The practice of designating particular humans as being divine is utmost reprehensible

[godelian]

The emperor of Japan is not a god. He never was, and he will never be. The same is true of Christ. He was not a god, and he will never be.

There simply are no divine humans.
Get over it!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Instead of focusing on the message [mail], the excessive focus on the messenger's [postman] behavior is also utmost reprehensible. This is a sort of idolization like those of dictators, entertainment and sport celebrities, etc.

[promethean75]

Indeed, for that which is eternal about us is not defined by the contingent properties making up our bodies - these things pass out of being - but by our capacity to recognize eternal truths that do not pass out of being and which must be true in any possible world. We may limit these truths which we know a priori to a few certain philosophical statements about the nature of substance, its attributes (mathematical, geometric, etc), and causality.

[Impenitent]

people throughout history have claimed to be divine

people throughout history have followed them and believed in their divinity

but the governmental god is the divinity to obey

Nietzsche is smiling

-Imp

[Skepdick]

The emperor of Japan is not a god. He never was, and he will never be. The same is true of Christ. He was not a god, and he will never be.

There simply are no divine humans.
Get over it!

Shame, still struggling with non-binary (and specifically - trinitarian) thought, are you?

Lets put "divinity" on a scale: [0, infinity)

OK... no human is divine. And so there's nothing special about "prophet" Muhammad. He's at 0 divinity. Exactly like everyone else. If Muhammad has no divine qualities at all, what makes his message divine or his prophetic status meaningful?

Remember when Jesus was about to be stoned for blasphemy when he claimed to be God?

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? -- John 10:34-36

God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”: --Psalms 82:1

If we are to be made in God's image; why wouldn't we reflect some of that divinity? If a part doesn't reflect some aspect of the whole; is it even a part? If there are no divine humans then there can be no humans closer to the divine. There can be no spiritual development; or enlightenment.

[godelian]

The emperor of Japan is not a god. He never was, and he will never be. The same is true of Christ. He was not a god, and he will never be.

There simply are no divine humans.
Get over it!

Shame, still struggling with non-binary (and specifically - trinitarian) thought, are you?

Lets put "divinity" on a scale: [0, infinity)

OK... no human is divine. And so there's nothing special about "prophet" Muhammad. He's at 0 divinity. Exactly like everyone else. If Muhammad has no divine qualities at all, what makes his message divine or his prophetic status meaningful?

Remember when Jesus was about to be stoned for blasphemy when he claimed to be God?

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? -- John 10:34-36

God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”: --Psalms 82:1

If we are to be made in God's image; why wouldn't we reflect some of that divinity? If a part doesn't reflect some aspect of the whole; is it even a part? If there are no divine humans then there can be no humans closer to the divine. There can be no spiritual development; or enlightenment.

Notwithstanding any psalm verse mentioning various gods, I will never recognize any person's claim of being a god, because otherwise the emperor of Japan will also jump on the opportunity to insist that he is also a god. So, Jesus is not a god because accepting such claim leaves the door wide open for everybody and their little sister to make a similar claim. In that sense, rejecting human divinity is as much a political as a religious point of view.

[Skepdick]

Notwithstanding any psalm verse mentioning various gods, I will never recognize any person's claim of being a god, because otherwise the emperor of Japan will also jump on the opportunity to insist that he is also a god. So, Jesus is not a god because accepting such claim leaves the door wide open for everybody and their little sister to make a similar claim. In that sense, rejecting human divinity is as much a political as a religious point of view.

Way to miss the forrest for the trees. You don't even have to claim it. Because "gods" is a title bestowed upon humans by God himself - the God who judges gods.

A bit like the title "man" is bestowed upon you by society. Whether you claim it or not is irrelevant.

God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”: --Psalms 82:1

You are still stuck thinking in discrete categories, not along continuums.
To strip humans of all divinity (inherent worth) is to dehumanize them. It's where hatred starts.

Nobody's fallen that far. Not even those who need killing.

[Impenitent]

The practice of designating particular humans as being divine is utmost reprehensible

is not as reprehensible as

The practice of designating particular humans as being vermin is utmost reprehensible

which is much more common

-Imp

[godelian]

The practice of designating particular humans as being divine is utmost reprehensible

is not as reprehensible as

The practice of designating particular humans as being vermin is utmost reprehensible

which is much more common

-Imp

That depends on the moral theory in which you evaluate such claim. There is no absolute morality. Moral statements are always relative to a moral theory.

Example:

Quran, Al-Anfal 8:55. Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe.

In my interpretation, the Quranic verse mentioned above, is about atheists, who are being called "the worst of living creatures", which in my opinion, is equivalent to calling them "vermin".

On the other hand, I typically follow a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. In that sense, I actually do not care that people are atheist. In the end, to each his own. Therefore, I personally reserve the use of the term "vermin" for people who actively advocate and promote atheism.

