpeople" sounds like an NRM.
On a different tack, how about something like "people who claim supernatural power or origin." That conceivably could cast the net more widely to include messiahs, angels, avatars, and miracle workers, etc. We could explicitly exclude those who simply communicate supernaturally, like prophets, mediums, psychics, and seers, along with any other subcategories that are off topic (faith healers, etc). I think if we can avoid the word "God" then it would simplify the matter and avoid the question of "a" God versus "the" God. Cheers, -Willmcw July 9, 2005 07:01 (UTC)
There does exist a clear distinction, even in our article on man, between man as biologically distinct from woman, and man as in all mankind. If you can dig up more women, more power to you =) I dont think modern gender or sex sensitivity should get in the way of using a word that's been around since the 1500s, though. Regarding your title, it doesn't really solve our problem and greatly increases the scope of the subject matter. As in List of deities, the assumption should be made that they could be what they are purported to be at a summary glance, and that, as a matter of fact, as far as we know they are. The flaw in the current rendition is the overtones that these people are lunatics. Something that you or I cannot experimentally know to be categorically true or false.
On a lighter note, here's a nice video I found: Pagan Invasion - Invasion of the Godmen --Alterego July 9, 2005 07:15 (UTC)

Removed Aradia de Toscano

I have found no credible information that indicates Aradia de Toscano actually existed. On Google there are perhaps 40 unique sources of information on her (I filtered out all copies of wikipedia content). She is praised as a goddess of Wicca in most situations. Several of the sites point out that she was born on August 13, 1313, that it is not known when she died, and that her last known sighting is in 1925. I have found interpretations that she is nothing more than a leader or a guide. For example: Ultimately, Aradia is a teacher or guide, with each person being his or her own (potential) savior. [11]. It also seems that the chaos moon story on her makes it clear that she is a mythylogical figure [12]. After searching dozens of historical and philisophical academic databases I returned empty handed. So it is not without effort that I have removed her. --Alterego 17:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I also wanted to say that, her historicity aside, it is not convincing in the least that she considered herself a deity. Again from chaos moon, Aradia was then on, known as a The Holy Strega, a spiritual teacher and wise woman. --Alterego 17:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


Well, for all those reasons, Jesus Christ should also be removed from the list (as there is no evidence of his existence either, did he ever explicitly refer to himself as a deity). But as he likely won't be removed, I'm washing my hands of this project. Thank you for reconfirming my suspicions that Wikipedia is a joke resource intended to provide people only with weighted, biased, misinformation. I'll be taking this page of my watch list and I'll be making no further edits. Peace out --Corvun 22:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
We have an entire article on the Historicity of Jesus. In fact there is a wealth of information that drives the situation both ways. As I stated, I was unable to locate similar information for Aradia. I believe it is fallacious for you to compare the two. They are clearly not directly analogous. Unfortunately I am not a good scapegoat for your feelings about the project. You are responsible for you. Perhaps, though, your alter ego has something to do with it. We'd have to ask Freud. Please keep in mind that factual information is welcomed to this article with open arms, and we would appreciate any information you have to contribute that might help make the situation regarding Aradia more clear. Cheers. --Alterego 16:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

