Is There A Practical Side To Faith?

[Shyone]

Well, here's the thing:

 

I would identify Light with a grasp of natural reality free from superstitions.

 

The Christian would identify Light with Jesus.

 

I would identify darkness with ignorance about science (for example).

 

The Christian would identify darkness with separation from God.

 

So the exact same allegory means different things to different people. I can't use that allegory to show a Christian that they are in the dark anymore than they could use the allegory to show me that I am in the dark.

Yes, but in the cave, the shadows are taken for reality just as symbols are taken as reality. Words about what things are are a representation of reality, not reality itself. They mistake the representations for the real. The finger pointing at the moon is mistaken for the finger pointing. Christianity worships the images and takes these images and attributes them to God. It is exclusive to those that worship images.

 

But, yes, I know what you're saying.

The Christian sometimes represents the world as the unreal, the shadowey, the illusion while the "images" of Christianity are the "actual" reality.

 

I'm clearly on the side of science and empiric testability, and the Ghostly apparitions of Christianity are the illusions without substance.

 

But that's not going to win a debate.

[Antlerman]

I'm clearly on the side of science and empiric testability, and the Ghostly apparitions of Christianity are the illusions without substance.

But understanding in a clearer light the shapes and figures, isn't looking up to the Sun that illuminates them. So the world outside is visible, but that visible world is not the whole world. And that is the point.

"[socrates] Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good. "

 

Science and reason is indeed a step forward out towards the world from the cave of shadows, but it is not the path to full enlightenment of the "whole body". It is not full enlightenment. To hold the rock in your hand and understand its substance is not an enlightenment of the soul, but only of the mind on its way towards that, and enlightenment of the 'whole body'. To hold that rock in the light of day, and allow it to illumine not just the eyes, but the soul into its own self in that Light, is not just trading one shape, one partial form for another, but to be enlightened in the whole man.

 

Why do some people turn back to that cave, if they've already somewhat emerged? Perhaps because what they see are people looking down at the ground, busily picking up rocks and examining them with great interest and fascination, but not looking up, not trying to understand what that was inside them that drew them to emerge from the cave in the first place. They are all taken by the material world and see it as the *real* world and all that is, and no one is looking that light itself! And so they feel alone and disconnected out there. In that cave, they had that thing inside them that made them want to look outside in the first place, which was real enough, but they were able to talk with others in the language of shadows about it. Even though it is partial, it was there.

[OrdinaryClay]

Hi Kathlene,

 

Thanks for posting your thoughts on faith. If you haven't read anything from Corrie Ten Boom I would highly recommend it. Her testimony is wonderful.

 

My favorite verse regarding fath is ...

1Co 13:13

(13) But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

 

It reminds me to look outwards and not inward.

 

God Bless ..

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for posting your thoughts on faith. If you haven't read anything from Corrie Ten Boom I would highly recommend it. Her testimony is wonderful.

And while you're at it, look into the life and actions of Raoul Wallenberg. If I remember right from my History class, he was more of an agnostic.

 

Isn't it wonderful that people without any particular faith also can do good things and feel strong empathy for other people in need? Nature blesses us with many wonderful things.

[OrdinaryClay]

In my humble opinion, the practical side of faith is that it gives a person a center or anchor point for shaping their personality. Faith becomes a channel through which the growth of a person can be shaped in fruitful directions. Faith helps to infuse a person with a sense of identity in the Universe and within the greater faith community. Faith can infuse a person or believing community with creativity in both art, music and other modes of expression. Faith also has the aspect of providing internal fortitude in the face of disorganizing and discouraging circumstances.

 

The object of faith does not have to be a personal God. Typically there is some shared narrative about the world which provides the basis for faith. That shared narrative may or may not involve a god. It is the dynamic nature of that shared narrative and it's usefulness for expressing ultimate concern which determines the practicality of one's faith.

The utilitarian aspect of faith is note worthy. I agree. In this sense even a materialist finds utilitarian faith in the scientific method, but do we honestly believe that all faith is created equal. I don't think it is reasonable to think so. If a person knows deep in heir heart that what they have faith in is ephemeral or potentially capricious then the utilitarian aspect of faith is weak. IOW, the utilitarian usefulness of faith is directly related to the confidence a person has in the object(or ideal) of faith. Hey I think Christ even had something to say about that ...

 

Luk 6:47-49

(47) Whoever comes to Me and hears My Words, and does them, I will show you to whom he is like.

