More on Supernatural
My basic argument about supernatural (SN) is that the original Christian concept is not the same as the modern concept. When the atheists say there is no evidence for the SN It is irrelevant because Christianity goes bay a different concept, Now it; is true that a lot of Christians are going by the newer concept but that doesn't matter because those are not real doctrines of the church and the real concept is still diffused throughout other doctrinal fields,
The original concept: God' presence and power in spiritual experience will raise us to a higher level of consciousness and salivate human nature infusing it with divine unction. That is essentially mystical experience, The modern concept, brought in in the enlightenment is that reality is divided at the metaphysical into natural and supernatural. Natural is the Godless zone where God may not go and that is normal natural action in the world such as rain and seed time and so on.SN is "woo woo"and miracles and bigfoot and ghosts and all the BS stuff atheists can't stand.
Atheists use this concept in several ways. The first way I showed Jerry Coyne using.[1] He says
...the Genesis story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a 6,000-year-old earth, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as well as paranormal phenomena like near-death experiences, telepathy, and precognition. If you invoke a form of the supernatural that claims to have real-world consequences, then those consequences necessarily fall within the ambit of science. This means that any type of theistic faith involves hypotheses that are “scientific”.[2]Guilt by association he;s lumping in any disreputable unprovable idea as SN and linking it to Christian belief. None of the things he mentions are SN by the Christian doctrine, few of them are SN even by the modern standard. Adam and Eve and 6000 year creation is not SN even by modern standard, Here we see the second use, Because the cordon off realty with not God is natural and God stuff is SN then of course God cantering the world and so then do this irrational bait and switch where they go there's no proof for this thing that can't be in the natural world so therefore it can't exist at all,
The comment section my last post "Pix" asks: "Why does it matter how we define supernatural when we consider whether God exists or not? Why do we need to use the term in the discussion?" The point is atheists use the concept as leverage, By linking God to SN then saying there is no proof for SN they are in effect saying no proof for God and that;s the psychological impression that it is all that much less valid, But the original concept (mystical experience) does have the scientific backing they claim SN ideas don't have,
In my book, The Trace of God: Rational Warrant for Belief (by Joseph Hinayana available on Amazon) [3] I examine a body of scientific work consisting of more than 200 empirical studies from peer reviewed social science journals, I can link one to the other, Social science accepts that mystical experience is not pathology, it is not mental illness, it is good for you and it is valid as a definable experience that is not replaceable to a trick of psychology, From there I can link it God in a manner that warrants belief,
Pix says: "Are you trying to prove the supernatural exists? Or God exists? I thought the later. Have I got that wrong?" If the SN is the power of God the one entails the other obviously, Now whatch what her does: "If you have proof that ghosts exist, will you consider your goal to be achieved? I would guess not. As I understand it, you objective is to prove God, not the supernatural. So why get hung up on what supernatural means?" Because atheists re doing it, They are constantly using the lack of proof for SN as an implication that God does not exist, they do it based upon SN claims Christianity doesn't make.
Then Skeptical chimes in: "- Joe, I read the article. Before supernatural, they talked about huper phusin, which is similar in some respect, but they did not use the term 'supernatural', and it did not mean supernatural. The word 'phusin' means 'growth'.[4] THAT's what they meant by the term. Your reading comprehension sucks." First, he is stuck on this notion:"they talked about"as though the standard idea was this huper phusin, the trickle says felicity it was the exception! I have pointed this out to him several times now.,My line says "Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ." Saler uses that term exactly.I quote him ver batem, It was not a standard idea his is the first use, [5]
Secondly, what does it mean? Physin is derived from the root Physus from which we take out word
'physics," it is they Greek word for nature, It means growth because that is what nature is, nature is the realm in which things grow,Literally life from life. Translated in to Latin it is Naturaliks, from which we get "nature,? WE TAKE NATURE FROM Latin BUT IT'S THE SAME THING! It has no real bearing on anything the fact that saint Cyril used a Greek term meaning supernatural that' just the beginning of the terms,What did he use it to say? That's what matters, Then it tarts beimgusedby Dyonysius a decade or so latter. (444-500).
The Skepie thinks he has the lo down,Hes going to give the etymology,so he conclusions an epistemological dictionary that starts him off with Latin.Think about it why is it starting with Latin? Because we draw the term natural from Latin, naturalis. The Greek can mean the same and that's the theological history of the word but the etymology starts with the Latin cognate,.The dictionary starts with the major source not an isolated precursor which is what the Greek is. So here is Skepioes etymology:
Here is the etymology of the word 'supernatural, from Oxford Etymology Dictionary:early 15c. "of or given by God," from Medieval Latin supernaturalis "above or beyond nature, divine," from Latin super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Related: Supernaturalism.[6]and he goes on:
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the "supernatural order" is "the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny." It is contrasted with the "natural order", which is the "world of material beings to the exclusion of immaterial entities". So there is a relationship to the elevation of the human soul, but that elevation is not what they define as supernatural.[7]and on:
"I know you think you are the possessor the true Christian belief, but everything I see, including the article you are using as a source, says otherwise. You need to set aside your biases and see things a little more objectively." [8] Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. would you like a band aid? I was just about to thank you for that quote from the Catholic encyclopedia because that says perfectly what my whole idea of SN is, That proves it;s still part of Christian doctrine,
You didn't find it just a bit suspicious when it said "the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny?" Hint what is the rational creature? Are rocks and trees rational? I can forgive Skep for not knowing this but (it makes sense he would not) but humans are rational, rocks and trees are not, What do I say SN is? (ab0ve) "God' presence and power in spiritual experience will raise us to a higher level of consciousness and salivate human nature infusing it with divine unction." compare"
Me:God' presence and power in spiritual experience will raise us to a higher level of consciousness and salivate human nature infusing it with divine unction.
Essentially talking about the same thing. Of course dictionaries are are made to reflect the popular use of a term, They are specialized for understanding theological application, The term SN was radically changed in the enlightenment so that's what the dictionaries reflect, eve this one used above the etymology reflects a trace of the original idea when it includes divine, The original concept is still clinging to Catholic doctrine.
RCC:"the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny?"
Sources
[1] Joseph Hinman, "The True Christian Concept of The Supernatural," Care Commemts Blog -
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-true-christian-concept-of.html
[2] Jerry Coyne, “Can Science Test The Supernaural, Yes!,” Why Evolution is True. (6/27/2012) URL:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/can-science-test-the-supernatural-yes/(accessed 1/26/2016)
available on Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714
[4] All my Greek books are packed up in a storage locker and I can;t et to them, I studied Greek asmy undergrad language. I read most of the NT in Greek.I know this word l studied it in Graduate school in relation to Heideigger,
[5] Hinman op cit
Comments
Calling a meaning "the true Christian concept" for the term, effectively says that other uses of the term by Christians are false or at least un-Christian (even if also true?) But since the term doesn't go back to the NT (or OT) material, then the question is whether a Christian is using the term to refer to concepts being taught by the early Christians.
Can "supernatural" in the sense of a transformative experience go back to concepts being taught by the early Christians? Yes. Can "supernatural" in the sense of distinguishing over-against Nature as a "Godless zone where God may not go", go back to concepts being taught by the early Christians? Not by the canonical texts certainly, and not by the orthodox party (or parties) afterward! But that's more of a deistic Enlightenment meaning, NOT A CHRISTIAN MEANING! The Christians distinguishing Nature from Supernature in an ontological sense (before the Enlightenment, and not always using those Latin-derived terms), were talking about relative derivation: Nature is derived from Supernature, not equivalent to SN (vs pantheism), and not on ontological par with SN (vs what we might now call cosmological dualism, with Nature and Supernature equally independent existences -- a live point in the Enlightenment where this was coming back as an idea, shading over from deisms, taking a step farther with God being unable not just unwilling to introduce effects into history. But the deisms and dualisms were already opposing an existent and ongoing Judeo-Christian concept.)
Is this relative ontological derivation a concept taught in the textual canons and by the orthodox party authorities afterward? Yes, very much so, and in the latter case they were opposing non- and alt-Christian ideas where God either was Nature or else would not and could not have any direct connection or contact or relationship with Nature.
But the ontological notion of Supernature logically precedes the transformative notion of Supernature in (orthodox) Christian discussions; so whether the term in Latin or Greek equivalents happens to be used first (in surviving texts) by an author one way or another doesn't mean much.