List of human deities

I propose the article be moved to List of human deities. --Alterego 19:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Human deities" does not work for me. I propose List of people of divine or godly status --≈ jossi ≈ 19:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Could you explain why it doesn't work? It is a correlary to both List of deities and List of fictional deities. I also reasoned at length above regarding why the word divine is incorrect for the article. The adjective godly has the same faults. From the OED: Of or pertaining to God; coming from God; divine; spiritual, and Devoutly observant of the laws of God; religious, pious.. Clearly, being divine and godly does not mean one is a god. A human deity is clearly and unambiguously one who has the rank of a god while also being afflicted with the human condition. It has the added benefit of declaring the innate assumption that the subjects actually are human deities, something essential for the article to achieve NPOV. Lastly, I see absolutely no inherent connotations negative or otherwise with the wording. --Alterego 20:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I see... So, would you be changing as well the criteria for inclusion? The reason I proposed List of people of divine or godly status is because that is what is written in the "criteria for inclusion" paragraph:
Criteria for inclusion in this list:
  • a notable living person that has proclaimed themself to be of divine or godly status or repute;
≈ jossi ≈ 03:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I believe Zappaz wrote that sentence specifically (or it is an amalgamation perhaps). In the same discussion above a complete rewrite of the intro to reflect the definition of the article is suggested, which I plan to implement (although others are certainly welcome). Some key points that I feel should be considered in the revamped form of this article: 1) absolutely no uses of the word claim or its variants 2) sparse and careful usage of the word divinity throughought, and not as a criteria for inclusion 3) a more precise explanation of the meaning the list has in different cultures 4) there is an exacting citation for every single entrant. I have been working on this methodically, starting with the citations, then I will move to the introductory text, and finally the article title. Of course, help would be very welcomed =) Otherwise it will likely be a month or more before I get to the final stage. Zappaz, any comments on this one? --Alterego 01:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I think that the article is evolving nicely, and I will welcome any attempt to NPOV its content and purpose. The process that you are proposing seems sensible, and at each step we can assess progress. I would propose to get started with a new intro. Maybe you can take the first stab at it here in the talk page and see who jumps in the fray to help with it. --Zappaz 02:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Caligula

  • Caligula - Possibly due to encephalitis, claimed he was a "god".

Why bring in encephalitis, an unproven diagnosis? If we're going to spend a sentence describing his godhood we should talk about the statues, or something else definitely known, not an unsourced speculation about the reason he was a god (or claimed he was a god). We could say he had madness, but do we really want to discuss the sanity of the people on this list? I don't think so. -Willmcw 22:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Sanity is a legal term =) His description could be much better. I'll attack it if no one else does. --Alterego 01:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Go for it. -Willmcw 01:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Nice work. The article is looking very spiffy. -Willmcw 04:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Removing L. Ron Hubbard

I have found no evidence whatsoever that L. Ron Hubbard ever considered himself a deity, or claimed, as the article currently states, that he was God and Satan. I have dug up a couple quotes regarding each, both from a Penthouse interview done in 1982 [13]. First, We are all fallen gods, according to Scientology, and the goal is to be returned to that state. Second, Also, you've got to realize that my father did not worship Satan. He thought he was Satan. He was one with Satan. His article says nothing about it, and to be sure, with such a public figure this kind of information would be very easy to find. Not difficult. From this vantage we have more evidence for including his father than including him (but even that is almost none). Anyway, i'm not removing him yet as someone might have some evidence I was unable to find. --Alterego 04:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

David Koresh

Via my research, David Koresh was a sinful messiah; a correlary to Jesus Christ, who was the perfect, sinless Messiah. Simply being a messiah is not a reason for inclusion in a list of human deities (he is already in List of messiah claimants). Jesus is listed because, more than being the Messiah, being Jesus means, among other things,

  • You believe you are the central figure in the religion of Christianity, which has over 2 billion followers
  • You believe you are the Son of God and have risen from the dead to save mankind from sin and death.
  • You have performed Miracles, such as turning water into wine, and healing the sick.
  • You are the Messiah, promised by God to bring salvation to humanity
  • You are God the Son in the Trinity
  • You are Jesus Christ in the Godhead (Christianity)
  • You are God incarnate

Being Jesus, or the reincarnation of Jesus, is, according to Christianity (yada) definitely room for inclusion. But if Koresh only claimed to be a regular messiah, then he probably doesn't belong here.

  • Koresh--heretofore Howell--symbolized his spiritual status by legally changing his name to David Koresh in 1990. "Koresh" is Hebrew for "Cyrus," the Persian king who defeated the Babylonians five hundred years before the birth of Jesus. In biblical language, Koresh is a (as opposed to the) messiah, one appointed to carry out a special mission for God. By taking the first name David, Koresh asserted that he was spiritually descended from the biblical King David, the ancestor of the new messiah. David Koresh, then, was a messianic figure carrying out a divinely comissioned errand.

--Alterego 02:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Removing David Icke

I was about to e-mail the BBC asking for a transcript of the Terry Wogan show where David Icke declaimed he was the "son of God" when I found his website, davidicke.com. On his website he clarifies,

I said that I was a son of God..just as all of us are "sons" and "daughters" of God - all aspects of the greater whole. Indeed that we ARE the whole if only we realised it.

