I have some issues with Rod in this area too-- but would your "give up the supernatural" exhortation apply to giving up God as well? IMO, God is the only true supernatural entity, since all else is Created and thus natural whether we understand it or not.
Rod is right that we ought not mess with things we do not understand.
I have some issues with Rod in this area too-- but would your "give up the supernatural" exhortation apply to giving up God as well? IMO, God is the only true supernatural entity, since all else is Created and thus natural whether we understand it or not.
Rod is right that we ought not mess with things we do not understand.
Since I rarely agree with your comments, I'm compelled to admit I generally share your view in this case.
Assuming someone believes in God (and perhaps Mr Cole does not) than they must believe there are also demons that act through a variety of methods. Including association with objects, such as ouigie boards.
Edit: However, I don't agree with your point that God is the only supernatural entity. He created the demons/fallen angels and so I'd consider them supernatural.
I think you've commented before rejecting my division of spiritual/material, and now I'm thinking the issue might be one of chosen vocabulary (and I will admit that I am not always as careful with choice of words concerning these divisions as I might be). What about the term supersensual for beings such as angels and demons Jon, do you prefer that to supernatural?
That would work. Or maybe "material" vs "spiritual". I'm sorry if I come across as the language police. I do think it;s important to avoid any sort of equivalence between God and his Creation, including non-material beings.
I have no objection to language policing, so long as it is not done purely for the sake of being pedantic. I firmly believe the words that we use matter a great deal, as the very concept of creation via the Logos inheres within it a necessary connection between the statement of a thing and the thing itself, the type and the prototype. That said, it is good to be charitable in our interpretations of others.
It does seem like an issue of semantics. If he's defining all of Creation in all its spheres as "natural", then only God would be "supernatural" in the sense of being transcendent of the Creation. But in common parlance, of course supernatural can also simply refer to created beings in non-material spheres of reality. It seems to me that either phrasing is fine as long the meaning is directly or contextually clear.
When Jon writes 'only true supernatural entity' I think he means what I would call 'divine', something God alone possesses.
Supernatural literally means 'above or beyond nature'. Larger category. Angels fit here. Also, could encompass things exhibiting powers or traits beyond what one would expect e.g. levitation or a young girl throwing off three men.
I disagree that angels are outside Nature , unless Nature refers only to the material world of our Earth. In which case extraterrestrials are supernatural too. IMO, Nature refers to the entire created order, Here and Now, Elsewhere and Forever. Only God is truly beyond all of it, being the Creator not just of our world, but of every world, indeed of Timespace itself.
Nature refers to the universe of physical laws, particles and forces and all that which exists in and is governed by the same. The supernatural, by definition, is not. It can enter into the natural realm, and affect it, but is not limited or defined by it. It has its own rules.
But in that vein, I would contend it is you who are the materialist, insisting everything "not God" is natural. It is not how the ancients who wrote the Bible and referred rod all spiritual beings, including God, as Elohim.
Natural is not a synonym for material. Spiritual entities are natural although we may not, maybe cannot understand their nature. Promoting them to godhood is rank paganism.
1. Spiritual entities are natural...again, says who? That's not how the Bible defines it, nor the people who wrote it. Need more of an authority than what Jon says.
2. Who promoted them to godhood? You keep bringing that up but the only one who foists that idea is you. No one else here or anywhere else. No one.
"IF x is created, x is natural." Ok, point me to the Bible verses that back it up. Sigh indeed. AGain, not your sayso. Actual scripture. So far, you've given me no Bible at all.
Yes, I meant 'nature' as what one would expect from experience of the material universe. I wouldn't limit 'material' to just this Earth.
Angels are certainly creatures made by the Creator. In the Catholic view, personal, immortal spirits with intellect and will, that, God permitting, might influence the material world. Such influence might even be part of their "job" e.g. 'Guardian Angels'. I don't see spirits as 'material'.
I think that the proper word is "transcendent": only God is transcendent, and all of the Creation is immanent within God. So angels are also immanent. But we typically refer to the material realm as "natural", so relative to that, angels are supernaturalтАФbut both humans and angels are immanent in God, who alone is transcendent.
Yep. And even while humans are in this physical realm, they touch on that realm in various ways. The Bible has many such instances. BUT, and this is a big but, we are in this realm for a reason, and we are here for a purpose. It does not profit us to dwell too much on "over there" while here. Any concerns, bring them to the Lord in prayer. God occasionally gives us a glimpse. And above all, do not pursue the occult, which, at the very best, wastes your time. If you get any results, it is counterfeit, with no ability to verify results. And worst, you could destroy/damn your soul.
It is. But we are put in this material realm for a reason, for a purpose. It is not random. You will have all of eternity for all that other stuff. We are to attend to this purpose, while having an eye to eternity, to the Lord.
