Do you believe a human can be a God?

[Mars Man]

There is definitely some confusion in concepts here, and the application or relevance of those with the basic question of the OP.

In order to discuss, and provide arguments which through the power of deductive logic, reach and support a conclusion (thus one answer--from the possible number of answers) on the following question :

Do you believe a human can be a god?​

We have no choice but to define some terms and describe the references they symbolize. We can have no logical, formatted discussion if we do not have a working definition for the word god, for one. What do we mean when we use this common noun? What is the state, and descriptive properties of the entity to which we can attach the word god? This is one point that must be dealt with conclusively and concisely--otherwise the question is moot.

Since we are not talking about god-models here, but rather the definition of the term, and the description of properties of the entity that term has as a referent, we need not bring in matters of present systems, actually--unless it may be to help reinforce an image of the definition we agree on.

Again, how is this for a definition? [an entity or state of existence which as the aggregate sum of it parts is greater than can be known to the animal mind--including humans.]

Also, I'd like to point out, that if we simply go by the dictionary definition general, the question will also be moot--because according to that, as caster51 san has shown, anything and everything can be (a) god. . . leaving the question meaningless.

 

[Chi65]

What does a japanese dictionary say?

It seems to be time to compare. . .

Anyhow, even Hirohito said clearly, that he is not a god. . .

 

[Mars Man]

Actually, that's where the confusion may lie, in part. For the purpose of the question, and the medium language, we don't need to appeal to how the Japanese language defines a word used in that language.

How about the definition I have provided above? Can we go with that?

Regarding Mr. Hirohito, we know for a fact that he was what we ususally define as human, although we haven't yet gotten definition for that word as used here in the OP's question, though. Anyway, I'll run over to the library, and pull out a definition from the Japanese Dictionary, and see if there is any real difference for assignment to the word 神 (kami=(a)god).

 

[Chi65]

We are dealing with difficult matters here, because it sits deep in japanese memory and perception.
Almost like telling a Christian, that there is no Christ. . .

But going back to the roots of influences, it maybe healing and lead to another change, which also Shintoism has often had. . .

I sense the same old shocks.
But lieing does not restore. . .

And I can very well feel, what there is on certain places for example, that touched me deeply.

Looking forward to what you find, Mars man

 

[Mars Man]

Well, doing that...along with some other things, did take a little time.

I can't help but get the feeling, Chi65 chan, that what you are trying to present in this thread has little bearing on the OP question in this thread. Now, in that this thread had sprung from discussion another thread, it might be that you are carrying that theme from over there, here...and then making statements along that line, thus appearing irrelevant here.

From Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary 5th Ed, 2003, pg 592. the Japanese word kami fits the general English usage, and from what I can make of the entry in 日本国語大辞典 2nd Ed, Vol 3, pg 972 (my character reading is not that good, and no time look up the ones I can't read) the general definition pretty matches general usage of the English god. The only difference will be found in belief-systems--for example the Shinto god Amaterasu-Omikami is a specific god-model, one which will not be found in any other system.

In another reference book on Japan...and I forgot to take down the bibliograph information...under the heading KAMI, gives us the general information too:

"In Shinto, the original Japanese religion, the word kami designates all divine spirits, considered 'superior' to the human condition."​

It goes on to give information on the general system (god-models) that Shinto uses...such as the theological difference between the heavenly type and the earthly type. The work also points out that a few humans are considered to have become gods after death (such as Sugawara no Michizane, Ojin Tenno) and some humans, by extension, have been given the title/b] kami due to exceptional talents and/or works.

The conclusion for this, then shows that the Japanese word can match that of English to a very high degree, because the English word god can readily be plugged into any of those except the title usage--where we would find the word lord instead.

I agree that we are giving consideration to difficult matters here, but it is not due Japanese cultural history, rather that what we are discussing within the range of the OP's question is indeed a difficult matter in many ways.

Now, once more...the question that we are to be looking at in this thread is as follows: Do you believe a human can be a god?