So, concerning someone like Richard Dawkins:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

In 2006, Dawkins published The God Delusion, where he wrote that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and called religious faith a delusion.

he describes himself in several interviews as a "cultural Christian"

In my eyes, Richard Dawkins eminently qualifies for the designation, "goddess vermin".

I have absolutely no problem with the field of evolutionary biology. On the contrary, I think that they are doing great work.

On the other hand, it is not a coincidence that the vast majority of the truly godless vermin are cultural Christians.

You see, worshipping a man as a god is indeed delusional.

It also does not help that Christian doctrine is contradictory and sorely lacks deductive closure. Anybody with half a brain can see that there is something badly wrong with it.

However, it is not because Christianity is delusional that any other religion would also be delusional. That is clearly a case of projection. There is nothing delusional about Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism. On the contrary, these doctrines are consistent and deductively-closed.

So, yes, I consider atheist "cultural Christians" such as Richard Dawkins to be godless vermin, not because he slags off Christianity, but because he also drags every other religion through the mud.

So, Richard Dawkins is indeed amongst the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah. There is no doubt about that.

[Impenitent]

The practice of designating particular humans as being divine is utmost reprehensible

is not as reprehensible as

The practice of designating particular humans as being vermin is utmost reprehensible

which is much more common

-Imp

That depends on the moral theory in which you evaluate such claim. There is no absolute morality. Moral statements are always relative to a moral theory.

no moral theory perse ... think enemies in war

-Imp

[godelian]

no moral theory perse ... think enemies in war

That sounds like a comment on the laws of war, including the treatment of POWs and civilian populations. The belligerents could be signatories to various treaties. Furthermore, ancient customary law is still applicable:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

Custom. Not all the law of war derives from or has been incorporated in such treaties, which can refer to the continuing importance of customary law as articulated by the Martens Clause. Such customary international law is established by the general practice of nations together with their acceptance that such practice is required by law.

The Nazis were notorious violators of the laws of war.

Ironically, the Zionist state is currently also under investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, The Netherlands, for criminal misconduct.

I am staunchly in favor of the prosecution of war crimes. There are no statutes of limitations for crimes against humanity.

[Immanuel Can]

There simply are no divine humans.

You say a man cannot make himself into a god. I agree: mankind has no such ability.

Can God become a man?

[godelian]

Can God become a man?

The answer depends on what you believe about the nature of God. In the way I understand God's nature, he cannot become a man or become a physical object while simultaneously destroying his existence as an abstract Platonic being.

You see, if you carry out the computational ritual of counting till 5, you leave behind ephemeral computational shadows that effectively prove the existence of the abstract Platonic object 5.

An abstract Platonic being is an abstract Platonic object that can take the initiative in producing ephemeral computational shadows and subsequently make you carry out a computational ritual or other behavior.

It is in fact the same scenario but with the sequence (ritual, shadows) reversed to (shadows, ritual).

Hence, God can direct a human or even grab control over a human but he cannot become a human.

Just like the abstract number 5 cannot become 5 physical objects, while eliminating the existence of the abstract number 5, God cannot abandon his abstract Platonic nature and become something physical because that would require his elimination as an abstract Platonic being. There is no procedure available that would lead to God's elimination.

Asking if God can become a man implies the question: Can God be eliminated? The answer is no.

[Impenitent]

no moral theory perse ... think enemies in war

That sounds like a comment on the laws of war, including the treatment of POWs and civilian populations. The belligerents could be signatories to various treaties. Furthermore, ancient customary law is still applicable:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

Custom. Not all the law of war derives from or has been incorporated in such treaties, which can refer to the continuing importance of customary law as articulated by the Martens Clause. Such customary international law is established by the general practice of nations together with their acceptance that such practice is required by law.

The Nazis were notorious violators of the laws of war...

as was every "christian" butcher who thought they had manifest destiny

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Can God become a man?

The answer depends on what you believe about the nature of God.

Well, no: our "beliefs" can be right or wrong. Nothing in reality depends on our beliefs in order to be whatever it is.

In the way I understand God's nature, he cannot become a man or become a physical object while simultaneously destroying his existence as an abstract Platonic being.

So do you suppose that Allah is an "abstract Platonic being"? So he's a concept, not an actuality? That's what Plato thought his "Platonic beings" were. And Allah's not a "he" but an "it," and "it" cannot have any actual intervention in the world?

Well, indeed, an "abstract, Platonic concept" cannot be a man. But that hardly needs to be stated. You might have said, just as simply, that your idea of "God" is of a unreal being, a mere concept or collective notion derived from our particulars.

But that's not Islam, as I understand it. So you're not an Islamist, after all? And what can be so "reprehensible" about saying that "man" is an "abstract Platonic concept?"