Free will, freedom from what?

[Belinda]

Being (entity) outside of any category that you can conceive of or hold as being real?

So is a worm that speaks English a supernatural being?

Allow me to clarify your opposition to all notions of *supernatural being* and of supernaturalism. Doing so will help us tremendously.

You asked for a definition of 'supernatural being' and, I think you realize, I would only offer (and in a sense could only offer) a word-description or, perhaps, something like a theological poem. I, like you, am *ensconced* within the categories of modern materialism and, it must be admitted, have no coherent description of non-material being. And the actual fact is that within the paradigm of modern scientism no such description is viable. I think it fair to say that, this being so, you and those who share your position (and limitation) will always, and even successfully, check-mate any verbal description that depends on resort to materialistic, scientistic terms to describe what is outside those categories.

If I were to refer to *supernatural being* I would refer to my own (rather limited) lenses of perception (conception) and refer to an order, a directive intelligence, that (logically) existed before anything at all ever became manifest. I.e. the entire manifest universe or cosmos. Is that *idea*? Is supernatural being akin to *idea*? That is to say a preexistent idea-structure that determined what became manifest? In fact that is what I do think, so that when I think of God it is that sense to which I refer. However, that is a sort of superficial and glossary description.

In fact I do believe, though I do not have access to sufficient language to explain what I mean, that we can interact with divinity and divine intelligence. It is an archaic point of view, isn't it? and one that is outmoded because of our being grounded inside of constraining modern perceptual stances, and yet I do believe it. Can I explain it to a materialist-rationalist in such a way that they would be convinced? Of course not. Because to *get it* occurs on a level that (is said to be) supra-rational.

Which for you (plural) means unreal, phantasy, self-deceptive, childish, and intellectually retarded.

Our *categories of description* in respect to theology depend on structures of definition and thought that pertain to other times in intellectual history, right?

The thing about the conversations that occur here, on PN, and certainly in other places, are in my view always boringly constrained within the limits of simplistic bickering. For this reason it is better, for all concerned, to clarify the reasons why our perspectives cannot jibe.

Additionally, and it surprises me that everyone seems to miss this, it would be far better to link the differences that we notice here with the on-going conflict and disputes that occur in the surrounding world. These are determining stuggles that have real consequences, and our tendency to bicker inanely (I am not referring to you) misses the point of being aware of and participating in the grand battle of ideas.

Now, with that said, I would relish your anecdote about the English-speaking worm you encountered. Was it the King's English it spoke or might it have been an accented English from the former colonies?

Okay , no worms.
Is a Poltergeist a supernatural being? If you reply would you kindly be less exuberant.
You are a fine one to talk about simplistic bickering you whose own style is so turgid it is unreadable.

[Gary Childress]

Being (entity) outside of any category that you can conceive of or hold as being real?

So is a worm that speaks English a supernatural being?

Allow me to clarify your opposition to all notions of *supernatural being* and of supernaturalism. Doing so will help us tremendously.

You asked for a definition of 'supernatural being' and, I think you realize, I would only offer (and in a sense could only offer) a word-description or, perhaps, something like a theological poem. I, like you, am *ensconced* within the categories of modern materialism and, it must be admitted, have no coherent description of non-material being. And the actual fact is that within the paradigm of modern scientism no such description is viable. I think it fair to say that, this being so, you and those who share your position (and limitation) will always, and even successfully, check-mate any verbal description that depends on resort to materialistic, scientistic terms to describe what is outside those categories.

If I were to refer to *supernatural being* I would refer to my own (rather limited) lenses of perception (conception) and refer to an order, a directive intelligence, that (logically) existed before anything at all ever became manifest. I.e. the entire manifest universe or cosmos. Is that *idea*? Is supernatural being akin to *idea*? That is to say a preexistent idea-structure that determined what became manifest? In fact that is what I do think, so that when I think of God it is that sense to which I refer. However, that is a sort of superficial and glossary description.

