The natural and the supernatural are obviously two very different things.
The supernatural exists outside of what we call natural, it is by definition not natural.
If something is not natural calling it unnatural is the same as saying it is not natural.
If god is supernatural then by definition god is unnatural.
Is the Supernatural Natural?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #61[Replying to Blastcat]
Monta wrote:
His very essence is Divine Love from which proceeds Divine Wisdom (Christ)
Where did you learn that?
What is the source of your info?
I'm skeptical.//
The man who wrote Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom did not live for 600 years but lived in two worlds for almost 30 years; he spoke with the angels and hellish entities and wrote about it. Being one of the top scientists of his day
he insisted that religion has to be understood and went to great lenghts to explain it. So no, I do not beleive everything I read but if it makes sense to me I do, what does not I leave alone; perhaps one day i will.
DIVINE LOVE AND DIVINE WISDOM ARE SUBSTANCE AND FORM IN ITSELF, THUS THE VERY AND THE ONLY
DLW 44. That Divine Love and Divine Wisdom are substance and form has been proved just above; and that Divine Esse (being) and Existere (taking form) are Esse and Existere in itself, has also been said above. It cannot be said to be Esse and Existere from itself, because this involves a beginning, and a beginning from something within in which would be Esse and Existere in itself. But Very Esse and Existere in itself is from eternity. Very Esse and Existere in itself is also uncreated, and everything created must needs be from an Uncreate. What is created is also finite, and the finite can exist only from the Infinite.
DLW 45. He who by exercise of thought is able to grasp the idea of and to comprehend, Esse and Existere in itself, can certainly perceive and comprehend that it is the Very and the Only. That is called the Very which alone is; and that is called the Only from which every thing else proceeds. Now because the Very and the Only is substance and form, it follows that it is the very and only substance and form. Because this very substance and form is Divine Love and Divine Wisdom, it follows that it is the very and only Love, and the very and only Wisdom; consequently, that it is the very and only Essence, as well as the very and only Life: for Life is Love and Wisdom.
DLW 46. From all this it can be seen how sensually (that is, how much from the bodily senses and their blindness in spiritual matters) do those think who maintain that Nature is from herself. They think from the eye, and are not able to think from the understanding. Thought from the eye closes the understanding, but thought from the understanding opens the eye. Such persons cannot think at all of Esse and Existere in itself, and that it is Eternal, Uncreate, and Infinite; neither can they think at all of life, except as a something fleeting and vanishing into nothingness; nor can they think otherwise of Love and Wisdom, nor at all that from these are all things of nature. Neither can it be seen that from these are all things of nature, unless nature is regarded, not from some of its forms, which are merely objects of sight, but from Uses in their succession and order. For uses are from life alone, and their succession and order are from wisdom and love alone; while forms are only containants of uses. Consequently, if forms alone are regarded, nothing of life, still less anything of love and wisdom, thus nothing of God, can be seen in nature.
http://www.theisticscience.org/books/dlw/sect-44ff.html
Monta wrote:
His very essence is Divine Love from which proceeds Divine Wisdom (Christ)
Where did you learn that?
What is the source of your info?
I'm skeptical.//
The man who wrote Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom did not live for 600 years but lived in two worlds for almost 30 years; he spoke with the angels and hellish entities and wrote about it. Being one of the top scientists of his day
he insisted that religion has to be understood and went to great lenghts to explain it. So no, I do not beleive everything I read but if it makes sense to me I do, what does not I leave alone; perhaps one day i will.
DIVINE LOVE AND DIVINE WISDOM ARE SUBSTANCE AND FORM IN ITSELF, THUS THE VERY AND THE ONLY
DLW 44. That Divine Love and Divine Wisdom are substance and form has been proved just above; and that Divine Esse (being) and Existere (taking form) are Esse and Existere in itself, has also been said above. It cannot be said to be Esse and Existere from itself, because this involves a beginning, and a beginning from something within in which would be Esse and Existere in itself. But Very Esse and Existere in itself is from eternity. Very Esse and Existere in itself is also uncreated, and everything created must needs be from an Uncreate. What is created is also finite, and the finite can exist only from the Infinite.
DLW 45. He who by exercise of thought is able to grasp the idea of and to comprehend, Esse and Existere in itself, can certainly perceive and comprehend that it is the Very and the Only. That is called the Very which alone is; and that is called the Only from which every thing else proceeds. Now because the Very and the Only is substance and form, it follows that it is the very and only substance and form. Because this very substance and form is Divine Love and Divine Wisdom, it follows that it is the very and only Love, and the very and only Wisdom; consequently, that it is the very and only Essence, as well as the very and only Life: for Life is Love and Wisdom.
