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
One World ― One Religion
Lisa, please read this blog: >And the Mother did Weep<. I want to talk with you specifically about this fragment today (Good Friday) in relation to the whole blog, and in the form of a q&a: “Stop that nonsense of religious righteousness of any kind.” Me: “Lisa, what is your first idea about this quote Read the full article…
God = Human Non-Conscious?
From a scientific perspective, the human non-conscious is best understood as a direction. Whether it’s a direction within or through the non-conscious as an entity remains uncertain. Should we care? In both scenarios, the path appears endless, and the experience remains the same. The direction is toward the inside. Thus, from an ego perspective, it Read the full article…
Humanism with a Vengeance
Humanism: ‘man is the measure of all things.’ Vengeance: this is about the total human being – partly conscious, mostly nonconscious. Many faces of humanism, yesterday and today Among them, I see ‘humanism’ as what puts human being at the forefront, thus not – apart from human being – any organization: no religion, no politics, Read the full article…