what does it take to be divine?

[NikolaiI]

This question is inherently flawed.

The collective and broadly accepted understanding of what we'd categorize as divine is in all actuality an accepted fallacy. The inherent problem is that the concept of divinity entails a perfect higher state of being; yet this concept was completely created by imperfect, fallible human beings.

How are we, as an eternally fallible creature, supposed to define, categorize, comprehend, and understand a higher state of being? How are we supposed to comprehend something that by our very own definition is supposed to be beyond our capacity to understand?

Defining and understanding divinity is a flawed approach to an end that was never there. No matter how much logic we may use, or how fine-tuned our reasoning skills may be, the act of defining something which we did not possess the ability to create a concept of in the first place is a charade acting in a theater of futility.

Just because a perfected, higher state of being isn't here, now, existing in modern society and being propagated doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. What sense would that make? Sri Aurobindo makes the wonderful point in this regard: before humans exsited, an ape would probably not be able to understand that in the future there would live a being on earth who would cross the oceans in airplanes, build civilizations, roads and cities, create language and live in society according to laws governed by reason. The ape probably couldn't fathom these things, much less that said being would evolve from the ape itself.

In the same way, a divine life on earth is difficult for us to make out, to envisage and understand with our mental capacities. Divinity is beyond the mental platform. But if we just look at history from an objective point of view, it is very clear. If we look at our history, what we evolved from, then we can see what we may evolve into - a divine life on earth.

My ideas from Sri Aurobindo come mostly from his work, The Divine Life.

[Molpadia]

Just because a perfected, higher state of being isn't here, now, existing in modern society and being propagated doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

At no point in my post did I say that a higher state of being didn't exist. Please read it again.

What sense would that make? Sri Aurobindo makes the wonderful point in this regard: before humans exsited, an ape would probably not be able to understand that in the future there would live a being on earth who would cross the oceans in airplanes, build civilizations, roads and cities, create language and live in society according to laws governed by reason. The ape probably couldn't fathom these things, much less that said being would evolve from the ape itself.

And I don't disagree. In fact, you just reinforced my entire point.

At no point in my entire post did I say that a higher state of being or divine nature didn't exist. I said that it was an act in futility trying to define, categorize, or understand a concept which by our very own definition is beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend. You said it yourself - go back to the Neolithic Era and ask someone how a helicopter works; not only would he not know how it works, it would be far beyond his capacity to envision or understand. His mind had not evolved at that point to a state of mechanical understanding as advanced as something like what a helicopter is, letalone even the concept of flying.

This was my whole point. I never said that divinity didn't exist. I said that if it does, there is no way for us to know or conceive what it would be like, as it would be above us. It is a moot effort to define what it takes to be divine, as we cannot conceive what divinity is.

In the same way, a divine life on earth is difficult for us to make out, to envisage and understand with our mental capacities. Divinity is beyond the mental platform. But if we just look at history from an objective point of view, it is very clear. If we look at our history, what we evolved from, then we can see what we may evolve into - a divine life on earth.

My ideas from Sri Aurobindo come mostly from his work, The Divine Life.

And again, I don't disagree. You just misunderstood my post.

I'm not saying divinity exists. I'm not saying it doesn't either. I'm just saying that it's ironic and contradictory to define what entails being divine if the whole point of divinity is to be beyond our ability to comprehend.

[Itsonlytrung]

I post this question because I am really confused about how the Roman Catholics proclaimed a person to be divine. What does really it take to be divine? Is it the number of followers? Is it the miracles you've done which it so profound with the human world? Is it of your goodness? Is it how many loved you? Is it by not having sinned at all? Is it not marrying a woman or not doing sex? Is it the closeness of God? Or is it just to say you are divine?
If divinity is measured by how numerous your followers would be, then we can say there are many divine people in this world. If we measure divinity by the miracles you've made, then perhaps those miracles beyond human comprehension that are performed by people and practice by some may be called divine as well. Like the paranormals, etc. If divinity is known because of your goodness, then I would rigth now audition for it so that I can be called divine. If for us, divinity is how we are loved by others, then each and every one of us would have been divined since we were born because we are loved by our parents and loved ones. Do we measure divinity by our sinfulness? Like if we sinned less, then we are more likely to be called divine. Or divinity is just like celebracy in priesthood. If you are not married, you're divine. If you have not sexed a woman or women, then you're divine. Divinity is measure by how close we are to our God Almighty since he's the one who created us. But I think, divinity is just a title given only to males. It is a title of supremacy and somewhat political in nature. We say Jesus is divine because he's a male. He has done wonderful things and the lots. But are we expecting that there will be another one to be called as divine? For me, I am expecting someone. HOw about you?
P.S: In your reply, can you answer my question; what does it take to be divine? Thanks.

This sounds like homework. Here is a paper that i wrote a while back on what virtue is, for an Honor English class. Divinity and virtue are, as i understand it, essentially the same. (got an A- )



Socrates states that “we should be right to call divine also those soothsayers and prophets who we just mentioned, and all the poets, and we should call no less divine and inspired those public men who are no less under the gods’ influence and possession...How does this list of divine work into Socrates’ argument?

Meno attempted to attribute virtue to material possession, health, and righteousness, but Socrates showed that all these attribution is flawed and that nobody knows what virtue is. What Socrates stated is the conclusion that evolved from the argument he began: the human soul as being immortal and can be reborn with a latent wisdom of past lives.

Socrates showed Meno that we do not learn but recollect from our past lives by asking one of Meno’s slave a series of questions pertaining a square and its area. In the end, Socrates successfully convinced Meno that the slave already had the knowledge in him and that he needs only to recollect. The demonstration with the slave is an attempt to find the truth of something we don’t yet know, or can ever be known—one of it being virtue. Having Meno come to recognize that virtue is a part of what we don’t yet know because of its nature, Socrates then can attribute virtue to divinity.

Meno asked Socrates in whether virtue is teachable or is it a gift, and if it is a natural gift then how does it come to men. Socrates and Meno concluded that virtue couldn’t be taught with the help of Anytus, a wealth politician. The reason that virtue can’t be taught is that there are no teachers of virtue, and if there are no teachers then there are no pupils to be taught: the most virtuous man can fail to teach his son to be virtuous, or, vise-versa, a virtuous son can come from an unrighteous father. Accepting that virtue can’t be taught, Socrates and Meno investigate further to find what virtue is by speaking about the man with the right opinion to Larissa versus the man who knows the way to Larissa; but the conclusion that virtue can’t be taught is the pinnacle of Socrates’ conclusion.

Virtue, it seems, can only be understood in the context of spirituality and no earthly material would be able to give or defines one’s virtue. What makes the prophets, soothsayers, poets, or writers divine is that they posses what most men can only dream of: creativity. It is the gift that the gods have given to those men that defines virtue; it is their ability to see and understand nature the gods intended them to see; it is “neither an inborn quality nor taught.”

[wlz]

I'm on my knees!

[blazeofglory]

Divine we are already,lend me your lens to look at it through it