(48) He is like a man who built a house and dug deep and laid the foundation on a rock; and a flood occurring, the stream burst against that house and could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.

(49) But he who hears and does not perform, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, on which the stream burst, and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.

[oddbird1963]

. . .

IOW, the utilitarian usefulness of faith is directly related to the confidence a person has in the object(or ideal) of faith. Hey I think Christ even had something to say about that ...

 

Luk 6:47-49

(47) Whoever comes to Me and hears My Words, and does them, I will show you to whom he is like.

(48) He is like a man who built a house and dug deep and laid the foundation on a rock; and a flood occurring, the stream burst against that house and could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.

(49) But he who hears and does not perform, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, on which the stream burst, and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.

 

 

What you have in Luke 6:47-49 is the claim put forth that Jesus' words are useful (aka true) for enduring life's hardships. It is a mere claim. And he doesn't really say anything about degree of confidence. He is saying, follow my teachings, you win. Follow someone else's teachings , you lose.

 

Many have lived their lives 1) in an attempt to follow these words and concluded that these words are true. 2) Others have lived their lives in an attempt to follow these words and concluded that , in fact, the words are not true or useful.

 

So, I'm not certain of the truth of that passage or that the passage supports what you say.

[OrdinaryClay]

. . .

IOW, the utilitarian usefulness of faith is directly related to the confidence a person has in the object(or ideal) of faith. Hey I think Christ even had something to say about that ...

 

Luk 6:47-49

(47) Whoever comes to Me and hears My Words, and does them, I will show you to whom he is like.

(48) He is like a man who built a house and dug deep and laid the foundation on a rock; and a flood occurring, the stream burst against that house and could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.

(49) But he who hears and does not perform, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, on which the stream burst, and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.

 

 

What you have in Luke 6:47-49 is the claim put forth that Jesus' words are useful (aka true) for enduring life's hardships. It is a mere claim. And he doesn't really say anything about degree of confidence. He is saying, follow my teachings, you win. Follow someone else's teachings , you lose.

 

Many have lived their lives 1) in an attempt to follow these words and concluded that these words are true. 2) Others have lived their lives in an attempt to follow these words and concluded that , in fact, the words are not true or useful.

 

So, I'm not certain of the truth of that passage or that the passage supports what you say.

My point was not regarding the degree of confidence of the holder. Note how I assumed a deep belief, aka high degree of confidence. The point is that given two people with equal degrees of confidence the object of faith matters in determining the utility of faith for each. Deep faith in an infinite God is more powerful then a deep faith in an ephemeral or potentially capricious human target of faith - like country or community. The verses speak directly to this.

[Snakefoot]

. . .

IOW, the utilitarian usefulness of faith is directly related to the confidence a person has in the object(or ideal) of faith. Hey I think Christ even had something to say about that ...

 

Luk 6:47-49

(47) Whoever comes to Me and hears My Words, and does them, I will show you to whom he is like.

(48) He is like a man who built a house and dug deep and laid the foundation on a rock; and a flood occurring, the stream burst against that house and could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.

(49) But he who hears and does not perform, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, on which the stream burst, and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.

 

 

What you have in Luke 6:47-49 is the claim put forth that Jesus' words are useful (aka true) for enduring life's hardships. It is a mere claim. And he doesn't really say anything about degree of confidence. He is saying, follow my teachings, you win. Follow someone else's teachings , you lose.

 

Many have lived their lives 1) in an attempt to follow these words and concluded that these words are true. 2) Others have lived their lives in an attempt to follow these words and concluded that , in fact, the words are not true or useful.

 

So, I'm not certain of the truth of that passage or that the passage supports what you say.

My point was not regarding the degree of confidence of the holder. Note how I assumed a deep belief, aka high degree of confidence. The point is that given two people with equal degrees of confidence the object of faith matters in determining the utility of faith for each. Deep faith in an infinite God is more powerful then a deep faith in an ephemeral or potentially capricious human target of faith - like country or community. The verses speak directly to this.

Who wants to bet that Clay the gawd-boy is in babble school or seminary and working on a thesis or something? Or maybe just graduated and is trying his new wings?

 

I'll put up a post hole against a panful of cornbread.

[Antlerman]

My point was not regarding the degree of confidence of the holder. Note how I assumed a deep belief, aka high degree of confidence. The point is that given two people with equal degrees of confidence the object of faith matters in determining the utility of faith for each. Deep faith in an infinite God is more powerful then a deep faith in an ephemeral or potentially capricious human target of faith - like country or community. The verses speak directly to this.

