Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Isn't that part of the key to understanding that supernatural can't be observed? Something being "beyond the visible, observable universe..." meaning, we are in this universe, and the supernatural can't be seen or observed (experienced). So what does it leave it? Nowhere. I think the definition of supernatural perhaps should be "a reality, or natural existence of things, outside of our Universe or existence, which can at times influence our Universe and existence through some unknown connections." In other words, "supernatural" doesn't mean above, or under, but rather to the side-of, or parallel to. Another world, which is natural in a larger sense, but not natural in the limited sense of our world. Do you agree to that definition? (At least somewhat?) Yes, I do see this side of the definition. But, it is also defined as this, which would fit more into what your definition implies. 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) Which is in line with my emphasized, alternative definition above. Think of this: lets say you were an angel. You live in this "supernatural" world. Would you consider yourself to be supernatural, or would your own existence be natural? Or put it this way: you are a higher evolved creature than the ants. They would consider you as a God. But do you feel or think of yourself as a god? It's the matter of perspective. Right? So when the supernatural world is explained with scientific terms, do you still consider them supernatural? We end up with the only solution: supernatural is whatever we can't explain through natural causes, at the current time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Gheesh, the mob mentality here. There is something to Spiritual stuff. Please watch about the children on John Stossels' 20/20 last night. Note the girl that has been drawing auras around people since she was a child.....and faking it ever since......for money of course. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/ There were three girls that manifested spiritual affliction a while back; "The girls screamed, threw things about the room, uttered strange sounds, crawled under furniture, and contorted themselves into peculiar positions." Thank God they killed the Witches that caused that. Like you say, never suffer a witch to live. Is there a connection? Is this like speaking in tongues, demon possession, or showing other indications of Holy Spirit touching? If spirituality means seeing things others don't, then it's likely to be bullshit. Does that mean you and I agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Auras defined, outlines, and tested: http://www.skepdic.com/auras.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Abiyoyo - there is a major problem with using Paul as your source when it comes to interpreting the phrase "kingdom of God/Heaven" as it is used in the Gospels. The Gospels, if read on their own, make it very clear that not only the Kingdom but also the Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of those alive during Jesus' ministry. In fact, Paul strongly agrees with this interpretation when it comes to the Second Coming: he makes it clear that he expected Jesus to return any day. But Paul re-interprets Mark 9:1, "... there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Paul says "Aha! That happened on the day of Pentecost! Jesus wasn't talking about a real-live Kingdom at all, he was talking about a state of heart and mind." Trouble is, that's not what Jesus said. It's what Paul said after the fact. This is no different from fans of Nostradamus who interpret his "prophecy" to apply to Adolph Hitler and WWII. Never mind that Nostradamus said "Hister" rather than "Hitler," never mind that most of the other parts of his prophecy don't fit WWII unless they are forced - this must be what he was talking about! Why? Because the True Believers already know that Nostradamus was right. The trouble with this kind of retro-active application of prophecy is that it renders the supposed prophecy useless. If a "prophecy" cannot predict future events in a way that can help those receiving the prophecy, what use is it? And if it's OK to retrofit events into a "prophecy" after they have already happened, why not apply this to all so-called prophecies, such as Tarot readings and Astrology charts? This applies to the supposed Messianic prophecies in the OT as well. They were useless in predicting Jesus, and only long after his death did the early church begin to apply the OT to Jesus' life, using Jewish exegetical techniques to retrofit the scripture to the reported facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Are you saying what I think you are saying here? I read this as saying that some won't die until they "wake up" and realize the Kingdom of God. This occurs in their natural life. Paul is talking about an inner peace, not material things. Is this what you are saying? Lu 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. You're okay in my book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Isn't a running theme of prophecy that either you don't understand it until after it occurs, or if you do understand it your attempts to thwart it turn out to be the cause of its fulfillment? In all cases, the prophecy was useless and the person(people) receiving it were better off never hearing it. Not to mention all the prophecies that do not come true that believers will either disregard or declare that they only haven't come true yet. At my most Christian I never believed in prophecy and always hated the way people tried to interpret supposed prophecies in the bible. The whole thing just makes me all the more irritated now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Abiyoyo - there is a major problem with using Paul as your source when it comes to interpreting the phrase "kingdom of God/Heaven" as it is used in the Gospels. The Gospels, if read on their own, make it very clear that not only the Kingdom but also the Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of those alive during Jesus' ministry. In fact, Paul strongly agrees with this interpretation when it comes to the Second Coming: he makes it clear that he expected Jesus to return any day. But Paul re-interprets Mark 9:1, "... there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Paul says "Aha! That happened on the day of Pentecost! Jesus wasn't talking about a real-live Kingdom at all, he was talking about a state of heart and mind." Trouble is, that's not what Jesus said. It's what Paul said after the fact. This is no different from fans of Nostradamus who interpret his "prophecy" to