The same knife separates the Natural from the Supernatural as that which separates Theism from atheism : faith.
The mytais supernatural events described in the bible can be either ascribed to truthful reporting, or fake observation.
But it can be that both kinds of descriptions are merely different ways of apprehending And understanding of such events.
Remember this one thing in favor of the later, God reveals Himself only to those He deems worthy÷
I agree with what you’re stating here, I am just confused because it was stated that supernatural is meaning it can’t be perceived. So if we can’t perceive it then there is no observation that can be made, even in the Bible, at least not by humans at this time or before in terms of evolution/ability.
If it reveals itself and is perceived then it is not supernatural? Is supernatural always growing like wisdom and questions and answers? is it only what we miss to perceive in a present moment or is it forever not able to be perceived?
Say again???
It made me laugh though to see you trying to come up with an example of that which cannot be perceived or named or even talked about.
He walks up to the mike and says, let’s talk about -----------------------------
Regards
DL
The bottom line is that if you or I do not trust that if either of us gets bogged down in our chat on the main issues of the O.P., due to having strayed to far out of range of our definitions, we will let the other know it.
Regards
DL
Everyone knows it begins with control of ones border.
Here I am, an esoteric ecumenist and naturalist who thrives on analogous thinking and you see me as hindering it.
Think again.
Regards
DL
Depends on what one means by supernatural. It depends on the belief in question and how it formed. Did one acquire the belief simply because someone said it, but one has no experiential or consequential phenomena otherwise? That could certainly be problematic. Though, obviously, intelligent people can have problems or make mistakes or be mislead, so the framing of the thread and this question is unnecessarily insulting and binary (read: confused).
The ancients? Some did not think the supernatural - depending still on the definition of that term did not. Many did. I believed I mentioned before that practices can lead to experiences that many people think confirm. IOW if one read this one would think the only way to come to a belief is to listen to/read others, iow to be convinced via language.
The Alice experiment shows that children can be convinced someone is there who is not. This doesn’t cover the various ways people come to believe in supernatural entities - however that term is being defined.
This is incorrectly binary, since many people arrive at their beliefs in supernatural entities without the presence of preachers, sometimes despite what the preachers tell them it is ok to notice/experience. It also assumes that the preachers are lying, as rule, rather than that they are genuine believers, which is obviously the case, and, in fact your own arguments indicate that that is likely, since they were once children.
OK, I went to the OP. I don’t think the word ‘supernatural’ has any meaning in the OP.
Karpel Tunnel, So, you are not necessarily saying that the word “supernatural” has no meaning in the OP since obviously it does to GIA and would it not also to others as the focal point of the discussion?
You are just using that statement as a tool perhaps to get back on track?
I don’t think it has a clear meaning or a consistant one. I suppose I might be trying to get things back on track. Or on track. And since the title of the thread implicitly insults anyone who believes in something supernatural, I think it would likely be useful to know what he means. Obviously he includes the idea of deities, but the term usually counts for more.
Greatest I Am wrote:
You meant me personally? Do you really see those words as coming out of my mouth?
[b]Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθέωσις from ἀποθεόω/ἀποθεῶ, apotheoo/apotheo “to deify”; in Latin deificatio “making divine”; also called divinization and deification) is the glorification of a subject to divine level and, most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.
In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. In art, the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, group, locale, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner.[/b]
The term “I Am” to me simply means that I have affirmed my existence, along with every part and parcel of my being, which by the way is still in the process of evolving, becoming and coming to know myself. I am, in a sense, always in the process of “growing up”. I am sometimes reminded by Life that I have not as yet grown up and perhaps never will be. I am not such a fixed entity.
Why would I prefer to think of myself as a god - or in this case, a goddess. I rather enjoy being a human being.
I believed that your username referred to God but are you saying that you have reached apotheosis?
AD wrote:
KT wrote:
As far as the title of the thread goes, I am not so sure that it does necessarily insult someone who does believe in something supernatural. I re-read the title more than a few times and allowed it to simmer in me but I did not perceive it in that way. There is just a question being asked and simply because the word “intelligent” is used it just does not seem like there is ground enough to think of it as an insult. As Jung said, truth needs the concern of many voices.
I may be wrong here but I kind of think that most in here would know what he meant by the word supernatural since he seemed to only speak of deities for the most part. But I agree that he could have been much more specific and included everything in a list that could be perceived as being supernatural or above the natural . He might have extended that to all categories but his mindset is predominately about God or gods.