Interesting thoughts. I'm not sure you can equate someone having faith in seeking out temporary pleasures directly with someone who has faith in higher ideals. I think that's like saying the experience of love is the same between a teenager desiring to have sex with his girlfriend, to someone who sees love as knowing no bounds and experiences it as a living principle in themselves. I don't believe the degrees of "confidence" are comparable. I don't consider a shallow belief, such as "If I snort coke I'll be happy," to be anywhere near equatable with the sense of confidence with someone who devotes their thoughts, life, and actions to higher principles. I think this is a false comparison being set up to support one specific point of view.

 

So the real question is, is about the value of what one believes as to derived benefit in having faith in higher ideals (let's toss aside those terms ephemeral and capricious from this discussion and assume higher ideals, as I don't believe or accept that belief in those qualifies as a "deep faith" as you chose to put it). Let's say for argument sake that someone has in fact a genuine "deep faith" in genuinely higher ideals? Take me in your thinking to where belief in God will serve better than any other higher ideal (you mentioned belief in State, as one example, though there are a great many others). In what way does that offer something beyond other higher ideals?

 

Plenty of people live for the ideal of love, and love is in fact served. Do you believe isolating that ideal to one specific religious set of beliefs (ie, doctrinal orthodoxy), trumps any and all other such ideals? And if so, specifically why?

 

I look forward to your thoughts.

[OrdinaryClay]

My point was not regarding the degree of confidence of the holder. Note how I assumed a deep belief, aka high degree of confidence. The point is that given two people with equal degrees of confidence the object of faith matters in determining the utility of faith for each. Deep faith in an infinite God is more powerful then a deep faith in an ephemeral or potentially capricious human target of faith - like country or community. The verses speak directly to this.

Interesting thoughts. I'm not sure you can equate someone having faith in seeking out temporary pleasures directly with someone who has faith in higher ideals. I think that's like saying the experience of love is the same between a teenager desiring to have sex with his girlfriend, to someone who sees love as knowing no bounds and experiences it as a living principle in themselves. I don't believe the degrees of "confidence" are comparable. I don't consider a shallow belief, such as "If I snort coke I'll be happy," to be anywhere near equatable with the sense of confidence with someone who devotes their thoughts, life, and actions to higher principles. I think this is a false comparison being set up to support one specific point of view.

Well, I do agree with you that hedonism is not a higher ideal, that is for sure, and being such does not deserve faith. You know, though, there are people who disagree with that, and think that hedonism itself is a worthy life goal. I vigorously disagree.

 

So the real question is, is about the value of what one believes as to derived benefit in having faith in higher ideals (let's toss aside those terms ephemeral and capricious from this discussion and assume higher ideals, as I don't believe or accept that belief in those qualifies as a "deep faith" as you chose to put it). Let's say for argument sake that someone has in fact a genuine "deep faith" in genuinely higher ideals? Take me in your thinking to where belief in God will serve better than any other higher ideal (you mentioned belief in State, as one example, though there are a great many others). In what way does that offer something beyond other higher ideals?

Again, assuming equal and strong belief in your faith of choice. From a utilitarian point of view a belief in God is stronger because the object of faith (an infinite God) is reliable. For example, a faith in country, is not reliable because the people in charge may change and you may become disillusioned by their choices. In this case the foundation of your faith is finite and the fickled will of men.

 

Plenty of people live for the ideal of love, and love is in fact served. Do you believe isolating that ideal to one specific religious set of beliefs (ie, doctrinal orthodoxy), trumps any and all other such ideals? And if so, specifically why?

 

I look forward to your thoughts.

Maybe you are looking for a qualitative comparison, which is a different question and the subject of another thread. Directly to love though, love is always a good, valuable and worthwhile goal. Do I think love as an ends is the conclusion. No. I'm a Christian. I believe in a real supernatural world in which God exists. I believe the true meaning of our lives is to worship God. Love will follow from true worship of Jehovah.

[Shyone]

a real supernatural world

 

That is an oxymoron.

[oddbird1963]

My point was not regarding the degree of confidence of the holder. Note how I assumed a deep belief, aka high degree of confidence. The point is that given two people with equal degrees of confidence the object of faith matters in determining the utility of faith for each. Deep faith in an infinite God is more powerful then a deep faith in an ephemeral or potentially capricious human target of faith - like country or community. The verses speak directly to this.

