Humanities desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 19[edit]

Human worshiping[edit]

In the history of humanity, is there any known religion in which its followers worshiped a human instead of a god? 174.93.61.139 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "Veneration of the dead".—Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Hero cult and cult of personality. The issue is that when something is religiously venerated, the object of veneration is usually categorised as divine in the relevant context. It's a definitional issue. So the Greek heroes of the hero cults may not have been Olympian gods, but they were certainly frequently thought to have a share in divine nature. Worship of LeBron James is fairly extravagant, for example, but it's not usually considered religious worship. But if the worship of him was so extravagant and intense—such that people were building temples to him and claiming that it was a moral imperative to worship him solemnly—then maybe it would be called religious, and the worshippers might fairly be seen as treating him as divine. In Ancient Rome, the Latin word religio referred to worship and otherwise pious behaviour toward gods and the divine, so it's not strange that still when using the word religion, there is an implied connection with the divine.

Note also that Trinitarian Christians worship a man, Jesus Christ, who is also a god. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across a Trinitarian calling Jesus "a god", though Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do. Trinitarians would say that Jesus is a person within the Godhead, or a member of the triune God, or that he is God by nature (i.e. divine), but never a god/a God, as that would imply that He is a deity seperate from the Father and the Holy Spirit. They would however call Him 'a man'. Lindert (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable - the traditional formula, "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" is a usage where Jesus is referred to as God. See also Jesus as God. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the use of the indefinite article; maybe my use of "a god/God was confusing, I meant "a god/a God". - Lindert (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe θεός("God") of Trinitarian Christianity is a god. Just as Zeus is a god of Greek paganism, etc. So if Trinitarian Christians consider Jesus Christ to be θεός, then they also consider him to be a god. Since Trinitarian Christians don't recognize any other gods, it does not seem strange to me that they would rarely say that Jesus Christ is a god, as if he were just one of many, although sometimes they do that as well (e.g.: [1], [2], [3]). But on the topic of comparative religion, when trying to categorize the views of Trinitarian Christians toward their sole god amongst other views towards other gods, it seems worthy to treat their θεός as a god, so as not to prejudice the various positions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't exactly my point. For trinitarians, 'Jesus' is not interchangeable with 'God'; They are not identical, because 'Jesus' comprises only part of what they consider 'God'. So they would say Jesus is God, the Father is God and the Holy spirit is God. These are three distinct persons, and yet one God. This is not analogous with Zeus and Poseidon, because the ancient Greeks would say Zeus is a god, and Poseidon is a god, so these are two gods. To use the indefinite article implies that 'god' is used as a countable noun, and that is not the way trinitarians use the word. So I wouldn't object to saying that the God of Christianity is a god, but rather that 'the God of Christianity' is not identical with 'Jesus'. - Lindert (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have to use the word the way Trinitarians use the word when doing comparative religion, nor are we necessarily best served by it, even when the comparisons involve Trinitarian Christianity (although I already showed that Trinitarian Christians do use indefinite articles with the word "god" in some cases as well). Why may we not be best served by it? Because although Trinitarian Christians only recognize one god, and so may have no countable use for the noun, people doing comparative religion deal with many gods, and so have do have a countable use for it. So we agree that θεός is a god, according to Trinitarian Christianity. And we agree that Jesus Christ is θεός, according to Trinitarian Christianity. But we disagree that Jesus Christ is thus a god, according to Trinitarian Christianity. We may agree that Clark Kent is Superman in DC comics. We may agree that Superman is a Kryptonian in DC comics. May we agree that Clark Kent is a Kryptonian in DC comics? It doesn't seem controversial to me, but I can't force anyone to agree.

Explicitly to your final point: I disagree. I believe Trinitarians do hold that the God of Christianity is identical with Jesus. That is one of the planks of the doctrine of the Trinity, as attested, for example, in the Athanasian Creed. Indeed, if Jesus Christ("the Son") was not treated as identical with God (and mutatis mutandis for the other persons), then all of the debates about the ontology of the Trinity would never have been doctrinal, because there would be no issue there, and the church would never have called the doctrine a mystery, as it would not be mysterious at all. If there is only one God, and the Son is not identical with God, the Father not identical with God, and the Holy Spirit not identical with God, and none of these three persons is identical with another, then there is no issue with infringement of the transitivity of identity. The issue only arose because the doctrine holds that the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are identical with God, yet not identical with each other, which seems to infringe the transitivity property.