In fact I do believe, though I do not have access to sufficient language to explain what I mean, that we can interact with divinity and divine intelligence. It is an archaic point of view, isn't it? and one that is outmoded because of our being grounded inside of constraining modern perceptual stances, and yet I do believe it. Can I explain it to a materialist-rationalist in such a way that they would be convinced? Of course not. Because to *get it* occurs on a level that (is said to be) supra-rational.

Which for you (plural) means unreal, phantasy, self-deceptive, childish, and intellectually retarded.

Our *categories of description* in respect to theology depend on structures of definition and thought that pertain to other times in intellectual history, right?

The thing about the conversations that occur here, on PN, and certainly in other places, are in my view always boringly constrained within the limits of simplistic bickering. For this reason it is better, for all concerned, to clarify the reasons why our perspectives cannot jibe.

Additionally, and it surprises me that everyone seems to miss this, it would be far better to link the differences that we notice here with the on-going conflict and disputes that occur in the surrounding world. These are determining stuggles that have real consequences, and our tendency to bicker inanely (I am not referring to you) misses the point of being aware of and participating in the grand battle of ideas.

Now, with that said, I would relish your anecdote about the English-speaking worm you encountered. Was it the King's English it spoke or might it have been an accented English from the former colonies?

If you define the "supernatural" as:

Being (entity) outside of any category that you can conceive of or hold as being real?

Then are you suggesting that the "supernatural" is whatever is not real? So, for example, if I saw a worm and it spoke to me in English (or a burning bush that talks-- to be more Biblical), then it would be evidence of something "supernatural"? And if that counts, then what place do hallucinations or delusions play in the supernatural. I've heard that some drugs can make a person perceive very strange things. Are they to be considered gateways to the "supernatural" or should we see such drugs as distorting the mind?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then are you suggesting that the "supernatural" is whatever is not real?

First, I refer to those who are of atheistic bent. Any notion of what is immaterial or supernatural is conceived as unreal.

And if that counts, then what place do hallucinations or delusions play in the supernatural. I've heard that some drugs can make a person perceive very strange things. Are they to be considered gateways to the "supernatural" or should we see such drugs as distorting the mind?

This is an important question. I would say that drugs — peyote, psilocybin, dmt, ayahuasca, etc. — affect the perceiving instrument and bring about visionary experiences.

Like dreams perhaps, which can be seen as messages from something internal (cf Jung and his descriptions), so too can the psychedelic visions bring forth perceptions that have (potentially) important levels of meaning.

But here’s the thing: everything depends on the perceiving instrument. So it is a question of the purity or internal state of the perceiver.

While I cannot speak about Moses’ experience, nor ultimately that of St Paul, when I examine the content of St Paul’s experience and what has been made of it in our world, I am definitely inclined to see it on an exalted, revelatory plane. It is revelation worthy of paying attention to and respecting. So again: it is the instrument that is the relevant thing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is a Poltergeist a supernatural being? If you reply, would you kindly be less exuberant.

That is not my department. So I don’t have an answer.

What interests and concerns me is people’s belief in and sense of their relationship with divinity.

[Belinda]

Is a Poltergeist a supernatural being? If you reply, would you kindly be less exuberant.

That is not my department. So I don’t have an answer.

What interests and concerns me is people’s belief in and sense of their relationship with divinity.

I do appreciate your brief reply. Me, I think that God is a natural idea that's embedded in history and culture.

I am concerned to debunk superstitious ideas about God. I imagine that God would not like me to idolise any paltry ideas that little me could ever have.Neither do I imagine that God would like me to be gullible , fanatical, or dogmatic especially about important matters such as his own being.

As for Poltergeists, these seem to fit your definition of what 'supernatural' means."---outside of any category that you can conceive of or hold as being real---"

[Gary Childress]

What interests and concerns me is people’s belief in and sense of their relationship with divinity.

What do you think of people that don't have a relationship with divinity--or at least not an amicable one?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do appreciate your brief reply. Me, I think that God is a natural idea that's embedded in history and culture.

Obviously, that is what you believe. I have been reading your posts for a long time!

