It's a made up definition which varies depending on whose fairytales you believe.
Factually correct but irrelevant in the context of the LARP
This is a blatantly unhelpful answer.
It is the only correct answer.
This is a blatantly pointless reply.
While being antitheist in tone, it is the correct answer.
If you look at Abrahamic religions, humanity is at the top of the pecking order and is separate from animals. In that mindset, an orangutan can't be devine.
If you look at Hinduism or Buddhism, animals are thought to be sentient beings that have the same souls that humans have. There are even past life stories within these religions where the religious figure is an animal. In that case, an orangutan can be divine.
You may also have cases where the animal represents a deity, making the animal devine in that sense.
Unfortunately not all of us are blessed with spren and Nahel bonds to prove the existence of the supernatural to us, so it’s understandable that some react negatively to all discussions of it.
Journey before destination, Radiant.
Depends on which philosophy you ascribe to I suppose. While standard Judeo-Christian philosophy would most likely dismiss the notion of divine orangutans, I for one would posit that orangutans by thier very nature are divine and that humans may in fact be the only creatures on the planet that must struggle toward divinity.
Edit: my network is being just, like, absolute crap. I don't know why it posted multiple times. Such is the life of rural America, living with a 4g hotspot for home internet. Lol. Apologies!
I'm a sort of hodge podge of different traditions, philosophies and religions, and this is absolutely my view. In Hinduism, one of the reasons humans are at the "top" of the reincarnation cycle is because we have the intellect to understand things like karma, and are able to achieve liberation through that understanding. In my view, while we may be the only ones able to achieve liberation, we are also the only ones building up negative karma. It's a double edged sword. Animals, plants, bacteria, they don't do wrong things, they don't engage in wrong thinking. They act on impulse, on intuition, on instinct, and as such, they're pure spirited. Humans on the other hand are capable of evil, and as such we are the only species on earth that must struggle towards divinity. We just also happen to be the only species that can understand the nature of divinity. You don't think the universe be like it is but it do, y'know?
I’d like to point out that chimpanzees are pretty evil, but then again they are a great ape as well
“That piece of evidence allowed the researchers to link the murders with a motive – that of gaining new ground.”
Harambe, blessed be thy name, he died for our sins.
Valid. RIP
This seems like a question for your preferred religious representative, not Lemmy.
If anything's divine, it all is. Picking and choosing what's divine and what's not is just people making up stories to suit their own purposes. In the end, concepts like "divine" and "holy" are not very useful and often harmful.
Ook?
Use your words
He did. Just because you don’t understand the Librarian doesn’t mean he wasn’t using words.
Just make sure you never use the “M” word around him. He doesn’t like that. Orangutans are apes, no “M” involved.
Ook!
:)
Okay :)
(These are references to the Discworld series of books by Terry Pratchett, just to bring you in out of the dark.)
He hates 'mondays'?
I think you’ll find that’s an orange cat, not an orange mon- err, ape.
I mean one of the greatest miracles you see religion do is interpret the bible to say what they want it to say. This is why you get one branch saying the LGBTQ+ community is horrible and another branch welcomes them with open arms. The same can be said about any social debate.
what does mean divine mean, I feel like that is a far bigger question then what you're asking
Good thought. I will think about this next time I’m in the shower.
Hindus literally have a monkey god.
This is a fantastic point. Thank you for adding it to the discussion.
I would say that a species intelligent enough to believe in God could be divine. So I don't think orangutans or gorillas would be, but we have archaeologic evidence that Neanderthals had some form of religion, so they may also have souls.
"I believe that a triangle, if it could speak, would say that God is eminently triangular, and a circle that the divine nature is eminently circular; and thus would every one ascribe his own attributes to God."- Spinoza
So, anything can be divine if there is something that prescribes divinity to it.
From what I've heard, the Bible doesn't count animals as having the same spiritual level as humans. However, I disagree with this idea, and honestly believe osme animals are just as spiritual power as humans, considering some are very intelligent and just down right good.
I look like an orangutan but I'm not divine or owt
"Monkey" has the word "monk" in it. Coincidence?
Divine is a space you create with your will (Yi) and soul (Shen). Put in it what you want.
If you're ok with being put alongside your family in the same row as some feces throwing hairy animals, because some guys - that might as well change their opinion tomorrow - told you it's ok, I'm not going to stop you.
Me? I don't feel much kinship with gorillas, thank you very much.
This guy literally just said that he doesn't believe in evolution because he doesn't feel like it.
I gotta hand it to you, you managed to give the worst anti-evolution argument I've heard yet
This guy literally just said that he doesn’t believe in evolution because he doesn’t feel like it.
Actually, I have no problem with evolution. It's just that I don't believe in the forced division of species, one that puts us in the same cage as gorillas.