DLW 46. From all this it can be seen how sensually (that is, how much from the bodily senses and their blindness in spiritual matters) do those think who maintain that Nature is from herself. They think from the eye, and are not able to think from the understanding. Thought from the eye closes the understanding, but thought from the understanding opens the eye. Such persons cannot think at all of Esse and Existere in itself, and that it is Eternal, Uncreate, and Infinite; neither can they think at all of life, except as a something fleeting and vanishing into nothingness; nor can they think otherwise of Love and Wisdom, nor at all that from these are all things of nature. Neither can it be seen that from these are all things of nature, unless nature is regarded, not from some of its forms, which are merely objects of sight, but from Uses in their succession and order. For uses are from life alone, and their succession and order are from wisdom and love alone; while forms are only containants of uses. Consequently, if forms alone are regarded, nothing of life, still less anything of love and wisdom, thus nothing of God, can be seen in nature.
http://www.theisticscience.org/books/dlw/sect-44ff.html
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #62[Replying to post 61 by Monta]
!
[center]
Why should we believe something we read is true?[/center]
Now, even the atheists are taking a little notice of the reasons behind religious beliefs. It's a fascinating study.
Do you think that when a scientist insists that a phenomenon exists, that an actual phenomenon exists? ( in other words, does a belief in a phenomenon constitute evidence for the phenomenon ? )
!
[center]
Why should we believe something we read is true?[/center]
Are you saying that because he wrote about it that it's true?Monta wrote:
The man who wrote Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom did not live for 600 years but lived in two worlds for almost 30 years; he spoke with the angels and hellish entities and wrote about it.
As many worshipers do.Monta wrote:
Being one of the top scientists of his day
he insisted that religion has to be understood and went to great lenghts to explain it.
Now, even the atheists are taking a little notice of the reasons behind religious beliefs. It's a fascinating study.
Do you think that when a scientist insists that a phenomenon exists, that an actual phenomenon exists? ( in other words, does a belief in a phenomenon constitute evidence for the phenomenon ? )
Do you believe something is true just because the idea of it makes sense to you?Monta wrote:
So no, I do not beleive everything I read but if it makes sense to me I do, what does not I leave alone; perhaps one day i will.
What did you hope to prove by that quote?Monta wrote:
DIVINE LOVE AND DIVINE WISDOM ARE SUBSTANCE AND FORM IN ITSELF, THUS THE VERY AND THE ONLY ( ... )
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #63[Replying to Blastcat]
"Monta wrote:
DIVINE LOVE AND DIVINE WISDOM ARE SUBSTANCE AND FORM IN ITSELF, THUS THE VERY AND THE ONLY ( ... )
What did you hope to prove by that quote? "
No hope; hopeless.
"Monta wrote:
DIVINE LOVE AND DIVINE WISDOM ARE SUBSTANCE AND FORM IN ITSELF, THUS THE VERY AND THE ONLY ( ... )
What did you hope to prove by that quote? "
No hope; hopeless.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #64[Replying to post 63 by Monta]
You don't need to feel hopeless.
Blastcat wrote: What did you hope to prove by that quote?
i don't know what that means.. do you need help?Monta wrote:No hope; hopeless.
You don't need to feel hopeless.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #65[Replying to Blastcat]
"i don't know what that means.. do you need help?
You don't need to feel hopeless.
Smile"
Yes I do. Million $$ would help.
"i don't know what that means.. do you need help?
You don't need to feel hopeless.
Smile"
Yes I do. Million $$ would help.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #66[Replying to post 65 by Monta]
If you actually feel hopeless, please seek help.
Debates are not therapy.
I don't know if I should take you seriously.Monta wrote:
"i don't know what that means.. do you need help?
You don't need to feel hopeless.
Smile"
Yes I do. Million $$ would help.
If you actually feel hopeless, please seek help.
Debates are not therapy.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #67[Replying to Blastcat]
"I don't know if I should take you seriously.
If you actually feel hopeless, please seek help.
Debates are not therapy."
You are right, in that instance you should not take me seriously.
Thanks for the advice
"I don't know if I should take you seriously.
If you actually feel hopeless, please seek help.
Debates are not therapy."
You are right, in that instance you should not take me seriously.
Thanks for the advice
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #68[Replying to post 67 by Monta]
Just let us know when we should take you seriously, or if you are merely joking.
A smilie helps.
I make a lot of jokes, but I'm primarily here to debate.
Monta wrote: [Replying to Blastcat]
"I don't know if I should take you seriously.
If you actually feel hopeless, please seek help.
Debates are not therapy."
You are right, in that instance you should not take me seriously.
Thanks for the advice
Just let us know when we should take you seriously, or if you are merely joking.
A smilie helps.
I make a lot of jokes, but I'm primarily here to debate.
