Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI [Archive]

View Full Version : Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

Gawain of Orkeny

06-21-2005, 19:41

Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI
Dennis Prager (archive)

June 21, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

It is almost impossible to overstate how radically different Old Testament thought was from the thought of the rest of its contemporary world. And it continues to be, given how few societies affirm Judeo-Christian values and how much opposition to them exists in American society, the society that has most incorporated these values.

Among the most radical of these differences was the incredible declaration that God is outside of nature and is its creator.

In every society on earth, people venerated nature and worshipped nature gods. There were gods of thunder and gods of rain. Mountains were worshipped, as were rivers, animals and every natural force known to man. In ancient Egypt, for example, gods included the Nile River, the frog, sun, wind, gazelle, bull, cow, serpent, moon and crocodile.

Then came Genesis, which announced that a supernatural God, i.e., a god who existed outside of nature, created nature. Nothing about nature was divine.

Professor Nahum Sarna, the author of what I consider one of the two most important commentaries on Genesis and Exodus, puts it this way: "The revolutionary Israelite concept of God entails His being wholly separate from the world of His creation and wholly other than what the human mind can conceive or the human imagination depict."

The other magisterial commentary on Genesis was written by the late Italian Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto, professor of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "Relative to the ideas prevailing among the peoples of the ancient East, we are confronted here with a basically new conception and a spiritual revolution . . . The basically new conception consists in the completely transcendental view of the Godhead . . . the God of Israel is outside and above nature, and the whole of nature, the sun, and the moon, and all the hosts of heaven, and the earth beneath, and the sea that is under the earth, and all that is in them -- they are all His creatures which He created according to His will."

This was extremely difficult for men to assimilate then. And as society drifts from Judeo-Christian values, it is becoming difficult to assimilate again today. Major elements in secular Western society are returning to a form of nature worship. Animals are elevated to equality with people, and the natural environment is increasingly regarded as sacred. The most extreme expressions of nature worship actually view human beings as essentially blights on nature.

Even among some who consider themselves religious, and especially among those who consider themselves "spiritual" rather than religious, nature is regarded as divine, and God is deemed as dwelling within it.

It is quite understandable that people who rely on feelings more than reason to form their spiritual beliefs would deify nature. It is easier -- indeed more natural -- to worship natural beauty than an invisible and morally demanding God.

What is puzzling is that many people who claim to rely more on reason would do so. Nature is unworthy of worship. Nature, after all, is always amoral and usually cruel. Nature has no moral laws, only the amoral law of survival of the fittest.

Why would people who value compassion, kindness or justice venerate nature? The notions of justice and caring for the weak are unique to humanity. In the rest of nature, the weak are to be killed. The individual means nothing in nature; the individual is everything to humans. A hospital, for example, is a profoundly unnatural, indeed antinatural, creation; to expend precious resources on keeping the most frail alive is simply against nature.

The romanticizing of nature, let alone the ascribing of divinity to it, involves ignoring what really happens in nature. I doubt that those American schoolchildren who conducted a campaign on behalf of freeing a killer whale (the whale in the film "Free Willy") ever saw films of actual killer whale behavior. There are National Geographic videos that show, among other things, killer whales tossing a terrified baby seal back and forth before finally killing it. Perhaps American schoolchildren should see those films and then petition killer whales not to treat baby seals sadistically.

If you care about good and evil, you cannot worship nature. And since that is what God most cares about, nature worship is antithetical to Judeo-Christian values.

Nature surely reflects the divine. It is in no way divine. Only nature's Creator is.

Amen

Byzantine Prince

06-21-2005, 19:44

I think Satanists worship nature. I can't think of any other modern religion that does that.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-21-2005, 19:47

I can't think of any other modern religion that does that.

Their called enviormentalist wackos over here. ~D

Mostly liberals. ~;)

Redleg

06-21-2005, 19:59

I think Satanists worship nature. I can't think of any other modern religion that does that.

Satanists by defination do not worship nature - they worship Satan.