...but, since you have obvious sexual feelings towards these funny creatures, godspeed, and may you bring beautiful children to this world.
It’s just that I don’t believe in the forced division of species,
What does that even mean? "Species" isn't an actual thing that exists, it's a way of classifying creatures that we find useful.
one that puts us in the same cage as gorillas.
"In the same cage"? Presumably you can accept that you have some things in common with the gorilla: you both have a heart, both have lungs, both sneeze from time to time, both need to sleep, etc. The "cage" is a continuum.
I have nothing to say, and I'm gonna continue to do so, so help me God.
I am sure that the scientific model of evolution is vast and flexible enough, so that we don't have to occupy the same place those creatures dwell in.
Where then? I mean, you seem to be more confident in yourself than most biologists, so you sure know more than them and can prove why humans belong to a different category?
Where then?
If you're willing to grant me some considerable amount of money to perform relevant research and studies, I can provide a satisfactory answer.
If you can't, or aren't willing to, then you need to continue to live knowing that at least one person in this world doesn't exactly accept the model of reality you prefer.
If you don't have research backing you, why are you so confident? Just because you feel like it?
Haven't you ever seen a person whose opinions were backed by actual research, that was nevertheless wrong?
Haven't you ever seen a person whose opinions weren't backed by in-depth research, who was still correct?
While it happens, there's absolutely zero guarantee you're one of those who are correct without research
Great things were achieved with zero guarantees.
And great many deal of people achieved nothing wasting their fortunes on 100% guaranteed deals.
I'm asking again, why do you think your theory is more correct than current scientific consensus? Convince me as if I am an investor
How are we not great apes? I've taken 2 whole anthropology classes and this is the first I'm hearing of this! /s
For real, though, would love an answer. These things interest me.
How are we not great apes?
How can Pluto cease to be a planet overnight?
I know that you're asking rhetorically, since you have no idea how science works. But to anyone else who's interested, the reason is because we found a dwarf planet in the asteroid belt that was bigger than Pluto, and it became hard to justify that Pluto was a planet if the planet that we found was a dwarf planet. Either both had to be planets or both had to be dwarf planets. And we ended up making both of them dwarf planets
I know that you’re asking rhetorically, since you have no idea how science works.
I know how science works. It discovers, analyzes, proposes a hypothesis, that becomes a theory and then - widely accepted "truth".
...and then, often the same truth becomes an obsolete relic of old, once enough new findings emerge, or enough of scientists agree that new definitions, approach and formulas are required.
I know, you don't exactly understand it, you prefer to follow to the letter everything you're being told, and trust what people in funny uniforms say, no matter what. The bad news is that it places you in the same spot medieval (and unfortunately current) Flat Earthers occupy. The good news is that you're about to see many changes to current "truths" across your lifetime.
So, enjoy the ride.
And we ended up making both of them dwarf planets
Imagine if the opposite camp would be more convincing/charismatic/numerous and instead of stripping off Pluto of his former status, we'd get more planets to our Solar System. Wow, what a preposterous idea!
In reality, nothing has changed. Pluto is still what it was, and it continues to move in its own slow pace across its trajectory. It's just that some funny people decided to settle a difficult topic by a compromise.
Same thing with the funny people who decided to equate humans with gorillas. Their distinction is also artificial, forced and imperfect. A compromise. Nothing else.
The meaning of "planet" has changed greatly over the centuries as our understanding improved. It originally meant "wanderer" and referred to the five naked-eye planets known since antiquity plus the sun and moon, but NOT the Earth.
As astronomers and astrophysicists learned more about them, it became clear that classifying all stellar objects as the same category was unworkable. Earth was reclassified as a planet, the moon as a moon, and the sun as a star.
Likewise, Pluto was reclassified because the old classification made little sense.
...and, given time and enough of a change to relevant peoples' mindset, so does the classification of both some animals and humans might change.
Because that's how science was, is and will ever be - a mutable "phenomenon", where rigidity means lack of progress.
I see no problem in that.
...you seem to be vacillating between anti-science and science-literate positions.
Ordo ab chao.
Quam valde stultus est.
Mortuorum verba non faciunt.
Mid apes.
Dank apes
Only from the perspective that sees camels as "mid dogs", probably...
Sure they are. Why do some humans think they are better then other animals and not part of nature?
There's an enormous gap between "we're better than SOME animals", and "we're no part of nature". It's so vast, that you could throw whole flotilla of USA's Navy inside and it wouldn't even cover its bottom.
And yet, you managed to cross this distance in a single mental leap. Nicely done.
It's a made up definition which varies depending on whose fairytales you believe.
Factually correct but irrelevant in the context of the LARP
This is a blatantly unhelpful answer.