If person A and person B are using different definitions (references) for the word god when answering that question, we can say that both answers are correct in that we cannot deny their definitions--if we don'T set one first, you see. In fact, if no limits of terms and definitions are provided, all answers will be correct. In that case, the whole question is meaningless.

I will thus use my definition of god and take the position that the answer is negative. No, humans are humans, and we know of no god thus we cannot become god.

 

[sabro]

For the OP... Simple answer: no.

 

[Mars Man]

I would hope there could be a bit more expounding on that, however, as we go on here. Of course no definition of god has been unanimously arrived at yet...I just used my presented definition above...so I too will expound on my postition as time goes on.

 

[kireikoori]

I still wish to know:
How do you see and call it, Kireikoori ?
Please. . .

Hmm..I would agree with that small spirit larger spirit thing. And if not mistaken, I said something to that effect earlier.

It's like Inari , that is the authority over foxes. The good kitsune may have power, but Inari has further authority. Like I said earlier, god is defined by me as an entity with strong influence and authority over the spirit world. Far above and beyond the average human as far as spiritual impact would be a god.

Also, like the talk of the Pagan west that user you responded to just made, I also made one earlier. I think that the gods of Northern Europe like Odin and Ukko are quite comparable to the kami of Shinto. When you take Christianity away and reduce to the European Animist beliefs, the separation of terms is not enough to really take into account like you would Abrahamic religion versus Shamanism. Ukko is basically a Finnish Kami.

As for Hirohito(which is just one example of a claimed arahitogami or human god), both John W. Dower and Herbert Bix claim Ningen-Sengen was done in a way that he did not completely renounce his divinity. After Ningen-Sengen Hirohito still worshipped Amaterasu as an ancestor. Hirohito merely renounced akitsumikami.

Anyway, there are more examples that can be used than a controversial figure like Hirohito. Since he's already been addressed, perhaps we should move on to others, as to avoid turning a spirituality thread into a war thread.
Yes, we can continue to talk about his supposed divinity, but well...you know what I mean. Let's keep the thread on topic like Mars Man said.

The entire royal family can be brought into question, but the entire royal family.

Also, I read that arahitogami was first mentioned in Kojiki , the "oldest surviving book in Japan". So surely it's something that continued on as a concept(other than just royalty) and exists in other writings as well.

 

[Mars Man]

Therefore, we next to define or describe just what we mean by spirit world. Also, it might be good to give notice of our area of discussion--mythology or reality.

 

[kireikoori]

Therefore, we next to define or describe just what we mean by spirit world.

To me the spirit world is a world that exists in connection this world but is also separate. We only get the tip of the iceberg. Well most of us.

Also, it might be good to give notice of our area of discussion--mythology or reality.

Mythology OR reality? Isn't that like saying religion or reality?
lol, mythology just means a traditional story. Or at least that's what it says on the Christian mythology wikipedia article.

Reality. I use the word mythology to describe different things like I would say "Slavic" mythology or "Finnish mythology" or "Japanese mythology" but I don't view those "mythologies" as myths like I view Greek and Roman mythology or Christian mythology. Meaning I actually fairly strongly believe in the Shinto stuff even as agnostically as feel most of the time, more strongly than I believe in Jesus' divinity or anything Abrahamic. And I don't believe in the Greek or Roman mythology at all.

How can I be sure Inari doesn't exist? It's not like there's proof that Jesus exists. Like Christians say, it's a thing of faith.

 

[Chi65]

By the way, I have very well been on topic, beause one has to put into account, how others are seeing this, and I brought as many exmples as others did, and Kireikoori herself does.
And I answered the question my way, thus my own opinion, which she wanted to know.

Kireiikoori, I am with you by saying, that one cannot really know, if such spirits exist, since they are mostly projections, of how and where you were touched, given a name, as I said before. It not unfamiliar to artists to "project" images, and even make them as real as possible, to have a better look at the kind of inner picture, that it wakes up.