 

That passage is essentially an ink blot for you. It can be what you want it to be. I still don't think you are interpreting and applying that verse correctly. But, like I said, it's your Rorschach.

 

Actually all one needs is a faith that is fruitful for say the 60 or 70 years one has left in their life. The object of faith is an idea - a perception of the ultimate. Even when you label the object of faith as "an infinite God" you are dealing with a person's perception of what is an infinite God. If a person's perception changes, then the object may cease to hold ultimate status for that individual. So "an infinite God" is no different as an object of faith as any other source of ultimate concern.

[Ouroboros]

a real supernatural world

 

That is an oxymoron.

Very true. If it's real, it's natural. If it's natural, it's not supernatural.

 

A person who has superhuman strength is not a non-human. He is human. And he actually has human strength. He just have more strength than normal human, but still, it's human strength.

 

The word "super" is nothing but a superfluous word for "extra" or "beyond normal" in most cases. In the use of supernatural it's contradictory.

[Snakefoot]

a real supernatural world

 

That is an oxymoron.

Very true. If it's real, it's natural. If it's natural, it's not supernatural.

 

A person who has superhuman strength is not a non-human. He is human. And he actually has human strength. He just have more strength than normal human, but still, it's human strength.

 

The word "super" is nothing but a superfluous word for "extra" or "beyond normal" in most cases. In the use of supernatural it's contradictory.

I propose we coin a new, more accurate term for "supernatural."

 

I suggest "anatural" or "antinatural."

[Ouroboros]

I propose we coin a new, more accurate term for "supernatural."

 

I suggest "anatural" or "antinatural."

Actually, I think any term which interferes with the word "natural" causes problems. To me, something is either natural (real, exists, possible, can happen) or it is not-natural (does not exist, is not possible, can not happen). Unless we use the word solely for the purpose of "normal." But then it would be better to use the word normal in our sentence. Natural=exists, unnatural=does not exist.

 

The supernatural is then something which is natural, but just beyond norm.

 

What Clay really is after is if there are things beyond and outside our Universe, our time-space, our dimensions. Is there beings and a reality which is separate from our world and can interact with our world. I still think Supernatural is a bad word, because we are supernatural to THEM (if they exist)! So it's more of parallel worlds than one world above the other (or better, or whatever). And their world is natural in all sense of understanding it, as much as our world is natural to us. And if we found a way to travel there, then we'd discover that their world is completely natural and comprehensible.

 

So perhaps a phrase like "outside our space-time existence" is more accurate.

 

And if that is the question, then, yes, I believe there could be other worlds, other universes, and other dimensions. Even other beings in those places. But I don't believe anyone of them are our personal God that created our Universe.

[Antlerman]

So the real question is, is about the value of what one believes as to derived benefit in having faith in higher ideals (let's toss aside those terms ephemeral and capricious from this discussion and assume higher ideals, as I don't believe or accept that belief in those qualifies as a "deep faith" as you chose to put it). Let's say for argument sake that someone has in fact a genuine "deep faith" in genuinely higher ideals? Take me in your thinking to where belief in God will serve better than any other higher ideal (you mentioned belief in State, as one example, though there are a great many others). In what way does that offer something beyond other higher ideals?

Again, assuming equal and strong belief in your faith of choice. From a utilitarian point of view a belief in God is stronger because the object of faith (an infinite God) is reliable. For example, a faith in country, is not reliable because the people in charge may change and you may become disillusioned by their choices. In this case the foundation of your faith is finite and the fickled will of men.

In principle one could argue that. Except there's a few problems here. I wouldn't say that that belief in practice is necessarily a stronger one. Someone willing to die for God has as strong a belief as someone willing to die for his country. I don't think, were you somehow able to put some sort of measuring device on 'belief strength' that you would necessarily see a higher reading on a God belief as opposed to Nationalism. If laying down ones life is a measure of faith, then people die for beliefs all the time, whether its for God, country, civil freedom, family, friends, etc. The object of belief doesn't appear to affect the degree of belief.

 

But to your point of reliability in the object of faith. Yes, it's true that a country has fallible humans at the controls, and that it could change in its perceived value to you. But God is really no different - in effect. Even assuming God is infinite and unchangeable, being as intelligent as you clearly seem to be, I doubt for one minute you would argue that beliefs about God have never changed? How are you accessing God? Through what medium?