In short, the transformative notion of Supernature is legitimately a Christian notion, I agree -- I would have said otherwise when helping edit your book, I assure you. ;) But it is not the only true Christian notion of the supernatural, and you're rather straw manning your position against an Enlightenment notion of the supernatural that was opposing (and kind of parodying) the orthodox notion of Supernature at the time -- a notion that was ontological, and found in the scriptures, and taught in continuity by early Christian authorities across the world, and upon which the transformational notion of Supernature depends for meaning. That ontological notion is also a legitimately Christian notion, and has some reason to be considered prior to the transformative notion in key ways.
Defending the argument of your book is fine, but not at the expense of equating the orthodox ontological notion of Supernature with anti-Christian ontological notions of Supernature and then lambasting those of us who hold the former as holding the latter and so not holding "the true Christian" meaning of Supernature. That's a move for ignorant and cheating sceptics to do (along the line of necessarily equating ontological orthodox supernaturalism with Young Earth Creationism -- the latter may need the former, but the former can get by just fine without the latter).
JRP
- When the rest of the world is talking about what EVEREYBODY else understands to be "supernatural", THAT is the topic of discussion, and your attempts to divert the discussion to a different topic altogether is irrelevant. Seriously, Joe, you are out in left field.
Yes it is because latter versions are based upon the enlightenment high jack,. The Christian version evolved a lot between 500 and 1300 I am not saying the version of the high middle ages is wrong,but after it starts branching off into modern enlightenment ideas,
Can "supernatural" in the sense of a transformative experience go back to concepts being taught by the early Christians? Yes. Can "supernatural" in the sense of distinguishing over-against Nature as a "Godless zone where God may not go", go back to concepts being taught by the early Christians? Not by the canonical texts certainly, and not by the orthodox party (or parties) afterward! But that's more of a deistic Enlightenment meaning, NOT A CHRISTIAN MEANING!
that's what I said, that;s the bad view,
The Christians distinguishing Nature from Supernature in an ontological sense (before the Enlightenment, and not always using those Latin-derived terms), were talking about relative derivation: Nature is derived from Supernature, not equivalent to SN (vs pantheism),
what do you think SN means? Supernature is supernatual same thing,
and not on ontological par with SN (vs what we might now call cosmological dualism, with Nature and Supernature equally independent existences -- a live point in the Enlightenment where this was coming back as an idea, shading over from deisms, taking a step farther with God being unable not just unwilling to introduce effects into history. But the deisms and dualisms were already opposing an existent and ongoing Judeo-Christian concept.)
hu?
I stepped on your doctrine but I don't think you really understand what I'm saying.I think you are trying to defend something I didn't attack, you should spell it out more clearly what You think Im attacking,
When the atheists say there is no evidence for the SN It is irrelevant because Christianity goes bay a different concept
- When the rest of the world is talking about what EVEREYBODY else understands to be "supernatural", THAT is the topic of discussion, and your attempts to divert the discussion to a different topic altogether is irrelevant. Seriously, Joe, you are out in left field.
you are actually trying to tell me that modern non Christians change Christian doctrine merely you are lazy to read theology?
that is just stupid. the meaning changed and modern people use it to mean the new thing but that's not what the church traces as truth, OS it;s a foolish critics thtsqsysthersnoprofofthesN,?
- Are you daft? I'm not referring to your obscure definition that nobody else uses. I'm talking about how the word is used in actual discussions. THAT's what the discussion is about. You can't just come along and say that's not what we're talking about. Yes, it is. Unless the discussion is about raising consciousness, YOUR DEFINITION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.
We just also have a logically and historically prior definition which his definition happens to depend on. He's trying to get around that for, God Who even knows why; and pretend that our ontological definition is actually one or another of a deistic or dualistic version, popular again in the Enlightenment, which he himself acknowledges (sometimes) they hijacked and branched off from our already existing ontological version. So that he can step on the Enlightenment non-Christian version and attack our version as being the Enlightenment and thus also the non-Christian version, but not really attack our version. I guess. {{I stepped on your doctrine [...] I think you are trying to defend something I didn't attack}}
But the version of meaning he's talking about is fine, too. I have nothing against it, and it's legitimately early. It's worth discussing, and making use of where applicable. It's even worth pitting against the deistic or dualistic version of ontological supernaturalism. It isn't worth pitting against the orthodox Christian ontological notion of supernaturalism, much less as though that's only the truncated Enlightenment version (which was competing against the orthodox Christian ontological version. The version with miracles, such as, for example, the experiential miracle Joe is talking about.)