I wish to be clear that I don't believe the word "θεός" (or "God") in Trinitarian Christianity has the same meaning as "Godhead", and does not refer to the three persons of the Trinity. "θεός" is a scriptural word, imported into doctrine and used by Trinitarians to refer to the divine natures of these three persons. "Godhead" and "Trinity" are not scriptural words, but began with Church Fathers who wished to refer to the three persons jointly. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=theos+a+god&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese emperors have traditionally been worshiped as if they were gods. StuRat (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As were their Roman counterparts, and some of the Soviet dictators... 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the difference is that many Japanese actually believed their Emperor was a God, whereas few Romans, and just about no Russians, believed that of their Ceasar/Csar. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Roman emperors (and indeed other prominent Romans) were - after their death - worshipped as gods (specifically divi), had temples built for them, and had organised cults that carried out sacrifices and other practices typical of Roman worship. See for example Antinous and Flamen Divi Iulii. Clearly the possibility of apotheosis was one that ordinary Romans accepted as part of their religious beliefs. It was not generally the practice, however, to worship a living Emperor. See Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Valiantis (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Evan Thomas, the commander in chief is "sort of God". μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Emperor was IIUIC, believed to be a Kami which is more of a divine spirit than a god. The subject is an area of dispute. Monarchy and religion often go hand-in-hand - a 1953 survey found that a third of Britons believed that Elizabeth II had been appointed by God.[4] Alansplodge (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the Prince Philip movement...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, the people of the island of Tanna worship Prince Philip. In fact, you may find the Cargo Cult article interesting. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just watch any episode of Entertainment Tonight and you'll get some idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's mentioned the Rastafari movement yet? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharaoh was worshiped as a god. --Jayron32 16:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Evan Thomas above. He's just now authored a Newsweek (no longer in print) front cover entitled The Second Coming. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone has mentioned the Church of Maradona, which in 2008 had 120,000 adherents in Argentina, apparently worshipping a stocky ex-footballer. --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find we don’t have an article on the Cult of Mao, but references are found in Chairman Mao badge and Cult of personality. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Buddhism KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin[edit]

Is there any truth to the story that Vladimir Lenin first became radicalized after witnessing a foreclosure on a neighbor's property? Or is it a legend invented by the later Soviet historians as part of his mythos, in order to promote his cult of personality? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I assume seeing his brother executed by the tsarist regime for being a socialist would be a more plausible and propaganda-worthy event... 72.128.82.131 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other version I mentioned would fit in better with his description as a populist "champion of the poor". But I agree, the version you mentioned is much more likely, based on what we know now about him. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The brother's assassination is the usual reason given, but there were all sorts of socialist, anarchist, etc., assassins back then, like Czolgosz, Lucheni, and Princip, whose evil lives on today. Lenin was a piker compared to them. μηδείς (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PSU sex scandal[edit]

We don't identify crime victims, see WP:AVOIDVICTIM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please Revdelete this topic. Roger (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? For a first name, and not an unusual one? Anyway WP:VICTIM doesn't say that — it says victims not otherwise notable should not ordinarily be the subject of a separate article, not that they shouldn't be identified. --Trovatore (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies are WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME. This is just a matter of common decency, regardless of WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By request on IRC, I've suppressed the revisions with a name. For future reference, please send requests for revdeletion or suppression to oversight-en-wp

wikimedia.org for faster and less public processing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolescence of the Military drummer boy?[edit]

Please see and answer Talk:Drummer boy (military) and expand the Drummer boy (military) article. Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that article needs a lot of work! Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signing of the constitional amendments (United States)[edit]

Hello; this image shows the second page of the 25th amendment to the US constitution. It shows the signature of the Speaker of the House and the Vice President. Why isn't it signed by the President (in this case Lyndon B. Johnson). This video indeed proves at around minute 12 that President Johnson has signed it into law. But why is there no presidential signature? It is simiular to other constitiunal amendments before, that don't show a presidential signature, altough it is known the the President has signed them. The only amendment with a presiential signature I've seen is the 13th with President Lincoln have signed it. --78.51.193.66 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure for US constitutional amendments, as I understand it, is that both houses of Congress have to pass it by a 2/3 majority, and then 3/4 of the several states have to ratify it. The president has no formal involvement whatsoever (in particular, it can't be vetoed). If Lincoln signed the 13th, maybe he asked to do so as a special favor because it was so important to him? But I'm just speculating. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Vice President, he signs it because he is the President of the U.S. Senate, equivalent to Speaker of the House in some ways. --Jayron32 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image you linked to bears the signatures of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, who have signed it because it was passed by each of those bodies. It just so happens that the President of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States, but it's in the former capacity that he's signed. Johnson signed the Archivist of the United State's certification that the Amendment had been ratified by the states, as a witness at a strictly ceremonial occasion. He signed a certification, not an amendment, and he certainly didn't sign it into law; it became law following the certification that it had been passed by the requisite number of states. See http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ . (via edit conflict) - Nunh-huh 00:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to recheck what exactly Lincoln signed, because he died before the 13th amendment was ratified. According to http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html, Lincoln signed a Joint Resolution submitting the proposed 13th Amendment to the states on 1 February 1865. Lincoln was assassinated on 14 April 1865. It was not until 18 December 1865 that William Seward, the Secretary of State issued a statement verifying the ratification of the 13th Amendment. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

e. battiglia/titled pieces[edit]

Does anyone know about this 17th-18th century italian sculptor? I'm looking for a specific marble carving. I need the name and a photograph of the original piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.199.141 (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This says Eugenio Battiglia was a Tuscan working in Florence in the late 19th century, and there are various other hits for Eugenio Battiglia, but none of the ones I've seen shed any more light on him than that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]