 

Just as "Country" is accessed through the medium of governments, "God" is accessed through religious institutions full of human interpreters. Without that, there would be no Bible. And that Bible is constantly undergoing interpretation as to its meaning, and practice, and utilitarian application. You can say the Bible is a living document, but in the same regard so is the Constitution of a Nation. That constitution doesn't change either. But it needs to be dynamically interpreted to the needs of a changing society.

 

It's great that God is unchangeable, but it's not God interpreting the meaning of this Constitution of God document. It's people. (Even assuming God himself was the sole author of the document in his name, or even at all in any direct fashion). There is, never has been, any unchangeable understanding of it. So how then is faith in that any more unchangeable then believing in Country? Unless you see that foundation as some sort of existential reality that does not rely upon interpretation of objective texts as foundation? I don't see a way around it.

 

Plenty of people live for the ideal of love, and love is in fact served. Do you believe isolating that ideal to one specific religious set of beliefs (ie, doctrinal orthodoxy), trumps any and all other such ideals? And if so, specifically why?

 

I look forward to your thoughts.

Maybe you are looking for a qualitative comparison, which is a different question and the subject of another thread. Directly to love though, love is always a good, valuable and worthwhile goal. Do I think love as an ends is the conclusion. No. I'm a Christian. I believe in a real supernatural world in which God exists. I believe the true meaning of our lives is to worship God. Love will follow from true worship of Jehovah.

Well, it depends how one defines love I suppose. As a Christian, I would suspect you would think love as an end is the conclusion, since as John puts it, "God is Love". Too embrace Love is to embrace God. As it says in scripture, "Love works no ill". "Love is the fulfilling of the Law".

 

So now we are talking that existential reality, as opposed to have some sort of infallible document on which to interpret Absolute, unchanging truth from it (Bibliolatry, I belief defines that, IMO. Talk about shifting truths). So then faith in an existential reality - Love in this case - does in fact yield more than a utilitarian value, but how shall I say it, a Light for living.

 

Or do you feel it is necessary to have build that faith on the shifting sands of doctrinal interpretations?

[Snakefoot]

I propose we coin a new, more accurate term for "supernatural."

 

I suggest "anatural" or "antinatural."

Actually, I think any term which interferes with the word "natural" causes problems. To me, something is either natural (real, exists, possible, can happen) or it is not-natural (does not exist, is not possible, can not happen). Unless we use the word solely for the purpose of "normal." But then it would be better to use the word normal in our sentence. Natural=exists, unnatural=does not exist.

 

The supernatural is then something which is natural, but just beyond norm.

 

What Clay really is after is if there are things beyond and outside our Universe, our time-space, our dimensions. Is there beings and a reality which is separate from our world and can interact with our world. I still think Supernatural is a bad word, because we are supernatural to THEM (if they exist)! So it's more of parallel worlds than one world above the other (or better, or whatever). And their world is natural in all sense of understanding it, as much as our world is natural to us. And if we found a way to travel there, then we'd discover that their world is completely natural and comprehensible.

 

So perhaps a phrase like "outside our space-time existence" is more accurate.

 

And if that is the question, then, yes, I believe there could be other worlds, other universes, and other dimensions. Even other beings in those places. But I don't believe anyone of them are our personal God that created our Universe.

Truthfully, I was just hoping for some fun making up new words.

 

Example: I coined a medical term to describe a condition endemic to the female of the human species--cephalosclerosis.

[Ouroboros]

Truthfully, I was just hoping for some fun making up new words.

Sorry. I'm still working on my morning coffee. The humor module in my brain is kind'a switched off.

 

Perhaps we can call it extracosmotic? "Extra," like extraterrestrial (outside of). And "cosmotic," as an adjective version of cosmos.

[Snakefoot]

Truthfully, I was just hoping for some fun making up new words.

Sorry. I'm still working on my morning coffee. The humor module in my brain is kind'a switched off.

 

Perhaps we can call it extracosmotic? "Extra," like extraterrestrial (outside of). And "cosmotic," as an adjective version of cosmos.

extracosmotic...I like it. Descriptive, unambiguous, and sounds like something you'd see in Japanese anime porn.

 

ETA: Ah, precaffeination cephalopachy. Well familiar with the condition.

[Antlerman]

I think it's far simpler and less alienating for him to talk about it as a different layer or dimension of human reality, not as outside the universe itself. Supernatural is a confusing word to use.

 

Assume for the moment if one worships God and is given the Holy Spirit. They now have that living in them. Are they half-human/half-supernatural creatures living here amongst us, like invaders from space, except space from outside the known universe?