apply to Adolph Hitler and WWII. Never mind that Nostradamus said "Hister" rather than "Hitler," never mind that most of the other parts of his prophecy don't fit WWII unless they are forced - this must be what he was talking about! Why? Because the True Believers already know that Nostradamus was right. The trouble with this kind of retro-active application of prophecy is that it renders the supposed prophecy useless. If a "prophecy" cannot predict future events in a way that can help those receiving the prophecy, what use is it? And if it's OK to retrofit events into a "prophecy" after they have already happened, why not apply this to all so-called prophecies, such as Tarot readings and Astrology charts? This applies to the supposed Messianic prophecies in the OT as well. They were useless in predicting Jesus, and only long after his death did the early church begin to apply the OT to Jesus' life, using Jewish exegetical techniques to retrofit the scripture to the reported facts. Darn...I lost my entire post. oddbird has a thread about Mark in the Lion's den to where I said that another layer of fog should be added to the story due to the observer's knowledge base and beliefs when they witnessed or listened to Jesus. This could be an example of Paul just now understanding what Jesus meant. I understand what your saying about reverse prophesy, but let's say that we remove the Pentecost from Paul's aha moment, we are still left with an understanding. Paul only half-assed got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Going back a few posts....you are saying little. It's like ants in an ant farm. Someone sets up the ant farm, but everthing from the ants perspective and all the properties within are "natural" to the ants. And when the ants discover the ant farm properties......"See, we knew it all along"......Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 If spirituality means seeing things others don't, then it's likely to be bullshit. I think we all have the capability to "see" it. Some just choose which source they give the credit. Does that mean you and I agree? Doesn't "appear" so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Going back a few posts....you are saying little. It's like ants in an ant farm. Someone sets up the ant farm, but everthing from the ants perspective and all the properties within are "natural" to the ants. And when the ants discover the ant farm properties......"See, we knew it all along"......Wow. Just because something is natural it doesn't mean "we knew it all along." It's more like this: whatever we don't know is presented as evidence for non-natural phenomena by the believer, until the facts are on the table and it's proven to be natural and the believer still keeps on believing it's out of the world. It's a delusional attitude. Wake up. In your view, we are supernatural in relationship to the ants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 In all cases, the prophecy was useless and the person(people) receiving it were better off never hearing it. Not to mention all the prophecies that do not come true that believers will either disregard or declare that they only haven't come true yet. Good point! What's the point in being a prophet if nothing you say makes a difference - at all! In fact, ironically, if the prophecy were accepted at the time it was given, taken seriously and acted upon, it wouldn't have resulted in the prophecy coming true - which makes the prophet incorrect about the prophecy. It seems the only purpose of prophecy would be to say, "I told you so." "Repent!" (gee, I hope they don't...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Just because something is natural it doesn't mean "we knew it all along." It's more like this: whatever we don't know is presented as evidence for non-natural phenomena by the believer, until the facts are on the table and it's proven to be natural and the believer still keeps on believing it's out of the world. It's a delusional attitude. Wake up. In your view, we are supernatural in relationship to the ants. Those ants sure know how to find me, and sting me. And my wife is allergic to them. Some gods we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 In all cases, the prophecy was useless and the person(people) receiving it were better off never hearing it. Not to mention all the prophecies that do not come true that believers will either disregard or declare that they only haven't come true yet. Good point! What's the point in being a prophet if nothing you say makes a difference - at all! In fact, ironically, if the prophecy were accepted at the time it was given, taken seriously and acted upon, it wouldn't have resulted in the prophecy coming true - which makes the prophet incorrect about the prophecy. It seems the only purpose of prophecy would be to say, "I told you so." "Repent!" (gee, I hope they don't...) Isn't prophecy something like fortune telling and of-the-devil anyway? That's supposed to be a no-no. Or, are there exceptions to that too? Oh, by the way, welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Going back a few posts....you are saying little. It's like ants in an ant farm. Someone sets up the ant farm, but everthing from the ants perspective and all the properties within are "natural" to the ants. And when the ants discover the ant farm properties......"See, we knew it all along"......Wow. Just because something is natural it doesn't mean "we knew it all along." It's more like this: whatever we don't know is presented as evidence for non-natural phenomena by the believer, until the facts are on the table and it's proven to be natural and the believer still keeps on believing it's out of the world. It's a delusional attitude. Wake up. In your view, we are supernatural in relationship to the ants. I can't believe you can pretend to twist this simple analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 Abiyoyo - there is a major problem with using Paul as your source when it comes to interpreting the phrase "kingdom of God/Heaven" as it is used in the Gospels. The Gospels, if read on their own, make it very clear that not only the Kingdom but also the Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of those alive during Jesus' ministry. In fact, Paul strongly agrees with this interpretation when it comes to the Second Coming: he makes it clear that he expected Jesus to return any day. But Paul re-interprets Mark 9:1, "... there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Paul says "Aha! That happened on the day of Pentecost! Jesus wasn't talking about a real-live Kingdom at all, he was talking about a state of