It is the only correct answer.
This is a blatantly pointless reply.
While being antitheist in tone, it is the correct answer.
If you look at Abrahamic religions, humanity is at the top of the pecking order and is separate from animals. In that mindset, an orangutan can't be devine.
If you look at Hinduism or Buddhism, animals are thought to be sentient beings that have the same souls that humans have. There are even past life stories within these religions where the religious figure is an animal. In that case, an orangutan can be divine.
You may also have cases where the animal represents a deity, making the animal devine in that sense.
Unfortunately not all of us are blessed with spren and Nahel bonds to prove the existence of the supernatural to us, so it’s understandable that some react negatively to all discussions of it.
Journey before destination, Radiant.
Depends on which philosophy you ascribe to I suppose. While standard Judeo-Christian philosophy would most likely dismiss the notion of divine orangutans, I for one would posit that orangutans by thier very nature are divine and that humans may in fact be the only creatures on the planet that must struggle toward divinity.
Edit: my network is being just, like, absolute crap. I don't know why it posted multiple times. Such is the life of rural America, living with a 4g hotspot for home internet. Lol. Apologies!
I'm a sort of hodge podge of different traditions, philosophies and religions, and this is absolutely my view. In Hinduism, one of the reasons humans are at the "top" of the reincarnation cycle is because we have the intellect to understand things like karma, and are able to achieve liberation through that understanding. In my view, while we may be the only ones able to achieve liberation, we are also the only ones building up negative karma. It's a double edged sword. Animals, plants, bacteria, they don't do wrong things, they don't engage in wrong thinking. They act on impulse, on intuition, on instinct, and as such, they're pure spirited. Humans on the other hand are capable of evil, and as such we are the only species on earth that must struggle towards divinity. We just also happen to be the only species that can understand the nature of divinity. You don't think the universe be like it is but it do, y'know?
I’d like to point out that chimpanzees are pretty evil, but then again they are a great ape as well
“That piece of evidence allowed the researchers to link the murders with a motive – that of gaining new ground.”
https://www.livescience.com/8316-chimpanzee-gangs-kill-land.html
Fair enough. The other great apes, elephants, dolphins and a few other species sort of blur the line between animal and people in some ways.
Yes.
Proof:
Lock the thread, we have our answer.
Harambe, blessed be thy name, he died for our sins.
Valid. RIP
This seems like a question for your preferred religious representative, not Lemmy.
If anything's divine, it all is. Picking and choosing what's divine and what's not is just people making up stories to suit their own purposes. In the end, concepts like "divine" and "holy" are not very useful and often harmful.
Ook?
Use your words
He did. Just because you don’t understand the Librarian doesn’t mean he wasn’t using words.
Just make sure you never use the “M” word around him. He doesn’t like that. Orangutans are apes, no “M” involved.
Ook!
:)
Okay :)
(These are references to the Discworld series of books by Terry Pratchett, just to bring you in out of the dark.)
He hates 'mondays'?
I think you’ll find that’s an orange cat, not an orange mon- err, ape.
I mean one of the greatest miracles you see religion do is interpret the bible to say what they want it to say. This is why you get one branch saying the LGBTQ+ community is horrible and another branch welcomes them with open arms. The same can be said about any social debate.
what does mean divine mean, I feel like that is a far bigger question then what you're asking
Good thought. I will think about this next time I’m in the shower.
Hindus literally have a monkey god.
This is a fantastic point. Thank you for adding it to the discussion.
I would say that a species intelligent enough to believe in God could be divine. So I don't think orangutans or gorillas would be, but we have archaeologic evidence that Neanderthals had some form of religion, so they may also have souls.
Interesting perspective!
The eternal question : Does a dog have buddha nature? https://buddhaweekly.com/the-gateless-gate-and-the-door-of-mu-does-a-dog-have-buddha-nature-and-other-breakthrough-koan-riddles/
Spinoza has a good quote that I reflect on often.
"I believe that a triangle, if it could speak, would say that God is eminently triangular, and a circle that the divine nature is eminently circular; and thus would every one ascribe his own attributes to God."- Spinoza
So, anything can be divine if there is something that prescribes divinity to it.
From what I've heard, the Bible doesn't count animals as having the same spiritual level as humans. However, I disagree with this idea, and honestly believe osme animals are just as spiritual power as humans, considering some are very intelligent and just down right good.
I look like an orangutan but I'm not divine or owt
"Monkey" has the word "monk" in it. Coincidence?
Divine is a space you create with your will (Yi) and soul (Shen). Put in it what you want.
Humans aren't great apes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
If you're ok with being put alongside your family in the same row as some feces throwing hairy animals, because some guys - that might as well change their opinion tomorrow - told you it's ok, I'm not going to stop you.