 

To me it is far simpler, to say that humans are opened to something that is part of all reality here, in this universe, and just as we use reason to naviagate life as opposed to simple impulse, this higher principle - let's say Love, that is part of this universe, is embraced as a higher standard of living coming from some existential truth. And as such, it is not 'supernatural', but in fact fundamental to existence.

 

That's much easier to try to reason or model in ones understanding than something that makes it sound like it came from the Cosmic Mothership beyond our galaxy.

[Shyone]

a real supernatural world

 

That is an oxymoron.

Very true. If it's real, it's natural. If it's natural, it's not supernatural.

 

A person who has superhuman strength is not a non-human. He is human. And he actually has human strength. He just have more strength than normal human, but still, it's human strength.

 

The word "super" is nothing but a superfluous word for "extra" or "beyond normal" in most cases. In the use of supernatural it's contradictory.

I had a thought the other night about "natural" and it's negation. OC wants the negation to be "supernatural" but I think that he is "unnatural."

 

Unnatural behavior and religion seem to feed off of one another.

[Ouroboros]

ETA: Ah, precaffeination cephalopachy. Well familiar with the condition.

Good one.

[Ouroboros]

I had a thought the other night about "natural" and it's negation. OC wants the negation to be "supernatural" but I think that he is "unnatural."

 

Unnatural behavior and religion seem to feed off of one another.

Exactly.

 

To me, something is either natural or unnatural, and unnatural is the same as non-existent. Or like you used the word real. It's either real or it is not. Natural is real. Unnatural is unreal.

 

And religious people want supernatural to be real, but outside real, at the same time. I've noticed that many terms used by the apologists have double connotations. The mean A, but not A, depending on context. That way, the terms are always true, even when they're not. Time is time, unless it is un-time as in no-time (nontemporal). Begin only means begin when it comes to things that are pointed to having a beginning, but things that don't have a beginning won't have a beginning because that's how they defined the things they want to be non-beginning-ish. Space is only space when it convenient, and non-space is the thing that is outside of space, and it exists, but it's a space which is a no-space. It's amazing how many explanations of imaginary things they make up to excuse their belief.

[Snakefoot]

a real supernatural world

 

That is an oxymoron.

Very true. If it's real, it's natural. If it's natural, it's not supernatural.

 

A person who has superhuman strength is not a non-human. He is human. And he actually has human strength. He just have more strength than normal human, but still, it's human strength.

 

The word "super" is nothing but a superfluous word for "extra" or "beyond normal" in most cases. In the use of supernatural it's contradictory.

I had a thought the other night about "natural" and it's negation. OC wants the negation to be "supernatural" but I think that he is "unnatural."

 

Unnatural behavior and religion seem to feed off of one another.

Somebody carve that in stone.

[Ouroboros]

I think it's far simpler and less alienating for him to talk about it as a different layer or dimension of human reality, not as outside the universe itself. Supernatural is a confusing word to use.

Agree.

 

We could see how confusing the concept becomes when quantum events fall into the category of supernatural. It's better to be more explicit in these conversations.

 

Assume for the moment if one worships God and is given the Holy Spirit. They now have that living in them. Are they half-human/half-supernatural creatures living here amongst us, like invaders from space, except space from outside the known universe?

Hmm... that's an interesting question...

 

Are they possessed by the Holy Spirit perhaps?

 

And your questions sounds almost like: How much is a whole when you change its parts?

 

Like, if I have an apple, and I take a bite, is it still an apple? If I take another bite, then another. At what point is it not an apple anymore?

 

Then we can reverse it. Is a canvas a painting? Would one brushstroke on the canvas make it into a painting? If I paint the canvas white, is it a painting or just a white-painted canvas? Did it ever stop being a canvas?

 

To me it is far simpler, to say that humans are opened to something that is part of all reality here, in this universe, and just as we use reason to naviagate life as opposed to simple impulse, this higher principle - let's say Love, that is part of this universe, is embraced as a higher standard of living coming from some existential truth. And as such, it is not 'supernatural', but in fact fundamental to existence.

Amen.

 

That's much easier to try to reason or model in ones understanding than something that makes it sound like it came from the Cosmic Mothership beyond our galaxy.

That's right. And I think it will in the long run make up a more honest approach to reality. To imagine alternative (potential, possible, statistical) answers to our common questions instead of just accepting them as part of reality, we're just pushing the question and the real answers away from ourselves. It's a cop-out for the brain. A black-box answer that will road-block any further understanding.