JRP
(1) If no one used it it would not be in that Catholic dictionary definition and i showed it is. They do use it,It's still in Catholic doctrine. it's quite stupid of you to think that because I documented others who hold the same idea.
(2) what bleeding difference does it make if there is no evidence of a kind of supernaturalism that we don't believe in? if we don't believe it it's not disproof of us,
grow a brain, if it's not a claim we make the its not disproving our ideas,,
...yeah, it's probably better that you didn't finish that sentence, stopping at the comma, because it's logically nonsensical. {wry g} I doubt that's why you stopped it though, because you didn't go back and try a more coherent claim.
Obviously, if later versions, i.e. ontological versions, are BASED ON the Enlighenment, then they COULD NOT have been around in the high middle ages to BRANCH OFF INTO Enlightenment ideas and for Enlightenment ideas to HIJACK.
In fact, just as I said in detail, the Judeo-Christian ontological notion of supernaturalism long preceded the Enlightenment, and was being competed against by (stupidly) simplified versions of anti/non-Christian Enlightenment theism, and was being deployed against that at the time (and afterward), and was being deployed against earlier forms of pantheism, deism, and dualism, before the Enlightenment tried recovering those forms.
By exactly the same token, when you're trying to pretend for your argument's purposes (and needs???) that orthodox Christians, when we're talking about ontology, only believe the anti-Christian Enlightenment deism version of ontological supernaturalism, you're going to fail, and fail hard.
At the very least, you should have qualified that other Cadre members also regard the Enlightenment deism version of ontological supernaturalism, which you're competing against, as being wrong, while holding to a different version of ontological supernaturalism which we think goes back to primitive Christianity (and beyond into pre-Christian Judaism). Even if we're wrong, at least get our details right: don't straw man us.
{{that's what I said, that [the Enlightenment non-Christian version of ontological SN] is the bad view}}
You also said that's the version of ontological SN held by Christians, which it isn't. Even if we developed a different ontological SN from Enlightenment deism's version -- which is factually preposterous, especially when you're acknowledging they hijacked and branched off _our_ notion of ontological SN, which I agree with -- but EVEN IF we somehow got that FROM the Enlightenment, it still isn't the SAME THING AS the merely deistic (or even dualistic) ontological SN.
{{I stepped on your doctrine}}
For example. You claim you stepped on MY doctrine; but you only stepped on anti-Christian Enlightenment doctrine, claiming that this was MY doctrine. No, it isn't. You yourself acknowledge it isn't, sometimes!
{{I think you are trying to defend something I didn't attack}}
So you think you stepped on my doctrine, but that you didn't attack my doctrine.
{{I don't think you really understand what I'm saying}}
Well, for one thing, you're saying you stepped on my doctrine but that you didn't attack it. God Himself couldn't understand _that_. I doubt you do either.
JRP
- Joe, you're not listening. You can have your own definition. You can use it all you want. I don't care.
If a skeptic claims that there is no evidence for supernatural things, he's making a statement about something you DO believe in, even if it's not the same thing you call "supernatural". He's talking about gods and souls and the like. That's the definition of "supernatural" that the whole world understands, and by that definition, YOUR GOD is supernatural. You can stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to address the issue at hand (which really is stupid), or you can choose to communicate in the same language that the rest of use.
...yeah, it's probably better that you didn't finish that sentence, stopping at the comma, because it's logically nonsensical. {wry g} I doubt that's why you stopped it though, because you didn't go back and try a more coherent claim.
