Talk:List of people who have been considered deities/Archive 3

message: George Bush has not proclaimed himself to be a deity. Or, at least, not in such certain terms that Wikipedia can endorse the point of view that he has done so.
We need to go through each entry and seriously - not jokingly or in a partisan way - determine which ones have clearly called themselves a deity of any sort.
We might even want to make categories, like:
*ancient emperors like Caesar
*modern "crazy" criminals, like son of sam or the beltway sniper
The case of Christ is a special one. 
Related to Christ is anyone claiming to be a messiah or the Messiah.
:so what you mean is, this has to be written from a christian-centric POV, and we just all have to agree that christ was the god, not just some other wack job--172.166.153.55 15:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite.  I don't see why Christ should be a special case 212.101.64.4 16:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why you're hiding behind an IP address--ChadThomson 09:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with Ed here. In fact, when I initially saw this page, I did not even see George W was on it. Should there be a seperate List of alleged self-proclaimed deities? --Phroziac (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That entry was added by anonIP User:172.166.153.55.  And subsequently removed by myself. No blanking, locking, or protecting required. jglc | t | c 15:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Possibly due to inclusion of Sun Myung Moon? Secretlondon 16:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big POV problem

message: Recall, please, that Wikipedia articles must not endorse any particulal point of view on religious subjects. And when there is a controversy on a subject, such as politics, we must also be careful to distinguish objective fact from "POV". Uncle Ed 15:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:I completely agree with Ed here. In fact, when I initially saw this page, I did not even see George W was on it. Should there be a seperate List of alleged self-proclaimed deities? --Phroziac (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That entry was added by anonIP User:172.166.153.55.  And subsequently removed by myself. No blanking, locking, or protecting required. jglc | t | c 15:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Possibly due to inclusion of Sun Myung Moon? Secretlondon 16:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV policy

message: If someone claims; to talk to god, speak for him, and claims to recive prayers directed at him, does this qualify as SELF proclaimed?--172.166.153.55 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. At best that would be a self-proclaimed high priest. JRM · Talk 16:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question?

message: Based on my own personal philosophy regarding the natre of thew  world, can i add my name to the list?Gavin the Chosen 16:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: -D wll, ill just have to make myslf more noteazble thenGavin the Chosen 17:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: more interesting question

message: In what way is he among "notable human beings who have made unequivocal statements about being a god"?
Given that the Trinity is such a tangled issue for Christians and non-Christians, it would be better to take Jesus off this list and simply put "See Jesus Christ" somewhere at the bottom. 
Also, it expresses a point of view to include Jesus in the same list as beltway snipers and other crackpots.
Finally (or once again), the Wikipedia must not endorse the POV that Jesus made an unequivocal statment about being a god. For those of you who don't know Christian theology, I should point out that discussion on this point began in the 2nd or 3rd century and has not stopped to date! Uncle Ed 16:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Uncle Ed, calling the Beltway Snipers crackpots does not have the ring of neutrality to it. It is your own low perceptions of them and your high perceptions of Jesus which interact to form the illusion of external POV. In fact, it is internal. If you have not read the Historicity of Jesus you need to do so now. It makes the case very clear. It is unambgious that more than 2 billion Christians - right now - believe that the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are of him making the statement that he is the Son of God. Whether or not that is true is covered in the Historicity of Jesus article and is not up to us to debate.  --Alterego 22:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:I am posting a previous comment on the Jesus discussion which I find to be relevant. Note that this comment was made regarding a discussion as to whether or not Jesus belongs in the article. It is available in the archives. --Alterego 22:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:As an NPOV list of "self-proclaimed deities", we have to list anyone that a significant POV believes to be a "self-proclaimed deity", even if this POV may seem lacking in theological rigor to some of us. Of course every messiah claimant should not be listed, but those who claim to be Jesus in the context of a relatively "mainstream" Christian theology must be seen as also claiming divinity, barring evidence of a different interpretation.--Pharos 19:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading the article on Jesus, and apparently there's a POV that he didn't even exist. I don't know all that much about this stuff, however. --Phroziac (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a minority viewpoint. With Jesus, there is usually someone who believes almost anything - that he didn't exist, that he was an extraterrestrial, that he was the head of a magic mushroom cult, that he founded a bloodline that will save the world. DJ Clayworth
Ed, I think the documentation of Jesus' claims to be God are at least as solid as those of Alexander or Caesar. Haven't we put enough disclaimers with 'according to Christian interpretation of the Gospels' in the statement? Remember that around 2 billion people believe that Jesus stated this. DJ Clayworth 17:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: actially, Yeshua didnt profess to be god, orthe son of god or an such thing, he wasimply a philosiphor.  the claims that he was the son of adiety otr a diety himself were added a few hunbdred years later.  Im sorry, but since i sawthis on TV, during a special , i cant provide a source.  what convinced me oift his was when i did some reseach on roman custom.  It eems that durintgthe years that Yeshua waas imaplaedt o wood, crosses werent used, it was poles back then, one nail, through both wrists, above the head.  It was changed to a cross later, in part becasue ofthe fact that the crusified pose looks like a gesture of supplicationm ( if thats the right word) and also in part becaseu the romans were using crosses when this alteration was made.Gavin the Chosen 17:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Please let's not try to repeat those arguments - block capitals and all. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps a seperate article for List of self-proclaimed reincarnations of Jesus Christ ???? Allegrorondo 18:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Christ