This equals the way, humans called spirits of the animals, that they wished to hunt by painting them. They made the experience, that if they concentrated on them this way, their selective consciousness helped them to have better hunting results. Thats not unknown in psychology, also that it does in fact lead to better results. We also call this self-programming/-suggestion(-manipulation or similar. You can do this via talking yourself into something by looking into your own eyes in a mirror. But then you can forget it, because your subconsciousness starts working.
In old times you would have said, you called a spirit in to help you. Of course this works better via "confrontation" with an outer image, and thus is the base for every cult, to come into such a state. Often a shaman knew about this and was thus in charge for such a ride into or with the subconsciousness. Insofar he was in fact at times "super"-human in relation to the "normal" state of consciousness, for example. If together with a wise use for benefit, it for sure at the beginning was a fine leader for his/her tribe.
Being of "control" over such normally uncontrollable parts made him/her simply "godlike", since this way he/she could achieve more than under "normal" circumstances, also collectively.
Insofar he/she was of "secret" (holy) knowledge.
The problem arises, when this is misused. . .for pure egocentric (also collective egocentric) reasons, and thats why so many retreated into hermit stages or "holy" places like monasteries etc., to regain unity with natural laws. The more complex real life became, the more it was too much for one person to relate to such states as well as "normal" daily communal duties.
Every shaman knows about the high exhaustion of such inner voyages, for example.
A wise one more often does retreat from the materialistic world, because it stops the inner processes and according connection to farther views (in harmony with inner laws) often other than daily needs. It stops them from going into "holy", thus "godlike" states, gets and /or holds them "down", so to say.
Thus very often the breaks into two separate parts that even fight each other in later cultures.
Its a picture of a split psyche, in general. . .something that should go hand in hand, in everyone of us. But overtly ego games destroys this again and again. A real holy state is no ego, because it knows about the relation to everything intuitively (collective subconsciousness once more). You may know the eightfold path in Buddhism, that one shows one possible way back to this unification, overcoming exatly this dividing ego-state. . .
So, if someone claims to be a god, he ought to know about no separation, if not, he is not, can even become a dividing demon, that causes only wars and separations from this unity (from all, not just one tribe or supposed to be enemy!).

 

[kireikoori]

I didn't say one cannot know. I said I am unsure but hopeful.

I've had some experiences I could not explain in my life, but have often wondered about them. You can hallucinate just from being too sleepy. Perhaps I just see and hear things inconsistent with the world around me. But then again, the mind itself is a mystical thing.

I don't think it's inconsistent with science to believe in spirits. Well, I guess it depends on one's idea of science. What I mean is, there's no way to be sure there is not something beyond our universe. Or that there are occult things within our universe.

I've heard people I care about deeply and highly respect say they've seen ghosts and things. And I believe them. Also, the spiritual feeling I get from looking up Romuva, Shinto, Ghosts, Sigils, Ukko and Odin leads me to believe there's something to that feeling. That it means something. So I believe. It's like when say they've felt the holy spirit and that's why they believe.

Psychology is an infantile science. It makes me laugh when some explain away occult happenings with psychology. Hypnosis is no more legitimate than any kind of magick. imo blaming the subconscious isn't much of a step up from blaming spirits. The subconscious is quite a mystic thing. The subconscious explanation sounds like something out of a psychic power book.

Anyway I believe in these feelings. I believe they mean something. So I'm going to continue to believe in them and not become an atheist.

I wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at, but I tried to respond to what I thought you were getting at.

 

[Chi65]

Sorry, but Psychology is far from being infantile, same with Neurology. In fact, they do not contradict, what you say, if you read carefully.

In a certain state, that allows you to get in contact, so to say, you sense things, that others don't, and can even make them visible (and name them, thus the different names for the same in different countries). I described that lately somewhere else, I think, on the paranormal thread. I myself had lots of according experiences.

And thats the same, as I tried to express here. I am not "blaming" anything to the subconscious, in contrary, I honour it very much for "seeing things", that many others can't or can't any more or not yet.

