Oh what a tangled web we weave ... By conflating two distinct connotations of "natural" (occurring in nature versus normal or expected) you do a disservice to the discussion.Radar said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Natural/Unnatural
- Thread starter Fluffy
- Start date
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Fluffy, I won't even try to explain this nature of question. It is my underlying belief that dualistic thinking will only take people to far. IF one learns to suspend their penchant for preconceived value judgments, there is a possibility of seeing things as they actually are. Natural and unnatural become moot. Good and bad becomes moot.Fluffy said:
Go ahead, call me a simpleton with a penchant for juvenile theatrics. Trust me, it makes like a lot easier if you simply take things as they are and endeavor not to project value judgments on what is being perceived.
Res ipsa loquitur ...YmirGF said:
I was going to make a joke about my wife acheiving levitation when she makes some bread, but was surprized to find claims of levitation in Wikipedia.Radar said:
Mystical Levitation in Christianity:
- St Joseph of Cupertino (Mystic, born 17 June, 1603; died at Osimo 18 September, 1663; feast, 18 September.)reportedly levitated high in the air, for extended periods of more than an hour, on many occasions.
- St Teresa of Avila(born in Avila, Spain, March 28, 1515.She died in Alba, October 4, 1582.) claimed to have levitated at a height of about a foot and a half for an extended period somewhat less than an hour, in a state of mystical rapture. She called the experience a 'spiritual visitation'.
- Catherine of Siena(1347-1380), levitation in states of ecstasy.
- Hadewijch of Antwerp Flemish catholic mystica (first half 13th century) is said to have levitated in state of trance.
- Saint Philip of Neri (Born at Florence, Italy, 22 July, 1515; died 27 May, 1595.)went up several yards during prayer, even to the ceiling on occasion.
- Ignatius Loyola(Born in 1491 at the castle of Loyola above Azpeitia in Guipuscoa; died at Rome, 31 July, 1556. ) not only raised several feet but became luminous in the process.
- Saint Robert de Palentin levitated eighteen or twenty inches.
- Saint Dunstan(Probably his birth dates from about the earliest years of the tenth century.) rose off the ground a little bit just before his death.
- St. John of the Cross(b. at Hontoveros, Old Castile, 24 June, 1542; d. at Ubeda, Andalusia, 14 Dec., 1591)
- And, at the beginning of the twentieth century Gemma Galgani, a Passionist nun, reported levitating during rapture.
Flappycat
Well-Known Member
Intravaneous feeding is unnatural. Ban it! Houses are unnatural. Tear them all down! Let's all live the natural way, yeah, and die at our natural age of thirty something. Hey, for that matter, let's go back to the natural infant mortality rate. Everyone wants that, right? "Natural" is overrated. I like the skyscrapers, I like the condoms so I can get laid without having to worry about spending my life paying child support. I like knowing that I'll be able to get unnatural foodstamps from the unnatural government if I lose my job and can't find one to replace it because I don't want to starve. I like unnatural industrial-scale farms that put food in the mouths of millions, and my only complaint is they're not paying enough attention to the quality of the air and water...which, in the future, will be dealt with using some unnatural piece of technology, which is fine with me. I like electricity. Something being unnatural doesn't make it wrong. There is no reason to say that something being unnatural makes it wrong.Fluffy said:
No harm, no foul. I dare anyone here to come up with a way to find fault with this.
HMMM,,my first thread to visit here and i get this one....
Natural, unnatural, moral, immoral.???...well, my natural immoral self compells me to comment in an unnatural moral way....Normally, natural is that which consumes the entire bell curve.,,Paranormal, unnatural takes up the remainder...That is naturally assuming that the paranormal, unnatural is infinite....but, it probably is natural in that it is finite which would suggest other unnatural, paranormal realms within the infinite....then, the, hmmmm...seem to have lost my train of thought....oh,,,never mind!...i'll just set over here in the corner and watch...
Natural, unnatural, moral, immoral.???...well, my natural immoral self compells me to comment in an unnatural moral way....Normally, natural is that which consumes the entire bell curve.,,Paranormal, unnatural takes up the remainder...That is naturally assuming that the paranormal, unnatural is infinite....but, it probably is natural in that it is finite which would suggest other unnatural, paranormal realms within the infinite....then, the, hmmmm...seem to have lost my train of thought....oh,,,never mind!...i'll just set over here in the corner and watch...
Hi Plaidcat,Plaidcat said:
Welcome to the Forum;
As I notice that this is your first visit here, perhaps you would like to introduce yourself to the other members, by posting on:- Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?
Please feel free to ask questions, if you have any. You might like to check out our article with links for our newer members; from there, there is also a link to the forum rules which you ought to see.
I often do that myself; some of these threads go on for so long........I hope you get to like it here though, and look forward to seeing you around.
Michel
Flappycat
Well-Known Member
By determining what nature consists of and determining where it isn't omnipresent. If, by natural, you refer to disposition, homosexuality is part of my disposition and, therefore, natural. Pedophilia is part of a pedophile's disposition, though, so this would leave natural/unnatural as a poor moral compass. If, by natural, you refer to all that governs the material world, then nature is omnipresent, making unnatural things and actions impossible and making it irresponsible to give the pass to anything that is "natural." If you refer to the most common disposition of human beings, then anyone who does not follow the behavioral patterns of the majority, no matter how good, just, or beneficial to others, would be squelched in a society that considers "unnatural" things necessarily immoral. When a conservative politician claims that something is immoral because it is "unnatural," he or she is probably going by the last definition. The thing is, the majority of people in the country don't think it's fair to call people unnatural simply because they're a little different, even if they consider some things that are "different" immoral on religious grounds, so, going by the reasoning of most conservative politicians, I propose a lifetime behind bars for the crime of proposing that being different should make someone a criminal.mr.guy said:
Some people think that human intervention makes something unnatural. There are a lot of unnatural things that I consider very good things, and, besides, if we follow the line of reasoning that human intervention makes something unnatural and that all that is unnatural is immoral to its completion, the only way to be moral would be to eradicate humanity. However, I sometimes wonder if this would be such a bad idea, after all.
mr.guy
crapsack
Isn't "where something isn't omnipresent" contrary?Flappycat said:
By this, i assume, you are refering to your "core"; would that be accurate? That is to say, the fallback, irrefutable base of oneself.
So, most materialists would end up with an "everything is natural" type of statement. What do you mean by "irresponsible to give pass to anything that is natural"?
The fusion of reasoning that the unnatural is immoral is not linear thought in this instance. I assume you're being facetious.
Flappycat
Well-Known Member
Also, if I understand you correctly, you're describing a golf ball to Tiger Woods if you're trying to say there are differing definitions of what makes something natural or unnatural. If not, you have me rather lost. I don't mind admitting this because it says more about your ability to communicate effectively, in my opinion, than my ability to comprehend.
Flappycat
Well-Known Member
It was such rubbish that I ceased to care long before confusion had a chance to set in. You may or may not wish to recover my interest by clearly explaining the relationship any of what you were saying has to the original topic, but, if not, I see no particular reason to continue participating in this exchange.