I also found a May 2005 interview of him where he addresses the issue more directly:

Fletch asks:Do you still believe you are the son of God? If not, was there any particular moment when you realised you were not the offspring of a Deity or was it a more gradual process?
David Icke:I am a Son of God, if you can open your mind enough to perceive us all as a droplet in the same infinite ocean of consciousness that some call 'God'. Indeed, open your mind some more (sorry about the headache, Fletch) and you will see that we are not only a droplet, we are the ocean also. Thus, continuing the analogy, we are both the 'son' and the 'father'. Yep, even you, mate.

Eastern concept, check. Likes lizards, check. Believes in the Illuminati, check. Human deity? Uncheck ;)

--Alterego 20:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

James I of England

I felt this interesting enough to mention here. Copied from Divine Right of Kings#James I of England:

These arguments are exemplified and taken further still in the following passages from Chapter 20 of James I's Works:

"The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
"Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake, at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only.
"I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws."

--Alterego 00:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Moon?

I read the thread about Moon, and still do not understand why he is included. --Zappaz 16:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Offhand, Moon says he is the Messiah, meaning he is the Son of God. It is different than simply being a - for lack of a better word - regular messiah, which is usually a human descendant of King David. Of course, there is plenty of information available on him for further research. I usually stop once I find a citation for one person and move on to the next. Ideally all of our citations would be by prominent authors, universities, and peer reviewed journals. This would also indicate that our understanding of the subjects were up to that level. In the meantime, many eyes scouring these sources are better than just mine, and I have been gathering most of them from Google Print. My citation maker makes them trivial to include. --Alterego 01:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, it would be appreciated if you could provide more information in your queries, such as reasoning that explains what you don't understand. --Alterego 01:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The reason is pretty evident. If Moon stays by virtue of your argument (messiah=son of God) then we need to add each and everyone of the people listed under List of messiah claimants. Either all, nor none. Your argument about what is a messiah and the messiah, is, ahem, interesting, but nontheless nearing on original research. --Zappaz 02:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
If you claim to be the Christian Messiah, then, among other things, you claim to be the son of God. It is a very clear distinction. Simply believing you are a messiah is not typically merit for inclusion. In fact, we wish only to include people for whom there is reasonable evidence that would allow us to conclude that they believed they were a deity, or god. Clearly, a human descendant of King David, who simply has a god-given mission, in and of itself is not our juxtaposed human deity. We must discern the character of his status. If he is The Messiah, rather than a messiah, of which there is a clear distinction, then likely he deserves to be listed. Any person who uses the verbage The Messiah understands that there is such a thing as to be the only Messiah. Among other things, this is a very popular understanding to those familiar with any given Abrahamic religion. Perhaps more research is necessary. It should be an easy task compared to his Hindu counterparts --Alterego 04:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
You are walking a tight rope in making these distinctions. Absolutely POV and original research on top of that. Not acceptable, and against WP policy WP:NOR. --ZappaZ 00:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz I have asked several times if you would reason instead of simply making declarative sentences serving as conclusions with no apparant structural foundation. I have likely cited more facts than any person on this encyclopedia - it is validation not research. If you believe that Moon does not believe he is a deity please a) explain your reasoning and b) provide a cite. I gave you a link to hundreds of books to use and you chose not to use it. Keep that in mind. --Alterego
I don't understand what you are saying. First you talk about Messiah vs The Messiah and make that the reason why Moon is included. Then when I challege you on that standing, you respond that the reason why Moon is included, is because Moon himself believes he is a God. Then you tell me that I need to provide a cite in which Moon says he is not a God, so that he can be removed. Care to explain? --ZappaZ 01:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
And BTW, the cite from Barrett does nothing to support inclusion, on the contrary. --ZappaZ 01:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
That is correct, it does not help (much). Here is the longer-than-one-line reasoning why: On Wikipedia we strive to report on primary sources when possible. That is, information that proceeds directly from a person who was involved in or witnessed an event (or the equivalent). A report on a primary source is a secondary source, an analysis of the facts presented in the primary source. In the cases where I have been able to obtain direct quotes we serve as a secondary source. However, in some instances we have not yet found a primary source, so must in the meantime work with a secondary source. Reporting on a secondary source makes us a tertiary source. Since Wikipedia is in principle a secondary and tertiary source, this is fine. Due to the precise definitions necessary for this article, however, it would be ideal if we could have primary sources in all instances. I believe it is obvious from reading the citations currently in the article that I have strived to meet this mark and require only more time. Since it is obvious that I am attempting to find as many primary sources as possible, it is by similar reasoning obvious that initiating an argument with me while I am still actively validating or invalidating entries is a useless venture. Indeed, your time would be better spent finding primary sources with which to base decisions on. --Alterego 01:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
You didn't challenge me, you said, I read the thread about Moon, and still do not understand why he is included.. That's not a challenge. It's just a statement that says pretty much absolutely nothing. Then I explained my reasoning and you said, You are walking a tight rope in making these distinctions.. You didn't bother to say whatsoever why it is a tightrope, just that you think it is original research and unfounded. You say that the argument is interesting but original research. You don't say why it is original research. To me, the distinction seems very clear. If you believe you are The Messiah - Jesus Christ returned to earth to save mankind - then you belong. If you are the Messiah, any person who was annointed by God to do a job, that's not such a big deal. So let me be very clear: Jesus belongs in the article (see my list above somewhere). That no longer seems to be contested. Next: anyone who claims to be Jesus, or claims to hold the exact same title that Jesus held, also belongs in the article by similar reasoning for the inclusion of Jesus.
Please understand that I do not claim to be an expert on any of this. Indeed, I wish only to include people in this article who really think they are a god. And only if it can be validated. I hope you then understand why I do not reason in single sentences that serve as both the argument and the conclusion, and why it is frustrating when others do. --Alterego 01:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I can work with this. Thanks for taking the time and answering. These are my objections:

