2012 And Christianity

[Rev R]

Buddha, Mithra, Jesus, Moses...they are all the stars of their respective shows, so it only stands to reason that they would have the "spotlight".

[Ouroboros]

So you think humanity had this quality many hundreds of years ago, and was able to recognize it.....but not understand it?

Maybe, maybe not, but why jump to a conclusion if there are alternative options? We can't know if I'm right, or you're right. It even could be a third alternative we haven't thought of yet.

 

It must have been fairly prevalent and commonplace to be mentioned and written about?

Not really. Epilepsy was believed to be demon attacks during the time of Jesus. Now we know it's caused by brain dysfunction, and even got medicine to "throw those demons out."

 

And then for many hundreds of years, the mass population mentions nil about this quality of humanity that was so prevalent before? I think that to be unlikely as it stunned us a few months ago that humans emit light.

No, doesn't surprise me at all. Religion and other delusional fantasies have been holding us back from really investigate and understand nature. The religious answer to every problem is: it's mystical, God did it, and you shouldn't think it's natural. Just like in this case. If you assume it's not natural, and everyone else did too, then we would never figure out if it can be explained with natural means. Belief holds research back. Supernatural explanations stop natural explanations. It's very simple, really.

 

Science has only been around for a short time in human history. For a very long time, religion tried to explain everything, using ideas of demons, curses, and spells by using magical and powerful names (like the use of Jesus to cast out demons), but science has slowly pushed those superstitious ideas out from the human minds, and I think we should continue to do so.

 

Pull up the Moses Face thread and let's look at the comments made by the knowledgeable here....

 

Edit: here it is: http://www.ex-christ....dpost&p=306172 (Must be gone)

Still, just because we do not have a natural explanation to something currently, we can't jump to the supernatural explanation.

[Ouroboros]

Here's something interesting for you End3: http://www.experienc...ee-Auras/669954

 

This person started to take a medication for depression, and started to see this aura.

 

The think is, it is possible that the brain adds this image to the final product in the brain. It is very possible that a part of the brain adds things, just like the auditory hallucinations, but in this case it's visual.

 

It is also possible that there's some emotional feedback, so that if you like a person (which can be completely subconscious, even judging if a person is trustworthy or lying--some people have an ability to tell these things without colors, just by body-language), and the emotional feedback is going back to the visual cortex.

 

I don't know exactly how and what happens, but I'm not ready to jump to a final conclusion and believe in flying pixies or forest fairies.

 

--edit--

 

One more thing, I haven't ruled out the possibility of the supernatural or a spiritual world, however, I require very high level of evidence and arguments before I can admit that it does exist for sure. Nature we have. Nature can "speak" to us. We can test it, see it, experiment, observe, and confirm what nature is. So as long as Nature isn't fully explained, then Nature is more natural to assume to be behind whatever we experience.

[Guest end3]

Here's something interesting for you End3: http://www.experienc...ee-Auras/669954

 

This person started to take a medication for depression, and started to see this aura.

 

The think is, it is possible that the brain adds this image to the final product in the brain. It is very possible that a part of the brain adds things, just like the auditory hallucinations, but in this case it's visual.

 

It is also possible that there's some emotional feedback, so that if you like a person (which can be completely subconscious, even judging if a person is trustworthy or lying--some people have an ability to tell these things without colors, just by body-language), and the emotional feedback is going back to the visual cortex.

 

I don't know exactly how and what happens, but I'm not ready to jump to a final conclusion and believe in flying pixies or forest fairies.

 

--edit--

 

One more thing, I haven't ruled out the possibility of the supernatural or a spiritual world, however, I require very high level of evidence and arguments before I can admit that it does exist for sure. Nature we have. Nature can "speak" to us. We can test it, see it, experiment, observe, and confirm what nature is. So as long as Nature isn't fully explained, then Nature is more natural to assume to be behind whatever we experience.