The Wiccen (SP) worship aspects of nature. But like the author of the article stated

Nature, after all, is always amoral and usually cruel. Nature has no moral laws, only the amoral law of survival of the fittest.

Which is very true.

JimBob

06-21-2005, 20:04

I think Satanists worship nature. I can't think of any other modern religion that does that.
neo-pagan, you can argue hindu, a large number of eastern religions (you can argue taoism, jainism, shintoism), native american.

Also Judaism was not the first to claim a supernatural God. Before them were the Zoroastrians who believed in a single God

'Ahura Mazda is the beginning and the end, the creator of everything which can and cannot be seen, the Eternal, the Pure and the only Truth.'
-Wiki

Lazul

06-21-2005, 20:06

First of all, jews/christians were not first to pray to One god, the Egyptians were. IMO the jews in Egypt probably stole the idea of one god from the Egyptians. But we can never know that.

Personally, I despise the beliefe of one supernatural god that sets moral rules and inspired people write such absurd things as the Bible or Koran.

If I was to pray to anything, I would pray to life and nature. But not in the stupid way wich the author talks about, as he states that those whom worship nature kill the weak. Not true in my case.
Its true that we humans differ from the other animals, but the reason as to why we take care of our wounded and weak is not becouse some old man with white beard on a cloud told us so, but becouse we CAN. Animals in the nature cant afford to stick around and take care of weak and wounded all the time, that would lead to their own death.
Much of the time animals have to hunt for food. We humans have allready secured a way to produce food easy for ourselfs and so on. Its called civilization. Might add that our civilization is flawd since a majority of our spiece isnt priviligied to get the food.
The Native indians in your country worshiped nature, took care of their wounded and had a rather good system betwen men and women. Couse, their culture didnt stand a chance against savage, murderous christians expanding an empire.

So just becouse I "pray" or respect nature more then some "dude up there" wich sets weird rules doesnt mean I hate the weak and wish them dead.

:bow:

Lazul

06-21-2005, 20:11

Satanists by defination do not worship nature - they worship Satan.

Most satanists call themselfs satanists to offend the christian and muslim (and son on) church.
They usually worship the nature of the human race and the nature of the ego. Modern Satanists doesnt believe in a god or a devil but in themself.
Ofcourse there are nutcases that believe in satan and the anti-christ, but they are really few.
You could say that most modern satanists cults ego-centristic but respects the life of others as long as they dont harm you.

Atleast thats what ive heard from radio-programs, books, websites etc.

Byzantine Prince

06-21-2005, 20:11

Satanists by defination do not worship nature - they worship Satan.

The Wiccen (SP) worship aspects of nature. But like the author of the article stated

Nature, after all, is always amoral and usually cruel. Nature has no moral laws, only the amoral law of survival of the fittest.

Which is very true.
Wiccans ARE satanists. They call themselves Satanists to keep away Christians, who they despise. They don't actually worship the christian devil, rather a force of nature. Go to their website. They specifically state they DO worship the spirit of nature.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-21-2005, 20:15

First of all, jews/christians were not first to pray to One god, the Egyptians were.

Thats not what he claimed. Also the Egyptian religion didnt last long and in fact the Pharoah who invented it was murdered because of it.

But not in the stupid way wich the author talks about, as he states that those whom worship nature kill the weak. Not true in my case.

Are you a vegetarian? Ohterwise your full of it. Also hes not saying those who worship nature kill the weak but that that is natures way, survival of the fittest.

ts true that we humans differ from the other animals, but the reason as to why we take care of our wounded and weak is not becouse some old man with white beard on a cloud told us so, but becouse we CAN.

No its not. We slaughter people reguarly. We take care of OUR wounded and weak because we care not because we can.

So just becouse I "pray" or respect nature more then some "dude up there" wich sets weird rules doesnt mean I hate the weak and wish them dead

He didnt say that either. Hes saying there is no morality in nature.

Redleg

06-21-2005, 20:24

The Native indians in your country worshiped nature, took care of their wounded and had a rather good system betwen men and women. Couse, their culture didnt stand a chance against savage, murderous christians expanding an empire.

