We are all G!ds.

[Thomas]

Good afternoon, Thomas. I have a lengthy response, but for the sake of clarity I have broken it into two parts, not counting a third, in which I'll eventually get around to replying to the rest of your thoughts.

OK. You will excuse me if I restrict my replies to the core issue under discussion.

You may, but in the last analysis, your individual notion is all that you, or I, or anyone else can possibly have.

It seems then you are unaware of the Christian Tradition. Suffice to say that what I present is traditional commentary, and bearing in mind the tradition produced the Scripture, then that should be the starting point of the discussion. It's certainly not, as you suppose, my individual notion.

Or is it? How very disingenuous, yet utterly predictable of you to attempt at the outset to set up a straw man! Not so easily shall you edge me out, with some kind of, "You're not speaking the same language!" I'm simply weighing in on what I think Christ was driving at, and for that I do not need the Pope, Vatican dogma, or anything else Roman Catholicism has to offer. I've done quite alright without them until this point; you will understand if I find no use for them all of a sudden here.

Here's the thing —
1: I am supposedly disingenuous and predictable in, as you erroneously suppose, offering a personal opinion ...

2: Then you go straight on to offer ... a person opinion! So I suggest the accusation of 'disingenuous' and 'predictable' rebounds upon yourself!

+++

If your argument is that God is not a composite being, but one transcendent, then I do not disagree.

OK.

But if you claim that that Aspect {the Transcendent} of Deity is unbeknownst either to or by God's manifest Aspects, then you speak as one who both knows these several Aspects of God, firsthand, and who has the authority to state clearly that God Transcendent is unknown by God Immanent, or vice versa, or both. Is this the case?

No, I never said that.

I would rather say that what we can say of the Immanence of the Deity tells us something about its Transcendence ... and from there, contemplation will lead us towards an understanding (albeit limited by our powers of comprehension) of the Absolute.

The point is however, that the Absolute Deity is Immanently present 'in' and 'to' (and I use these terms analogously) the human person — this does not make the human person the equal of the Absolute, which is the very crux of the question under discussion ...

That does not make man God though, does it.

My tradition, and Christianity as Christ taught it, teaches that man and God are not mutually exclusive.

Really? Can you cite in Scripture where He says that?

So basically, you're telling us the tradition of Andrew is infallibly correct, and everyone else is wrong?

Even though you now say your deity is a composite, which you excluded above — you appear to have contradicted yourself.

From the tradition pov — Such a composite deity then speaks of dependency, in which case philosophically your deity is not Absolute but relative — it's not a 'god' as Christianity, nor the mainline Hellenic philosophical tradition, understands it.

When Christ speaks of a "Peace which PASSETH Understanding," He not only affirms the Mind-Transcendent Principle of our HUMAN Consciousness, He also affirms the Bliss-Transcendent Principle.

I don't think so:
"And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world." John 8:23

The very definition of transcend means beyond the nature of the thing transcended, if it is not beyond the nature, then it is a potentiality, but not a transcendent potentiality.

So I am suggesting that the human being is a limited, contingent, finite and created nature which, by grace, can participate in the Absolute, Infinite and Uncreated – but this participation is by grace, not by nature.

... and you seem to think that the Greater is not sufficiently mirrored into the lower...

Mirroring is reflecting — but a mirror is not the equal of what it reflects, a reflection does not contain the essence of the thing reflected, does is it?

You forget, in all your preaching and theological wrangling, that it was for THIS that Christ was born ~ for the building of the BRIDGE between Highest God and lowest Man (if we include Man's animal, vegetable and mineral aspects of being), wherever man might be found, and in whatever conditions.

Not at all, I am saying Christ is the Bridge — as the term Pontifex states quite clearly — but what you seem to be arguing is that what lies on the other side of the bridge is the same thing as what lies on this side ... which rather negates the whole point of the bridge, doesn't it?

In short, the Greater includes the lesser, just as the lesser includes the least, as well as everything that is in between.