 

Thanks, that is very interesting Hans. That person shares very near the same story as the girl on 20/20 about not liking to look at some people due to their "color". Perhaps a neuro-chemical match? Wouldn't that be a trip to patent.

 

I just have a very hard time, as you, when it mentions children of light and dark, and then, boom, there it shows, 2000 +/-1000 years later. Even my Moses Face thread I thought was a revelation by the HS to me. So, I appreciate your honesty, but I hope that you can understand why I view it as truth for me.

[chefranden]

I discovered the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings as a young teen. I wanted so bad for Middle Earth to be real that I actually found evidence for it's existence. Nevertheless, Middle Earth was fiction all along.

 

The supernatural effects people the same way. It effected me that way for many years. I wanted it to be real. But just like Middle Earth it is not real, the supernatural is not real. The track record of science vs religion is too obvious. There is no reason to suppose that the trend won't continue. Either science will show a natural cause or show nothing is there at all. It is like the sun coming up in the morning -- maybe it won't, but in all probability it will.

[Brought None]

Perhaps 2012 is when I finally get laid, thus causing the world to end due to such a devastating paradox.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks, that is very interesting Hans. That person shares very near the same story as the girl on 20/20 about not liking to look at some people due to their "color". Perhaps a neuro-chemical match? Wouldn't that be a trip to patent.

I've heard that mescaline also give some colorful experiences.

 

I just have a very hard time, as you, when it mentions children of light and dark, and then, boom, there it shows, 2000 +/-1000 years later. Even my Moses Face thread I thought was a revelation by the HS to me. So, I appreciate your honesty, but I hope that you can understand why I view it as truth for me.

Sure. I accept your view.

 

To give you some food for thought, some people claim their dogs can sense when they are coming home, even when they are a mile away from the house. My mom claimed she could sense 5 minutes before my dad arrived home from work, that he was on his way. I can't tell you why or how, but if we one day discover that we have some extrasensory abilities, then my view will be: well, those abilities then are of course natural, since they exists in nature.

[dagnarus]

Here's something interesting for you End3: http://www.experienc...ee-Auras/669954

 

This person started to take a medication for depression, and started to see this aura.

 

The think is, it is possible that the brain adds this image to the final product in the brain. It is very possible that a part of the brain adds things, just like the auditory hallucinations, but in this case it's visual.

 

It is also possible that there's some emotional feedback, so that if you like a person (which can be completely subconscious, even judging if a person is trustworthy or lying--some people have an ability to tell these things without colors, just by body-language), and the emotional feedback is going back to the visual cortex.

 

I don't know exactly how and what happens, but I'm not ready to jump to a final conclusion and believe in flying pixies or forest fairies.

 

--edit--

 

One more thing, I haven't ruled out the possibility of the supernatural or a spiritual world, however, I require very high level of evidence and arguments before I can admit that it does exist for sure. Nature we have. Nature can "speak" to us. We can test it, see it, experiment, observe, and confirm what nature is. So as long as Nature isn't fully explained, then Nature is more natural to assume to be behind whatever we experience.

 

Thanks, that is very interesting Hans. That person shares very near the same story as the girl on 20/20 about not liking to look at some people due to their "color". Perhaps a neuro-chemical match? Wouldn't that be a trip to patent.

 

I just have a very hard time, as you, when it mentions children of light and dark, and then, boom, there it shows, 2000 +/-1000 years later. Even my Moses Face thread I thought was a revelation by the HS to me. So, I appreciate your honesty, but I hope that you can understand why I view it as truth for me.

 

I'm curious. What significance if any is the difference in "color". Is it meant to reflect their inward nature somehow?

[Guest end3]

Here's something interesting for you End3: http://www.experienc...ee-Auras/669954

 

This person started to take a medication for depression, and started to see this aura.

 

The think is, it is possible that the brain adds this image to the final product in the brain. It is very possible that a part of the brain adds things, just like the auditory hallucinations, but in this case it's visual.

 

It is also possible that there's some emotional feedback, so that if you like a person (which can be completely subconscious, even judging if a person is trustworthy or lying--some people have an ability to tell these things without colors, just by body-language), and the emotional feedback is going back to the visual cortex.

 

I don't know exactly how and what happens, but I'm not ready to jump to a final conclusion and believe in flying pixies or forest fairies.

 

--edit--

 

One more thing, I haven't ruled out the possibility of the supernatural or a spiritual world, however, I require very high level of evidence and arguments before I can admit that it does exist for sure. Nature we have. Nature can "speak" to us. We can test it, see it, experiment, observe, and confirm what nature is. So as long as Nature isn't fully explained, then Nature is more natural to assume to be behind whatever we experience.

 

Thanks, that is very interesting Hans. That person shares very near the same story as the girl on 20/20 about not liking to look at some people due to their "color". Perhaps a neuro-chemical match? Wouldn't that be a trip to patent.

 

I just have a very hard time, as you, when it mentions children of light and dark, and then, boom, there it shows, 2000 +/-1000 years later. Even my Moses Face thread I thought was a revelation by the HS to me. So, I appreciate your honesty, but I hope that you can understand why I view it as truth for me.

 

I'm curious. What significance if any is the difference in "color". Is it meant to reflect their inward nature somehow?

 

Seems like in both cases Dag, that the observer of the "color" put them into a "healthy and light" category or placed them in a "unhealthy or dark" category. Both people said they didn't want to look at the unhealthy/dark people. That is paraphrased, but you can look at both links.

[Guest end3]

I can't tell you why or how, but if we one day discover that we have some extrasensory abilities, then my view will be: well, those abilities then are of course natural, since they exists in nature.

 

Ok, but by this definition, we leave no option for anything supernatural. There is nothing that we can view from a human standpoint that can't be placed as natural. Even if God allowed us to peer into Heaven, it would be the bad chili that you ate or a neuro chemical mind thing.

 

So does supernatural exist? Do we potentially define it by origin of public disclosure? Should we redefine supernatural as word that held a specific meaning at one time?

[Ouroboros]

I can't tell you why or how, but if we one day discover that we have some extrasensory abilities, then my view will be: well, those abilities then are of course natural, since they exists in nature.

 

Ok, but by this definition, we leave no option for anything supernatural. There is nothing that we can view from a human standpoint that can't be placed as natural. Even if God allowed us to peer into Heaven, it would be the bad chili that you ate or a neuro chemical mind thing.

No, it leaves room for supernatural to be incorporated into natural. Why would something that happens in nature, of any kind, have to be magical? Supernatural for me is a word that carries the connotation of something beyond natural, or almost unnatural.

 

So does supernatural exist? Do we potentially define it by origin of public disclosure? Should we redefine supernatural as word that held a specific meaning at one time?

For believers, supernatural is everything we can't explain (yet) in natural terms, but only until the day when science discover the natural causes, and then it becomes natural. It's kind of a resting (or catch-all) phrase for anything we just don't have answers for... yet.

 

But on the other hand, if we only allow "natural" to include traditional, conservative, Newtonian physics, and supernatural is anything or everything that is beyond our common sense of nature, then Relativity theory, Quantum mechanics, Brane theory, and other strange sciences would be categorized as supernatural studies. Because those sciences are many times counter intuitive and not easily understood from our common view of nature.

 

So how to you define "supernatural"? What does it include, and what does it not include? If a witchdoctor magically heals a cancer patient, is it supernatural, or maybe it's just a trick? (I know how some of these tricks are done)

 

You know what bothers me most nowadays? When I see mediocre or semi-good magicians, I tend to figure out how they do it. It's very annoying. I can't enjoy the magic in magic shows anymore, because it has become a bit too easy to see through it. *sigh* The best ones are the funny ones, because they at least add something to the show.

[dagnarus]

Here's something interesting for you End3: http://www.experienc...ee-Auras/669954

 

This person started to take a medication for depression, and started to see this aura.