Fact is, that this way, particularly via Synaesthesia, many blamed phenomenom are more and more accepted now! And I am a multiple one, and thus very interested plus informed now.

 

[Mars Man]

Ok, then, we know that there are far most likely no such realities as 'ghosts'--unless we throw away the usual definition/description of the referent for that word, but how can one demonstrate that the means and sources and method of coming to know what is actually meant by the term 'spirit world' is valid?

If I may sugguest here, the word 'religion' is broader in definition than the term 'religious belief-system.' So, as is clear, Catholicism is a definite belief-system, Protestantism is yet another. In that same way, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Islam, and, of course, Shinto are all distinct and separate religious belief-systems. What is overly loosely called 'religion' should more precisely be kept to innate emotional element of the, at least, human brain which leads humans to have wonder and awe, the emotion to search and know, and thus follow the pursuit of learning.

All human created religious belief-systems are lacking in distinctly and independantly-of-all-other-systems truth of explanation of the universe in which we live, and of our most likely state of being. To that degree, they are all mythology just as the religious belief-systems of the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians or Mayan are not seen to be. We have no reason to assign greater truth value to the presently living religious belief-systems.

 

[kireikoori]

Psychology is far from being infantile.

ENFP, INTP, neither are good at classifying people.

Many people who were classified as ADHD in their childhood have now been reclassified as Asperger's Syndrome.

Hypnosis is largely viewed to be ineffective and false. Most theories explain away hypnosis as not real. Like the social constructionism theory Also Hypnosis is considered very New Age like many things dealing with the subconscious.

Almost all books dealing with the idea of psychic power or energy talk heavily about the subconscious. Meaning, the subconscious isn't really an idea out of sync with the occult/new age. In fact most involved in the occult would agree that the subconscious plays heavily in contact with the spirit world.

When I go to boards about the "paranormal", things like hypnosis, subliminal messages and other things dealing with the subconscious are talked about heavily. It's the paranormal type who are fascinated by the subconscious.

Oh, and like hypnosis the idea of subliminal messages is largely viewed to be a hoax.

Nothing much is truly known yet about the mind. We have had ideas, but do we know exactly what causes people to become murderers? Exactly what makes all people tick? No, psychology is still just an infant. We have much to learn about the mind.

And thats the same, as I tried to express here. I am not "blaming" anything to the subconscious, in contrary, I honour it very much for "seeing things", that many others can't or can't any more or not yet.
Fact is, that this way, particularly via Synaesthesia, many blamed phenomenom are more and more accepted now! And I am a multiple one, and thus very interested plus informed now.

Ah, you're not claiming that psychology disproves the spiritual? Ah, wonderful! I very much agree.
It seems we're on the same page.

Ok, then, we know that there are far most likely no such realities as 'ghosts'--unless we throw away the usual definition/description of the referent for that word, but how can one demonstrate that the means and sources and method of coming to know what is actually meant by the term 'spirit world' is valid?
If I may sugguest here, the word 'religion' is broader in definition than the term 'religious belief-system.' So, as is clear, Catholicism is a definite belief-system, Protestantism is yet another. In that same way, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Islam, and, of course, Shinto are all distinct and separate religious belief-systems. What is overly loosely called 'religion' should more precisely be kept to innate emotional element of the, at least, human brain which leads humans to have wonder and awe, the emotion to search and know, and thus follow the pursuit of learning.
All human created religious belief-systems are lacking in distinctly and independantly-of-all-other-systems truth of explanation of the universe in which we live, and of our most likely state of being. To that degree, they are all mythology just as the religious belief-systems of the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians or Mayan are not seen to be. We have no reason to assign greater truth value to the presently living religious belief-systems.

