Who is Claiming that Humans are Gods

[angellous_evangellous]

This Christian was fumbling around where he shouldn't have been and found the following quote from a Satanist (reficul ) --

We are all gods, but to prove so action must be taken to break down the barriers that hinder us from proving thus.

My response is:

If we are all gods, I want someone who has fully realized the divinity within to do the following things:

1) End world hunger
2) Establish world peace
3) Impeach Goerge Bush

If you can't do that:
1) Raise yourself from the dead after three days
2) Walk on water
3) Raise someone else from the dead

And if you please:
1) Supply me with free beer and pizza for the rest of my life
2) Materialize a Martin D-35 on my front porch
3) I'd like some cash

Heck, if you can pull off anything on the list (supernatually, of course), I would like to find my divinity within. If you'd like to give me pizza, beer, or the D-35, I'd be impressed but not convinced, unless you could do it out of thin air.

If you cannot perform acts of divinity, there's no use in claiming it.

If you can perform acts of divinity, I want to take lessons. I am sick of working for a living, and Bruce Almighty was a cool flick. Otherwise, we must conclude that your claim that we are gods is a fantasy.

My question is:

Who in RF is claiming that humans are gods. If we are gods, how do we realize our divinity, and how can you prove that you are divine?

 

[Master Vigil]

I agree somewhat with what you say, but I have to disagree on semantics. We could say the same of your god, he hasn't ended world hunger, established world peace, or impeach george bush. And of course, we don't know if anyone has raised from the dead, walked on water, or raise someone else from the dead (except what other people wrote, so there's no proof), nor would god bring you free pizza, materialize a martin d-35, or send you cash. I believe your definition of divinity is not the definition satanists have. Nor the definition taoists have. Actually, I'm not sure if all christians hold your definition.

 

[jewscout]

you must spread more karma around before giving more to master vigil

 

[Druidus]

I believe that any being has the potential to become a Deity. Most aren't.

1) End world hunger
2) Establish world peace
3) Impeach Goerge Bush

If this is required for a being to be a God, you have disproved your own God.

1) Raise yourself from the dead after three days
2) Walk on water
3) Raise someone else from the dead

There is no proof that any of this ever happened. And the basilisk lizard already walks on water, and can come back to life after it's body has been cooled to the point that it's heart stops beating and they stop breathing. Are they Gods?

1) Supply me with free beer and pizza for the rest of my life
2) Materialize a Martin D-35 on my front porch
3) I'd like some cash

No! You must be smited for your arrogance! Die!!!!

:biglaugh:lol

 

[Saint Xtreme]

A double whammy from Druidus with the Family Guy quote too.

Anyways, I would tend to agree more than disagree with the topic quote. We all have the power inside of us to do great things. We only need to rid ourselves of all doubt and inhibition. You never know what you might be capacble of.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree somewhat with what you say, but I have to disagree on semantics. We could say the same of your god, he hasn't ended world hunger, established world peace, or impeach george bush. And of course, we don't know if anyone has raised from the dead, walked on water, or raise someone else from the dead (except what other people wrote, so there's no proof), nor would god bring you free pizza, materialize a martin d-35, or send you cash. I believe your definition of divinity is not the definition satanists have. Nor the definition taoists have. Actually, I'm not sure if all christians hold your definition.

Yes, quite right. The same rules should apply to my God, but my God has Scriptures and a systematic theology to answer these questions.

Furthermore, I am not claiming to have divine powers. The One who claims divinity did perform divine acts, and as you point out, those who saw it wrote it down.

I suspect that any human who claims to be god will not be able to give us performance nor be able to defend himself.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I chose the critera in the OP for some very specific reasons, and the responces only touched on a few.

1) First of all, if humans are actually gods, then it is impossible for the Christian God to exist. He revealed Himself as One, the Creator, and everything is subject to Him, and there are no other gods in competition with His supreme power. Therefore, the problems associated with the idea of the Christian God (eg, the problem of evil = world hunger, that kind of thing) is no longer relevant with respect to the Christian God. That is, from the Christian POV, God has revealed that evil is the result of human freewill, and God doesn't stop world hunger and wars (etc) because He values freewill. If another person claims to be a god, he/she invalidates the revelation of God which the Christians value, and now they must answer why they will not use their power for these purposes.

That is, Christians know that God is not like humans. A human god I suspect would think like a human and be for human causes and perhaps not have the qualities of the Christian God. That is, the human who claims to be god cannot possibly have the same character as the Christian God, so the same problems do not apply. The Christian God has provided answers, and the human has not.