heart and mind." Trouble is, that's not what Jesus said. It's what Paul said after the fact. This is no different from fans of Nostradamus who interpret his "prophecy" to apply to Adolph Hitler and WWII. Never mind that Nostradamus said "Hister" rather than "Hitler," never mind that most of the other parts of his prophecy don't fit WWII unless they are forced - this must be what he was talking about! Why? Because the True Believers already know that Nostradamus was right. The trouble with this kind of retro-active application of prophecy is that it renders the supposed prophecy useless. If a "prophecy" cannot predict future events in a way that can help those receiving the prophecy, what use is it? And if it's OK to retrofit events into a "prophecy" after they have already happened, why not apply this to all so-called prophecies, such as Tarot readings and Astrology charts? This applies to the supposed Messianic prophecies in the OT as well. They were useless in predicting Jesus, and only long after his death did the early church begin to apply the OT to Jesus' life, using Jewish exegetical techniques to retrofit the scripture to the reported facts. But he did say imply that the kingdom wasn't an actual kingdom at all, as many think it to be. I posted this earlier. Lu 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Isn't a running theme of prophecy that either you don't understand it until after it occurs, or if you do understand it your attempts to thwart it turn out to be the cause of its fulfillment? In all cases, the prophecy was useless and the person(people) receiving it were better off never hearing it. Not to mention all the prophecies that do not come true that believers will either disregard or declare that they only haven't come true yet. At my most Christian I never believed in prophecy and always hated the way people tried to interpret supposed prophecies in the bible. The whole thing just makes me all the more irritated now. Prophecy is the only reason Christianity exists, so at your most Christian, you missed something I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Those ants sure know how to find me, and sting me. And my wife is allergic to them. Some gods we are. Oh, those. They are the evil antheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 Going back a few posts....you are saying little. It's like ants in an ant farm. Someone sets up the ant farm, but everthing from the ants perspective and all the properties within are "natural" to the ants. And when the ants discover the ant farm properties......"See, we knew it all along"......Wow. Just because something is natural it doesn't mean "we knew it all along." It's more like this: whatever we don't know is presented as evidence for non-natural phenomena by the believer, until the facts are on the table and it's proven to be natural and the believer still keeps on believing it's out of the world. It's a delusional attitude. Wake up. In your view, we are supernatural in relationship to the ants. So, then, ...the scientific will soon levy out the supernatural completely? What about prophecy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I can't believe you can pretend to twist this simple analogy. I and can't believe you don't get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 So, then, ...the scientific will soon levy out the supernatural completely? What about prophecy? I have some ideas in that area, but I'm not going to reveal them. Because I have an idea, but I'm not sure I can explain it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Going back a few posts....you are saying little. It's like ants in an ant farm. Someone sets up the ant farm, but everthing from the ants perspective and all the properties within are "natural" to the ants. And when the ants discover the ant farm properties......"See, we knew it all along"......Wow. Just because something is natural it doesn't mean "we knew it all along." It's more like this: whatever we don't know is presented as evidence for non-natural phenomena by the believer, until the facts are on the table and it's proven to be natural and the believer still keeps on believing it's out of the world. It's a delusional attitude. Wake up. In your view, we are supernatural in relationship to the ants. I can't believe you can pretend to twist this simple analogy. And did you ever think that once you discovered the mechanism for supernatural communication, that it falls right back in the natural set? Do you think that is why death is involved in the story? Must be another fluke. Those myth writers don't know as much as we do now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 And did you ever think that once you discovered the mechanism for supernatural communication, that it falls right back in the natural set? Do you think that is why death is involved in the story? Must be another fluke. Those myth writers don't know as much as we do now.... Here is something interesting: there are technologies evolving as we speak to communicate without words, and just to do it with thought instead. A point here: technologies, as in scientific research and experiments. No joke. There will be soundless, keyboardless, direct thought communication in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 I have some ideas in that area, but I'm not going to reveal them. Because I have an idea, but I'm not sure I can explain it properly. Your theory is safe with me Hans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Your theory is safe with me Hans First I have to figure out where to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 And did you ever think that once you discovered the mechanism for supernatural communication, that it falls right back in the natural set? Do you think that is why death is involved in the story? Must be another fluke. Those myth writers don't know as much as we do now.... Here is something interesting: there are technologies evolving as we speak to communicate without words, and just to do it with thought instead. A point here: technologies, as in scientific research and experiments. No joke. There will be soundless, keyboardless, direct thought communication in the future. did they say how you would keep from communicating everthing thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 did they say how you would keep from communicating everthing thought? It doesn't work exactly like that. You have to train to use it, and supposedly it becomes a second nature, just like lifting your arm. You don't lift your arm all the time, but only when you intend to. Same thing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts