What makes something divine?

[cloudyday2]

What do you see as the conflict between the two approaches?

It seems to me that the philosophical view identifies what God is, whereas the theological view focuses instead upon who he is. I don't see how they can do anything but complement each other, if approached correctly.

It seems there is a lot of overlap when the religion is monotheism. With polytheism we can ask "what is a god?" and we can ask "who is Zeus?" so the distinction is more meaningful.

"What is God?" might be like asking what could God possibly have done and might possibly do in the future. This is like creating a multitude of Gods by imagining alternate universes where God might have done something different.
"Who is God?" might be like asking what God actually did and what he will do in our universe.

 

[cloudyday2]

For me personally "divine" is "transcendent'. If humans have souls that transcend nature then those souls are divine (for example).

 

[ViaCrucis]

What do you see as the conflict between the two approaches?

It seems to me that the philosophical view identifies what God is, whereas the theological view focuses instead upon who he is. I don't see how they can do anything but complement each other, if approached correctly.

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. And that results in us trying to define and understand Jesus by our idea of "God". And that really is just idolatry by another name.

Rather, we instead take God's revelation as our starting point, and of course in Christianity the chief revelation of God, God's Word, is Jesus.

It's the difference between saying "Jesus looks like 'God'" with "God" being a more nebulous, abstract idea--divinity in the abstract--and saying "God looks like Jesus".

When we begin with the philosophical, abstract approach we usually end up with very wrong ideas about God, and about Christ Himself. It invites us to be theologians of glory who think we can ascend the mountain to face the naked and hidden God. It's a pretty common thing these days, just look at the Christian "worship and praise" music industry wherein the music is focused on a kind of personal encounter with the hidden glory, there are even lyrics like, "Show us Your glory! I want to see You" etc. Jesus is reduced, somewhat theologically, to simply a name for that hidden God.

And that's, really, utterly backward. We don't ascend the mountain to meet the glory; rather God climbs down the mountain to meet us in our flesh.

Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descending
Comes our homage to demand.

King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heavenly food.

Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way,
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day,
Comes the powers of hell to vanquish
As the darkness clears away.

At His feet the six winged seraph,
Cherubim with sleepless eye,
Veil their faces to the presence,
As with ceaseless voice they cry:
Alleluia, Alleluia
Alleluia, Lord Most High!

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

It seems there is a lot of overlap when the religion is monotheism. With polytheism we can ask "what is a god?" and we can ask "who is Zeus?" so the distinction is more meaningful.

That's a good point. For me, "divine" simply means "of God". Hamlet is Shakespearean; it is "of Shakespeare". The Eucharist is divine because it is of God.

 

[Resha Caner]

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. And that results in us trying to define and understand Jesus by our idea of "God". And that really is just idolatry by another name.

Amen!

 

[Resha Caner]

For me personally "divine" is "transcendent'. If humans have souls that transcend nature then those souls are divine (for example).

Now you're jumping ahead. I had planned a follow up thread asking, "What is Nature?"

 

[zippy2006]

It's the difference between saying "Jesus looks like 'God'" with "God" being a more nebulous, abstract idea--divinity in the abstract--and saying "God looks like Jesus".

Rather, for you it is, "God looks like Jesus on the cross." That's an important distinction because you are intentionally averting your eyes from the preacher, healer, miracle worker, and resurrected one. For example, praise and worship music isn't philosophical, it's pietistic, and is very much Jesus-facing. It just isn't cruciform.

You've made some good points, and there is some truth to what you've said in this thread, but in general I disagree with the claims you've made. I won't comment further, but perhaps if this comes up in the theology forums I would say more.

 

[public hermit]

What makes something divine?

One possibility: Something is divine if it is the ground or source of being, and is itself not grounded in some other source. I think this covers a lot of territory without being too specific. This might include such possibilities as 1) Creator in classical theology, or 2) the Divine in the classical philosophical sense as that from which all else emanates, or possibly even 3) an eternal universe which is somehow self-sustaining.

Edit: I apologize. I forgot this was a question for non-Christians. I didn't mean to overstep, just got a little excited.

 

[Silmarien]

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. And that results in us trying to define and understand Jesus by our idea of "God". And that really is just idolatry by another name.

Rather, we instead take God's revelation as our starting point, and of course in Christianity the chief revelation of God, God's Word, is Jesus.

I would worry to what extent this approach works in a pluralistic world. It seems to me that you can only begin with revelation if you already have a philosophical concept of God that is compatible with Christianity. I believed in a non-personal rather than personal God when I first started reading the Gospel, so I was basically making up my own religion until I started focusing on the conceptual issues instead and actually became a theist.

