Supernatural is Natural
If ‘everything that is’ is denoted as nature, then how can the supernatural be anything more than nature?
Oops, did I already say – within this question – everything that needs to be said?
Of course, it’s terminological.
I just equalized ‘nature’ with something of my own choice.
Indeed?
But what is another option for ‘nature’? Let’s look at some:
- nature = ‘organic nature.’ Then every stone is supernatural. Bullocks.
- nature = ‘everything except the supernatural.’ Perfect circular definition, thus worthless.
- nature = ‘everything but God.’ OK. I want to follow in this for a while, especially since it’s the last option I imagine.
Of course, you cannot point your finger at what is God.
Not only because it would be utterly impolite. It’s also impossible.
Quote the Bible: “You cannot look God into the face and live.”
You also cannot point your finger at God without looking him into the face. Thus, you perish.
Hm.
There’s some more semantic conundrum. Take for instance the simplistic train of thought:
“If God created everything, then who created God?”
Answer: “It’s a sacrilege to even ask this question.”
I see.
I’m a Spinozist in this respect: God = nature.
‘Deus sive Natura.’
What I recognize in religion, is that people want something more ‘special’ than the naturally natural. That may be because the natural is not enough… I don’t agree with this. It’s too easy.
It may also be because what people see in the natural, is not enough. That is: the seeing itself is not enough.
People should learn to better see.
If they don’t (want to) learn to better see, then the easy solution lies in a projection of what supposedly is to be seen.
That looks foremost like laziness to me. As you already know, I don’t like it.
I dismiss it.
What would God be but nature? What would nature be but God?
In other words:
It’s not a question of “to be or not to be” but “to see or not to see.”
The seeing makes the supernatural. What is seen then is the same thing yet it’s completely different.
Sure.
That’s nature.
Didn’t I say so at the beginning?
Seeing God is my responsibility
and it’s yours.
Related Posts
Why Open Religion is Global
OK ― Not yet global in its present reach. The global aspect lies in its openness to everyone: believers and non-believers, anywhere in the world. Please read: What is Open Religion? How can non-believers adhere to Open Religion? You don’t have to believe in any conceptual construct ― no god, saint, angel, heaven, or hell. Read the full article…
Are Religious Symbols Placebos or Invitations?
This depends on how they are interpreted and used. The difference is crucial even though the dividing line can be fuzzy. With ‘invitations’ in this setting, I mean Aurelian autosuggestions. As placebos A placebo is something on the outside that carries the pretention of causing something that is, in reality, caused by the inside of Read the full article…
Are You Open Religious?
The Open Religion Questionnaire (ORQ) is a list of 30 assertions (actually, in-depth questions) meant to make you think about whether you would qualify yourself as ‘Open Religious.’ The sum of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers is no more than an indication. It also depends on the relative importance you attach to each assertion. Moreover, your Read the full article…