Are You Divine?

[Katzpur]

Are you a divine being?*

*Disclaimer/Legal Boilerplate:
By your very ability to answer the question I would argue yes. I think people are a whole lot more than they sometimes give themselves credit for. Let us appreciate our individuality regardless of beliefs, and try to work together to accomplish our respective goals. We have all been granted the incredible gift of consciousness and our own will, with the inherent trust that we can be responsible in our explorations of this wonderful universe. Xeper.

IMO, I am not fully divine, but I do have a spark of divinity within me, and have the potential to become all that a divine being is. I'm not saying I will attain this during my mortal life, because I know I won't. But the potential is there, nevertheless.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are you a divine being?*

*Disclaimer/Legal Boilerplate:
By your very ability to answer the question I would argue yes. I think people are a whole lot more than they sometimes give themselves credit for. Let us appreciate our individuality regardless of beliefs, and try to work together to accomplish our respective goals. We have all been granted the incredible gift of consciousness and our own will, with the inherent trust that we can be responsible in our explorations of this wonderful universe. Xeper.

If by "divine," you mean "someone who thinks threads about semantics which don't include definitions aren't very meaningful or substantive," then yes, I am.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Outside of proving that you're not a specific god, you really can't. Especially if people worship you. After all, that's really all that "god" means; "that which is worshiped".

I think that's part of it, but it's not the whole meaning.

Even the third definition of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "god" is: a person who is loved or admired very much by other people.

... as a hyperbolic figure of speech, not as a claim that the person is a literal god.

 

[Muffled]

Frigga holds that ability too. I predict you're going to disagree with me.

I believe Norse myths don't have the same assurance of truth as the word of God but I am willing to hear what the claim is since I haven't run across it in my reading of Norse myths.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

...as a hyperbolic figure of speech, not as a claim that the person is a literal god.

It's not marked as so; it's not even marked as "informal". There is also applicable definition for things to which too much importance is given, like money. I don't believe this is hyperbole, but simply a non-theistic application of "god".

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I believe Norse myths don't have the same assurance of truth as the word of God

Told ya.

I am willing to hear what the claim is since I haven't run across it in my reading of Norse myths.

It is well known and common throughout the Norse myths that Frigga knows the fates and future of all men and Gods, but does not reveal it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not marked as so; it's not even marked as "informal".

Same with the use of "czar" (a person appointed by government to advise on and coordinate on policy in a particular area), "mogul" (an important or powerful person), and "king" (a person or thing regarded as the most important in their sphere or group).

People who call Michael Jackson "the King of Pop" aren't saying that he's a literal monarch. Same with describing someone as a "god".

There is also applicable definition for things to which too much importance is given, like money. I don't believe this is hyperbole, but simply a non-theistic application of "god".

"Non-theistic applications of 'god'" are non-literal uses of the word "god".

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

People who call Michael Jackson "the King of Pop" aren't saying that he's a literal monarch. Same with describing someone as a "god".

And yet, calling Michael Jackson the "King of Pop" does fall in line with him being the most important person in the sphere of "Pop". Fitting the OED second definition of "King."

In the same sense that Michael Jackson being a god of Pop Music is not to say that he is on the same level of Yahweh, Odin or Zeus, but that he is worshiped and adored by his fans; a literal use of the word, just a non-theistic one.

 

[Muffled]

Told ya.



It is well known and common throughout the Norse myths that Frigga knows the fates and future of all men and Gods, but does not reveal it.

I believe you should contrast that with God who does reveal things about the future. It certainly is convenient to claim an ability but never have to provide proof of it.

Of course because I believe it is the only rational approach.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Looks like my prediction was right.

 

[Akivah]

All humans are created with a Divine Spark. It is the image of which we are made from G-d.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And yet, calling Michael Jackson the "King of Pop" does fall in line with him being the most important person in the sphere of "Pop". Fitting the OED second definition of "King."

In the same sense that Michael Jackson being a god of Pop Music is not to say that he is on the same level of Yahweh, Odin or Zeus, but that he is worshiped and adored by his fans; a literal use of the word, just a non-theistic one.