You have some mis-information there Lazul. Yes Native American's took care of the wounded of their tribe - but were less then kind to the wounded of their enemies. There is a book called the if I remember correctly written in the 1960's call "The Long Death" which is written from a neutral viewpoint in my opinion. It critizes the failed policies of the United States, the milipulation (SP) of the Indian Agents and all of the other negative aspects of the White Man's development of the West. However it also speaks frankly of what the Native American's also did. Do not try to paint Native Americans in such a romatic picture - because its a false one. Where the white's destroying the Native American's - Yes most definetly. Did the Native American's fight back - sometimes brillantly as in the case of the Lakota chieftan Red Cloud or the Nez Perez Chief Joseph. However there was much cruelty in the Native American culture toward their enemies. Women for many tribes were cattle for the men, in other tribes they were honored. Again careful on painting all Native Americans with a romanitic brush stroke - because it is frankly not true.

So just becouse I "pray" or respect nature more then some "dude up there" wich sets weird rules doesnt mean I hate the weak and wish them dead.
:bow:

Nature worship by defination is amoral - has nothing to do with hate or wishing another being dead.

Lazul

06-21-2005, 20:24

"Are you a vegetarian? Ohterwise your full of it. Also hes not saying those who worship nature kill the weak but that that is natures way, survival of the fittest."

No im not a veggie, I see that as foolish since it against the nature of humanity not to eat meat, tho I agree that we eat to much meat.
Im not full of it. *sigh* you really didnt understand what I ment did you?
So if those that worship nature doesnt kill the weak and mimics the way other animals act, whats so harmfull about praying to nature and life?
I see nature and life as holy, but that doesnt mean I cant eat meat.

"No its not. We slaughter people reguarly."

Yes becouse some humans are weak in their minds, not matured enough past the state of the beast or are forced to do so against their will.

"He didnt say that either. Hes saying there is no morality in nature."

So the once that pray to nature doesnt harm the weak and wounded, whats so harmfull about some praying to nature then?

Redleg

06-21-2005, 20:29

Wiccans ARE satanists. They call themselves Satanists to keep away Christians, who they despise. They don't actually worship the christian devil, rather a force of nature. Go to their website. They specifically state they DO worship the spirit of nature.

I know several wiccans there Byzantine Prince and they do not call themselves Satanists - they call themselves Wiccan. Some will even refer to themselves as Druids - but none have ever refered to worshipping Satan to keep away Christians. And try reading what I actually wrote BP instead of being arguementive - because I stated quite clearly

The Wiccen (SP) worship aspects of nature.

I would guess that you have a problem understanding simple english.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-21-2005, 20:30

So the once that pray to nature doesnt harm the weak and wounded, whats so harmfull about some praying to nature then?

Whats the good i it?

I see that as foolish since it against the nature of humanity not to eat meat

So then it is the nature of man to kill those weaker than he. Also we kill animals for many reasons other than food.

Yes becouse some humans are weak in their minds, not matured enough past the state of the beast or are forced to do so against their will.

They are only doing what comes naturally.

Don Corleone

06-21-2005, 20:32

Well, he is Albanian, not native born Canadian. He might really have a little difficulty understanding. Lord knows I wouldn't want to be taken to task on a Spanish language board.

But Redleg has a good point, BP. You can add practicing Wiccans, like my sister-in-law, to the vast hordes of people you've offended if you persist in describing them as 'christian hating satanists in disguise'. They don't hate Christianity at all, and Satanists, by definition, worship Satan. Wiccans worship nature, not Satan. Satan is God's foe, not nature.

