Supernatural is Natural

October 10, 2019 Open Religion No Comments

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.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Compassionate Evangelicalism, an Invitation

Evangelicalism has an immense impact on world politics. It counts 80 million adherents (voters) in the US and many also in other countries such as Brazil. At its core, it is about sharing the good news — literally, the Evangelion of Jesus. For centuries, this has been understood as the message of salvation, a call Read the full article…

And the Mother did Weep

It is Good Friday today. Jesus may have existed. He may have died on the cross exactly 1990 years ago. His mother may have wept. She may have wept as if weeping would be there for always. Damned. I don’t know whether He existed or whether He died on the cross. I don’t think so, Read the full article…

Opening Religion

This is, as I see it, mainly to be done through opening related concepts. ‘Opening concepts’ One should see this rationally / conceptually AND, even mainly, sub-conceptually: meditatively. This brings a difference in methodology as well as in results. Both are to be seen much more as ‘creative’. As any of my writing, actually. A Read the full article…

Translate »