I do have some sympathy for Theology of the Cross, but I don't see how you can get it off the ground if you don't already believe in a personal God who is active in human history.

For the purpose of this thread: what do we mean when we talk about a personal God who is active in human history? If the Christian God turned out to be an ancient alien, would we still call him divine? I would say no. Presumably everyone else would say no too, so I don't see how we can avoid the question of what it means for God to be divine.

 

[Resha Caner]

One possibility: Something is divine if it is the ground or source of being, and is itself not grounded in some other source. I think this covers a lot of territory without being too specific. This might include such possibilities as 1) Creator in classical theology, or 2) the Divine in the classical philosophical sense as that from which all else emanates, or possibly even 3) an eternal universe which is somehow self-sustaining.

Interesting.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

Above or beyond human?

I would worry to what extent this approach works in a pluralistic world. It seems to me that you can only begin with revelation if you already have a philosophical concept of God that is compatible with Christianity. I believed in a non-personal rather than personal God when I first started reading the Gospel, so I was basically making up my own religion until I started focusing on the conceptual issues instead and actually became a theist.

I do have some sympathy for Theology of the Cross, but I don't see how you can get it off the ground if you don't already believe in a personal God who is active in human history.

Lutheranism is contingent on the wider Catholic tradition. Dispense with it, and it's simply not very compelling in a pluralistic world. The issues that drove Luther are simply incomprehensible to most modern people.

Personally, I am skeptical of traditional monotheism, which means I can't make much out of the Gospels other than Jesus' example of compassion and hospitality. And I'm OK with that. I much prefer that to the relic of a state religion built upon centuries of oppression.

 

[Resha Caner]

Lutheranism is contingent on the wider Catholic tradition. Dispense with it, and it's simply not very compelling in a pluralistic world. The issues that drove Luther are simply incomprehensible to most modern people.

Personally, I am skeptical of traditional monotheism, which means I can't make much out of the Gospels other than Jesus' example of compassion and hospitality. And I'm OK with that. I much prefer that to the relic of a state religion built upon centuries of oppression.

Sweeping generalizations are always fun.

 

[Silmarien]

Lutheranism is contingent on the wider Catholic tradition. Dispense with it, and it's simply not very compelling in a pluralistic world. The issues that drove Luther are simply incomprehensible to most modern people.

I would tentatively agree with this, insofar as Luther himself was in many ways a product of his time, but I think the Lutheran tradition in general is very good at identifying the Zeitgeist and then rebelling against it in spectacular ways.

Personally, I am skeptical of traditional monotheism, which means I can't make much out of the Gospels other than Jesus' example of compassion and hospitality. And I'm OK with that. I much prefer that to the relic of a state religion built upon centuries of oppression.

Yes, yes, yes, oppression bad, but remember when you said that Napoleon was a misunderstood enlightened despot and that British moral hypocrisy was somehow worse than conquering most of Europe? Because I certainly remember that.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would tentatively agree with this, insofar as Luther himself was in many ways a product of his time, but I think the Lutheran tradition in general is very good at identifying the Zeitgeist and then rebelling against it in spectacular ways.



Yes, yes, yes, oppression bad, but remember when you said that Napoleon was a misunderstood enlightened despot and that British moral hypocrisy was somehow worse than conquering most of Europe? Because I certainly remember that.

I don't think an enlightened despot is all that bad, necessarily.

Napoleon emancipated the Jews and believed in religious toleration, extending it to France's Protestant Hugenot minority. He threatened the traditional "divine right of kings" and had to be put in his place by the status quo of Europe, some of whom still advocated blatant classism or even serfdom. So unlike alot of other Anglophones, I appreciate Napoleon's contributions to history.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't think an enlightened despot is all that bad, necessarily.

I know you don't. It's frankly mind-boggling.

Napoleon emancipated the Jews and believed in religious toleration, extending it to France's Protestant Hugenot minority. He threatened the traditional "divine right of kings" and had to be put in his place by the status quo of Europe, some of whom still advocated blatant classism or even serfdom. So unlike alot of other Anglophones, I appreciate Napoleon's contributions to history.

What you are doing with Napoleon here is the same exact thing that you constantly do with Christian history, in reverse--you are cherry-picking a handful of positive aspects of Napoleon's policies and completely ignoring everything that doesn't fit with the idea that he was "enlightened." Your hero deprived French women of the rights they had won during the Revolution and tried to reinstate slavery in the colonies, but it seems that his saving grace is that he wasn't an Anglophone.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

The problem is that "divine" is so nebulous it can apply to varying definitions and still be accurate because there isn't a standard that's universal or agreed upon in any metaphysical structure, practically speaking

You can define it in one way and someone within the same Christian sect could define it in a different manner, but would either of you be right or wrong? Internally, I can't say if there's some agreed upon idea of divine, but even if everyone agreed upon it there, that still doesn't get to consensus. And consensus doesn't follow to cogency anyway: even if everyone had one idea about supernatural that was consistent across various religions, that only means people would have that agreed upon definition.