Lazul

06-21-2005, 20:34

You have some mis-information there Lazul. Yes Native American's took care of the wounded of their tribe - but were less then kind to the wounded of their enemies. There is a book called the if I remember correctly written in the 1960's call "The Long Death" which is written from a neutral viewpoint in my opinion. It critizes the failed policies of the United States, the milipulation (SP) of the Indian Agents and all of the other negative aspects of the White Man's development of the West. However it also speaks frankly of what the Native American's also did. Do not try to paint Native Americans in such a romatic picture - because its a false one. Where the white's destroying the Native American's - Yes most definetly. Did the Native American's fight back - sometimes brillantly as in the case of the Lakota chieftan Red Cloud or the Nez Perez Chief Joseph. However there was much cruelty in the Native American culture toward their enemies. Women for many tribes were cattle for the men, in other tribes they were honored. Again careful on painting all Native Americans with a romanitic brush stroke - because it is frankly not true.

Well It wasnt my intention to paint them as romantic or such. Sorry if you took offence for some reason.
So, the native americans were cruel against their enemies, who is/were not?
what did the americans do to the native americans in many cases? while praying to the christian god.
What are you americans doing now against your enemies? while praying to the christian god.
What did the French do in north africa? while praying to the christian god.
What did the English do in africa? while praying to the christian god.
Seriosly, Cruelty can not be connected to the type of religion you have, its always there, allways will be there I fear.

Nature worship by defination is amoral - has nothing to do with hate or wishing another being dead.

not according to me.

What im trying to say is that its no matter what religion, humans can and are in many cases just as cruel against their enemies. If the world was to pray to the christian god or to nature doesn matter.
Every single person has the right to pray to his or her God, but nobody should point their finger and accuse someone of immorality as long as one doesnt harm him/her.
We are all to blame for the fu**ed up world we live in.

Lazul

06-21-2005, 20:39

Whats the good i it?

*sigh* why dont we just hop-around in a circle

So then it is the nature of man to kill those weaker than he. Also we kill animals for many reasons other than food.

I see nothing immoral about killing animals, as long as we dont do it as much as we do now.

They are only doing what comes naturally.

never did claim that acting on instignt is good. If we were to all live like civilised people, we shouldnt have to harm each other and our civilized world would not give us any reasons to kill or harm each other.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-21-2005, 20:43

*sigh* why dont we just hop-around in a circle

Most religions pray to a god for a reason. What reason is their to pray to nature?

I see nothing immoral about killing animals, as long as we dont do it as much as we do now.

I never said it was. You seem to be contradiciting yourself with the last part of your answer here. I said there is no morality in nature. If killling animals for food is part of nature as I have stated there is no morality involved. Do you know the difference between amoral and immoral?

Byzantine Prince

06-21-2005, 20:46

Well, he is Albanian, not native born Canadian. He might really have a little difficulty understanding. Lord knows I wouldn't want to be taken to task on a Spanish language board.
Well I'm not really Albanian. I was just born there. And of course I'm not a "native" Canadian. No I know is. ~;)

Oh just for the record I understand english just fine. Dont' patronize me like you know better.

JimBob

06-21-2005, 20:50

He didnt say that either. Hes saying there is no morality in nature.
There is none of your morality in nature. Is your morality true for all people? If so, I'd like to see proof.
And there is morality in nature.
Shintoism sees kami (translated as spirits or gods) in everything and everywhere. Some are universal (sun, ect.) Some are specific to locations, an object of natural beauty or a unique object in nature (funky looking rock) can have kami. The worship of nature is a celebration of these kami.
Taoism sees nature as simple as having wu-wei and accepting the Tao. Though nature does nothing it achieves much. The rain can destroy a mountian if given time, and a river can cut the earth, but what does a rock do when dropped in water? It sinks because the water can move. That is the morality that Taoism sees in nature.
Native American is much like Shinto
And Jainism believes that all life is holy and so all life is to be worshiped

Gawain of Orkeny

06-21-2005, 20:54

The rain can destroy a mountian if given time, and a river can cut the earth, but what does a rock do when dropped in water? It sinks because the water can move. That is the morality that Taoism sees in nature.

Where is the morality there?

doc_bean

06-21-2005, 20:56

I don't agree with the original article. The way i read it, the author is trying to say that animal rights and enviromental protection are against judeo-christian values.