Obviously I meant branched off and became or evolved into enlightenment ideas,
Obviously, if later versions, i.e. ontological versions, are BASED ON the Enlighenment, then they COULD NOT have been around in the high middle ages to BRANCH OFF INTO Enlightenment ideas and for Enlightenment ideas to HIJACK.
what I just said. In HMA they began to see SN as realm beyond nature. That evolved into SNism vs Naturalism,
In fact, just as I said in detail, the Judeo-Christian ontological notion of supernaturalism long preceded the Enlightenment, and was being competed against by (stupidly) simplified versions of anti/non-Christian Enlightenment theism, and was being deployed against that at the time (and afterward), and was being deployed against earlier forms of pantheism, deism, and dualism, before the Enlightenment tried recovering those forms.
No. that is grow,you will have to document that because I already documented that it's wrong. That i what my article was an exposition on the sources that disprove what you just said,Saler, Fairweather and Scheeben, the latter two are major catholic figures,
By exactly the same token, when you're trying to pretend for your argument's purposes (and needs???) that orthodox Christians, when we're talking about ontology, only believe the anti-Christian Enlightenment deism version of ontological supernaturalism, you're going to fail, and fail hard.
Not only did I not say that I did not say anything like it. please poimt tomy statment where you think I said that,
yes I agree I should have done that. I was thinking too much about Fairweather's Aristotle,he was talking about the tulip Calvinists, he has a split between Calvinism on the one hand and enlightenment naturalism on the ohter. He's a Catholic so not always the most fair toward the Calvinists.
{{that's what I said, that [the Enlightenment non-Christian version of ontological SN] is the bad view}}
You also said that's the version of ontological SN held by Christians, which it isn't.
I don't think I did,
Even if we developed a different ontological SN from Enlightenment deism's version -- which is factually preposterous, especially when you're acknowledging they hijacked and branched off _our_ notion of ontological SN, which I agree with -- but EVEN IF we somehow got that FROM the Enlightenment, it still isn't the SAME THING AS the merely deistic (or even dualistic) ontological SN.
{{I stepped on your doctrine}}
For example. You claim you stepped on MY doctrine; but you only stepped on anti-Christian Enlightenment doctrine, claiming that this was MY doctrine. No, it isn't. You yourself acknowledge it isn't, sometimes!
you twisting my words,I did not say that was your doctrine I said tell me the doctrine I stepped on,
{{I think you are trying to defend something I didn't attack}}
So you think you stepped on my doctrine, but that you didn't attack my doctrine.
yes that makes perfect sense,one can blunder one's way into stepping on something without meaning to attack it. Attack is purposeful, stepping on is blundering,
{{I don't think you really understand what I'm saying}}
Well, for one thing, you're saying you stepped on my doctrine but that you didn't attack it. God Himself couldn't understand _that_. I doubt you do either.
I think a five year old could understand it. When I was fie my Dd kicked me in the face, I tried to climb a rope after him going up a cliff. He did not know I was there. He swung his leg back and kicked me off the rope. He did not attack me, I understood I did not think he tired to kill me.
If a skeptic claims that there is no evidence for supernatural things, he's making a statement about something you DO believe in, even if it's not the same thing you call "supernatural". He's talking about gods and souls and the like. That's the definition of "supernatural" that the whole world understands, and by that definition, YOUR GOD is supernatural. You can stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to address the issue at hand (which really is stupid), or you can choose to communicate in the same language that the rest of use.
the only accuracy your statement has is in decrying belief in God I already dealt with that in my remarks.
Why do atheists bother saying "no evidence for anything sn?" and not just "no god?" because they want to impune the whole system of thought that leads to or supports belief in God, Yet hey are hitting the wrong system. there is evidence for the system of sn I believe in.
- Who cares. That's not what they're talking about. What bleeding difference does it make what your definition is, when nobody is talking about that?
the definition from the Catholic document is talking about my view, it's from Mathias J Scheeben who was the major catholic theologian of the 19th century, atheists are so amusig,
I quote major figures to back my view and yet you still assume I made it up and only I hold to it. They have done the same thing in my use of Tillich,they act Tillich is a pretend figure.
even if true you would be committing the fallacy of areal to popularity.
Show me a quote where someone uses your definition of supernatural. You haven't shown anything yet, and I doubt you can.
my view is this article I've just defending fairweather, get it and read it and take any quote:
Eugene R. Fairweather, “Christianity and the Supernatural,” in New Theology no.1. New York: Macmillian, Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman ed. 1964. 235-256, 239.
part II
Part III
Why doesn't the church use the definition you do?
