Talk:Lists of deities
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated List-class)|
|WikiProject Mythology||(Rated List-class, High-importance)|
- 1 tibetan deities?
- 2 Top
- 3 on hotei
- 4 Kitchen Gods
- 5 Christian
- 6 Cthulhu fhtagn!
- 7 Godchecker.com?
- 8 zoroastrianism
- 9 Buddhism?
- 10 African Sub-categories
- 11 List of Deities vs. List of deities OR List of Deities and List of deities
- 12 Geographical order
- 13 Egypt
- 14 I have yet to see a list.
- 15 So why were the modern religion gods removed?
- 16 Requested move 1 April 2015
Gods are invented by Jews. It’s just pictures with Jews by the way. Learn types. Languages are also Jewish, artificial. You are primitively programmed by idiots.
Isn't it rather insulting to the millions of people who still actively worship them to lump the Hindu deities in with the defunct "mythological" ones?
- On the contrary, it is your remark -- however well-intentioned -- that implicitly insults those people who believed in/worshiped other deities. I checked earlier versions of the article and I don't think the article characterizes any of these deities in a disparaging way. I personally would not want to call them "defunct" because that word has insulting connotations. It is true that these cultures have passed away, but that will happen to all of us. In fact, most humans who have ever lived are dead, and I would never disparage them or their beliefs for that reason alone.
- I admit I think it is strange that the list of Deities does not include God/El/Allah etc., and you might perhaps constructively insist that it do so. SR
So put it there?
There's no generally understood insulting connotation of "defunct" that I'm aware of. It just means "dead", or "no longer working" as far as I know. Sure, mythologies are just religions that no-one believes in any more, and the time will come when Christianity, for instance, is one of those too. Note that the thing called "Hindu" here is by far and away the most resilient system of beliefs the world has yet seen. bottles
Actually, people still believe in the "dead" religions. Including, but not limited to Greek, Roman, Norman religions and their gods and goddesses. Personally, I was initially very offended at the distintions between "Mythology" and "Religion" but I've come to understand why people make the assumptions they do.
In my understanding of Christianity, the name of God has been "God," and God's relationship to Jesus Christ is not a simple as what's listed above: God is actually the Holy Trinity--God, the Son, the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ is just the physical and spiritual manifestation of the Son, not the Father as well. So I think the above is technically incorrect.
I think I understand your view, but there are very many different Christian views on what God is. The Catholic Church, for example, holds the view you state above, as I'm sure you know. But nearly all Protestants would say, as they do say, "Jesus Christ is the Lord our God." I think nearly all Catholics would agree with that, too. I guess most Christians would say that Jesus Christ is divine, and as such, "Jesus Christ" is at least one of the names of God. --LMS
- Most Protestants still believe in the Holy Trinity, although their beliefs may be less fully articulated. Still, this is not an entry on different names of God, but on different gods. As it is, the format of the article suggests that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct deities as different from each other as Odin, Thor and Loki. Further, there is the massive disclaimer that unitarian monotheists find trinitarianism "either polytheistic or incomprehensible". This is not NPOV... unless we also want to add to each polytheistic entry the particular shortcomings that other religious groups find with their theologies. More could certainly be said about whether the Hindu gods are distinct gods or the same god or part of Everything, and whether that view makes sense to anyone else. Better to state each position as that religion states it, attributing it appropriately so Wikipedia doesn't itself get religion. Wesley
I'm not too sure "Jesus Christ" should be listed as a name of God as such. Sure, "Jesus Christ" is a name of God in most Christian groups (since most Christian groups believe Jesus is God). But I think "Jesus Christ" refers to a particular aspect of the Christian God; "Jesus Christ" isn't just God, he's a person; while "Yahweh" or "Adonai" or "Elohim" are primarily just God, not a person. (Though maybe after theological reflection its different.) -- Simon J Kissane
Since I'm Christian, I find it a bit twisty to say Jesus isn't JUST God. God has multiple names, and Jesus Christ is one of them. Because of Jesus' life, we know God is a person. Jesus is the Word of God, incarnate. Hmm. this is hard to explain. Jesus is as much of God as can possibly be human, much as a Circle is as much of a Sphere as could possibly exist in two dimensions. Anyway, the Holy Spirit is a person too. I make a distinction between a human and a person.