I agree that worshipping nature is indeed not a part of judeo-christian culture. However, there is nothing that forbids us from protecting nature. Genesis is notoriously unclear about what we are supposed to do with nature, can we just dominate it or are we its care takers ?

I'm not the greatest animal rights person, however, I don't believe we should intentionally harm them, or inflict unnecessary harm. I see harm in a pretty strict sense, closely related to physical pain. I think this is in line with christian values of 'doing good'.

Environmental protection has a few reasons, such as sentimental ones (I want my kids to see animals in the wild one day), recreational ones (I like walks in the park) and health concerns (how polluted is my drinking water ?).

While the traditional Judeo-christian view is that we should dominate the earth. I believe in a need for harmony, for our own sake. And besides, if we are working towards the Kingdom of Heaven, we surely don't imagine it to look like a modern day industrial area ?

Don Corleone

06-21-2005, 20:59

Was the point of the article to say that only Judaism & Christianity are valid religions? Seems a little harsh and undiplomatic, if you ask me.

While a lot of the religions mentioned, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. have strong respect for nature wrapped up in them, that doesn't mean they worship nature.

And don't forget, we're not supposed to be scornful of nature either. It's God's creation, for us, and we're supposed to be good stewards of it. Didn't St. Paul say "Nothing the Lord has made is bad except mankind itself?" Again, I'm not saying we should worship nature, but we shouldn't despise it either.

Redleg

06-21-2005, 21:00

Well It wasnt my intention to paint them as romantic or such. Sorry if you took offence for some reason.

No offensive taken.

So, the native americans were cruel against their enemies, who is/were not?
what did the americans do to the native americans in many cases? while praying to the christian god.

I suggest you read the book I just finished if you want to know that answer "The Long Death" I might provide a link later.

What are you americans doing now against your enemies? while praying to the christian god.

Different point then about the Native Americans now is it not?
When I fought in a war - I killed the enemy with Artillery, took prisoners when they surrendered and treated them like I would want to be treated. War is war - don't get yourself confused on that aspect - and war is amoral by its nature.

What did the French do in north africa? while praying to the christian god.

I am not French - and again is a different subject then what is being discussed.

What did the English do in africa? while praying to the christian god.

Same thing

Seriosly, Cruelty can not be connected to the type of religion you have, its always there, allways will be there I fear.

Once again worship of Nature is amoral - and has nothing to do with hate.

What im trying to say is that its no matter what religion, humans can and are in many cases just as cruel against their enemies. If the world was to pray to the christian god or to nature doesn matter.
Every single person has the right to pray to his or her God, but nobody should point their finger and accuse someone of immorality as long as one doesnt harm him/her.
We are all to blame for the fu**ed up world we live in.

Never said worshiping nature is immoral - I stated that it is amoral - Just like Nature is itself.

Lazul

06-21-2005, 21:05

Most religions pray to a god for a reason. What reason is their to pray to nature?

I cant speak for "their" only for myself. And I cant say I "pray" to nature in the way christians pray to their god, I respect nature, thats my way. And se Life and Sexuality as holy.

I never said it was. You seem to be contradiciting yourself with the last part of your answer here. I said there is no morality in nature. If killling animals for food is part of nature as I have stated there is no morality involved. Do you know the difference between amoral and immoral?

In my oppinion killing animals is neither morale or immoral or what ever. Its just something that needs to be done and its part of "nature", just as sex is.
So veggies are unnatural according to me just as "holy people" who dont have sex.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-21-2005, 21:12

I cant speak for "their" only for myself. And I cant say I "pray" to nature in the way christians pray to their god,

Really. So nature has a place like heaven that you hope to go to?

In my oppinion killing animals is neither morale or immoral or what ever.

Thats what the article says. Nature is not moral its amoral. Thats a far different matter than it being immoral.

Spetulhu

06-21-2005, 21:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Most religions pray to a god for a reason. What reason is their to pray to nature?

