Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game?

Well the Delphic Oracle was something more than ordinary, and people lived and died on account of it, t the Egyptian cat: the sphinx is very unusual, , scarans are sign of the sacred, Pharaos held secrets with demonatratable effect of curses, ansnthen there are colleges and universities having departments studying it, internationally , Rasputin was a monk-magician , and the psychologist Jung wrote treatises about it, a Dr.Moody has documented hundreds of cases of near death experiences, so it is not like it’s just a tapestry of a bunch of auto suggestion .Intuitive mathematics is an established study, and we all dream, and able to connect and interpret them in conaciouaness, some to the degree, that they can’t discern conscious from unconscious states.
The intelligence of artificial simulation it’self may be a beginning ground to the key to the doors of preception, and the overcoming of absolutely devastating political determinancy has been changed , can be changed by a subtle interchange of breaths of the soul, and what is unintelligent about it, because of beliefs only in the appearance of pictures of the image nation?

Has anybody traveled as described in Eckencar? Has any son of a father whose overcoming from the absolute depth of which Nietzche only glimpsed a looking back? Can such be?
Can it?can the miracles of Jesus Christ be so easily explained by mere theatrics?
The absolute has strange magic for which good and evil equally contest.
Some will forgo the contest , paralysis sets in, political facts don’t sync rationally with fabrications, and look to the source to find real validity, not in the expression , nor the representation. , but in the lack of bias and its purported validation .

Those are difficult to excavate, and the intention separable partly judgement will determine the outcome.

Was that a yes or a no to the question?

Regards
DL

Yes, but with a covenant that’s not a game.

I would man but I’ve been busy as hell lately and wouldn’t be able to devote much time to you guys.

Have you tried putting an ad in craigslist?

If so, can you explain this kind of thinking for faith in the supernatural?

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

In early Christianity, they believed that nothing could be known of the supernatural.
What do you know of it as a fact? If nothing, why believe in nothing?

Regards
DL

So they didn’t believe that Jesus resurrected, that God made the world, that Jesus healed people, that there were burning bushes or angels…etc. Early Christians didn’t believe in these things?

I mean, I know there were some groups that didn’t believe in this, but didn’t many, if not most Christians believe in supernatural entities and events?

Maybe they just considered it natural rather than supernatural or unnatural. God( etc.) being a natural and normal/ordinary part of existence.

Oh, I agree, though I don’t think that’s what greatest means. I think the word supernatural has led to all sort of wasted verbiage. Is it real or not? If it’s real, it’s natural.

Let’s start with what follows and see if we have a discussion.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, “The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it.”

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, “God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning.”

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia … =PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

Indeed.

Before the scribes took god out of our hearts and put him in the sky somewhere.

Even today, Karaite Jews, who det5ermine the beliefs within Jewry, remain esoteric ecumenists and put man above god, where we belong.

Regards
DL

He was a Jew. The issue was what Early Christians believed.

And yet he believed in the pre-existence of souls, miracles from Jesus and demons and angels. I have told you this before, and yet you trot Origen out as an expert.

That was directed at non-Christian Jews on moral issues to show them that Jesus was the fulfillment of Moses. But since you are bringing up Matthew…
trusting-in-jesus.com/Mirac … tthew.html
He also speaks of many miracles and note…these are not presented in the poetic language of the OT/Torah. They are presented as flat tales. They are not presented in the flowery allegorical language of, say, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, they are presented in clear recounting events ways. There is absolutely no indication we should take them as anything other than they are written…accounts of what happened. And many Early Christians took them this way.

Now you write early Gnostic Christians. Fine. In relation to some of them, you are correct as far as literalism. Other gnostics did believe in supernatural phenomena. Though the term itself is silly. If you believe it is real, it is natural. If you do not believe it is real, it is unreal. It is not supernatural. It simply does not exist. That term has led to so many wasted conversations since believers are accused of creating a new ontological category (supernatural), regardless of whether this is true or not.

You keep repeating the same things without making adjustments for counterevidence for years.
Regards
DL
[/quote]

You missed the point, which he was agreeing on, that the term supernatural is misleading. And it’s amazing how much you give beliefs of Jews as evidence of the beliefs of Christians.

Now you write early Gnostic Christians. Fine. In relation to some of them, you are correct as far as literalism. Other gnostics did believe in supernatural phenomena. Though the term itself is silly. If you believe it is real, it is natural. If you do not believe it is real, it is unreal. It is not supernatural. It simply does not exist. That term has led to so many wasted conversations since believers are accused of creating a new ontological category (supernatural), regardless of whether this is true or not.

You keep repeating the same things without making adjustments for counterevidence for years.
Regards
DL
[/quote]

[/quote]
When you are correct, you do not change.

You make your statement while ignoring that the more brain dead literalist theists come up with (new) arguments. Get serious.

You seem to want to believe that the ancients were as stupid as the literalist idol worshipers are today. They weren’t and were mostly all esoteric ecumenists like Jesus was.

You like to think Jesus was only talking to Jews while he was a universalists and talking to everyone.

Regards
DL

The whole bible has been written by Jews.

If you can’t see that then ------

Regards
DL

The New Testament is full of Greek ideas. If it was written by Jews, then they had already been “corrupted” by contact with Greeks.

I’m not sure what that means. If God exists, then He permeates all existence, at least in the sense of being the architect of all that is. You might as well say “put man above gravity, where we belong”. It’s just as strange.

And if God doesn’t exist, then why talk about God at all.

Because both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL

I’m pretty sure all that has nothing to do with what I wrote in my post. :confused:

Because both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure all that has nothing to do with what I wrote in my post. :confused:
[/quote]
If you cannot get that it does -----

Regards
DL

That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue in the posts related to this one. And sure, I know that. It was about the term ‘supernatural’.

Well, you cite Origen as one of the enlightened early chrisitians and he believed in supernatural things. This has been pointed out before. Yet, you do not change and continue to use him as an expert, as if he agrees with you, when he does not. That particular quote does, but since he is an example of an important early Christian and he believed in supernatural things, his use is a terrible one. You also seem to think presenting three, well, actually two examples of early Christians is strong or even mild evidence of what Early Christians believed as a whole. You might want to look up Cherry Picking fallacy.

I don’t ignore that. Feel free to demonstrate that.

Notice how you do not respond to the points I make, but try to make it seem stupid I have the position I have, without you adding any more substance or responding to the points I made. What makes you think this kind of behavior is a philosophical discussion? What kind of example are you trying to set for rationality?

And here you just restate your opinion. I know you belief this.

No, I have never argued that Jesus was only speaking to Jews. I did mention something about what Matthew was doing.

It’s years and you still cannot engage in a real discussion. You cherry pick, do not respond to arguments, tell other people what their opinions are when they have not argued these opinions, restate your opinion as if it is an argument, and insult large groups of people.

If the whole I idea is that gnostics are so rational compared to others, it might be worth your while to learn how to demonstrate rationality.