One could say that, but you could also say that All egyptian and Hindu dieties are not actual dieties because. For example, Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva are not God. God in hinduism is Brahman. While Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are just aspects of Brahman. And Krishna is just an aspect of Vishnu (although, this is disagree on, just like the divinity of jesus) Since the Hari Krishna believe that Krishna is actualy the absolute of god, Other hindu sects believe Devi is the real main goddess and all other gods/goddess are aspects of her. Thusly, Jesus can be considered Divine or God because some major sects view him as divine for it to be a rational inclusion. Can you imagine the type of responces you would get if you excluded him? Jaynus _Izanagi
Can someone expand on the Trinity? People talk about the Father and the Son, but not the Holy Ghost. Can we get an entry on that? -- ansible
- See Trinity. :-)
Multiple names: Some of the more ancient gods have multiple names, based on transliteration from the original language to modern language. One example would be the ancient Egyptian Set = Seth = Sutekh. What's the best way to list these?
- List them exactly as you do here. One of them should have double brackets, so that an entry on them can eventually be created. The rest can be without such brackets. RK
--- This page is getting really long and it has the potential to get much longer. Shouldn't we split it up? Danny
Are the Japanese deities still worshiped? I have no clue about the Shinto religion -- Zoe
"Wesley (adding 'pre-Christian' to some headings as appropriate, for consistency)"
Wesley, I respect your work but I dislike the implication that Christianity should be considered the appropriate yardstick for discussing religion. Can we NPOV this any? -- Respectfully awaiting your reply.
- Well, several of the entries seem to be groups based on ethnicity or culture, like the Finns and the Celts for example. The article already had "pre-Christian Finnish gods" or something similar, so I just added that same prefix to the other groups that were once polytheistic but later adopted Christianity en masse, so to speak. If it seems more neutral, we could change all the "pre-Christian" headings to "ancient", or just leave it off. I do think the fact that these groups converted to Christianity is historically significant, but my religion probably inflates its significance in my eyes. Wesley
The perhaps-more-NPOV term that occurs to me is "traditional". I don't think it's perfect, but maybe OK. What do you think?
- I don't think it would work for the Greeks. I spent a week at prayers at a Greek Orthodox Church last Spring, and for them Greek Orthodoxy is very traditional, and a huge part of being Greek culturally and ethnically. Today, Greek Orthodox Christianity is the traditional Greek religion, and has been for at least 1,600 years. For groups that aren't really around anymore, like the Celts, I'm not sure how you pick which is traditional. Wesley
Yah, I was afraid of that. I have no good suggestion at this time.
Can we include 'pre-Bahai' to some of these entries as well?
Also, as far as the 'trinity' goes, the interpretation of Hinduism given in the Bhagavad Gita espouses a similar philosophy regarding god - God is many, and one. If the Christian Trinity is considered monotheistic, according to this interpretation, the Hindu tradition should be considered monotheistic as well. The inclusion of the various Hindu deities without comment on this view of God/divinity is therefore inconsistent with the discussion given to Christianity. Graft 17:48 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
- If any of the people groups mentioned later converted to Bahai en masse, that may very well be appropriate. Or we could drop all the "pre-Foo" and "ancient" monikers. I agree that Hinduism isn't polytheistic in the same way some of these other religions are; it isn't exactly the same as the Christian trinity, but there are strong similarities. More discussion would be fine IMO. Wesley
Some Christians deny the unity of the "three monotheistic religions", saying that Jesus is not Allah (implying that Muslims are not worshipping God). I'm not sure I understand this POV, but I heard it on a Christian radio station last week. Before I add a fly to the ointment, I'd like someone who knows more than I do to comment.
- Well, they are three different religions with distinct religious beliefs. Muslims would agree that Jesus is not Allah, as far as I know. What was the question again? Wesley
- LOL. "Because all men are brothers..." --Ed Poor
I'm doing some pruning now. Some of the mythologies skip really important gods and include minor ones (and some list mythological mortals). Also adding some other mythologies. This list is going to get real long and is probably going to need constant maintenance. I'm going to eliminate the paragraphs on Sumerian gods; this article is supposed to be a list, not a description of each god ("god of trees" or something takes up little space, but not the paragraphs on Sumerian gods). User:Tokerboy
- Thanks for the good work you're doing. How about moving the Sumerian paragraphs to the article for that particular deity, unless the individual article already has the information? I agree the descriptions on this page should stay fairly concise, but the information should probably still be kept somewhere, and the individual pages are the logical places. Wesley
The Christianity section needs some mention of Catholic saints, which serve as minor deities (and in many places, serve dual purpose--deities have a local form and a saint form).
