First of all, I'm a bit sarcastic when replying to many posts. Just a warning. Try not to get too offended.
Where is the delineation of the line of paranormal?? The definition of Paranormal is "not understandable in terms of known scientific laws and
phenomena".
I'm not debating this definition, but what dictionary are you using? Just curious. My own definition of the word is similar, but I won't go into
that little detail unless otherwise beckoned.
So, does The Judeo/Christian God then fit??
Yes. Jehovah/YHWH should be defined as "paranormal" - as God (in whatever form he/she/it/they is in) cannot be measured, contained or studied in any
scientific capacity as of yet. Science can't explain God, so according to the definition you've given, God is then "Paranormal." There's been a
discussion on this before - long ago, though.
how about other mainstream religious icons?
Probably.
Allah,
Same as Jehovah/YHWH - so yes.
Buddha
I don't see how Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) could be Paranormal - save for the rumored conditions surrounding his birth (born walking and
speaking - doubtless this has some metaphorical value, instead of literal, however.) He didn't claim to be God, nor did he display any godly or
Divine feats or behavior. In fact, he did nothing really other than offer another path for people to follow, in order to live a better life - and
maybe even escape suffering. His teachings contain nothing mystical - no mass floods or fire and brimstone from the sky, so I'd say no, Buddha does
not fit in the paranormal category.
and others??
Which others? Vishnu? Shiva? Zeus? Odin? Zoroaster? Satan? The Tao?
Are they not also paranormal by definition?
Some may be, some may not. The Tao definately is - hell, the first chapter of the Daodejing (Tao te Ching) all but says such.
I see people who believe in a new age type belief, who are quick to condemn a Judeo/Christian belief as "a bunch of sheep reading a fantasy
book" Or whatever the flavor of the day is. Yet, there is no MORE proof for what they believe and actually usually less.
Give an example of one of these "new age beliefs," if you please. Generally, these things are neo-Paganism, Wicca, and such. But actually, "New
Age" is
actually defined as "new to the western world," so according to
this definition, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Hinduism, and
Ba'hai are all "new age type beliefs..." but in the case of all of the above beliefs - save for Ba'hai - they are all older than Christianity.
Perhaps not Judiasm, but Christianity, certainly. And actually, I will disagree and say that, at least, Buddhism has "more 'proof'" than
Christianity, in that it doesn't claim anything too terribly radical (you know, the whole "God loves us but hates us, created us but will destroy
us, is ever-present, though we can't prove it in any way" thing. Just my opinion.)
We base our beliefs on many things. Teachings, friends opinions, what is socially acceptable(even those that think they are so on the edge
usually are following someone else) None are scientifically proven though.
Well, no joke. There
is a reason it's called "belief," and not "scientific fact." Because it is, er, a belief, and not, er, a scientific
fact. A belief is nothing more, really, than an opinion. I agree, however, that many people believe what they believe because it's the "in" thing
to do - I find this is particularly popular among evangelist Christians... being socially rejected by someone because you don't think exactly in the
way they do can hurt - unless you just don't give a damn about whether your beliefs are accepted or not. It's called "conformity."
On another board I am on, it is full of horse people.
Horse people? You mean they trample you? Or do you mean "horsesh**, people"?
Most educated with at least a bachelors degree, some with advanced degrees. I found it so ironic that everyone was so eager to believe a woman
they had never met, that she "talked to spirits" who gave her lovely little sayings. They believed her hook line and sinker.
You find it ironic that these people believed someone they never met about her ability to talk to spirits, when you yourself believed that they have
"advanced degrees," and you, also, have never met them. I see a contradiction - or are you, like everyone else, the exception to the rule?
YET, these same people were *fast* to condemn anyone with Christian beliefs as silly, or intolerant. (I didn't see any intolerance, just those
that generalized against those with a christian belief)
If these people are anything like me, they have gotten sick of being preached at (not preached
to, preached
at,) and have developed a
"bad taste" for Christianity as a result. Pound somebody's head with a Bible long enough, and they'll get a headache - and nobody likes a
headache. And they were not entirely wrong - many Christians are intolerant. Christianity as a belief is, as well, in some aspects - but not as much
so as the followers of the belief themselves. People get sick of the hellfire and damnation speech after 2,000 years, and it makes them bitter. Nobody
seems to get it, though.
I wonder why it is easier to believe in something just because one person says so. Because it sounds neat?
Maybe because they find it more believable? Just a wild guess.
Furthermore, "because one person says so" is a perfectly good reason to believe something. Mass followers do not equal validity. A widely accepted
lie is still a lie. Whether one person says something, a million, or none, you can believe whatever in the heck you want to.
I do believe in ghosts, demons, possesion, telepathy, empathic abilities. That doesn't exclude my belief in God. It really makes God more
likely, vs less.
I don't see how belief in any of these possibly could exclude a belief in God - any God. I believe in the same things, as well - and then some, and I
do believe in God - I don't assume to know who or what God is, but I'm
pretty darn sure that my God isn't a hateful, macho-male warrior. It
could be, but I don't know...hell, you don't either. No one does - the beauty of
belief.
I also believe that one must be very careful when dealing with anything paranormal, as it is hard to distinguish good from bad.
There's a word for this kind of line of thought. "Superstitious." "Afraid of the unknown" also fits here.
300 years ago, the automobile would have been considered "paranormal," by the definition you've given. 1,500 years ago, many of our medical
treatments that we currently use would be considered "magic." Paranormal, essentially, is "that which we find to be abnormal, impossible, or
'different.'" That's my opinion, anyway.
I do think in the majority of cases I know, at least deep in my heart, when I am pursuing something good vs bad.
Most people tend to have this voice. It goes by two names - "judgement" and "conscience."
Not that I always listen to that voice, but it does niggle at me.
THAT is called "free will."
Just curious to other's thoughts on this. Not a debate on what is the RIGHT religion/belief, but more on why one might be considered exclusive
of another
I should hope not, because of anybody thinks that there is ONE 'RIGHT' religion or belief, then that person has been seriously disturbed by some
major right-wing propaganda - i.e. "Americanism," where "I'm right, you're wrong, because the honest 'fed'rull gumm'int' told me so!" So
true in the case of religion.
But anyway, some beliefs are "exclusive of others," because some people find one belief more believable than another. I honestly do not see the
difficulty in grasping this. A Christian may look at Hinduism and thinks, "Horse hockey;" likewise, a Taoist may (but usually won't) look at, say,
Islam and say the same. One's belief depends upon one's own opinion - in addition to doing what your parents, your culture, and your peers tell you
is socially acceptable, respectable, and valid.
Tada.