Quite so, but the lesser does not include the greater, does it?

These, my old Trinitarian Friend, are what we call The Trinity ... or, in the Christian Tradition: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Well, as your case collapses under its own internal contradictions, I'll not endeavour to unravel your erroneous assumptions here.

God did not fashion man as a mutually exclusive being, for a Spark of that same God exists within everyman, even as the fullness of everyman and of ALL men rests ~ ENTIRELY ~ within that Being we call God.

Andrew — you seem to be intent on arguing a point I'm not arguing.

God fashioned man as capax dei — the capacity to know God — and as Christ is the Logos, then it is by and in Him that all things subsist, but the point is, that does not make man God, does it.

Why is this so difficult for us, some of us, sometimes, to get our minds around?

I don't know Andrew ... something for you to ponder, perhaps?

Meanwhile, nothing you say argues that man is God, does it?

Thomas

 

[bananabrain]

... it occurred that since my posts are rather lengthy, and dwell upon one point for the most part, I might be able to sum them up a bit more succinctly.

....~*HURRAH*.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Thomas]

As I say, it was for BRIDGING work that Christ was born (into Cosmos, into Man) ~ and on our planet this currently means for the building of the BRIDGE between Highest God and lowest Man.

So you agree with me — man is not God.

That's all I was saying.

Thank you.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Those with an open mind will understand the association with the following quote from "The Song of the Lord," in which the Lord tells us:

"Having permeated this entire Universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain."​

And those with the eyes to see will immediately realise the folly of this statement — God cannot be 'fragmented' — so a nice poetic saying, but fundamentally, philosophically and metaphysically flawed.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Thomas, you are hopeless. You belong on ignore where I had you. I find the most frustrating part of it that in all your stuffiness, you still pull yourself off as "a good christian man" around here (or at least to ~ some) ... and that, in all your pretense, is certainly not the only thing you intend to be.

I see a whole lot more, of what shows in "the mirror" ... and therefore, while I admire your effort at strong-arming, with a SMIRK, you can neither keep *my God in a box* nor yours *in and on* that pedestal ~

~ for you shall one day see, that He was a-carving and a-placing himself right there ON that pedestal ...

... long before you ever BEGAN to learn `how to think!'

{He therefore not only taught you how, but proceeded to watch you carry yourself right away with it ["ya own bad self" as the new generation says ~ but still SELF] ... and lock the door behind you.}

Now one day, my old friend, you'll see that the bold-enough part of learning how to "take god off" of the magic pedestal, and put him on like a bit of an old suit ... or perhaps a SUNDAY GLOVE ...

-- is indeed, *just the beginning*

For He taught us to LOVE

And that one you forgot a long time ago; I for one, I've opened that portion of my book here ...

And as I've ever said, PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

But you still ~ didn't, did you ~ bother to get it.

AMEN, Goodnight, Godspeed, and Good Riddance

 

[bananabrain]

......~oooOOOOOOooooo!!

 

[bob x]

......~oooOOOOOOooooo!!

I thought you weren't supposed to write the O?

 

[Dream]

I thought you weren't supposed to write the O?

Why are you poking fun? That's it, you're going on ignore unless you straighten up. Just to show I mean business: You're on ignore. Now you're back off of it. See? I'll do it, man. You know I will.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Bringing up your post (It's a worthy topic)

I believe Jesus answered when challenged...So we start a new thread.

How did the Jews understand it....before Jesus said it, and after Jesus used it in response?

And how do you interpret it today?

Was Jesus being a smart ass? Or was he making a point about us all?

Wil, I've been thinking lots the last few days, and I think you are on to something, bro. If you don't mind, I'd like to give my views concerning this topic and as it concerns our "fall" and also our ascension. Jesus was telling us "who" we are! Of course you already knew that.