  1. The inclusion of Jesus was contested and after a long discussion, it was decided that Jesus never actually said he was God, just that there are so many people that believe he is, that he is included. The criteria was changed accordingly to include "a notable person no longer alive whose self-proclamation may be disputed historically, but that it was attributed to them later by a substantial number of people.";
  2. Moon, has never said he is a God. The fact that he said is a Messiah or even the messiah, it does not warrant its inclusion. The fact that he may compare himself to Jesus, is irrelevant if the criteria is applied as stated;
  3. If you are looking for primary sources in which it is affirmed that Moon indeed said he was a God or God, then remove him from the article, and add his name to the to do list.
  4. Any entry on the list that does not have a citation that undeniable states that this person has said unequivocally that he/she is a God or God, must be removed from the article until such time in which such citation is found. Otherwise this article deserves an {{disputed}} tag right now.

--ZappaZ 02:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd participate in this discussion, but I don't want to put any time into an effort and then, after achieving consensus and restructuring the article, have the consenting editors jump in and push to have the article deleted, such as the case with List of purported cults. There's not much point in finding agreement if the other folks just respond by pulling out the carpet. I suggest that if editors have any doubts about this article that they proceed to VfD first, to avoid wasting time and effort. -Willmcw 05:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I hereby declare I have no intention to VfD this article, as long as there is dialogue and NPOV is maintained. But if someone VfD's this article in the future and presents compelling reasons for deletion, we ought to listen and reflect on the reasons presented. After all as it says in the footer of this very page If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. --ZappaZ 05:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The article would survive a VfD. When I talk about the article to people in real life, and explain the nature of it, they immediately have suggestions. One of my roommates is in his 50s and his first suggestion was Egyptian Pharaohs, and then all emperors up to Hirohito. There really is a subset of List of deities who who were/are human beings. The article would be even more convincing, now that it has a substantial amount of media backing it up, if two things happen: 1) Fix the introduction (of which I have made a start in the todo list) and 2) Find primary sources for all entrants. --Alterego 15:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


I disagree with Zappaz to some extent, if we include Jesus, which I believe has been done with very good reasons, then we should also include people who claim to reincarnations of Jesus or clearly compare their status with that of Jesus. But I share Zappaz' doubts about including Moon, as I said before, but I have not yet had time to study it well. Andries 22:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

With regards to Jim Jones, please take a look at Talk:Jim_Jones#Claim_to_be_a_reincarnation_of_Father_Divine.3F