2) Christians have record of acts that Jesus did to prove His divinity (eg, to give authority to His teachings). I would expect nothing less of a person claiming divinity to do the things that Jesus did.

3) On a similar note, my expectations for a human claiming divinity are rather low. I would be satisfied if they could only materialize beer and a guitar, which they cannot do, and do not have a systematic theology as to why they are unwilling or unable to produce anything which amounts to a divine act, be it so small as producing a theology of themselves (most humans do not have a powerful enough intellect to draw up a systematic philosophy which answers any questions) or a can of beer out of thin air.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No! You must be smited for your arrogance! Die!!!!

If humans are gods, then I am a god too. Therefore, my metaphysical essence is rubber, and I turn you into glue. Whatever you use to smite me with bounces off me, yet sticks to you. :149:

Behold the wreckless optimism of secular humanism!!

 

[Halcyon]

Yes, quite right. The same rules should apply to my God, but my God has Scriptures and a systematic theology to answer these questions.

Excuses you mean.

Furthermore, I am not claiming to have divine powers. The One who claims divinity did perform divine acts, and as you point out, those who saw it wrote it down.

Didn't film it though did they, not really evidence then is it?

I suspect that any human who claims to be god will not be able to give us performance nor be able to defend himself.

Maybe your definition of what makes a God, and a Satanist's differ.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Excuses you mean.

Didn't film it though did they, not really evidence then is it?

Maybe your definition of what makes a God, and a Satanist's differ.

No. I do not mean excuses. If I meant excuses, I am more than capable of expressing myself.

Obviously, folks would disbelive film just as much as writing - both can be edited to show whatever we want. We have a collection of eyewitness accounts from which we can scientifically deduce which writings are closest to the original by means of redaction and text criticism, somthing that is not available in film. In short, the text is more reliable than film ever could be.

Perhaps, but so far no one has qualified how a Satanist views god.

 

[Halcyon]

No. I do not mean excuses. If I meant excuses, I am more than capable of expressing myself.

The way i see it God doesn't interact with people like he does in the bible stories, but when a Christian is quizzed about this they say "Ah, but in the book of blah blah it says blah blah blah" certain passages excuse God so He doesn't have to perform miracles, communicate with us, or make His presense even remotely known to us.

Obviously, folks would disbelive film just as much as writing - both can be edited to show whatever we want. We have a collection of eyewitness accounts from which we can scientifically deduce which writings are closest to the original by means of redaction and text criticism, somthing that is not available in film. In short, the text is more reliable than film ever could be.

Erm, we have conclusive scientific evidence of when Lord of the Rings was written, doesn't mean it happened though does it? Personally i'm more likely to believe something if i can see it, even if its just on film, than a written account.

Perhaps, but so far no one has qualified how a Satanist views god.

Maybe you should take a trip to the satanist forums and ask them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For one thing, Tolkien understood that he was writing fiction and did not make the claim that he saw anything.

The Gospels are a record of first (John and Matthew) and second-hand (Luke and Mark) accounts from eye-witnesses to Christ: a record of the divine interacting with the natural. Therefore, scientifically proving what they wrote, when they wrote it, and the systematic theology that seveal writers adhere to, combined with their responsible interaction with history and their natural surroundings gives strength to their testimony.

Now reading an account of a record or testimony of God interacting with people in a certian way throughout history and then simply denying it is your perrogative. You can read it and say, Blah, this isn't true. To say that it is a serious of excuses is simply to deny that the Scriptures are capable of answering important theological questions, which is not true. The answers are present in the Scriptures, whether one wants to believe it or not. However, if one claims to be a god, they have not been personally present for the creation of the universe or the history og the world in a manner in which they can justify themselves for not being able to "Show me the money!!"

 

[Halcyon]

You have no evidence that the Gospels are anything more than propaganda fiction designed to spread a new religion, you have faith, there's a difference.

Anyway this is getting off topic, just go and talk to the Satanists about this, you might learn something - they don't bite.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You have no evidence that the Gospels are anything more than propaganda fiction designed to spread a new religion, you have faith, there's a difference.

Anyway this is getting off topic, just go and talk to the Satanists about this, you might learn something - they don't bite.

Very well. You have no evidence for believing that the Gospels are propaganda fiction designed to spread a new religion. Their interaction with history and consistent theology suggest otherwise. I have been debating this topic here

 

[Feathers in Hair]

If you ask that humans claiming they are gods about their beliefs, I think part of a potential conflict stems from what you believe Diety is defined as versus their beliefs. For instance, I think an aspect of Diety is the ability to show us the good in one another, to teach us something and to help heal. Because of that, when I greet new forum members, I usually use the term 'Namaste'. (I haven't been on much lately, so I fear I haven't greeted as many people of late.) That's because I'm acknowledging the divinity in myself and in them. If another person's definition stems from whether or not a person can turn water into wine, then I fear a great many would fall short.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks, Feathers.

