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
Religion IS Openness
In order to ‘make deepest connection’ (re-ligare), Openness as an invitation may be sufficient to let it happen in a natural flow. This is not about openness at a purely conceptual level. It is not about ‘talking the truth’. It is rather about ‘deeply being truthful’. Of course, this is not incompatible with talking the Read the full article…
37. Religion explained
Scientists keep looking for God in the minds of people. In this endeavor, experiments have been done whereby certain centers of the brain are stimulated by an electromagnetic field. Especially in conditions of sensory deprivation, people can thereby start having hallucinations with a very religious undertone. Something like ‘seeing the light and this light is Read the full article…
Every Religion Is Open
Many existing religions are incompatible with each other. To me, these incompatibilities are – one way or another – as many signs of superficiality. Underlying this is Openness, as in: ‘Open direction to God.’ [see also: “Religion IS Openness”] Dare I speak of God? Dare you? God is a ‘concept’ that means something different to Read the full article…