- This is not a definition of supernatural. It is a description of the supposed effects of the supernatural - consistent with the church's description of the "supernatural order". I think you're misreading all this stuff, and trying to make it all fit your own view (which you hope will be good for book sales).
*********article excerpts start here************
My basic argument about supernatural (SN) is that the original Christian concept is not the same as the modern concept. When the atheists say there is no evidence for the SN it is irrelevant because [true, original] Christianity goes by a different concept. Now it is true that a lot of Christians are going by the newer concept but that doesn't matter because those are not real doctrines of the church and the real concept is still diffused throughout other doctrinal fields.
The original concept: God's presence and power in spiritual experience will raise us to a higher level of consciousness and salivate [elevate?] human nature infusing it with divine unction. The modern concept, brought in [during] the enlightenment is that reality is divided at the metaphysical into natural and supernatural. Natural is the Godless zone where God may not go, and that [where God may not go] is normal natural action in the world such as rain and seed time and so on. SN is "woo woo" and miracles and bigfoot and ghosts and all the BS stuff atheists can't stand.
[Replying to Jerry Coyne's quote about invoking a form of the supernatural that claim to have real-world consequences, where at least those consequences if not the causes necessarily fall within the ambit of science. Examples include but are not limited to "the Genesis story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a 6,000-year-old-eart, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as well as paranormal phenomena like near-death experiences, telepathy, and precognition."]
Guilt by association. He's lumping in any disreputable, unprovable idea as SN and linking it to Christian belief. None of the things he mentions are SN by the [original] Christian doctrine; few of them are SN even by the modern standard [of SN doctrine]. Adam and Eve and 6000 year creation is not SN even by modern standard [of SN doctrine]. Here we see the second use [i.e. the later SN doctrine believed by most Christians today instead of the original Christian doctrine of SN?]. Because they [modern Christians and their SN doctrine] cordon off realty, with not-God being natural, and God stuff being SN, then of course [by this modern Christian standard of SN] God cantering [sic. cannot enter?] the world. And so they [i.e. sceptics against Christianity] then do this irrational bait and switch where they go 'there's no proof for this thing that can't be in [i.e. even affect] the natural world, so therefore it can't exist at all.'
[...] [Atheists] are constantly using the lack of proof for SN as an implication that God does not exist, they do it based upon SN claims Christianity doesn't make.
[The commenter "im-skeptical" says, According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the "supernatural order" is "the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny." It is contrasted with the "natural order", which is the "world of material beings to the exclusion of immaterial entities". So there is a relationship to the elevation of the human soul, but that elevation is not what they define as supernatural."]
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. would you like a band aid? I was just about to thank you for that quote from the Catholic encyclopedia because that says perfectly what my whole idea of SN is. That proves it's still part of Christian doctrine.
[...]The term SN was radically changed in the enlightenment so that's what the dictionaries reflect, even this one used above. The etymology reflects a trace of the original idea when it includes divine. The original concept is still clinging to Catholic doctrine.
You can clarify your intention in your article easily enough, if you will.
1.) Are you arguing that it's false (and "bullshit") to think that miracles are anything other than natural processes?
2.) Are you arguing that originally Christians thought miracles were nothing more or other than natural processes?
3.) Are you arguing that it's false (and "bullshit") to think that God is not Nature?
4.) Are you arguing that originally Christians thought God was nothing more or other than Nature?
5.) Are you arguing that modern Christians today who think that God isn't Nature, "evolved" this idea from Enlightenment anti-Christian notions of God not being Nature?
6.) Are you arguing that modern Christians today who think that miracles are not only natural events, "evolved" this idea from Enlightenment anti-Christian notions that God cannot introduce effects into Nature (and that therefore miracles either don't exist or are only nothing more than natural processes misunderstood to be something other than natural events?)
7.) Are you arguing that modern Christians today so prevalently agree with Enlightenment anti-Christian God/Nature cosmological dualists, that the idea that God _cannot_ introduce effects into Nature has become, for modern Christians generally speaking, "the modern concept of SN"? If so, do you consider us here at the Cadre to generally agree with this notion that God _cannot_ introduce effects into Nature? If you don't think we generally believe that, do you still consider us to be representatives of "the modern concept" of SN? -- or of the medieval but still wrong Catholic concept? -- or of the true and original Christian concept? For any answer, explain why you think we fall into whichever category. Or some other category you can think of.