"Created" does not make it "natural." "Created" just means that. "Natural" means that it exists in the natural realm, bound by its laws. The Bible makes it clear there is a while aspect of creation that does not exist in the world of particles, forces and natural laws, but at the same time, can interact with said realm while at the same time having a whole realm and set of abilities and influences all their own. Your idea that "everything created is natural and subject to nature and the physical realm" is your thing. It has no Biblical backing.
Angels and demons are governed by natural laws peculiar to their nature. Just as we are. And if they can interact with the material world than they must have some connection to those laws of nature too. E.g., they cannot create matter/energy ex nihilo or reverse entropy. And also are subject ti the flow of Time.
"if they can interact with the material law, they must have some connection to those laws of nature, too," that is your leap That is not backed by Scripture. "They are subject to the flow of time," no, they are not. They are immortal, for one. Do not age. Time and space limitations do not limit them like they do us. Again, your supposition is not supported by Biblical evidence.
Only God exists transcendently, without reference to Time- since He of course created Time. All created things have some relationship with Time, if perhaps one different from ours.
Scripture has nothing to do with these matters- the Bible is the record and instruction of our salvation, not the book of all answers to all things.
At this point we are both nitpicking . How about we both agree that it is folly of no little magnitude to mess around with Hell in any way for any purpose, and agree to disagree about metaphysics and semantics?
Scripture is ALL we have on these matters. Anything else is what you are pulling out of your backside. And that is worth nothing in this. YOu have no knowledge or insght other than what is Biblically available. Same as all of us.
We do not get to just make up stuff about that realm that satisfies our whatevers. It is either in the Bible or YOU DO NOT KNOW.
I disagree that the Bible is the sole source of all knowledge, even in regards to theology and certainly not in regards to metaphysics which is what we are talking about here.
I do. Anything else is either you making it up or you messing with the occult.
And yes, the Bible is the sole source, and is to be what everything else is checked against. It is what it says and why we have it, why it was given to us in the first place. YOu thinking you can blaze your own trail is pride and dabbling in dangerous territory.
You are a Sola Scriptura Christian. Many of us are not-- and ours is the older tradition. I do not imply any bashing of you for that, but you should realize this (the finding of metaphysical knowledge via other sources) is not just some idiosyncrasy of mine, but a very old and broad Christian endeavor.
Who has the older tradition does not matter at all to me. My first check is God's Word, not anyone's "tradition." How does the 'tradition" measure against God's Word? If they do not jibe, it is the tradition that goes.
But at this point you are just arguing for the sake of being disputatious. I'm not going to cut off dialogue with you completely, but this nitpickery and hair-splittery has become entirely too much and I will engage in it no more.
I feel obliged to point out that from the Catholic and Orthodox standpoint, you would be the one pridefully blazing your own trail by insisting that your own reading of the BibleтАФjust you and your own two eyes, independent from TraditionтАФis the best or correct reading. The Catholic and Orthodox view is that the Holy Ghost guides and informs the Tradition; that the Bible itself is an artifact created by the Church as part of the broader Tradition; and that it is idolatrous to call the Bible the "Word of God", because only Jesus Christ HimselfтАФthe LogosтАФis the Word of God.
I know that your view is very different, and I'm not going to argue with you about it. I just wanted to list this point of fact about what it is that other types of Christians think.
And I would tell you that I'm not interested in Catholic or Orthodox standpoints, if it strays from God's word or cannot be reinforced. Church tradition or views of priests are interesting, but it must answer to God's Word. It is why we have it. As there is no Biblical verse backing up your view that the layman needs his reading filtered through a priesthood. The trend has been to make the Bible available to the layman, not restrict it from him. This was a move of the Holy Spirit. Because no mere book would reach and change men's hearts. It is living and the Holy Spirit resides there. Verses call ALL BELIEVERS to read it and commit it to their hearts. This would not be the case, none of it, if it was to be restricted to dissemination by elders.
The Bible also is referred to as the "Word of God" in its own pages.
Catholics and Orthodox need to get used to Protestants being out of there. It is ok for you to contest my views, that's fine. But I can tell you, I'm not at all interested in what your elders have to say. I'm interested in what God's Word says. For that is why the Lord gave it to us. ALL of us, elders, pastors, priests, layman, have to check utterances and views against that. And guess what? If the Bible says one thing and some clergyman says another, that clergyman is wrong.
I have some issues with Rod in this area too-- but would your "give up the supernatural" exhortation apply to giving up God as well? IMO, God is the only true supernatural entity, since all else is Created and thus natural whether we understand it or not.
Rod is right that we ought not mess with things we do not understand.
Since I rarely agree with your comments, I'm compelled to admit I generally share your view in this case.
