Some personal thoughts about the practice of exorcism with a nod to recent news from Rome regarding the practice.
2 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 16 previous comments
- About what? Obviously not all religious people believe in "the supernatural," so we can't agree to disagree, you're just provably wrong.Jun 6, 2013
- But enough religious people have that to use the word, you might be the first that say he is religious and not believing in at least one supernatural, omnipresent and powerfull god.
For me that is the definition of being religious.Jun 6, 2013
- What does "supernatural" mean? It means something that is immune to the laws of nature or able to act outside of them. It doesn't mean (for example) reading minds, levitation, magical healing, ghostly apparitions, telekinesis, or any other similar phenomenon, unless one conceives of these things as being outside the laws of nature and there is no reason to do that.
"Omnipresent" is part of Christian doctrine regarding the nature of God. Clearly, what you mean by "religion" is actually Christianity, because that word is not used in the context of any other religion. Religions outside the Abrahamic lineage don't even have a single God. Buddhism is atheistic. Hinduism has a large number of deities; Hindus recognize a unity underlying their diversity (and also underlying the diversity of all things), but that unity is not a person.
Except for Christianity and Islam, no religious tradition recognizes sacred writings that are supposed to be infallibly true; even where sacred writing exists, it is not regarded in the same way as Christians regard the Bible or Muslims regard the Quran.
There are very few things that can be said about all religions. In fact, I would say that there is only one. All religions attempt to deal with spiritual experience by providing a body of ideas about it and ways to open oneself to it (some do this better than others, none do it ideally in my opinion).Jun 6, 2013
- Part of what you say is in natural are imaginary and supernatural in the context they are said to exist and been "observed".
There are other religions that have omnipresent gods, even outside Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions. And I wrote at least one god. I don't "discriminate" religions just because the number of Gods.
So no, I don't mean only the Christian God. And yes, I know about other, living and dead religions.
Yes, I agree on that religions tries to explain the humans and world with spiritual explanations, like mother earth (see, omnipresent), Allah and to Buddhists.
They have all a system that believes in something outside our senses and therefore not provable and thus supernatural.
No, I don't believe in any explanations that isn't observable by humans directly or indirect. I believe that there are observations we can not now or possible never see or observe. But that is because our shortcomings. But those things are still within our world and not supernatural.
But when telling stories and tales, supernatural works. Even if sane grownups do believe in those stories.Jun 6, 2013
- " Part of what you say is in natural are imaginary and supernatural"
Imaginary =/= supernatural. Also, you're equating the concept of "supernatural" with anything that violates the philosophical position of classical/mechanistic materialism, which means you are confusing the laws of nature (and hence something that violates them) with classical/mechanistic materialism, and that, too, is an error.
"There are other religions that have omnipresent gods, even outside Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions."
You're also mistaken about this.
Relating to the idea of the supernatural, no conceptions of deity outside of Christianity (and maybe Islam) consider God/the gods supernatural. In fact, that isn't even a Christian idea from the early centuries of the faith. The idea of the supernatural didn't really exist until modern times. In classical Christianity, God is the ground and being of nature, not a violator of it.Jun 6, 2013
- As I wrote, we don't agree.Jun 6, 2013