What is Nature?

[rainee]

ps were you sober?

 

[chrysostom]

Give it your best shot.

and be prepared to be VERY frustrated...

It's your thread...of course they will be frustrated. :rotfl:

you got that right

 

[OCTOBER23]

WHAT IS THIS ANOTHER CRAPPY GUYA THREAD.

You shouldn't Fool with mother nature , tsk tsk .

 

[nikolai_42]

Give it your best shot.

and be prepared to be VERY frustrated...

Nature is what IS (as opposed to what ISN'T).

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[Word based mystic]

asking questions like you did and not giving your own intro is not a way to start a thread.

first all you already know where you are going.

no one else does.
and you put yourself in the situation of condescending on others definitions.
because you have your own agenda.

and then anyone who responds gets a whack from you.

giving a hint of what you are trying to put forth and what your initial ideas in the thread is respectful and expected.

i believe you have done this before.

a base summary is good when starting a thread.

i hate seeing someone start a thread with a preconceived idea but don't tell anyone what they are thinking and this ends up being a thread to bash those who don't understand the question or don't think like you.

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[OCTOBER23]

HUMAN NATURE - WHAT IS IT ?

https://youtu.be/ST86JM1RPl0


Tears For Fears

Everybody Wants To Rule The World

Welcome to your life; there's no turning back

Even while we sleep we will find

You acting on your best behavior

Turn your back on mother nature

Ev'rybody wants to rule the world

It's my own desire, it's my own remorse
Help me to decide. Help me make the most
Of freedom and of pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world

There's a room where the light won't find you
Holding hands while the walls come tumbling down
When they do, I'll be right behind you
So glad we've almost made it
So sad they had to fade it
Ev'rybody wants to rule the world

I can't stand this indecision
Married with a lack of vision
Everybody wants to rule the world
Say that you'll never, never, never, need it
One headline, why believe it?
Everybody wants to rule the world

All for freedom and for pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world

 

[chrysostom]

so if you don't believe in Gravity it cannot effect you...?
and
jump out of an airplane w/o a chute and test your theory

questions are not an argument
if
you understand the basic rules of communication

nice formatting
but
you really need to answer the questions
or
point out what is wrong with them

 

[rainee]

Well I hope I wasn't too rude to Town, but now that I'm more serious maybe we could talk about that word origin again since it has been mentioned..

Here's the deal: The ancient Greeks did not see nature as the earth and sky apparently. It seems (to me) to be tied to living earthy things. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

physis "nature,"
from phyein "to bring forth, produce, make to grow"
(related to phyton "growth, plant,
"phyle "tribe, race," phyma "a growth, tumor")
from PIE root *bheue- "to be exist, grow" (see be). .

The original that is also related to our word "physical" was also (perhaps ultimately) going to be opposed to "surgical" in matters of healing according to the same dictionary.
So this word "nature" is from a Latin translation of the Greek "physis" and is carrying the idea of "birth" in it. As you know and has been said.

Did ancient man ever think there were no higher powers? My guess is though many may have been far from God, they seem not to be so far as we may be today in our general thinking. It seems they left room for God and did not include many things as "nature" that we do or that the Druids did.
Ancient man apparently did not worship nature while thinking of it as "nature".

For me nature is the visible creation. It is fallen whether it is our human nature or the natural world around us. (And is up for Redemption)

 

[PureX]

Well I hope I wasn't too rude to Town, but now that I'm more serious maybe we could talk about that word origin again since it has been mentioned..

Here's the deal: The ancient Greeks did not see nature as the earth and sky apparently. It seems (to me) to be tied to living earthy things. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

The original that is also related to our word "physical" was also (perhaps ultimately) going to be opposed to "surgical" in matters of healing according to the same dictionary.
So this word "nature" is from a Latin translation of the Greek "physis" and is carrying the idea of "birth" in it. As you know and has been said.

Did ancient man ever think there were no higher powers? My guess is though many may have been far from God, they seem not to be so far as we may be today in our general thinking. It seems they left room for God and did not include many things as "nature" that we do or that the Druids did.
Ancient man apparently did not worship nature while thinking of it as "nature".

For me nature is the visible creation. It is fallen whether it is our human nature or the natural world around us. (And is up for Redemption)

I would like to add, here, that the ancient Greeks perceived the physical world to be a material expression of a whole complex of divine ideals, and that the ideals exist, first, and eternally, while the matter only temporary arranges itself via the ideal. Example, there is the ideal tree, that exists perfectly and eternally, and then there is the temporary and imperfect material manifestation of that ideal, that we see and experience as a particular tree. Even their gods were mythical manifestations of these eternal, divine ideals.