message: um, yeah, blanking of articles for no particular reason is usually considered a bad thing, and putting a 'totally disputed' tag doesn't mean you can totally blank it--172.166.153.55 15:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'm waiting for any acknowledgment from Ed, too. jglc | t | c 16:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from [[talk:Ed Poor]]

message: How can Jim Jones be a reincarnation of Father Divine, if he was born 30 years before Father Divine died? --Phroziac (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: walk-ins, spiritual possession,  etc perhapsGavin the Chosen 18:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, maybe. But that wouldn't exactly be a reincarnation. --Phroziac (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Divine beings dont need to follow the laws of time. Allegrorondo 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true.  However, our perceptions of their actions must conform to the Kantian Category of linear time. As "reincarnation" is simply the human perception of an instantiation of divinity, is it thus not a prerequisite of any "reincarnation" that an external, human observer sees it as such? jglc | t | c 15:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reincarnation before death? 

message: (Copied from Talk:Editing List of people who have said they are a god, now deleted) its simple. , he , in the texts, is cited as the SON of god, not a god himself, even he clims this. ttrinity and evangelicals aside, this seems to disqualify him for this list. Gavin the Chosen 00:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this touches on anything in the present description of Jesus. Here it is: The most popular Christian views of Jesus hold that in the Canonical Gospels he said he was God Incarnate, who took on human nature and human flesh and is the second person of the Holy Trinity. One commonly cited statement attributed to Jesus on his godhood is John 14:10 - "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.(KJB)" Other similar religious perspectives on Jesus include the Bahá'í Faith, who consider Jesus to be a manifestation of God, and some Hindus, who equate Jesus with an avatar - an incarnation of God on earth - along with Rama and Krishna. Others believe that Jesus' words have been misinterpreted - that he never actually said he was a god - and still others that the historicity of Jesus is doubtful - that he never existed. --Alterego 01:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thats got nothing to do with it.  what  other people view people as 
has nothing o do with  if people  claimed to be a god or not.  he never 
claimed to BE a god.  just the son of one.Gavin the Chosen 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Gabriel, again I think you're trying to put (your version of) The Truth into the article.  The Truth is not something we can all agree on, so we use verifiable information instead.  It's readily verifiable what the Bible says, and it's easily verifiable how people interpret it.  Many, many people believe that the Bible does say that Jesus said he was God.  We can argue all day long about whether that's correct, but it doesn't help us write an encyclopedia.  In truth, we don't have a good, accurate way of knowing everything he did or did not say.  I am saddened that you continue editing by brute force rather than by consensus.  Friday (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whyy remove joshua

message: I object to the criteria having two distinctions (people that said thet are god, and people that others thing they said they are god), and the title just one. This makes the article factually innacurate and useless. --ZappaZ  00:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to Double purpose

message: Stop removing Jesus without comment. Hipocrite 12:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop. 

message: Just to be clear, I have no intention to unprotect the article right now. Certainly not before I hear from Zappaz. I also called in a favour with Dr. Essjay, hopefuly he can find the time to help out with this dispute. If he does, I'm confident it will greatly expedite a resolution. Thanks. El_C 15:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I have to insist you fix the shading. Hipocrite 15:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you're talking about, so sure! Consider it (not) done. El_C 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Make Lu Sheng-yen white, make Meher Baba blue, and so on....Hipocrite 15:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's always in the last place you look! :) El_C 16:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection requests