Ummmm.... o.o
1. Perhaps there's no ghosts. You said unlikely. According to science it's unlikely that even an Deistic essence created the universe and it just came about through universal crunch. But I have faith in both.
2. Throw out the usual theories, and what would be an unusual ghost theory?
3. I'm not sure what you're asking here with spirit world, but I'll trying to explain. Though probably most of it will just be me repeating myself, I apologize if it's that.

As I view the world, it is spiritual on it's own. The Pantheist perspective that all is spiritual, though I believe their is a special spiritual focus on that which are living organisms. Then I believe there is a separate but connected spirit world. The idea of the separate but connected spirit world, while the original world stay spiritual as well, is a Pandeistic viewpoint.

I'll explain the perspective with pop culture. Remember Spirited Away? That world she was Spirited Away to was the Spirit World. That movie was a portrayal of a Spirit World. Not to say it's a true story, it's a cartoon. But it's an example, sort of like how Veggietales and Little Nicky are an example of Christian Mythology in popular culture.

4. Different religion? Now it feels like we're backtracking. Different religions are both connected and separated in different ways. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism are all Dharmic religions. Finnish, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and Japonic ancient belief are all Animistic religion.

I'm confused as to how this was a response to my earlier post.

It pleases me that you view all religion as mythology. You say no religion has no more truth to you, but in feeling to me I believe in Ukko but I do not believe in Zeus.

To me the Greek and Roman idea is less so because it was strictly polytheistic without the animistic element. You can go in search of a Greek God but they will not appear, and no home of the Gods can be found at Mount Olympus. When you go to Finland and don't find Ukko you can conclude that he's residing among the spirits, the animistic way.

Am I wrong that the ancient Greek belief is not animistic?

 

[Mars Man]

Alright, then, let's take one thing at a time, because only by doing that, can we make any progress in the discussion at all.

Firstly, the definitions. For the very same reason, and based on the exact degree of validity for such in that we are using language, as symbols, to communicate, as I proposed for the difference for the English 'God' .vs. 'god', I will again show the difference between the word 'religion' and 'religious belief-system.'

Take the belief-system of the Greeks. What did that system say of the concept of god(s)? How many gods were there and to what degree of said reality? What were their individually prescribed and described attributes, personalities and so on.

Then, for example, take the earlier Jewish belief-system. What did that system say of the concept of god(s)? How many gods were there and to what degree of said reality? What were their individually prescribed and described attributes, personalities and so on.

Now, I guarantee you that after you have made a full study of those points, you will absolutely agree that the two systems do no intersect on some 80% of the spectrum, and yet to maintain the whole of each separate system, you will have to agree that they are indeed two completely separate systems, two separate god-models.

What this goes to show, is that the terms 'religion' and 'religious belief-system' are indeed different in broadness, and that the former is wider--I mean, even science can be termed a religion...but it's not a belief-system, because it is built on a method rather than a system of tenets.

Therefore, the statement 'So, as is clear, Catholicism is a definite belief-system, Protestantism is yet another. In that same way, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Islam, and, of course, Shinto are all distinct and separate religious belief-systems' is true.

 

[kireikoori]

Ok...so you're basically saying the difference between the word religion and an individual religion or religious grouping like Abrahamic or Dharmic.

and to what degree of said reality?

Huh? I don't get what you're saying here.

Tenets? Do you mean that the difference between a religion and a religious belief system is rules?

Also, I understood what the difference between "god" and "God" had to do with the subject. If I were talking about "God" I'd be talking about an all creator and within the context of Abrahamic culture. But I was talking about god in the animist/spiritualist/pantheist/pandeist/shamanist sense. I needed to use the correct not Jewish way of the word, to clarify what kind of god I was asking if a human could be.

But this stuff you're talking about now I'm not sure how it's related to the topic of "can a human be a god?"

If you're argue what I think you're arguing then I disagree. Shinto and other Shamanism may have differences, but all are still Shamanism. And all have more in common with each other than do with say..any Abrahamic faith. I'm pointing to a general shamanist definition of god, not just limited to one shamanist/animist faith, but in general. That's why I'm using examples from several, like Ukko, Odin and Inari.