In my reading this article is a violation of WP:NOR, unless you demonstrate sources which have already published similiar lists. But I'll only put it on VfD, if and when a clarification of the NOR policy can be achieved, supporting my POV. --Pjacobi 23:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
There have been dozens of books written on the subject. This is validation, not research. Do us a favor and stop confusing them. Cheers --Alterego 00:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Then, why none of these books is given as reference, but only sources for each single alleged case? --Pjacobi 00:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Because you haven't put them there. By the way, you might first want to get started with the 60,000 lists across all projects, making sure a list just like it has been compiled before and if not putting it on the respective VfD. I know you're thinking "that's absurd". I know you're right, too. --Alterego 00:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents: The following are not original research: [...] The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories. --Alterego 00:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

New introduction without weasel words - community effort

Please mercilessly edit the text between these lines to reflect what you think should go in a culturally, and in all other manners, neutral introduction to this article. Feel free to edit anonymously. A vote on a new title will happen after a new introduction is agreed upon. The words 'claim' and 'divine' will not appear in the new article. --Alterego 01:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The list of self-proclaimed deities consists of those human beings who can be verified to have made unequivocal satements about being a god.

Intro - proposal

The proposed introductions do not work for me, as the "have have made public" distinction will be hard to prove for historical characters.

Having said that, my proposal for the intro below. ----ZappaZ 03:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The list of self-proclaimed deities consists of those notable human beings that have made unequivocal satements about being a god.

The point is not to have several introductions, but one introduction. If we could edit one version together that would be preferable. Thanks --Alterego 05:56, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I like this sentence we have here and am putting it on the article. I'm going to briefly address each section it replaces. I feel with the previous verbage we created more problems than we solved.
  • Don't need to define what a deity is as long as we link to the deity article.
  • I think the second paragraph was there in a weak effort to achieve a sort of cultural neutrality. It didn't achieve that. We are linking to the article on god which does a good job of explaining what it means in different cultures and religions so that may be enough. It probably isn't a good idea for us to try and duplicate that task in less words. We have been doing a good job of probing each major and many minor systems of belief which I believe (in my own little, personal system of belief ;) counters any systemic bias.
  • The first bullet under criteria for inclusion would now be made repetetive by "have made unequivocal satements about being a god. That is very direct.
  • I have kept the second bullet regarding disputed historicity.
The new introduction specifically accomplishes the following:
  • There is a prerequisite of Wikipedia:Notability
  • Links to the article on god, providing easy access to the description of what a god is in each culture
  • Likewise the definition of a deity
  • There isn't a use of the word divinity which is very nuanced and vague.
  • It comments on cases of disputed historicity right off the bat
  • It covers those who might not have said they were a god, such as any Pharaoh, since their culture just assumed that status from birth.
  • Sub-categorization is easily available up front
  • Zappaz' "unequivocal" is a good bar for inclusion, erasing ambiguity and bringing us closer to NPOV
--Alterego 01:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Alterego, I think you are going too fast... Please give time for editors to comment. I proposed the above intro, but understood it to be without caveats. The proposal is to keep it very simple as follows:

The list of self-proclaimed deities consists of those notable human beings who have made unequivocal satements about being a god.

No more, no less. This new criteria and intro means we need to lose the Pharaos and Jesus. --ZappaZ 02:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

People are complaining that the article should go on VfD. I have a vision for the article and I have put an astouding amount of time into it of late. Aside from a small amount of degeneratory comment I haven't seen any other solid work. And the work is clear cut too. Find primary sources. When I sit down and start searching I can more or less completely unwind the situation surrounding an entrant in 30 minutes. But I am a full time college student and don't have all day to do this. I would rather the criteria be overly strict than overly loose. For it is that which derides peoples sensibilities.
In my opinion the Pharaohs are our most solid entry. There is absolutely no question about it that the Egyptian Pharaohs were venerated as deities by their culture - and thought that they themselves were deities. And I don't understand why you think they are excluded, for they are specifically mentioned. Jesus, too, has received a sentence in the introduction, for it is he who firstly, and of course foremost, has the most widely disputed historicity. Please explain your reasoning. --Alterego 03:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities/Archive_2&oldid=1072172712"