 

The think is, it is possible that the brain adds this image to the final product in the brain. It is very possible that a part of the brain adds things, just like the auditory hallucinations, but in this case it's visual.

 

It is also possible that there's some emotional feedback, so that if you like a person (which can be completely subconscious, even judging if a person is trustworthy or lying--some people have an ability to tell these things without colors, just by body-language), and the emotional feedback is going back to the visual cortex.

 

I don't know exactly how and what happens, but I'm not ready to jump to a final conclusion and believe in flying pixies or forest fairies.

 

--edit--

 

One more thing, I haven't ruled out the possibility of the supernatural or a spiritual world, however, I require very high level of evidence and arguments before I can admit that it does exist for sure. Nature we have. Nature can "speak" to us. We can test it, see it, experiment, observe, and confirm what nature is. So as long as Nature isn't fully explained, then Nature is more natural to assume to be behind whatever we experience.

 

Thanks, that is very interesting Hans. That person shares very near the same story as the girl on 20/20 about not liking to look at some people due to their "color". Perhaps a neuro-chemical match? Wouldn't that be a trip to patent.

 

I just have a very hard time, as you, when it mentions children of light and dark, and then, boom, there it shows, 2000 +/-1000 years later. Even my Moses Face thread I thought was a revelation by the HS to me. So, I appreciate your honesty, but I hope that you can understand why I view it as truth for me.

 

I'm curious. What significance if any is the difference in "color". Is it meant to reflect their inward nature somehow?

 

Seems like in both cases Dag, that the observer of the "color" put them into a "healthy and light" category or placed them in a "unhealthy or dark" category. Both people said they didn't want to look at the unhealthy/dark people. That is paraphrased, but you can look at both links.

 

That doesn't answer my question though. I.E. Is the claim made that if this little girl sees a healthy "color" around you that is because you are good and she will see an unhealthy "color" around you if you are evil. If it is, has this been established through any kind of experimentation?

 

It seems to me that the unhealthy/healthy color thing could be just as shallow as me not likely to look at people with disfigurements, and having little to do with the inward nature of the person.

 

Also I seem to have missed the link to the 20/20 story, couldn't you direct me to it?

[Guest end3]

Here's something interesting for you End3: http://www.experienc...ee-Auras/669954

 

This person started to take a medication for depression, and started to see this aura.

 

The think is, it is possible that the brain adds this image to the final product in the brain. It is very possible that a part of the brain adds things, just like the auditory hallucinations, but in this case it's visual.

 

It is also possible that there's some emotional feedback, so that if you like a person (which can be completely subconscious, even judging if a person is trustworthy or lying--some people have an ability to tell these things without colors, just by body-language), and the emotional feedback is going back to the visual cortex.

 

I don't know exactly how and what happens, but I'm not ready to jump to a final conclusion and believe in flying pixies or forest fairies.

 

--edit--

 

One more thing, I haven't ruled out the possibility of the supernatural or a spiritual world, however, I require very high level of evidence and arguments before I can admit that it does exist for sure. Nature we have. Nature can "speak" to us. We can test it, see it, experiment, observe, and confirm what nature is. So as long as Nature isn't fully explained, then Nature is more natural to assume to be behind whatever we experience.

 

Thanks, that is very interesting Hans. That person shares very near the same story as the girl on 20/20 about not liking to look at some people due to their "color". Perhaps a neuro-chemical match? Wouldn't that be a trip to patent.

 

I just have a very hard time, as you, when it mentions children of light and dark, and then, boom, there it shows, 2000 +/-1000 years later. Even my Moses Face thread I thought was a revelation by the HS to me. So, I appreciate your honesty, but I hope that you can understand why I view it as truth for me.

 

I'm curious. What significance if any is the difference in "color". Is it meant to reflect their inward nature somehow?

 

Seems like in both cases Dag, that the observer of the "color" put them into a "healthy and light" category or placed them in a "unhealthy or dark" category. Both people said they didn't want to look at the unhealthy/dark people. That is paraphrased, but you can look at both links.