 

[Mars Man]

Hats off to you kireikoori san, you are thinking about it seriously !! The point with both the god .vs. "God" thing, as well as the religion .vs. religious belief-system thing, are English things.

It is a shame, but I have found so many even native speakers of English who use the language so loosely, almost (if not) to the degree of torturing the language. As I have been harping on in this thread so far...we have to have all terms and definitions/descriptions set before we can seriously discuss the matter of the OP's question. That, is starting to happen now !! Nice job.

I have to go to bed now, but will be back !! Trust me...it is very related...but it is embedding required to fully understand the terms used in the OP.

 

[Chi65]

Ah, you're not claiming that psychology disproves the spiritual? Ah, wonderful! I very much agree.
It seems we're on the same page.

As I said at the very beginning. . .;-)

Also there is this asian idea of "things" (or whatever) being the same inside and outside. . .Perceptions and reactions thereof affect the inside, but also the inside creates and effects the outside, etc etc.
. . .cyclish thinking again, and you have it. . .

By the way, I just saw a wonderfull japanese film, called "Megane". VERY RECOMMENDED!
I am glad, such films and thoughts are still alive and well. . .full support from my side!

 

[Annubis]

A human is human, and a god is god. So what about a human becoming a god? Is that the question? Like Mars Man's examples when he presented his definition.

I think that LDS members have a very interesting perspective on the matter. But I am too scared to explain that here, such that I don't take confontation well. Perhaps there are others who can accurately explain the LDS beliefs for the OP.

 

[Mycernius]

It is strange that the overall opinion seems to be no, but religions do it anyway. Christians turned Jesus into God, Roman Emporers were regularly made into gods, Imhopet was made a god because of his Pyramids. Even those who were still alive were declared demi-gods, Gilamesh for example, the Japanese Emporers of the past, Egyptian Pharohs. If you even look at Muhammad he is all but a demi-god except in name. Islam have just stopped short of declaring him divine, but his words and actions are trusted as divine wisdom.

There is one thing all these people have in common. They are seen beyond the norms for your average person. They have either been great leaders, rulers or very good at their jobs, Imhopet for example. It seems that their actions were somehow out of reach for your average person. The same way that celebrites are put on a pedestal nowadays, these people were put on the pedestals of their day. Seeming to be supernatural or possessing knowledge beyond your average person, they must have been channeling the divine or be an aspect of the divine. Even today some religions still elevate the status of some people beyond what you or I are. Catholics still create Saints and Buddhist Bodisattvas. It is still a form of taking a person and blessing them with divine powers. Of course the catholic faith no longer calls it deification, but Beatification, but in essence it is still the same thing. They even pray to saints, a form of god worship.

Of course in the modern world we have the ability of more or less free speech and the lives of our idols are more in the media spotlight. Our new gods can easily be torn down the next week, Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, Tom Cruise. More diifficult to tear down the idols of the past. Their pasts have been written and in most cases their detractors were either killed and/or their writings were attempted to be removed from history.

For those with reference to Annubis posts LDS beliefs:
Mormon beliefs

 

[Chi65]

Very nicely put, Mycernius, full support from me!
And thanks for putting the link here, I love that Religious Tolerance place in general. . .

Just one add, if the bloodline refers to being a god, it often becomes very silly, because the children must not necessarily be as clever or holy as their ancestors, and then the real trouble begins. . .and rather those around rule and use that empty puppet as a puppet indeed. . .wellknown sad facts in history.

 

[sabro]

It all depends on your definition of what a god is, and what you believe is the nature of humanity. It almost makes the whole discussion silly... define god as something a man can become and the answer is yes. Define god as something entirely unattainable by mere mortals and your answer is no.

I happen to hold to a very specific definition of God that is quite separate, unique and not something that any person can somehow become.

 

[Mavrek]

I don't have much knowledge about the religions but I do believe that a human can never be a God in any case . God is super human beyond the limitations of human beings .