What expectations do you see people having as to what "divine" means? If we're just going from general definitions through natural theology, that's hardly the non believer's fault, it's theologians who promulgate those ideas as somehow self evident about the divine.

 

[muichimotsu]

I think on some level the difficulty has come from the fact that, in the history of Christianity there has been two competing notions of the divine. One based upon philosophy, and one based upon theology.

The philosophical view begins with a set of abstract ideas--God is omnipotent, God is X, God is Y. What we would describe as the "attributes of God".

But I think the appropriate position to take is the theological one, not the philosophical one. It's the position that Martin Luther takes in the Heidelberg Disputations about what it means to be a theologian of the cross. And that doesn't begin with abstract ideas, the attributes of God; rather it begins with the concrete, solid, person of Jesus who lived, suffered, died, and rose again.

Hence Luther writes,

"19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).

This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.« »I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth." - Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, Theses 19-20

Thus we behold God not through the invisible and abstract notions of power, wisdom, glory, et al; but rather through the visible and tangible reality of the Crucified Jesus. And thus we behold God not in wisdom, but foolishness; not in power, but weakness; not in glory, but the cross.

And so the definition of "divine" is found not through abstract and invisible notions of attributes; but instead in God's acts, God's self-pouring-forth, God's self-giving, etc.

I've always loved the following quote from the Catholic theologian Fr. Herbert McCabe

"This is what John is talking about at the beginning of his Gospel when he calls Jesus the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is God's Word, God's idea of God, how God understands himself. He is how-God-understands-himself become a part of our human history, become human, become the first really thoroughly human part of our history--and therefore, of course, the one hated, despised, and destroyed by the rest of us, who wouldn't mind being divine but are very frightened of being human." - Herbert McCabe, God Still Matters, p104

And of course it is only this Incarnational understanding of God that can make sense of the multifaceted dimensions of Christian theology; perhaps no more so noticeable than in the doctrine of Theosis. So when St. Athanasius declares, "He became man so that man might become god." this can only be understood through the Incarnation; for the great doctor does not mean we become "almighty" or "eternal" or any of these attributes; but rather speaks of our sharing in God through Jesus and the Spirit. We don't become "gods" by some form of apotheosis; but rather that ultimately and in the end God's grace utterly penetrates us through the transformative and transfigurating work of the Spirit conforming us to the image of Christ. This work which shall be made full and perfect in the resurrection.

God, and so divinity, cannot be comprehended in any other way, at least not honestly, except through Jesus who gives Himself freely in suffering, death, and life.

And so what is divine is That which we encounter in the weakness, humility, and grace of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

That sounds oddly like post hoc rationalization of God as fitting with what you've already concluded is divine with Jesus, because otherwise you would just be getting into abstractions of natural theology as more a philosophical exercise. But if God is described in terms of Jesus, then the whole hypostatic union still gets into some problems of an entity being fully one thing, but also another that is diametrically in conflict with it (human and divine)

 

[muichimotsu]

For me personally "divine" is "transcendent'. If humans have souls that transcend nature then those souls are divine (for example).

But then the question becomes whether the immanent can also be divine in the sense of inspiring awe and such? Couldn't nature be declared as divine in its own sense in a worldview (not even pantheistic, but perhaps in that vein?)

 

[cloudyday2]

But then the question becomes whether the immanent can also be divine in the sense of inspiring awe and such? Couldn't nature be declared as divine in its own sense in a worldview (not even pantheistic, but perhaps in that vein?)

By my definition, nature is the stuff whose future behavior can be predicted by looking at past behavior. Quantum mechanics shows there are limits. That randomness has always been a fascinating concept to me. To me that seems to be an interface allowing the divine to affect nature.

I may take a break or quit the forum. (Not related to anything in this thread, but just in case I don't reply to any other comments promptly. There just aren't enough cat lovers on CF anymore LOL - no just joking that's not it. )

 

[muichimotsu]

By my definition, nature is the stuff whose future behavior can be predicted by looking at past behavior. Quantum mechanics shows there are limits. That randomness has always been a fascinating concept to me. To me that seems to be an interface allowing the divine to affect nature.

I may take a break or quit the forum. (Not related to anything in this thread, but just in case I don't reply to any other comments promptly. There just aren't enough cat lovers on CF anymore LOL - no just joking that's not it. )

So the divine is more paranormal, seems like, predictable, but working on its own rules? That's at least more compelling in a way