 

That doesn't answer my question though. I.E. Is the claim made that if this little girl sees a healthy "color" around you that is because you are good and she will see an unhealthy "color" around you if you are evil. If it is, has this been established through any kind of experimentation?

 

It seems to me that the unhealthy/healthy color thing could be just as shallow as me not likely to look at people with disfigurements, and having little to do with the inward nature of the person.

 

Also I seem to have missed the link to the 20/20 story, couldn't you direct me to it?

 

Sure, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7916128

 

The girl on 20/20 had "diagnosed" a man months before conventional medicine did. That is the only experiments I am aware of.

[Abiyoyo]

There is something to Spiritual stuff.

 

There most certainly is. Science has shown us that certain parts of the brain "light up" with electrochemical activity whenever we have a "spiritual" experience. And that deliberate stimulation of those parts of the brain can induce a "spiritual" experience.

 

It has also been demonstrated that hallucinogens such as Pcilocin and LSD can induce "spiritual" experiences. These chemicals have the ability to mimic serotonin at 5-HT_2A receptors in the brain. These serotonin receptors are coming under greater scrutiny as the physiology of "spiritual" experience is studied more closely.

 

So, yes, there is a real, measurable, physical "something" to what we commonly refer to as "spiritual" experience. Something is definitely going on there: your brain is producing serotonin and possibly dopamine, causing sensations of euphoria, sometimes accompanied by psychotic symptoms (such as hearing voices or attributing deep meaning to ordinary objects or events).

 

Oh, that's not what you meant?

 

I think that is awesome that spiritual experiences are actually detectable and able to be measured in some sort from science. Now.., if only they could make a pill that could make people have spiritual experiences!

[Guest end3]

I can't tell you why or how, but if we one day discover that we have some extrasensory abilities, then my view will be: well, those abilities then are of course natural, since they exists in nature.

 

Ok, but by this definition, we leave no option for anything supernatural. There is nothing that we can view from a human standpoint that can't be placed as natural. Even if God allowed us to peer into Heaven, it would be the bad chili that you ate or a neuro chemical mind thing.

No, it leaves room for supernatural to be incorporated into natural. Why would something that happens in nature, of any kind, have to be magical? Supernatural for me is a word that carries the connotation of something beyond natural, or almost unnatural.

 

So does supernatural exist? Do we potentially define it by origin of public disclosure? Should we redefine supernatural as word that held a specific meaning at one time?

For believers, supernatural is everything we can't explain (yet) in natural terms, but only until the day when science discover the natural causes, and then it becomes natural. It's kind of a resting (or catch-all) phrase for anything we just don't have answers for... yet.

 

But on the other hand, if we only allow "natural" to include traditional, conservative, Newtonian physics, and supernatural is anything or everything that is beyond our common sense of nature, then Relativity theory, Quantum mechanics, Brane theory, and other strange sciences would be categorized as supernatural studies. Because those sciences are many times counter intuitive and not easily understood from our common view of nature.

 

So how to you define "supernatural"? What does it include, and what does it not include? If a witchdoctor magically heals a cancer patient, is it supernatural, or maybe it's just a trick? (I know how some of these tricks are done)

 

You know what bothers me most nowadays? When I see mediocre or semi-good magicians, I tend to figure out how they do it. It's very annoying. I can't enjoy the magic in magic shows anymore, because it has become a bit too easy to see through it. *sigh* The best ones are the funny ones, because they at least add something to the show.

 

Your definition places everthing in the "we will eventually know" category. That gives no definition to anything supernatural.

 

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral

Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature

Date: 15th century

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

 

I can see your def of supernatural in 2a. Otherwise, you have to leave the possibility of God out completely.

 

Can you give me an example of God appearing that you would not categorize under def. 2a?

[dagnarus]

Here's something interesting for you End3: http://www.experienc...ee-Auras/669954

 

This person started to take a medication for depression, and started to see this aura.