I think God wants us to realize "who" we are and our responsibilities as the dominant species. We are Gods creations, but in order for us to truly understand "who" we are, it is necessary that we realize just how powerful we are. In our hands is the power of life and death, thus God allows us to taste death, experience destruction, trial, tribulation, and suffering, so we might truly understand our "might" as mighty ones or "gods".

"Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid [them] out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High." (Psalms 81:3-6)

​

The power of life and death is in our hands. We are the mighty one's, the most dominant of God's creations. He allowed us to fall, so we might rise again (As demonstrated by Jesus) unto more glory than you could possibly imagine. The end is not yet come, the eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

The natural man is the adversary to God, as the natural man is incomplete, imperfect, and destructive. God in Gods entirety is perfect, and Jesus the perfect and complete manifestation (Revelation) of God on earth. This is "who" we are, or rather who "we" become when we are reborn of the "Holy Spirit", which is Gods love and wisdom, and our "tree of life", through which we are made complete and perfected.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil being our awakening to our own destructive characteristics and power. In order to know "who" we are, it is necessary that we realize "what" we are capable of. Serving God in His perfect love vs. Attempting to rule the earth? I for one choose service! I'm reminded of when Jesus was tempted of Satan (His natural self?)

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
​

We have the power of life, which comes by service to God and His love. We also have the power of death, which comes when we attempt to "rule" the earth. Service in heaven or rule in hell? NOT a difficult decision if you truly think about it and take into account the "hell" we have effectively created on earth. Mighty one's (gods) we are, and even more mighty we become when we submit to God and His love.


Two pennies worth,


GK

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

OK, I'll add some confusion. If Christ is in us, then we're in him. He is our representative. And if he's the Logos,then our essential nature controls him. And if he is also the active portion of God as far as we're concerned, then our essential nature is equivalent to God, so far as we are concerned. This doesn't add up to "we are God", but it does imply that we control God, as it were. He is ultimately invested, discipline is essentially a bluff-just like in parenthood, and so we essentially control him.

Chris

 

[Gatekeeper]

OK, I'll add some confusion. If Christ is in us, then we're in him. He is our representative. And if he's the Logos,then our essential nature controls him. And if he is also the active portion of God as far as we're concerned, then our essential nature is equivalent to God, so far as we are concerned. This doesn't add up to "we are God", but it does imply that we control God, as it were. He is ultimately invested, discipline is essentially a bluff-just like in parenthood, and so we essentially control him.

Chris

-- Chris

I think God is all existence in its totality, Christ simply being a product of God's three fundamental aspects (Spirit/Matter/Love). Id suggest that we have great power on the earth but not over God himself. I think that's the point I was making. We have power over life and death, depending on whether we rebel against God (Life) or submit to God and His love, whereby we become like Christ.

We (Mankind) have been given great power (Dominion) over all the earths hosts, able to both destroy life and to create and/or sustain life. I believe love (The Holy Spirit) is the binding and life sustaining element of God, and also the binding element when it comes to our own existence as the dominant species on earth.

Much like love being the binding element in a marriage, love is what binds humanity together. Without love, we fall apart and are destroyed. Do we control God (Existence in its entirety)? Not even a little bit, but some do try to control the earth through "power" and by force.

We are not "God" but we are gods (Mighty one's) thus the power of life and death is in our hands. We can either submit ourselves to and serve God who is essentially (Life) through love, or we can defy God and keep trying to rule whereby we destroy "our" habitation and each other.

The end is not yet come, and "the eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

Two pennies worth,


GK

 

[Thomas]

Re: Bringing up your post (It's a worthy topic)

Hi GK —

The natural man is the adversary to God, as the natural man is incomplete, imperfect, and destructive.

I would ask you to reconsider here.

The implication of what you're saying is the natural world is sin, whereas in the Christian Tradition, the natural world is theophany.

I am a staunch defender of the natural. The natural man should be the friend of God, and in God the natural man is completed, perfected and his works are truly creative.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil being our awakening to our own destructive characteristics and power. In order to know "who" we are, it is necessary that we realize "what" we are capable of.