- If you list saints among deities, the entry will lose credibility among Protestants and Catholics alike. Saints are people glorified by grace, not deities; and it would inevitably be interpreted as anti-Catholic or even anti-Christian, to list saints as deities. Mkmcconn 20:58 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
- How about just a link to a list of saints and a mention that, while not deific, they are the object of veneration for at least some Christians?
--- I'm proposing a change--some may have noticed as I've been adding new mythological entries, I've changed the sections to Deities (not) still widely worshipped in their original form". I'm now not so sure I like the idea of dividing them at all.
- "widely" is inherently subjective.
- Therefore, I added the "original form" bit because I didn't want to put Abenaki mythology, in the "deities not widely worshipped" category since lumping
a religion still extant (having had no absolute breaks necessitating a revival) in the same category as Egyptian mythology, which has been essentially defunct for quite some time, though ideas from it have been used for new religions.
- I don't like the new category either because so many native mythologies are syncretized with Christianity or some other religion that "original form" doesn't really apply.
- Ergo, the original didn't work, and I no longer like my next best idea and, ultimately, I don't see how any division at all adds to the article. Anybody interested in whether or not these religions are still practiced can find out on the Egyptian mythology page or what have you, where the details can be mentioned without oversimplifying.
Anybody have an opinion? (I'll continue to work under the current system of "original form" versus not until a consensus is reached) User:Tokerboy
- I think that using "mythology" is inherently not NPOV. We should probably use a single word, such as "religion", for all the deities listed on this page. -- ESP 16:23 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In the Christian section, I wasn't clear whether there are one god, two gods (God and Mary), or four gods (Father, Son, Holy whatever, and Mary)? I assume it varies, but it isn't too clear, at least to me. Pagan 06:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- All of the above. It depends on the group of Christians. Mlk 05:45, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know of any group that claims that Mary is God. Orthodox and Catholic Christians call Mary the "Mother of God" or Theotokos by way of affirming Jesus Christ's divinity, but they also affirm that God is Mary's Creator, and that Mary is entirely human. Did you have someone else in mind? Also, classical Christianity affirms just one God, existing as three divine Persons who share a single divine Essence and Nature, both indivisible and unconfused. Only non-Christians accuse Christians of worshiping three gods when they misunderstand the Trinity, much as they once accused Christians of atheism because they didn't worship the Roman gods, or of cannibalism because they said they were eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Wesley 17:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Two smaller faiths that don't neatly fit into any of the categories of Abrahamic religions. Rastafarianism worships Jah and the Baha'i Faith also worships the same God as Jews, Christians and Muslims." My understanding was that the Baha'i werent specifically Judeo-Christian, but rather worshipped God regardless of his name or manifestaions. And if you do a little bit of minor research, you will discover that Rastafarianism, while not a very complex religion, actually has tenets beyond "Rastafarianism worships Jah". DryGrain 18:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Moved Drygrain's comments from top of this page to bottom While I don't know enough about either religion to have an opinion, feel free to make improvements. Tuf-Kat 03:06, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Baha'i is not an Abrahamic religion. Yes, they are monotheistic, and yes, they think that (for example) Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed were prophets of their god, but they also think that (for example) Krishna and Zoroaster were, too. -Rwv37 00:01, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
On Eris: should she be listed in Greek mythology, where she originated, in Kitchen Gods under Discordianism where she is currently "worshipped", or in both sections? Personally, I think both, but I want to know what others think before I change anything. PMC 05:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
You realize that hotei isn't really a fake diety. He is a buddhist and daoist diety and also found in japan Although (from what i remember) he originated as a chinese folk hero. So, i don't this its really fair to call a buddha and daoist immortal a kitchen diety. SHUT UP YOUR GAY YOU THINK YOU KNOW BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA
I have revised my previous post to better explain my concern with this section. As defined by Wiktionary, a deity is "a powerful entity that possesses numerous miraculous powers." This is open to interpretation but I would posit that just because an idea has been anthropomorphized does not make it an entity. Therefore, many entries in the Modern Western mythology section are not deities. Children, in their ignorance, may believe in a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy who visits them in the night, but no one actually believes in a deity who removes semicolons from working computer code. These "deities" may belong in another page but do not need to grace this list that includes Shiva, Bast, and Zeus. I have taken the liberty of moving some of the kitchen gods to an examples list on the Kitchen Gods page. Fruitofwisdom 14:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)fruitofwisdom
I am conderned about the christian category, as the only deity is God, Jesus was the son and many other are Angles and not classified as having a divine power or seperate worshipers like the many other religions. Enlil Ninlil 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If notable deities such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster can merit mention on this list, why not a few from Lovecraft's pantheon? Cthulhu in particular has definately entered himself into popular culture, despite his lesser status in Lovecraft's work.