 

The think is, it is possible that the brain adds this image to the final product in the brain. It is very possible that a part of the brain adds things, just like the auditory hallucinations, but in this case it's visual.

 

It is also possible that there's some emotional feedback, so that if you like a person (which can be completely subconscious, even judging if a person is trustworthy or lying--some people have an ability to tell these things without colors, just by body-language), and the emotional feedback is going back to the visual cortex.

 

I don't know exactly how and what happens, but I'm not ready to jump to a final conclusion and believe in flying pixies or forest fairies.

 

--edit--

 

One more thing, I haven't ruled out the possibility of the supernatural or a spiritual world, however, I require very high level of evidence and arguments before I can admit that it does exist for sure. Nature we have. Nature can "speak" to us. We can test it, see it, experiment, observe, and confirm what nature is. So as long as Nature isn't fully explained, then Nature is more natural to assume to be behind whatever we experience.

 

Thanks, that is very interesting Hans. That person shares very near the same story as the girl on 20/20 about not liking to look at some people due to their "color". Perhaps a neuro-chemical match? Wouldn't that be a trip to patent.

 

I just have a very hard time, as you, when it mentions children of light and dark, and then, boom, there it shows, 2000 +/-1000 years later. Even my Moses Face thread I thought was a revelation by the HS to me. So, I appreciate your honesty, but I hope that you can understand why I view it as truth for me.

 

I'm curious. What significance if any is the difference in "color". Is it meant to reflect their inward nature somehow?

 

Seems like in both cases Dag, that the observer of the "color" put them into a "healthy and light" category or placed them in a "unhealthy or dark" category. Both people said they didn't want to look at the unhealthy/dark people. That is paraphrased, but you can look at both links.

 

That doesn't answer my question though. I.E. Is the claim made that if this little girl sees a healthy "color" around you that is because you are good and she will see an unhealthy "color" around you if you are evil. If it is, has this been established through any kind of experimentation?

 

It seems to me that the unhealthy/healthy color thing could be just as shallow as me not likely to look at people with disfigurements, and having little to do with the inward nature of the person.

 

Also I seem to have missed the link to the 20/20 story, couldn't you direct me to it?

 

Sure, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7916128

 

The girl on 20/20 had "diagnosed" a man months before conventional medicine did. That is the only experiments I am aware of.

 

Oh, so by healthy/unhealthy you mean physichal health. If she is actually seeing the light given off by people, it actually is pretty reasonable to assume that a person's physical condition would affect the light given off.

[Abiyoyo]

I think it is amusing that the scientific world defines the supernatural 'as able to be measured and evaluated', thus making it not supernatural. So, now, we have 'knowledge'; the knowledge that will set humanity free from the deadly vise of religion. The more knowledge we gain, the more firm we will become with dealing with the 'supernatural events'.

 

So, what happens now. I am reminded of Demolition Man, where everyone gathered at 'Taco Bell' for a fine dining experience, ....yet beneath the surface lies the militant slums that live underground trying to wreck the perfect humanity of this sophisticated, new world.

 

I am curious of the supernatural still, just as Sylvester was curious about what was in those hamburgers, ....When he was eating it, He was smiling, saying how long it had been since he ate a hamburger, ....and squirmed a little when they told him it was rat meat. , ...but, then just kept on eating it

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Would you consider entertaining these questions, as I muse on this?:

 

Is God as you understand God wholly supernatural?

 

Are individual humans wholly natural?

 

In light of your responses, if human neural reactions fall into the realm of natural, and the brain responds naturally (through chemicals we can see) to supernatural and stimuli, by what mechanism is the supernatural stimulating our natural response?

 

Thank you for considering my questions.

 

Phanta

 

Well, I think your questions are valid, and I also believe that there is much more to it than the scientific and the charismatic world can understand. I believe there are occasions where the mechanics are learned, somehow, and applied throughout the church, giving a false meaning and demonstration of the Holy Spirit and God's touch, so to speak. I believe that in the scientific world, there are many gray areas that are still unexplained concerning the supernatural, yet scientifically are swept under the rug with possibilities until further examination and study.