I profoundly disagree. The meaning of the tree is the danger, inherent in everything, of man's desire to reach out to own and possess, to give rein to his appetites and pride. It was not so much an awakening, as a self-willed blindness — a turning away from truth, not a turning toward it — a turning away from life, towards death.

I never sit happily with the notion that one can't be good for its own sake, one always has to taste evil to know the good ... I don't think it's true.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

OK, I'll add some confusion. If Christ is in us, then we're in him.

Yes.

He is our representative.

Yes.

And if he's the Logos, then our essential nature controls him.

No, why? If Christ is Logos, then we are the logoi, the many products of the one Logos. Christ as Logos is not only all things, but the idea behind and before all things, that holds all things together, and in which all things relate.

Thus He is the source of our essential nature, but we are not the source nor cause of His.

Christ is Logos before anything is.

And if he is also the active portion of God as far as we're concerned, then our essential nature is equivalent to God, so far as we are concerned...

Ah, with you now! You're assuming that Christ is actually part of 'me', rather than the Logos of God, the source and cause and sustainer of my being who is immanently present to me.

In which case, you're right, if that argument were true, then we would be essentially God, and God would be finite, conditional, contingent, etc ... that is, not the God of Scripture, nor the God of philosophy.

This doesn't add up to "we are God", but it does imply that we control God, as it were.

Yes, God is limited to who and what we are. It's the ultimate anthropomorphic projection of the self. God is just the exemplar of our determined ideals.

He is ultimately invested, discipline is essentially a bluff-just like in parenthood, and so we essentially control him.

Yes, it seems to me that such a God would be nothing more than a projection of our 'best idea' of ourselves.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Yes, it seems to me that such a God would be nothing more than a projection of our 'best idea' of ourselves.

God bless,

Thomas

ah but no, we are no more than a projection of our best idea of G!d

we live upto being in his image each in our own way....

 

[Gatekeeper]

Re: Bringing up your post (It's a worthy topic)

Hi GK —

I would ask you to reconsider here.

The implication of what you're saying is the natural world is sin, whereas in the Christian Tradition, the natural world is theophany.

The natural world is as it is, and cannot be considered sin. We however are a very powerful creations (gods), knowing good from evil, which is why the natural (Destructive man) is an adversary to God. I'm suggesting that the natural man (Incomplete and destructive) is an adversary to God and that God's love completes (Perfects) us, where we are able to come into unity with Him.

I am a staunch defender of the natural. The natural man should be the friend of God, and in God the natural man is completed, perfected and his works are truly creative.

I agree to some extent, but we are no longer considered natural when we are born of Gods Holy Spirit (Love).

I profoundly disagree. The meaning of the tree is the danger, inherent in everything, of man's desire to reach out to own and possess, to give rein to his appetites and pride. It was not so much an awakening, as a self-willed blindness — a turning away from truth, not a turning toward it — a turning away from life, towards death.

We are gods (Mighty one's) fallen from grace, and adveraries to God until we submit to Him and His love. The tree was simply our wake up call to "who" we are and what we are capable of causing in the world. If God is all knowing, then the tree of knowledge has a very real purpose, no?

I never sit happily with the notion that one can't be good for its own sake, one always has to taste evil to know the good ... I don't think it's true.

God bless,

Thomas

It isn't being good that matters, right? It is our submission to God and his love that matters, and the union we experience because of. God allows us to do what we want, and this includes defying Him and His love. Even so, our actions are not without consequence. We either serve God, or we continue on the path of destruction (Death).

(Serve in Heaven or rule in hell)


GK

 

[Thomas]

ah but no, we are no more than a projection of our best idea of G!d we live upto being in his image each in our own way....

But, if according to your own words you are a "nontheistic panentheist Christian" — then if 'nontheist' the image can only be a self-projection, surely, I mean what other image is there?