I'm busy this afternoon, but I might have some other questions later.
JRP
(1) the definition you provided from new advent said exactly what I say. It's os good I'm using it in my book.
(2) I told you no way Fairweathier;s article doesn't agree because IT'S HIS ARTICLE I AM DEFENDING!!! that;w where I got the idea.
(3) fairwether used Scheeben so that's three agreement sources
(4) Benson Saler agreed witnessed so tht;ss four sources, dumbass!
why do you think I linked to thoe articles? there is
So, I'll suppose I'm misunderstanding you because of dyslexia problems and/or I'm too dumb and/or I haven't read enough and/or I'm in just a bad mood today, and from any of these factors or others I just don't understand your intentions. Any or all of that is possible.
you want to know the truth? I think you are pissed at me because of our political argument on facebook so you are reading what I said in a way that puts it in the worst light because you are mad at me.
I'm not that liberal, comrade.
You can clarify your intention in your article easily enough, if you will.
da comrade
1.) Are you arguing that it's false (and "bullshit") to think that miracles are anything other than natural processes?
No. I said in part II which I limned to that miracles are "supernatural effects" so they are of the raising to a higher level,(ala Scheeben).
2.) Are you arguing that originally Christians thought miracles were nothing more or other than natural processes?
no. I really can;t see what gave you that idea.
3.) Are you arguing that it's false (and "bullshit") to think that God is not Nature?
of courses not. I don't think God is nature, Nature is part of being. As many times as I've said God is the ground of being or being itself if he was nature he would be subject to the ground of being not the ground,
4.) Are you arguing that originally Christians thought God was nothing more or other than Nature?
of course not.
5.) Are you arguing that modern Christians today who think that God isn't Nature, "evolved" this idea from Enlightenment anti-Christian notions of God not being Nature?
no and frankly I am stunned that you can read this int my writing."
6.) Are you arguing that modern Christians today who think that miracles are not only natural events, "evolved" this idea from Enlightenment anti-Christian notions that God cannot introduce effects into Nature (and that therefore miracles either don't exist or are only nothing more than natural processes misunderstood to be something other than natural events?)
no, looks like you have been fed a line regarding modern theology,
The enlightenment trajectory today is not duelist it's anti duelist, the duelist is the Calvinists, In reaction against the enlightenment univocity the Calvinists emphasized equivocity the difference between God and creation and they fostered a dualism based upon immanence and transcendence. It's not modernist it;' not secular it's Calvinism. Not all Christians work in that trajectory,
that the idea that God _cannot_ introduce effects into Nature has become, for modern Christians generally speaking, "the modern concept of SN"?
No it has not. Modern theology is a lot more complex than that,
If so, do you consider us here at the Cadre to generally agree with this notion that God _cannot_ introduce effects into Nature?
why would I ask for your prayers if I thought that?
If you don't think we generally believe that, do you still consider us to be representatives of "the modern concept" of SN?
what you are calling the modern concept is bifurcated reality? I see modern view of SN as catch all for anything not naturalistic,so when I ever think you guys were like that?
-- or of the medieval but still wrong Catholic concept? -- or of the true and original Christian concept? For any answer, explain why you think we fall into whichever category. Or some other category you can think of.
Catholic concept is not wrong its just unnecessarily complex they added layer that didn't need to be there but they are layers suggested by the concepts dealing with,the original view. That view was wrong in that it was tainted by neo Platonism. All human conceptions are flawed.We are human so we cant help it. god gives us the truth in the form of Jesus but we still have to reason how the truth plays out in our own context.
I'm busy this afternoon, but I might have some other questions later.
- Joe,I cited that because it says something different from what you are saying. It DOES NOT define supernatural in the way you see it. It talks about an elevation of the spirit as a result of, but not equivalent to the effects of the supernatural order. It talks about the supernatural realm of immaterial beings as distinguished from the natural realm, which consists of material things. My god, man - how can you be so obtuse? Just because you want to believe something doesn't mean it's true. You are making this stuff up.