I hope you realize that you're contradicting yourself: if someone thinks that Michael Jackson is a literal god, then their usage *is* theistic.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I hope you realize that you're contradicting yourself: if someone thinks that Michael Jackson is a literal god, then their usage *is* theistic.

Not necessarily. They just adore (worship) him as the pinnacle of Pop Music. There mustn't needs be a theological application for this; I adore Dio as the creator and most important contribution to Metal Music; he is the God of Metal. That doesn't mean I think he can save my soul, or is immortal, or knows everything, etc.

 

[Willamena]

How do you mean? If one fits the definition of a god (see: any celebrity) would not their actions then fit the definition of divine as originating from a god?

The use of "god" to refer to celebrities is in a different context than that of divinity, a mundane context.

 

[Willamena]

I myself am not a necessary being.

Debatable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessarily. They just adore (worship) him as the pinnacle of Pop Music.

... which you say makes him literally a god.

... which makes it theistic.

Seems like you're trying to suck and blow at the same time.

Edit:

There mustn't needs be a theological application for this; I adore Dio as the creator and most important contribution to Metal Music; he is the God of Metal. That doesn't mean I think he can save my soul, or is immortal, or knows everything, etc.

But since you say that none of that is relevant to him being a literal god, why would it be relevant to being "theological"?

 

[james bond]

Are you a divine being?*

*Disclaimer/Legal Boilerplate:
By your very ability to answer the question I would argue yes. I think people are a whole lot more than they sometimes give themselves credit for. Let us appreciate our individuality regardless of beliefs, and try to work together to accomplish our respective goals. We have all been granted the incredible gift of consciousness and our own will, with the inherent trust that we can be responsible in our explorations of this wonderful universe. Xeper.

I would not compare myself to God in being divine, but in a personal life sense I can call myself that. It means one is in charge of their life.

What do you mean by consciousness? That's a word that's been used widely throughout the years.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

...which you say makes him literally a god.

Yes, as per the third definition of "god".

...which makes it theistic.

No, because theism (and thus theistic application) regards the existence of a god or gods. It is known that Michael Jackson exists. It's known that he's a very influential figure in Pop Music. There's nothing theistic to debate or question regarding it. The application of theism to that specific definition doesn't work, just as divinity doesn't work (you were right on this one, Willamena; I tried it a couple times and it just doesn't sound right).

But since you say that none of that is relevant to him being a literal god, why would it be relevant to being "theological"?

I'm not sure I follow your question. I'm suggesting that the usage of "god" - while literal - does not necessarily relate to spirituality and religion; in a word, "theology". Somewhere along the lines here the question of whether or not we're divine shifted to people being gods, to which I have attempted to pose that yes, we can be. In a sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because theism (and thus theistic application) regards the existence of a god or gods.

... which you say Michael Jackson is.

It is known that Michael Jackson exists. It's known that he's a very influential figure in Pop Music. There's nothing theistic to debate or question regarding it.

Theism isn't just the belief that one or more gods exist; it's the umbrella term for all belief systems that relate to a god or gods and include the premise that the god or gods exist.

The application of theism to that specific definition doesn't work, just as divinity doesn't work (you were right on this one, Willamena; I tried it a couple times and it just doesn't sound right).

It doesn't work because calling Michael Jackson a god is just a figure of speech.

I'm not sure I follow your question. I'm suggesting that the usage of "god" - while literal - does not necessarily relate to spirituality and religion; in a word, "theology". Somewhere along the lines here the question of whether or not we're divine shifted to people being gods, to which I have attempted to pose that yes, we can be. In a sense.

Why are you bringing spirituality and religion into this?

Theology is the study of the nature of a god or gods. If Michael Jackson is a god, then musical analysis of "Thriller" is a theological exercise.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You consider the characteristics that make something a God and then investigate whether you possess those characteristics.

So what are the characteristics that make something a God?

BTW: by "a God", do you mean "a god"? I know the autocorrect on my iPod capitalizes "God" without me asking, so I figured I should ask before assuming that you meant "God" to be something different from "god".

I define a deity as the Divine Essence of something, the metaphysical reality underlying a given thing. For example, Zeus being the Divine Essence of the Sky, Justice, Law, etc. That's the best way I can put it.

I capitalize "Gods" out of respect for the Holy Powers.