And, as Christ was a self-declared theist, and rejected pantheism and panentheism as such: "You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world" John 8:23 ... then, for the love of mike, you can call yourself a Christian if you want, in any sense of the word that anyone would understand it.

Wil, I really do ask you to consider:
"This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me." Matthew 15:8, Mark 7:6.

Because He believes in the Father and you don't, so unless you can explain it otherwise, your Christianity is just that, lip-service.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

But, if according to your own words you are a "nontheistic panentheist Christian" — then if 'nontheist' the image can only be a self-projection, surely, I mean what other image is there?

And, as Christ was a self-declared theist, and rejected pantheism and panentheism as such: "You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world" John 8:23 ... then, for the love of mike, you can call yourself a Christian if you want, in any sense of the word that anyone would understand it.

Wil, I really do ask you to consider:
"This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me." Matthew 15:8, Mark 7:6.

Because He believes in the Father and you don't, so unless you can explain it otherwise, your Christianity is just that, lip-service.

God bless,

Thomas

I don't think Jesus rejected panentheism at all ... Submission to God and His love being the major difference between the natural man and the spiritual man (Christ). The following link is to a thread I created a few days ago -- No hits thus far, but I believe it to be relevant to your thoughts here, so maybe you can take a look see Thomas?

The Godhead

 

[Thomas]

Re: Bringing up your post (It's a worthy topic)

The natural world is as it is, and cannot be considered sin.

And we are part of the natural world.

We however are a very powerful creations (gods),

No we're not ... have you been watching the news? Couldn't stop the tsunami, can't even stop the tide. We're not powerful at all ... in fact, against nature, we're quite powerless.

knowing good from evil, which is why the natural (Destructive man) is an adversary to God.

Not at all. The natural man is 'good', indeed 'very good', as Scripture says. The destructive man is contrary to his true nature, that's what Scripture is all about.

I'm suggesting that the natural man (Incomplete and destructive) is an adversary to God and that God's love completes (Perfects) us, where we are able to come into unity with Him.

And I'm suggesting that the 'natural man' is not incomplete nor destructive, that's un-natural man.

The natural man is the friend of God, and God's love enables the natural man to transcend his own even-perfect nature, by participation in the Divine Nature ...

If man is adversarial to God, then the gift of God's love is not received, and such a man remains locked within himself:
"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin." Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10. It's not that God won't forgive, it's that man won't accept it.

I agree to some extent, but we are no longer considered natural when we are born of Gods Holy Spirit (Love).

D'you not think so? I think that's the most natural thing there is.

We are gods (Mighty one's) fallen from grace...

Like Wil, I think you're reading the words 'ye are gods' from Psalm 82 as a statement of fact, rather than in the context of the whole psalm, in which it's a critique of the rulers of Israel. When Jesus referred to the Psalm, he was doing so with even greater sarcasm against his opponents.

Note that the psalmist sings, in the very next line "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."

This echoes the sentiment of psalm 58:
Do you indeed speak righteousness, you gods?
Do you judge uprightly, you sons of men?
No, in heart you work wickedness;
You weigh out the violence of your hands in the earth.
The wicked are estranged from the womb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies..."

If anything, it's a condemnation.

+++

If God is all knowing, then the tree of knowledge has a very real purpose, no?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the tree of life — they are one tree — the knowledge of good and evil is in the discrimination between what fulfils the divine good, and what does not, but gives all the appearance of being good, for me ... it is this which leads to death.

It isn't being good that matters, right? It is our submission to God and his love that matters, and the union we experience because of.

I would say love over submission. True love is not submission, true love is the gift of self to the other, not submitting to the will of the other. Islam says, if you can't love God, then the next best thing is to obey Him.

God allows us to do what we want, and this includes defying Him and His love.

Well, I'd temper that. Step off a cliff, and gravity will have its say.

God has made us free, and he will not render that freedom a deception by making us 'free to do anything except' ... so we are free, and the ontology of that freedom is the ability to deny God.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I don't think Jesus rejected panentheism at all ...

