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 #31You need to show me some scriptural proof.Yahu wrote:Yes, lots of them. I know many Christians that have 'visual discernment of spirits'. I also know it can be an ability granted via witchcraft as a counterfeit form. A coven I dealt with had the knowledge of how to give an individual that ability so they could see the spirits they summoned.man wrote:You know people that could see into the spiritual realm?Yahu wrote:From man's limited perspective it could appear that way based on our own understanding of what is natural. Angels appearing to someone would be 'unnatural' from most people's perspective. So would demons appearing.man wrote:Ergo god is unnatural.Yahu wrote:Well considering He is the ONLY non-created being that exists, that is certainly outside of our natural experiences.man wrote: 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.
Granted I know people that could see into the spiritual realm and that to most people would be 'unnatural'. I dealt with a coven that had that ability and they saw an angel backing me up that was several stories tall. I didn't see it but saw the look on their faces.
So it all comes down to your own perception of what is 'natural'. To any non-Christian, Yah must appear as unnatural but not to believers.
Seriously?
It is not that uncommon an ability. I have a pastor friend that sees into the spiritual realm all the time. He says it can be unnerving to be talking to an individual and seeing demons crawling on them. He has to pretend he doesn't see them.
He saw a darkness around my throat but couldn't make out what it was so he prayed for clarity. The next time I saw him he said it was gone and asked what I had done in the past week. I had been breaking off curses sent by witchcraft, one of which was a 'suicide death curse'. What he had seen was a black set of hands about my throat.
I have dealt with others that also saw into the spiritual realm. Another pastor was praying over me and saw 5 bands of darkness wrapped around my chest. He specifically stated it was sent by witchcraft and had no knowledge about my past conflict with a coven.
I have a form of discernment of spirits myself but not the visual form. I actually get spiritual scents. I could smell death and corruption all over a girl that I later found out was a high level witch that had already dedicated 23 abortions to her goddess and used the blood from them in her witchcraft. I have gotten sweet smells during worship.
The ability of 'discernment of spirits' is not that uncommon though people without it may think it is unnatural. The bible just mentions the gift but does not explain it. You have to actual experience it to understand it. Discernment of spirits is a primary gift needed for those called into the office of prophet. If you can't discern what spirit is speaking through you, that would be a problem.
Discernment of spirits also works in biblical doctrinal teaching. A false doctrine tends to knot up my guts by sensing a lying spirit behind it. I can also sense when something is highly anointed by the Holy Spirit because it resonates with the Holy Spirit within me.
Having experiences with spiritual things has nothing to do with believing in God. The coven I dealt with didn't believe until they encountered me. They considered me a prophet of a rival deity by the time I left. They claimed I had 'channeled Jesus'! Then when I called down angelic protection from their witchcraft as I was leaving, they saw the angel appear behind me. I had just cast off all spells and spirits sent by them onto me and my wives as I left their party. As I was leaving, one of them called down a blessing on us in the name of her goddess. I wanted no part of blessings or curses via her goddess and broke off all spirits sent in the name of her goddess and sent them back 7x then called on angelic protection. The witch that had blessed me thanked me for sending it back 7x but the other faction of the coven had been sending curses on us. That night destroyed the coven, before the night was over 8 of them were in jail and the coven was under police investigation. They were all convicted and many involved died in prison. They coven blamed me and spent years in prison sending curses after me.
It took me 17 years to get rid of them. I had totally suppressed all the memories of that time of my life and that too had been from a 'memory clouding spell'. Someone else I knew saw the spirit of confusion about my head and cast it off. Then the memories came back and I started clearing out the rest of the curses and I told you of 2 of those events. I could actually feel the breaking off of love spells. It was like a claw grasping my heart that caused a constant pain of being separated from my wife. I had lost my wife in that conflict with the coven. They bound us together then took my wife from me then I had suppressed the memories of ever even being married and the entire conflict with witchcraft.
Spiritual things are ONLY unnatural to people without any natural experience with spiritual things. I learned 1st hand that witchcraft is very REAL. It nearly killed me. It did kill many I had rebounded the curses back onto 7x. They died brutally in prison.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #32No.Yahu wrote:This subforum is for debating theology based on scripture as authoritative. If you want to harass or ridicule christian beliefs, there is an area for that nonsense so those interested in theology can avoid those types of attacks.man wrote:That's like us talking about whether or not one plus one equals two and then you say scriptural proof is required.Yahu wrote:So what is your scriptural proof that god is unnatural? This is the TD&D forum. Here we debate doctrine BASED ON SCRIPTURE.man wrote: Ergo god is unnatural.
Without any scriptural evidence of your position, your opinions are irrelevant in this forum. If your not here to debate scripture, go back to the apologetics subforum.
Scriptural proof is not required, a functional brain is required.
This entire thread is in the wrong subforum. If you don't take scripture as authoritative, why post in this subforum? It is REQUIRED for posts in this area.
You see, I can sense the spirits influencing you even across the net through the arrogant condescending attitudes of your posts. The mere fact you would come to a theology forum to disrupt actual theology shows what is driving you.
So I will leave you with an actual biblical quote:
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #33[Replying to post 32 by man]
I'm not quite sure I understand any of this. The God of Scripture is clearly supernatural, above and beyond the natural order. It would make no sense to think of God any other way. However, there are different ways of affirming this transcendence of God. I would prefer to think of God as supra-natural, that is, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles not their negation (as per supernatural). I think that is a far better description of the biblical God. But that probably would require another thread to discuss.