Of course, what we call divine in this case may not be a true metaphysical reality. That is, we are calling something "divine" that we can most probably conclude is simply the nature of humanity, and we have no reason to exclude all other living things. This type of divinity quickly looses its meaning, and truly is not exclusive of any other theological reflection which asserts that there is a true divinity. That is, if our warm and fuzzy feelings within us that make other humans feel warm and fuzzy is divine, it does not answer the questions that theological reflections answer: is there something Divine, or Holy, in a way that humans clearly are not divine.

I think that your definition of divine and 'recognizing' the divinity of other humans is not really the recognition of divine, but rather the affirmation that humans are special, which is true. But this assertion, no matter if we call it "human potential to make others feel warm and fuzzy" or "divinity", this special nature of humans does not answer the question of if there is something truly Divine.

 

[Master Vigil]

Angellous, just because a book says something, doesn't make it true. If thats the case, all religious texts are true. The only evidence you have is whats written in the book. You have no other evidence for you god doing anything. And just because the history is accurate (for the most part) does not necessitate the accuracy of the metaphysical aspects. Do you have any other evidence that your god did anything? If not, you have proven your god wrong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous, just because a book says something, doesn't make it true. If thats the case, all religious texts are true. The only evidence you have is whats written in the book. You have no other evidence for you god doing anything. And just because the history is accurate (for the most part) does not necessitate the accuracy of the metaphysical aspects. Do you have any other evidence that your god did anything? If not, you have proven your god wrong.

Quite right, just because a book says something, it does not make it true. In this present reality, we have a plethera of religious testimony, yet one whose interaction with history is responsible and whose writers produce a consistent theology. We say that one is true by certian verifiable standards, and we can only say from a scientific standpoint that its metaphysical contents are most probrably true. That is, the interaction with nature can be well established, suggesting that the theological reflection is true, but the subject of theology remaines forever incomprehensible and untestable by nature - the subject remains metaphysical although we have testimony indicating that it has occurred and continues to occur.

So, yes we have evidence, but you can simply reject the evidence. Rejecting the evidence and saying there is no evidence is entirely different. We have evidence in the Scriptures, which can be accepted or rejected. We also have metaphysical evidenece, like answered prayer and miracles, both of which I understand can be explained away by the unbeliever, but when you ask for something by faith and get it, this is compelling and affirming.

IMHO, God values human freedom. If the evidence were absolutely compelling, then we would have no freedom to accept or to reject Him, and the Gospel would be useless. The whole point is that humans are rebelling and need communion with God, and the rebellion is the result of choice.

 

[Druidus]

Angellous, guess what?!?!?! I'm a Christian now! You know why? I met your God, and he told me stuff, and did a miracle! The Holy Spirit filled my essence, and what I write has come directly from God! The book of Druidus:

A bright light filled the land, and standing before Druidus was God. God spoke, "Where are your cards?". Druidus replied, "O, holy One, I keep them in my pocket." God then played a game of poker with Druidus, but they stopped after God got angry because Druidus was winning.

God spoke with Druidus, about many things, while munching on "cheetos", and drinking Sprite. Apparently, God's chosen race was the red breasted hummingbird, and it was out task to protect them. Later, they watched a particularily unfullfilling episode of "CSI: New York", on television.

God then said it was time for him to leave, but before leaving, he had something important to say. He spoke:
"And yea, he, who goes by the name of Druidus, shall become the Messiah, on the eve of New Year, in the Year of 2012. The spirit of my Son, Jesus, shall enter into him, and come into glory. Oh, and make sure there's enough weed for him too. Man is he a pothead!"

Druidus replied, "Okey Dokey."

And with that, Druidus departed on a pilgramage of envisioning, to seek wisdom and knnowledge, from the movie "The Jacket", at the holy theatre.


P.S. This is a sacred book and everything in it is true, as it is the word of our Lord, God.

And thus ends the book of Druidus.

Seriously, Angellous, just because it's in a book that says it is true doesn't make it so.

 

[Saint Xtreme]

Druidus you continue to be one of my favorite posters here, and you just described my view of God. Why wouldn't a God that wants us all to be happy have an appreciation for the silly little things that do that. Personally I think God has a sense of humor, but always tells those really bad, corny jokes.

AG, find me absolute proof of the Garden of Eden, find me The Ark, find me the Ark of the Covenant. Then I'll start to consider your Bible as possibly higher than the Quaran or any other book.