What makes something divine?

[muichimotsu]

Whether or not one is a Christian or even a theist, the contingency of human life seems self-evidently true.

Contingency of life in causal connections is not the same as our value as individuals who are a work in progress, one is descriptive, the other is more prescriptive

 

[muichimotsu]

It's not about ignoring experience, it's tempering our tendency to take those experiences at face value with skepticism

So those experiences of the Divine should be tempered with skepticism? I'd say just the opposite needs to happen. The Divine brings in Sacredness. And we are in desperate need of Sacredness.


Our short comings in today's society is that reason has precluded Love. Human Beings, more than any other creatures on this planet are made to respond to Love. And we've pretty short circuited that aspect of the Human experience.[/QUOTE]

Sacredness is as vague as divinity, you've just substituted one word for another in the claim of something we need, yet haven't defined it properly, expecting it to be intuitive (it's not)

Again, you're trying to give excessive priority to sentiment instead of realizing that excess of something that is good is no longer good in the same vein as a deficit of the good. Do you really think excessive love is a good thing? And how would you remotely defend such a thing?

 

[FireDragon76]

Contingency of life in causal connections is not the same as our value as individuals who are a work in progress

Christianity doesn't assign a finite value to human life.

 

[muichimotsu]

Christianity doesn't assign a finite value to human life.

But it assigns human life a value based on obedience and servitude rather than as individuals: again, the means rather than an end contrast comes to mind. If your purpose is given to you, how is it really a purpose rather than a function, something dictated to you? If I find my purpose, it means I've realized something, it's an achievement, it's not just falling in line

 

[FireDragon76]

But it assigns human life a value based on obedience and servitude rather than as individuals: again, the means rather than an end contrast comes to mind.

Christianity has different themes and emphases, however, the only way I could see contemplating the above as true is if you take a purely rationalistic approach to understanding the religion and discount any possibility of paradox or dialectic.

Furthermore, I do not believe it is in fact true that most Christian traditions teach that human life only has value if it involves obedience and servitude. Part of being created in the divine image, with all the dignity implied, is the ability to choose to be disobedient.

If your purpose is given to you, how is it really a purpose rather than a function, something dictated to you? If I find my purpose, it means I've realized something, it's an achievement, it's not just falling in line

A false dichotomy. Catholics or Orthodox Christians tend to articulate this better than Protestants, though.

 

[muichimotsu]

Christianity has different themes and emphases, however, the only way I could see contemplating the above as true is if you take a purely rationalistic approach to understanding the religion and discount any possibility of paradox or dialectic.

Furthermore, I do not believe it is in fact true that most Christian traditions teach that human life only has value if it involves obedience and servitude. Part of being created in the divine image, with all the dignity implied, is the ability to choose to be disobedient.



A false dichotomy. Catholics or Orthodox Christians tend to articulate this better than Protestants, though.

The contingency on God is the problem, because it basically assumes we cannot have dignity unto ourselves, we have to have a reflection of God to have dignity, which oversimplifies and limits the scope of dignity and meaning itself. Paradoxes are not meant to imbue meaning necessarily, they're meant to point out issues in terms of how language can be limited or form particular issues due to our ability to think on it. And dialectic ending up with something contradictory is different than if it can make the synthesis consistent without appealing to special logic.

Is the nuance between what and who we are again? That's a nice distinction in terms of us already assuming things like a soul and dignity from that, but we being animals does not mean we are animals in the prescriptive sense. Our meaning doesn't have to be limited to our nature in that sense, but it also doesn't have to be more primary in regards to some ultimate purpose, because, again, it's insinuated onto us, like making a robot and programming it to kill people (even if that would violate Asimovian rules technically)

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is largely a question for non-Christians. What makes something divine?

I ask to help me understand the perspective of non-Christians who post here. Many non-Christians often say, "I'm not the believer. That's for you to define." But then, as the conversation proceeds, it becomes painfully obvious non-Christians actually have many expectations of what the word means that don't fit my definition, and all that baggage gets in the way.

I have no intention of debating or trying to correct the answers of others (at least not in this thread). I just want to know what you think.

It's pretty difficult conceptually for non-believers....I think....because it's one of those concepts that gets taken for granted. It's as if we all think we know what we mean until we begin talking about it....and realize that we don't.

Generally speaking though...I think most people are starting from a point of "things which come directly from god".

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem isn't in saying God is "almighty" and "eternal" and "wise" etc. It's more the using these as the starting point. Because the result is that we take an abstract concept of "God" and then try and shoehorn it into everything.

I think part of the problem is "god" is being held both as a nebulous abstract and somewhat unapproachable concept....and then religion and believers speak about it as if it isn't.

For example, once people start talking about "the morality of god"...it goes from abstract to something very static, i.e. "murder is evil". People speak about having a "relationship with God" and quite frankly, I don't see how anyone has a "relationship" with an abstract concept.

If god is an abstract concept...then there's no real need for religion or messiahs or any of it. We can have differing opinions and beliefs and never concern ourselves with who is or isn't "correct".

Once religion enters into it....by necessity god goes from "abstract concept" to "concept with clearly defined attributes". It's no longer just an abstraction.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If there is a God, then the nature of God determines the correct definition.

There are actually plenty of faiths attempting to define "God" we know that.

So, there is definition according to usage/s, which vary.

If any is the correct definition, then we need a measure to determine it, otherwise its a chance guess. Yet the measure tends to be given by the faith itself one adheres to e.g. a Christian standard of determining usage of "divine" or "God".

So then, the process is circular. Loopy. Feedback.


Maybe some "inner witness" or a personal liking for some forms of worship, like Gospel music, psychologically corroborates faith to someone. And makes a certain definition seem more worthwhile.

That would be one way of looking at the issue. Psychology. Social preferences. Fitting in to a faith community. Preferring certain kinds of worship.

Of course, they're not objective scientific reasons. They're personal. But isn't faith made for persons? People will be judged by their God, by their choice of faith.

So we have 1) person 2) beliefs 3) worship or faith acts 4) personal reaction (then back to 1, until a "settled equilibrium" or "faith choice" is reached....)

That equilibrium is a kind of crypto-reflection of the person...

Theology is anthropology, until "judgement day".