I'm not quite sure I understand any of this. The God of Scripture is clearly supernatural, above and beyond the natural order. It would make no sense to think of God any other way. However, there are different ways of affirming this transcendence of God. I would prefer to think of God as supra-natural, that is, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles not their negation (as per supernatural). I think that is a far better description of the biblical God. But that probably would require another thread to discuss.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #34Why call god supernatural in the first place? Why not say god is not supernatural, god is natural.hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 32 by man]
I'm not quite sure I understand any of this. The God of Scripture is clearly supernatural, above and beyond the natural order. It would make no sense to think of God any other way. However, there are different ways of affirming this transcendence of God. I would prefer to think of God as supra-natural, that is, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles not their negation (as per supernatural). I think that is a far better description of the biblical God. But that probably would require another thread to discuss.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #35[Replying to post 2 by catnip]
!
[center]
Set theory and the supernatural[/center]
It's like saying that anything outside is within. It's like saying that something that is over the hill is also under or on it.
Your use of words is contradictory.
If the supernatural is the natural, then why make any distinction? Maybe you mean something like "natural" and "super-duper really great highly valued natural". But of course, that's just a guess.
You might not be confused yourself.. but you are confusing me.
Could you care to clarify what you mean by the "supernatural"?
For example, how do you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?
I agree. When we don't know something, we just don't know it. There are lots of things that we don't know.
I think that should be established first before making any theories about them.
Otherwise, it would be like trying to evaluate the color of the aliens on planet Proxima b, before establishing that there are any.
What should be the focus of our investigation : Little green men or the "Greys", with big eyes?
!
[center]
Set theory and the supernatural[/center]
man wrote: 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.
That's like saying that "beyond my comprehension" would be "within my comprehension" or that anything beyond the set of all "true propositions" are also true propositions.catnip wrote:
Definition of super- in its combining form can be found here: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... ish/super-
In short, it is NOT that it is not natural! Of course it is. It simply is beyond nature, to an extreme degree. If it is "super" it is not diminishing nature. If you can't grasp it, look at other words employing "super" in its combining form.
It's like saying that anything outside is within. It's like saying that something that is over the hill is also under or on it.
Your use of words is contradictory.
If the supernatural is the natural, then why make any distinction? Maybe you mean something like "natural" and "super-duper really great highly valued natural". But of course, that's just a guess.
You might not be confused yourself.. but you are confusing me.
Could you care to clarify what you mean by the "supernatural"?
For example, how do you distinguish the supernatural from the natural?
catnip wrote:
Just because we can't explain something scientifically does not mean that it does not fall within the scope of what is "natural" at some level.
I agree. When we don't know something, we just don't know it. There are lots of things that we don't know.
It may be so classified.. but is a ghost the way you describe it a real phenomenon?catnip wrote:
Let's say we are speaking of ghosts and what we are focusing on is the idea that they are merely an imprint left behind when a person experienced a traumatic or emotional event in the past--it scientifically possible in theory but not proven. But the experience of it is classified as a supernatural event.
I think that should be established first before making any theories about them.
Otherwise, it would be like trying to evaluate the color of the aliens on planet Proxima b, before establishing that there are any.
What should be the focus of our investigation : Little green men or the "Greys", with big eyes?
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #36[Replying to hoghead1]
Here in Oz we have a regular petrol and super petrol for the cars.
We can say the same about natural;
(regular) natrural and suopernatural.
Tu use super pertol you need a more advanced vehicle.
Likewise, a supernatural would be more advanced than the (regular) natural.
Here in Oz we have a regular petrol and super petrol for the cars.
We can say the same about natural;
(regular) natrural and suopernatural.
Tu use super pertol you need a more advanced vehicle.
Likewise, a supernatural would be more advanced than the (regular) natural.
Re: Is the Supernatural Natural?
Post #37[Replying to post 36 by Monta]
The supernatural is more advanced ( perhaps on the fringes ) , but is still within the set of all things we call nature.
In other words, are you saying that when people use the word "supernatural" they really just mean "plain old natural that we don't have any evidence for yet ?"
Does the proposition "God" relate to a perfectly natural being, within nature, subject to the natural laws of nature, or outside of nature itself?
Would you mind elaborating on this?
I'm confused.
Does this statement adequately paraphrase your idea about the supernatural?Monta wrote:
Here in Oz we have a regular petrol and super petrol for the cars.
We can say the same about natural;
(regular) natrural and suopernatural.
Tu use super pertol you need a more advanced vehicle.
Likewise, a supernatural would be more advanced than the (regular) natural.
The supernatural is more advanced ( perhaps on the fringes ) , but is still within the set of all things we call nature.
In other words, are you saying that when people use the word "supernatural" they really just mean "plain old natural that we don't have any evidence for yet ?"
Does the proposition "God" relate to a perfectly natural being, within nature, subject to the natural laws of nature, or outside of nature itself?
Would you mind elaborating on this?
I'm confused.
Post #39
[Replying to post 38 by man]
you forgot to present the supporting evidence[/center]
[center]You have a hypothesis.man wrote: You all might be interested to know that science views god as natural.
Given our evolutionary past and the resulting structure of our brain belief in god arises naturally in humans.
you forgot to present the supporting evidence[/center]
