Spirituality
02 Dec 12
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe point of giving it a name is to take it from being just one private concern among many others to making it a public one of central importance. It is to make ecological stewardship a moral imperative and get that outlook circulating through the public consciousness. To sacralize pantheism and reintroduce community and appropriate ritual back into our lives. What might a pantheist wedding look like? Or a funeral? It would involve a complete reorientation of how we interact with the natural world on a daily basis.
That has been my view for years, i didn't know it had a name. 🙂
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBy viewing the earth with the same reverence that Christians give to their god, any abuse of it would become a grave moral transgression. Mountaintop removal, for example, wouldn't just be a despoliation of nature, but an unacceptable violation of the divine. Living in harmony with nature, instead of callously exploiting it, would become a moral imperative (to use the phrase again). This heightened sense of concern is what will bring us back from the point of no return.
How do you propose to regulate these systems in the face of exploitation,
contamination, greed and excess? because clearly such practices are not only upsetting
the balance but may in fact have irrevocable consequences. At which point is the point
of no return? I do not deny that the earth, its its awesomeness has the ability to heal
itself, but these traits are endemic.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by rwingettThe problem I see is that by turning it into a religion you end up promoting ideas / concepts for the sake of the religion, rather than the original goals. You also tend to descend into irrationality.
By viewing the earth with the same reverence that Christians give to their god, any abuse of it would become a grave moral transgression. Mountaintop removal, for example, wouldn't just be a despoliation of nature, but an unacceptable violation of the divine. Living in harmony with nature, instead of callously exploiting it, would become a moral imperative ...[text shortened]... gain). This heightened sense of concern is what will bring us back from the point of no return.
For example I personally believe that much of what you promote on this forum is bad for the environment. My own belief is that we should all migrate to the cities and make as much of the world as possible into protected areas in their natural state. You on the other hand would have us go out and live in 'harmony' with nature, something I see as impossible to do. In reality, all inhabited parts of the world result in 'nature' being heavily modified by human presence. But because you pursue your goals with religious fervor you do not listen to reason.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is a point of contention whether pantheism constitutes a religion or a philosophy, with practitioners staking out various points along that continuum. Personally, though, I feel that the dangers of an impending ecological cataclysm are so great that the risk of injecting a little religious fervor into the debate is warranted.
The problem I see is that by turning it into a religion you end up promoting ideas / concepts for the sake of the religion, rather than the original goals. You also tend to descend into irrationality.
For example I personally believe that much of what you promote on this forum is bad for the environment. My own belief is that we should all migrate to the ...[text shortened]... esence. But because you pursue your goals with religious fervor you do not listen to reason.
As for whether people live in cities or on the land, it doesn't really matter to me. I am much more concerned with how future human settlements will be structured and organized. I think that the top-down, hierarchical, command/control, technocentric, capital intensive approach to the problem that you seem to favor is, in fact, what the problem itself is. I remain incontrovertibly convinced that a decentralized, grass roots, localized, broadly distributed approach is what will bring about the set of conditions necessary for us to stave off our impending doom.
Originally posted by rwingettRomans 1:25
There is a point of contention whether pantheism constitutes a religion or a philosophy, with practitioners staking out various points along that continuum. Personally, though, I feel that the dangers of an impending ecological cataclysm are so great that the risk of injecting a little religious fervor into the debate is warranted.
As for whether people ...[text shortened]... s what will bring about the set of conditions necessary for us to stave off our impending doom.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Don't you get it rwingett? Why did you say in your opening post that it's about time a thread was started on the topic of pantheism?
This whole forum is as pantheistic as it gets.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by josephwAtheism and pantheism are not synonymous. If that's what you're getting at.
Romans 1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and [b]worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Don't you get it rwingett? Why did you say in your opening post that it's about time a thread was started on the topic of pantheism?
This whole forum is as pantheistic as it gets.[/b]
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by rwingettYet religion in general encourages authority and top down approaches.
I remain incontrovertibly convinced that a decentralized, grass roots, localized, broadly distributed approach is what will bring about the set of conditions necessary for us to stave off our impending doom.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by rwingettYet you are so blinded by your religious beliefs that you cannot see sense. You see the devil in anything that you think is related to the 'the top-down, hierarchical, command/control, technocentric, capital intensive approach'. Because you have made it a religion, you have lost your common sense, and worse, you are easily manipulated by others who have quite different goals from you but charm you with religious platitudes.
As for whether people live in cities or on the land, it doesn't really matter to me. I am much more concerned with how future human settlements will be structured and organized. I think that the top-down, hierarchical, command/control, technocentric, capital intensive approach to the problem that you seem to favor is, in fact, what the problem itself is.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat, do you mean this part?
There is dogma right there in you OP.
"The World Pantheist Movement's basic orienting beliefs which we call Naturalistic Pantheism or Scientific Pantheism are set out in the WPM belief statement. This is not a creed in the Christian sense. It is not something we recite, or that we are obliged to accept every word of. It is a guide to what the WPM is about, and it is the set of beliefs that the WPM seeks to make widely available as a religious option to as many people as possible."
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadSince your top-down, hierarchical, command/control, technocentric, capital intensive approach is what has been responsible for leading us to our present state at the brink of destruction, it would seem illogical to expect that same process to then lead us away from that brink. If common sense were to be invoked, I think it would cry out for a rather different approach.
Yet you are so blinded by your religious beliefs that you cannot see sense. You see the devil in anything that you think is related to the 'the top-down, hierarchical, command/control, technocentric, capital intensive approach'. Because you have made it a religion, you have lost your common sense, and worse, you are easily manipulated by others who have quite different goals from you but charm you with religious platitudes.
02 Dec 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlright, setting aside the whole pantheism thing for the moment, I would be (moderately) interested in hearing your opinion of Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis. Although originally panned by the scientific community, it has been gaining more and more mainstream acceptance in recent years.
Yet you are so blinded by your religious beliefs that you cannot see sense. You see the devil in anything that you think is related to the 'the top-down, hierarchical, command/control, technocentric, capital intensive approach'. Because you have made it a religion, you have lost your common sense, and worse, you are easily manipulated by others who have quite different goals from you but charm you with religious platitudes.