Assuming someone believes in God (and perhaps Mr Cole does not) than they must believe there are also demons that act through a variety of methods. Including association with objects, such as ouigie boards.
Edit: However, I don't agree with your point that God is the only supernatural entity. He created the demons/fallen angels and so I'd consider them supernatural.
I think you've commented before rejecting my division of spiritual/material, and now I'm thinking the issue might be one of chosen vocabulary (and I will admit that I am not always as careful with choice of words concerning these divisions as I might be). What about the term supersensual for beings such as angels and demons Jon, do you prefer that to supernatural?
That would work. Or maybe "material" vs "spiritual". I'm sorry if I come across as the language police. I do think it;s important to avoid any sort of equivalence between God and his Creation, including non-material beings.
I have no objection to language policing, so long as it is not done purely for the sake of being pedantic. I firmly believe the words that we use matter a great deal, as the very concept of creation via the Logos inheres within it a necessary connection between the statement of a thing and the thing itself, the type and the prototype. That said, it is good to be charitable in our interpretations of others.
Jon, pedantic? NEVER!
It does seem like an issue of semantics. If he's defining all of Creation in all its spheres as "natural", then only God would be "supernatural" in the sense of being transcendent of the Creation. But in common parlance, of course supernatural can also simply refer to created beings in non-material spheres of reality. It seems to me that either phrasing is fine as long the meaning is directly or contextually clear.
When Jon writes 'only true supernatural entity' I think he means what I would call 'divine', something God alone possesses.
Supernatural literally means 'above or beyond nature'. Larger category. Angels fit here. Also, could encompass things exhibiting powers or traits beyond what one would expect e.g. levitation or a young girl throwing off three men.
I disagree that angels are outside Nature , unless Nature refers only to the material world of our Earth. In which case extraterrestrials are supernatural too. IMO, Nature refers to the entire created order, Here and Now, Elsewhere and Forever. Only God is truly beyond all of it, being the Creator not just of our world, but of every world, indeed of Timespace itself.
Nature refers to the universe of physical laws, particles and forces and all that which exists in and is governed by the same. The supernatural, by definition, is not. It can enter into the natural realm, and affect it, but is not limited or defined by it. It has its own rules.
That's a very materialistic point of view.
No, it isn't. That is accepting a material realm and a spiritual realm, easily Biblically supported.
But the spritual realm is also created by God. It is part of nature too. Only God us beyond nature, for only God is the Creator.
Bible verses to back up spiritual realm being a part of "nature."
If it is just Jon's take, just do not bother.
But in that vein, I would contend it is you who are the materialist, insisting everything "not God" is natural. It is not how the ancients who wrote the Bible and referred rod all spiritual beings, including God, as Elohim.
Natural is not a synonym for material. Spiritual entities are natural although we may not, maybe cannot understand their nature. Promoting them to godhood is rank paganism.
1. Spiritual entities are natural...again, says who? That's not how the Bible defines it, nor the people who wrote it. Need more of an authority than what Jon says.
2. Who promoted them to godhood? You keep bringing that up but the only one who foists that idea is you. No one else here or anywhere else. No one.
Sigh. Are angels etc. created beings? If so they are natural. You no more need the Bible for that than you need it for a geometric proof.
"IF x is created, x is natural." Ok, point me to the Bible verses that back it up. Sigh indeed. AGain, not your sayso. Actual scripture. So far, you've given me no Bible at all.
This is no more something you will source in the Bible than the Pythagorean theorem is.
Yes, I meant 'nature' as what one would expect from experience of the material universe. I wouldn't limit 'material' to just this Earth.
Angels are certainly creatures made by the Creator. In the Catholic view, personal, immortal spirits with intellect and will, that, God permitting, might influence the material world. Such influence might even be part of their "job" e.g. 'Guardian Angels'. I don't see spirits as 'material'.
Given your definition of 'nature', I get you.
I think that the proper word is "transcendent": only God is transcendent, and all of the Creation is immanent within God. So angels are also immanent. But we typically refer to the material realm as "natural", so relative to that, angels are supernaturalтАФbut both humans and angels are immanent in God, who alone is transcendent.
Well said.
Insofar as humans have souls then we would have to say we too are supernatural since souls are also not material.
YesтАФhumans live in both realms.
Yep. And even while humans are in this physical realm, they touch on that realm in various ways. The Bible has many such instances. BUT, and this is a big but, we are in this realm for a reason, and we are here for a purpose. It does not profit us to dwell too much on "over there" while here. Any concerns, bring them to the Lord in prayer. God occasionally gives us a glimpse. And above all, do not pursue the occult, which, at the very best, wastes your time. If you get any results, it is counterfeit, with no ability to verify results. And worst, you could destroy/damn your soul.
My view is that we are primarily spirits having a material experience, so in that sense the spiritual realm is everywhere among us all the time.