Me? I don't feel much kinship with gorillas, thank you very much.
This guy literally just said that he doesn't believe in evolution because he doesn't feel like it.
I gotta hand it to you, you managed to give the worst anti-evolution argument I've heard yet
Actually, I have no problem with evolution. It's just that I don't believe in the forced division of species, one that puts us in the same cage as gorillas.
...but, since you have obvious sexual feelings towards these funny creatures, godspeed, and may you bring beautiful children to this world.
What does that even mean? "Species" isn't an actual thing that exists, it's a way of classifying creatures that we find useful.
"In the same cage"? Presumably you can accept that you have some things in common with the gorilla: you both have a heart, both have lungs, both sneeze from time to time, both need to sleep, etc. The "cage" is a continuum.
Yeah, nah, you're boring.
I mean, where do you put humans as a species then
Nowhere near gorillas.
I am sure that the scientific model of evolution is vast and flexible enough, so that we don't have to occupy the same place those creatures dwell in.
Where then? I mean, you seem to be more confident in yourself than most biologists, so you sure know more than them and can prove why humans belong to a different category?
If you're willing to grant me some considerable amount of money to perform relevant research and studies, I can provide a satisfactory answer.
If you can't, or aren't willing to, then you need to continue to live knowing that at least one person in this world doesn't exactly accept the model of reality you prefer.
If you don't have research backing you, why are you so confident? Just because you feel like it?
Haven't you ever seen a person whose opinions were backed by actual research, that was nevertheless wrong?
Haven't you ever seen a person whose opinions weren't backed by in-depth research, who was still correct?
While it happens, there's absolutely zero guarantee you're one of those who are correct without research
Great things were achieved with zero guarantees.
And great many deal of people achieved nothing wasting their fortunes on 100% guaranteed deals.
I'm asking again, why do you think your theory is more correct than current scientific consensus? Convince me as if I am an investor
How are we not great apes? I've taken 2 whole anthropology classes and this is the first I'm hearing of this! /s
For real, though, would love an answer. These things interest me.
How can Pluto cease to be a planet overnight?
I know that you're asking rhetorically, since you have no idea how science works. But to anyone else who's interested, the reason is because we found a dwarf planet in the asteroid belt that was bigger than Pluto, and it became hard to justify that Pluto was a planet if the planet that we found was a dwarf planet. Either both had to be planets or both had to be dwarf planets. And we ended up making both of them dwarf planets
I know how science works. It discovers, analyzes, proposes a hypothesis, that becomes a theory and then - widely accepted "truth".
...and then, often the same truth becomes an obsolete relic of old, once enough new findings emerge, or enough of scientists agree that new definitions, approach and formulas are required.
I know, you don't exactly understand it, you prefer to follow to the letter everything you're being told, and trust what people in funny uniforms say, no matter what. The bad news is that it places you in the same spot medieval (and unfortunately current) Flat Earthers occupy. The good news is that you're about to see many changes to current "truths" across your lifetime.
So, enjoy the ride.
Imagine if the opposite camp would be more convincing/charismatic/numerous and instead of stripping off Pluto of his former status, we'd get more planets to our Solar System. Wow, what a preposterous idea!
In reality, nothing has changed. Pluto is still what it was, and it continues to move in its own slow pace across its trajectory. It's just that some funny people decided to settle a difficult topic by a compromise.
Same thing with the funny people who decided to equate humans with gorillas. Their distinction is also artificial, forced and imperfect. A compromise. Nothing else.
The meaning of "planet" has changed greatly over the centuries as our understanding improved. It originally meant "wanderer" and referred to the five naked-eye planets known since antiquity plus the sun and moon, but NOT the Earth.
As astronomers and astrophysicists learned more about them, it became clear that classifying all stellar objects as the same category was unworkable. Earth was reclassified as a planet, the moon as a moon, and the sun as a star.
Likewise, Pluto was reclassified because the old classification made little sense.
...and, given time and enough of a change to relevant peoples' mindset, so does the classification of both some animals and humans might change.
Because that's how science was, is and will ever be - a mutable "phenomenon", where rigidity means lack of progress.
I see no problem in that.
...you seem to be vacillating between anti-science and science-literate positions.
Ordo ab chao.
Quam valde stultus est.
Mortuorum verba non faciunt.
Mid apes.
Dank apes
Only from the perspective that sees camels as "mid dogs", probably...
Sure they are. Why do some humans think they are better then other animals and not part of nature?
There's an enormous gap between "we're better than SOME animals", and "we're no part of nature". It's so vast, that you could throw whole flotilla of USA's Navy inside and it wouldn't even cover its bottom.
And yet, you managed to cross this distance in a single mental leap. Nicely done.