[chefranden]

I think it is amusing that the scientific world defines the supernatural 'as able to be measured and evaluated', thus making it not supernatural. So, now, we have 'knowledge'; the knowledge that will set humanity free from the deadly vise of religion. The more knowledge we gain, the more firm we will become with dealing with the 'supernatural events'.

 

I think you mean UNABLE to be measured...

 

I doubt that knowledge will set humanity free from the "deadly vise of religion." It will however explain what religion is in natural terms.

 

We may evolve beyond religion. I consider myself (and perhaps atheists in general) to be a freak of nature, a mutation if you will. This is based on the knowledge that belief in the supernatural seems to be the norm. I have not been prolific in spreading my genes into the general population. Both of my sons turned out to be atheists in spite of their original indoctrination. But I only have one natural grandchild between the two. I wouldn't be surprised if atheists in general have a low birth rate.

 

I am curious of the supernatural still, just as Sylvester was curious about what was in those hamburgers, ....When he was eating it, He was smiling, saying how long it had been since he ate a hamburger, ....and squirmed a little when they told him it was rat meat. , ...but, then just kept on eating it

 

That describes my view on the general adherence to the supernatural.

[Guest end3]

Would you consider entertaining these questions, as I muse on this?:

 

Sure.

 

Is God as you understand God wholly supernatural?

 

No, He came in the form of a man.

 

Are individual humans wholly natural?

 

No, they are a form of God.

 

In light of your responses, if human neural reactions fall into the realm of natural, and the brain responds naturally (through chemicals we can see) to supernatural and stimuli, by what mechanism is the supernatural stimulating our natural response?

 

Through accepting Jesus into your heart.

 

Thank you for considering my questions.

 

You're welcome.

[Guest end3]

Is this where you meant when you suggested I call you a name?

 

Phanta

 

lol, thanks for the laugh.....but sure, call me a name, but if you want to keep discussing, call me also.

 

(I am assuming you ment this to be funny)

[chefranden]

Through accepting Jesus into your heart.

 

How is that done? A transporter beam? He's not going to fool around with the works in there is he? It doesn't work as good as it did, only I know how to fine tune it for best results. Do I have to eat extra when he's in there? My wife had to eat extra when the children entered her tummy.

[dagnarus]

Is the claim made that if this little girl sees a healthy "color" around you that is because you are good and she will see an unhealthy "color" around you if you are evil. If it is, has this been established through any kind of experimentation?

 

The story didn't reference any reliable experiments. The story of the man being diagnosed was a personal, unverifiable anecdote.

 

Her claim could easily be tested under proper scientific controls and observation. Perhaps she will agree to have her gift tested and studied.

 

Phanta

 

I realized that but I was more interested in whether or not the claim was being made that she could somehow see the soul of people.

[Guest end3]

Through accepting Jesus into your heart.

 

How is that done? A transporter beam? He's not going to fool around with the works in there is he? It doesn't work as good as it did, only I know how to fine tune it for best results. Do I have to eat extra when he's in there? My wife had to eat extra when the children entered her tummy.

 

Yeah Chef, you have to feed him a little cracker and a little cup of juice every week....

[dagnarus]

I think it is amusing that the scientific world defines the supernatural 'as able to be measured and evaluated', thus making it not supernatural. So, now, we have 'knowledge'; the knowledge that will set humanity free from the deadly vise of religion. The more knowledge we gain, the more firm we will become with dealing with the 'supernatural events'.

 

What does super-natural mean? Does it mean things we don't understand? Does it means things such as ghosts and goblins? Personally I would say that if something is super-natural that necessarily means that it doesn't exist, because quite simply if we came into contact with things such as ghosts and goblins that would just simply mean that ghosts and goblins are a part of the natural world. Similarly if God exists that would mean that he is part of the natural world. I think the whole natural vs super-natural is just used as an obfuscation for the severe lack of evidence for the interaction of YHWH in this world.