Oops, did I already say \u2013 within this question \u2013 everything that needs to be said?<\/p>\n
Of course, it\u2019s terminological.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I just equalized \u2018nature\u2019 with something of my own choice.<\/p>\n
Indeed?<\/p>\n
But what is another option for \u2018nature\u2019? Let\u2019s look at some:<\/p>\n
\n
- nature = \u2018organic nature.\u2019 Then every stone is supernatural. Bullocks.<\/li>\n
- nature = \u2018everything except the supernatural.\u2019 Perfect circular definition, thus worthless.<\/li>\n
- nature = \u2018everything but God.\u2019 OK. I want to follow in this for a while, especially since it\u2019s the last option I imagine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Of course, you cannot point your finger at what is God.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Not only because it would be utterly impolite. It\u2019s also impossible.<\/p>\n
Quote the Bible: \u201cYou cannot look God into the face and live.\u201d<\/p>\n
You also cannot point your finger at God without looking him into the face. Thus, you perish.<\/p>\n
Hm.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s some more semantic conundrum. Take for instance the simplistic train of thought:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf God created everything, then who created God?\u201d<\/p>\n
Answer: \u201cIt\u2019s a sacrilege to even ask this question.\u201d<\/p>\n
I see.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m a Spinozist in this respect: God = nature.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u2018Deus sive Natura.\u2019<\/p>\n
What I recognize in religion, is that people want something more \u2018special\u2019 than the naturally natural. That may be because the natural is not enough\u2026 I don\u2019t agree with this. It\u2019s too easy.<\/p>\n
It may also be because what people see in the natural, is not enough. That is: the seeing itself is not enough.<\/p>\n
People should learn to better see.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If they don\u2019t (want to) learn to better see, then the easy solution lies in a projection of what supposedly is to be seen.<\/p>\n
That looks foremost like laziness to me. As you already know, I don\u2019t like it.<\/p>\n
I dismiss it.<\/p>\n
What would God be but nature? What would nature be but God?<\/p>\n
In other words:<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It\u2019s not a question of \u201cto be or not to be\u201d but \u201cto see or not to see.\u201d<\/p>\n
The seeing makes the supernatural. What is seen then is the same thing yet it\u2019s completely different.<\/p>\n
Sure.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s nature.<\/p>\n
Didn\u2019t I say so at the beginning?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Seeing God is my responsibility<\/p>\n
and it\u2019s yours.<\/p>\n