You yourself like to think way out of the box and pack away a great many things for your trip.
If it cannot be perceived, then it cannot be talked about, the barrier is language via imagery. If there is no imagery then there can be no language to define or paint said imagery or lack of.
Even what appears to be the imagination is still perceiving. And if supernatural can’t be perceived then it is not comprehensible and not able to be put into words of language. Hence, no discussion of it.
There is nothing that cannot be perceived, even if only analogically, by our minds.
Let me know when you can name such an concept.
Regards
DL
Yes it does. We seek the fittest as a part of our ongoing evolution. Our ideal of a person is a person. Our ideal god is a personified something.
It is an obvious fact that the preachers of supernatural gods are liars. Just talk to them and confirm that for yourself.
Regards
DL
Yes, but as you can see from how apotheosis is defined, many of the labels cannot be given to one’s self. They can only be given to one.
Can I say I am divine? No. Only others can label me as such. Like Jesus, I can only ask, who do they say I am like?
We are all evolving perfection. You admitting that you are the final arbiter of your thinking and your own moral guide is, I think, a healthy claim for an adult to make.
It involves self forgiveness and a deeper self love, which helps us express our love to others.
Regards
DL
Greatest I AM
lol So again, I ask you: Greatest I Am refers to whom? 
.
And would you like that designation? What would you say to someone who said that you were divine?
I think what Christ actually asked/said was: "Who do they say I am? or Who do you say I am?
Why did Jesus ask the question? Was he confused about himself and needed clarity or did he want to know what others thought of him, of who he was?
Quite frankly, I think that that is a very good question which we could ask of one another (not you and me per se lol) but we have to be prepared to give the answer some thought, not necessarily to accept the answer but better still, we need to kind of know and trust the ones we ask to give us a balanced and impartial picture of our self.
Are you calling us humans “perfection” or are you saying that we are evolving toward perfection?
I am not so sure that we can ever become perfect…just better than we were perhaps.
What words did I use to give you that impression? Does being the final arbiter of my thinking mean that I am not capable of changing my mind? Is it a form of stubborn thinking where I refuse to see something different?
When it comes to certain hard questions, like should this person be taken off the ventilator because he will most probably never again have any kind of a quality life, I am not so much then the final arbiter of my thinking…well, perhaps I am at some point but I suppose that BTFAOMT does not necessarily require me to be right just to make the best ethical decision I can.
How do we come to forgive self? What does that entail?
Right back at you.
Jordan Peterson:
“I was once asked how I would define God. My God is the spirit that is trying to elevate Being. My God is the spirit that makes everything come together. My God is the spirit that makes order out of chaos and then recasts order when it becomes too limiting. My God is the spirit of truth incarnate. None of that is supernatural. It is instead what is most real.”
Basing god on reality is the best way to go. It is all we need.
The supernatural is for those who have given up thinking.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am was tongue in cheek and comes from knowing I would be laughed at and that was my way of showing my confidence in my paradigm.
As to divine, I am the closest that you will ever likely see.
“Why did Jesus ask the question?”
Tradition said that the prophets were reborn into the new prophets.
“Are you calling us humans “perfection” or are you saying that we are evolving toward perfection?”
Both, in the sense that we are the best we can be at all points in time. We live in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world given the history that got us here.
Nature always creates for the best possible end and we are living in our best end.
“What words did I use to give you that impression? Does being the final arbiter of my thinking mean that I am not capable of changing my mind? Is it a form of stubborn thinking where I refuse to see something different?”
I cannot know how you think. Final arbiter is just that regardless of how you think.
Regards
DL
The word spirit refers to the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul. I believe it is also this spirit that is meant in the Bible, whereby there is a difference if someone is said to be filled with that vitality, inasmuch that such people are inspiring and animating. Otherwise, we all have the spirit that grows in us as we grow bodily. It is the spirit that is metaphorically blown into the nostrils of the first human beings.
When Peterson says that his God is the spirit that is trying to elevate Being, the spirit that makes everything come together, the spirit that makes order out of chaos and then recasts order when it becomes too limiting or the spirit of truth incarnate, he is referring to the meaning of life being realised in ways that we can’t grasp or change. The only way we can prevent this spirit is stand in it’s way, which is what the Pharisees were accused of and it is what many scholars, preachers and priests stand in the way of today.
By only wanting a single description of reality, and ruling out another, we stand in its way. It is called by Jesus the single most serious sin.