It is. But we are put in this material realm for a reason, for a purpose. It is not random. You will have all of eternity for all that other stuff. We are to attend to this purpose, while having an eye to eternity, to the Lord.
SureтАФI believe in callings and all. I could agree that we should discern our callings and then live in alignment with them.
"Created" does not make it "natural." "Created" just means that. "Natural" means that it exists in the natural realm, bound by its laws. The Bible makes it clear there is a while aspect of creation that does not exist in the world of particles, forces and natural laws, but at the same time, can interact with said realm while at the same time having a whole realm and set of abilities and influences all their own. Your idea that "everything created is natural and subject to nature and the physical realm" is your thing. It has no Biblical backing.
Angels and demons are governed by natural laws peculiar to their nature. Just as we are. And if they can interact with the material world than they must have some connection to those laws of nature too. E.g., they cannot create matter/energy ex nihilo or reverse entropy. And also are subject ti the flow of Time.
"if they can interact with the material law, they must have some connection to those laws of nature, too," that is your leap That is not backed by Scripture. "They are subject to the flow of time," no, they are not. They are immortal, for one. Do not age. Time and space limitations do not limit them like they do us. Again, your supposition is not supported by Biblical evidence.
Only God exists transcendently, without reference to Time- since He of course created Time. All created things have some relationship with Time, if perhaps one different from ours.
Scripture has nothing to do with these matters- the Bible is the record and instruction of our salvation, not the book of all answers to all things.
At this point we are both nitpicking . How about we both agree that it is folly of no little magnitude to mess around with Hell in any way for any purpose, and agree to disagree about metaphysics and semantics?
Scripture is ALL we have on these matters. Anything else is what you are pulling out of your backside. And that is worth nothing in this. YOu have no knowledge or insght other than what is Biblically available. Same as all of us.
We do not get to just make up stuff about that realm that satisfies our whatevers. It is either in the Bible or YOU DO NOT KNOW.
I disagree that the Bible is the sole source of all knowledge, even in regards to theology and certainly not in regards to metaphysics which is what we are talking about here.
I do. Anything else is either you making it up or you messing with the occult.
And yes, the Bible is the sole source, and is to be what everything else is checked against. It is what it says and why we have it, why it was given to us in the first place. YOu thinking you can blaze your own trail is pride and dabbling in dangerous territory.
You are a Sola Scriptura Christian. Many of us are not-- and ours is the older tradition. I do not imply any bashing of you for that, but you should realize this (the finding of metaphysical knowledge via other sources) is not just some idiosyncrasy of mine, but a very old and broad Christian endeavor.
Who has the older tradition does not matter at all to me. My first check is God's Word, not anyone's "tradition." How does the 'tradition" measure against God's Word? If they do not jibe, it is the tradition that goes.
God's word is itself Tradition.
But at this point you are just arguing for the sake of being disputatious. I'm not going to cut off dialogue with you completely, but this nitpickery and hair-splittery has become entirely too much and I will engage in it no more.
I feel obliged to point out that from the Catholic and Orthodox standpoint, you would be the one pridefully blazing your own trail by insisting that your own reading of the BibleтАФjust you and your own two eyes, independent from TraditionтАФis the best or correct reading. The Catholic and Orthodox view is that the Holy Ghost guides and informs the Tradition; that the Bible itself is an artifact created by the Church as part of the broader Tradition; and that it is idolatrous to call the Bible the "Word of God", because only Jesus Christ HimselfтАФthe LogosтАФis the Word of God.
I know that your view is very different, and I'm not going to argue with you about it. I just wanted to list this point of fact about what it is that other types of Christians think.
And I would tell you that I'm not interested in Catholic or Orthodox standpoints, if it strays from God's word or cannot be reinforced. Church tradition or views of priests are interesting, but it must answer to God's Word. It is why we have it. As there is no Biblical verse backing up your view that the layman needs his reading filtered through a priesthood. The trend has been to make the Bible available to the layman, not restrict it from him. This was a move of the Holy Spirit. Because no mere book would reach and change men's hearts. It is living and the Holy Spirit resides there. Verses call ALL BELIEVERS to read it and commit it to their hearts. This would not be the case, none of it, if it was to be restricted to dissemination by elders.
The Bible also is referred to as the "Word of God" in its own pages.
Catholics and Orthodox need to get used to Protestants being out of there. It is ok for you to contest my views, that's fine. But I can tell you, I'm not at all interested in what your elders have to say. I'm interested in what God's Word says. For that is why the Lord gave it to us. ALL of us, elders, pastors, priests, layman, have to check utterances and views against that. And guess what? If the Bible says one thing and some clergyman says another, that clergyman is wrong.
Feel as you will. As I said, there is no argument to be had on this matter.