I am concerned to debunk superstitious ideas about God. I imagine that God would not like me to idolise any paltry ideas that little me could ever have. Neither do I imagine that God would like me to be gullible, fanatical, or dogmatic especially about important matters such as his own being.

That area of concern is a vital one, it seems to me.

At the very least you think about •what God wants• which is really the beginning of genuine religiousness.

Once a platform is defined (theologically) then it can be interrogated.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What do you think of people that don't have a relationship with divinity--or at least not an amicable one?

Not my area of concern. So I don’t devote time thinking about them.

[Gary Childress]

What do you think of people that don't have a relationship with divinity--or at least not an amicable one?

Not my area of concern. So I don’t devote time thinking about them.

Well, since I have brought the idea to fore, what do you think of such people now, especially when compared to those who profess to have a relationship with God?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is not a topic to which I desire to devote energy.

[Gary Childress]

It is not a topic to which I desire to devote energy.

Fair enough.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As for Poltergeists, these seem to fit your definition of what 'supernatural' means."---outside of any category that you can conceive of or hold as being real---"

Consider this: what to you •seems• (to be so or to follow), in no sense accurately or genuinely reflects what the term “supernatural” means to me.

A poltergeist is generally understood as a haunting spirit, something malevolent or perhaps only spooky — isn’t that right?

It is therefore more accurate to say that the notion of God, or divine intelligence, is a term of reference that doesn’t or can’t mean anything at all to you.

You don’t believe in poltergeists … you don’t believe in God. These are statements of fact, no?

Curiously however, you refer to God — as if what you refer to has realness. But neither poltergeists nor God are real for you. (If I understand you correctly).

I believe this is what you are trying to get across, am I right?

[Belinda]

I do appreciate your brief reply. Me, I think that God is a natural idea that's embedded in history and culture.

Obviously, that is what you believe. I have been reading your posts for a long time!

I am concerned to debunk superstitious ideas about God. I imagine that God would not like me to idolise any paltry ideas that little me could ever have. Neither do I imagine that God would like me to be gullible, fanatical, or dogmatic especially about important matters such as his own being.

That area of concern is a vital one, it seems to me.

At the very least you think about •what God wants• which is really the beginning of genuine religiousness.

Once a platform is defined (theologically) then it can be interrogated.

The God I worship may not be the God you worship. My capital letters are not meant to indicate a person; the capitals as I used them are meant to indicate a one-God or at the most a three in one God as a name for goodness and truth.I can't be even a little bit genuinely religious because I make my own mind up and and will not worship any creed.

When I say "what God wants" I left out the clause "if there were such a person as stands in place of absolute goodness and absolute truth.

[Belinda]

What interests and concerns me is people’s belief in and sense of their relationship with divinity.

What do you think of people that don't have a relationship with divinity--or at least not an amicable one?

May I but in.
You are a good person so you have a relationship with divinity.

If a relationship with divinity is not amicable then the Thou of the relationship is not divine.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The God I worship may not be the God you worship. My capital letters are not meant to indicate a person; the capitals as I used them are meant to indicate a one-God or at the most a three in one God as a name for goodness and truth.I can't be even a little bit genuinely religious because I make my own mind up and and will not worship any creed.

When I say "what God wants" I left out the clause "if there were such a person as stands in place of absolute goodness and absolute truth.

Yes, I do remember reading your descriptions of the sort-of faith that you do have.

My view goes like this: It is actually necessary to select the theological program that one feels in the right and true one, and then to work one’s way back to any statements about the nature of that God or divinity.

And yes, and certainly, I am pretty sure that the theologically defined rules & regulations (the logical order of description) that informa my admired theological foundation, would conflict with yours. So, yes, you could say “we worship different Gods” but that would be a convenient semantic metaphor since, by definition, God (the divine intelligence) cannot be a duality or a multiplicity.

The issue, then, resolves into questions of what authority we choose to submit to. Or put another way the ways in which we choose to manifest disobedience and revolt.

True, that is a very knotty area (as is my assertion) and it in itself arouses spirited opposition.

So it is. And •so be it•.