Lovecraftian deities probably are more justified for inclusion than IPY and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I hear there are some people who practice "Lovecraftian occultism". (Don't ask me why. I don't know.) Hiergargo 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to follow the link on the article page to www.godchecker.com, and have not been able to locate it. Trying to find a godchecker.org doesn't work, either. Does anyone know the fate of this website? I Googled & Dogpiled it, and found many references talking about how great the site was, but the site itself is nowhere to be found. :-(
It works now. -- MicahDCochran 14:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
there is another deity in the religion called Ahriman he is the dark sided of the two entities
18.104.22.168 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What happened to Buddhism? I realize that the boddhisattvas and Buddha himself are not necessarily "deities" in the Abrahamic sense, but.. LordAmeth 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) The last four paragraphs of the relation with humanity section deal explicitly with the subject of deities in Buddhism. Badbilltucker 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I do not see any "relation with humanity" section. I apologize, maybe I'm just missing it. Where are you looking? LordAmeth 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There are way too many different African sub-cultures and deities to be grouped into one category. It should be something similar to the list for N. America.Signor Pastrini 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - the Wikipedia guidelines on 'list articles' indicates the orgnaization must be clear and consistant. Having a section for 'African' dieties and seperate sections for say 'Ashanti' is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Perhaps an organization based on 'Continent of original worship' and subdivide by culture from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
List of Deities vs. List of deities OR List of Deities and List of deities
I created a page called the List of Monsters, and when going over that page, I began to think about what or what isn't a monster, and whether certain gods or goddesses should be included in the list. When I suggested a List of Deities, it came up as not yet created, and no one pointed me out to List of deities as already existing.
So now I've created the one list, and am wondering whether it should be deleted or renamed and made into a list that includes ALL deities, fictional or otherwise.
As active contributors or readers of this list, what is your opinion on the matter.
Note, I just created the List of Deities today and it didn't take me long before I found this one, so there isn't much to it yet.
However, if allowed to move further, I would like to at least get the blessing, if you will, of the proprietors of this list before doing anything more.
OtakuMan 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind. I went ahead and wiped the other page, replacing it with a Redirect to here. I figured that would clear things up. OtakuMan 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This should be sorted at least by continent if not by region. It is patently silly to list "Baltic" under B and the closely related Slavic under S. Also, Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian deities are near identical and should be listed under "Mesopotamian", not under A, B and S. Alphabetical order isn't helpful, after all, people can just use their browser search function (ctrl-f) and if what they are looking for is on the page, they will immediately be able to spot it. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see a list.
So I came here to find a list of deities - a list of ALL of them. Instead, I get a list of links to other lists. As a result... doesn't that make this page kind of pointless? It'd be nice to have those if I knew what exactly I was looking for, but honest, I've no clue which I'm looking for. Perhaps create a new section with an actual list of deities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this page is misnamed. It should be Lists of deities or List of lists of deities. Pburka (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
So why were the modern religion gods removed?
"This is not a list of names or epithets of gods in modern monotheistic religions"
- no, the reason is that we have an entire page dedicated to this already, at Names of God. --dab (𒁳) 20:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 1 April 2015
...On a single book?
What on Earth--? Why is the categorization based on a single book?! While many of the terms are correct, others are...problematic. For example, Dawn would be more accurate as "Dawn/Twilight", Wealth as "Fortune", and Sun-god as "Solar" (which we have in the proper article. This applies to many other links in this list).
And what's with the "A-numbers"? They probably apply to the book, but why do they belong on Wikipedia?
Furthermore, basing it on this book makes the types on here static: I had to link the "list of goddesses article on the see also of the page, when it should be somewhere on the list that lists by attributes of deities. And if I were to create, say; a list of non-binary gender deities, or a list of rock deities, or shape-shifting deities, where would I place those?
- You will be pleased to learn that the fact that it is based "on a single book" is the result of considerable effort, improving the article from a version that was based on zero books, representing an increase of, well, infinite percent. You are very welcome to introduce additional literature. --dab (𒁳) 20:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)