The reason "nature" is related to "birth" in the ancient Greek language is because "nature", to the ancient Greeks, is the material expression of those divine ideals: forever coming into being, existing for a time, imperfectly, and then passing away, … only to be replaced again, as the divine ideals that define them remain, forever.

 

[rainee]

I would like to add, here, that the ancient Greeks perceived the physical world to be a material expression of a whole complex of divine ideals, and that the ideals exist, first, and eternally, while the matter only temporary arranges itself via the ideal. Example, there is the ideal tree, that exists perfectly and eternally, and then there is the temporary and imperfect material manifestation of that ideal, that we see and experience as a particular tree. Even their gods were mythical manifestations of these eternal, divine ideals.

The reason "nature" is related to "birth" in the ancient Greek language is because "nature", to the ancient Greeks, is the material expression of those divine ideals: forever coming into being, existing for a time, imperfectly, and then passing away, … only to be replaced again, as the divine ideals that define them remain, forever.

That is very interesting, PureX, though it is a rather broad sword to swing to say the ancient Greeks saw nature as material expressions
of divine ideals. I am guessing that took a philosopher or two?

But back to simple lowly word definitions and meanings of the past -
the same online etymology dictionary posts this:



second nature (n.) (Look up second nature at Dictionary.com)
late 14c., from Latin secundum naturam "according to nature" (Augustine, Macrobius, etc.), literally "following nature;" from medieval Aristotelian philosophy, contrasted to phenomena that were super naturam ("above nature," such as God's grace), extra naturam ("outside nature"), supra naturam ("beyond nature," such as miracles), contra naturam "against nature," etc.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=nature&searchmode=none

 

[PureX]

That is very interesting, PureX, though it is a rather broad sword to swing to say the ancient Greeks saw nature as material expressions
of divine ideals. I am guessing that took a philosopher or two?

As with most cultures, it was the philosophers that generated and proposed these concepts; the regular folks were just doing what regular folks do, everywhere, throughout history.

 

[nikolai_42]

*know what i mean?!, wink wink, nudge nudge*

If you are looking for laws - predictable behaviors and reactions and responses - you will find them. But the more complex the system, the more complex (and/or numerous) the laws. To us, when there are so many such rules, behaviors begin to look like tendencies because of the influence of a multiplicity of rules that interact on very minute levels. There may even be rules that govern one very specific set of circumstances.

So, for example, you ask if it is natural for a human mother to eat her offspring. The answer is that it certainly is not natural. But put that mother and offspring in a set of unnatural circumstances and place unnatural burdens on them and you can no longer rely on what is considered natural. Even if eating one's young is unnatural (which I think most will agree...it is), you are mixing laws or rules of behavior dealing with every circumstance and trying to make a universal rule of them (nature says humans never eat their young). But since there are so many such laws in place, the question often becomes "Which law predominates?". If selfishness and necessity put so much strain on a human mother, will she actually do what is unnatural and eat her young? If selfishness and necessity are strong enough, yes.

But that's only speaking naturally (as opposed to spiritually). The believer who is truly regenerated - truly in Christ - has a new nature or a new set of rules by which they operate. That new nature is literally and actually a change in the person's priorities and behavior. And those rules are ultimately to glorify God and serve Him. They include selflessness and love. They aren't learned, but inherited. They aren't gradually acquired (though they may be gradually displayed) but instantly given - thus the importance of being born again.

Man is naturally self-seeking and so no behavior he engages in is against that law (ultimately). There may be biological rules in place that make certain self-destructive behaviors highly unlikely, but to say that sin is unnatural is wrong - and certainly cannibalism is wrong. Nature - in the sense of calling eating one's children unnatural - may be based on certain tendencies or interaction of various natural laws, but it is not 100% predictable. That is, the only sure thing is that man (without God) is self-seeking.

So to go back to my statement, nature is what is - it is an expression of the way things are (humanly speaking) based on the interaction of a whole host of natural rules and laws and guiding principles that will never be counteracted. Man will always act according to what is. Nature will always be what nature is because it is...natural. It is what it is - otherwise it wouldn't be nature.

 

[rainee]

As with most cultures, it was the philosophers that generated and proposed these concepts; the regular folks were just doing what regular folks do, everywhere, throughout history.

Thank you, I respect your reply

My question though was based on the idea that I haven't looked up transcendental or metaphysical and that is why I offered the "second nature" info.

You may attribute your well developed philosophies on to a rather simple basic looking at life kind of way. I'm not saying the ancient Greeks were dumb - no, of course not. But even the philosophers were probably not as sophisticated as you can be even when our words for you came from them! Yes?

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[IHaveGodInMe]

God Himself decides nature, that is not for you to decide. :think: Read His Word and you will see clearly with the eyes He gives you.