"And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world." John 8:23

"Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence." John 18:36

"Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought;" 1 Corinthians 2:6

"Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God." 1 Corinthians 2:12

Jesus draws an absolute distinction between this world the world of God, as it were ... God is immanently present in the world, to the world, but God is not the world as such, which is what panentheism states. The world is a theophany, but it is not inherently divine. Were it so, then sin would not be possible, if panentheism is true, and sin exists, then God is fallible and corruptible ... indeed, even such a God would die.

Submission to God and His love being the major difference between the natural man and the spiritual man (Christ).

Nope. Love of God is possible for the natural man, in fact I would say it is our pre-lapsarian natural state. The spiritual man is, according to Scripture, the Indwelling for the Holy Spirit, which perfects our nature, and leads to Christ.

The following link is to a thread I created a few days ago -- No hits thus far, but I believe it to be relevant to your thoughts here, so maybe you can take a look see Thomas?

Thank you, I will.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Re: Bringing up your post (It's a worthy topic)

And we are part of the natural world.


No we're not ... have you been watching the news? Couldn't stop the tsunami, can't even stop the tide. We're not powerful at all ... in fact, against nature, we're quite powerless.


Not at all. The natural man is 'good', indeed 'very good', as Scripture says. The destructive man is contrary to his true nature, that's what Scripture is all about.


And I'm suggesting that the 'natural man' is not incomplete nor destructive, that's un-natural man.

The natural man is the friend of God, and God's love enables the natural man to transcend his own even-perfect nature, by participation in the Divine Nature ...

If man is adversarial to God, then the gift of God's love is not received, and such a man remains locked within himself:
"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin." Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10. It's not that God won't forgive, it's that man won't accept it.

D'you not think so? I think that's the most natural thing there is.


Like Wil, I think you're reading the words 'ye are gods' from Psalm 82 as a statement of fact, rather than in the context of the whole psalm, in which it's a critique of the rulers of Israel. When Jesus referred to the Psalm, he was doing so with even greater sarcasm against his opponents.

Note that the psalmist sings, in the very next line "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."

This echoes the sentiment of psalm 58:
Do you indeed speak righteousness, you gods?
Do you judge uprightly, you sons of men?
No, in heart you work wickedness;
You weigh out the violence of your hands in the earth.
The wicked are estranged from the womb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies..."

If anything, it's a condemnation.

+++


The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the tree of life — they are one tree — the knowledge of good and evil is in the discrimination between what fulfils the divine good, and what does not, but gives all the appearance of being good, for me ... it is this which leads to death.


I would say love over submission. True love is not submission, true love is the gift of self to the other, not submitting to the will of the other. Islam says, if you can't love God, then the next best thing is to obey Him.


Well, I'd temper that. Step off a cliff, and gravity will have its say.

God has made us free, and he will not render that freedom a deception by making us 'free to do anything except' ... so we are free, and the ontology of that freedom is the ability to deny God.

God bless,

Thomas

Natural may be a term that should not be used when attempting to convey my thoughts -- Perhaps "carnal" would be a term you would agree with? Carnal man/mind is an adversary to God, then? Would you disagree that our destructive (Carnal) self is at odds with God?

Do you actually view the tree of knowledge to be the tree of life? I disagree, it is what it says it is -- The tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. The tree of life being God's love and Wisdom. In order to submit to God, one needs to allow His love to fill us, and then allow His love to guide our steps -- That IS submission -- To give ourselves to Him in service and in love.

Do you not see what we are capable of, Thomas? We have NO control over "mother" earth, but we do have dominion over all the earths host, able to destroy NOT only them but ourselves with what amounts to a push of a button. If that's not power and might, and a realization of "who" we are and what we are capable of, I don't know what is.

Yes, we are gods (Mighty one's) knowing good and evil, thus we can defy God and destroy ourselves, or we can Submit to God and serve Him and our fellow man in love.

GK