Definition on ?New Advent (see the whole thing here).
"The Supernatural Order is the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny. The meaning of the phrase fluctuates with that of its antithesis, the natural order. Those who conceive the latter as the world of material beings to the exclusion of immaterial entities, or as the necessary mechanism of cause and effect to the exclusion of the free agency of the will, or again as the inherent forces of the universe to the exclusion of the extrinsic concurrence of God, quite consistently call supernatural all spiritual facts or voluntary determinations or Divine operations."
the bit in bold is my thesis exactly. It fits 100%. that says the point of SN is to raise us to a higher level.the bit you are taking to mean other realms is what Fairweather calls: real two sidedness but it is not a a dualism.
I told Jason that the modern Catholic view from high Middle ages had unnecessary levels but wasn't necessarily wrong I had reference to the things in this definition,they don't contradict my view but they are necessary, un the way they are conceived of. I don't want to say more now because I'm going to write an article.
here
"Joe,I cited that because it says something different from what you are saying. It DOES NOT define supernatural in the way you see it. It talks about an elevation of the spirit as a result of, but not equivalent to the effects of the supernatural order."
Joe: that is not in opposition to my view. the discretion between "result of" rather than equivocate to" is false. My view is that the SN is God's power,so mystical experience is the result of God's power which i the ultimate cause of elevation and transcendence in mystical experience. God's presence and hi power go together.
It talks about the supernatural realm of immaterial beings as distinguished from the natural realm, which consists of material things. My god, man - how can you be so obtuse? Just because you want to believe something doesn't mean it's true. You are making this stuff up.
It does not say you must conceive of them as a physical location or a place to God/ I believe in life after death,my dead relatives are somewhere with God waiting for me so that has to be a dimension of some kind, so that is not possessed to my view.Neither does it have to require a God free realm of nature where the divine can't go or if he does effect he's breaking where he's not welcome.
Show me the a definition of 'supernatural' that says it is equivalent to mystical experience, or elevation of the spirit. There is no such definition, because that not what the word means. The supernatural ORDER is "the ensemble of effects" effects of the supernatural. It includes miracles and other things besides religious experiences. This is what I've been telling you all along, but you won't listen.
First, this is a discussion of the "supernatural order", not a definition of the word 'supernatural'.
that is total bull shit any concept of SN order is predicated upon the term and how it's used.There is no supernatural order, that is the unenecessary layer i spoke of,
But it does draw a distinction between the created material realm (which is the natural realm) and the supernatural, which is the realm beyond the natural.
It doesn't say it's the realm beyond the natural, you said that you added it, it;s your view so you stick it in. It says SN order is the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of created universe not beyond the natural if by beyond you mean physically,there is a realm beyond but that doesn't mean that;s is what the Supernatural is,
The article says "There is no objection to that way of speaking provided the assertion of the supernatural so understood be not made, by a fallacious transference of meaning, to screen the negation of the supernatural as defined above." OK. So supernatural effects can be seen in the natural world. I didn't say anything about a "God free realm of nature where the divine can't go". That's just you making stuff up again, because your reading comprehension sucks. The fact is, YOU'RE the one who insists on assuming things that it doesn't say.
the standard assumption of your own side,why would it say that when that's the atheist assumption?
Show me the a definition of 'supernatural' that says it is equivalent to mystical experience, or elevation of the spirit. There is no such definition, because that not what the word means.
if I show you again do you promise to read it this time?
The supernatural ORDER is "the ensemble of effects" effects of the supernatural. It includes miracles and other things besides religious experiences. This is what I've been telling you all along, but you won't listen.
I already covered taht genius.
"The Supernatural Order is the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny." that's the definition the rest is just commentary,
My statement was my view is still clinging to the Catholic doctrinaire what does climbing mean?.It means there's a trace still there but it's been added to.The part that is clinging is "gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny" that's tells us it's talking about mystical experience because that;s what mystical is and does,.
The bit about "effects exceeding the powers of the created universe " the miracles are called SN effects is because they are side effects of the process they are not the main part. The main part of it is the power of God in the experience of the believer,this is what Scheeben tells us, you have to read his book Nature and Grace he explains all of this,