I cant speak for "their" only for myself. And I cant say I "pray" to nature in the way christians pray to their god, I respect nature, thats my way. And se Life and Sexuality as holy.

Funny question, don't you think? What reason is there to pray to anything when you get down to it? Someone told the people a story long ago and it seemed like a good explanation of the world at that time. Pray to this god for a good harvest, pray to this one for skill in war etc. If some of those happen to be represented by nature, that just makes it easier yo grasp. Lumping it all under one invisible guy must have looked like a really deranged idea to sensible people when it happened.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-21-2005, 21:19

Funny question, don't you think? What reason is there to pray to anything when you get down to it?

I already told you. Now you may think that concept of eternal life after death to be rubbish but all the same its the main reason most people follow a religion.

Don Corleone

06-21-2005, 21:25

I guess it really comes down to what your definition of prayer is:

Prayer can be

praise (wow, you really are amazing)
thanksgiving (I really appreciate...)
repentance (I'm really sorry I...)
inquiry (what exactly do you want me to do)
request (I really need help with...)
submission (you're the boss...)

or even just simple dialouge. At the end of the day, prayer is communication with a higher being. I don't see how you do that with a concept, like 'nature'. If you believed in a Sun God, yeah, you could pray to him, but unless you believe the sun itself to be a conscious being that can hear your prayers, what would be the point of praying to it?

Don Corleone

06-21-2005, 21:27

GoreBag

06-21-2005, 21:37

I know several wiccans there Byzantine Prince and they do not call themselves Satanists - they call themselves Wiccan. Some will even refer to themselves as Druids - but none have ever refered to worshipping Satan to keep away Christians.

You can add me to the list. I'm a Satanist and I HATE Wiccans.

Lazul hit the nail on the head when he spoke about modern Satanists.

PanzerJaeger

06-21-2005, 21:53

Do prayers of supplication make any sense for a true Christian? If you accept God's will as the plan for your life and submit to it, what business do you have asking for anything? Shouldn't we be working on coming to grips with and accepting whatever comes our way and just being thankful for it?

I would suggest consulting a theologian. Ive found that all religious questions have already been asked at some point, deliberated upon, and answered quite thoroughly.

When I was serving my time in a Catholic boys school, we would try and stump the religion teachers - all Christian Brothers - with tough questions like that, yet they always had perfectly reasonable answers.

Ser Clegane

06-21-2005, 21:55

Was the point of the article to say that only Judaism & Christianity are valid religions?

I rather think that the point of the article is that Dennis Prager wants to tell us that preserving and protecting nature just for the sake of it is not a valuable and worthwhile endeavour.
His point is, that because nature in itself is amoral we have no obligation to go out of our way to preserve it.

PanzerJaeger

06-21-2005, 21:56

BTW, another thought provoking article Gawain. :bow:

Redleg

06-21-2005, 21:56

Lazul hit the nail on the head when he spoke about modern Satanists.

Actually he did not - Lazul was describing something else besides Satanism.

Those who call themselves Satanists to anger Christians and Muslims - verus worshipping Satan are actually doing something else then practicing religion.

The term Satanism requires a belief to occur - that belief is in Satan being the diety in which they worship - if you practice Satanism - then by defination you are worshipping Satan. If you call yourself a satanist to make others angry - you are actually doing something else - its called being an antagonist (SP)

Husar

06-21-2005, 21:57

doc_bean

06-21-2005, 22:01

Just out of curiosity, I've been tossing an idea around lately that's been troubling me.

Do prayers of supplication make any sense for a true Christian? If you accept God's will as the plan for your life and submit to it, what business do you have asking for anything? Shouldn't we be working on coming to grips with and accepting whatever comes our way and just being thankful for it?

It depends I guess, if you believe in total free will and a non-interventionalist God (well, expect Jesus and such) there is no point.
If you believe God actively guides each life then it doesn't make much sense to pray.
So you have to believe something in between those two extremes for prayer to make any sense, God sometimes lends a Hand. Even then, you have to believe He will do this in answer of prayer and not for His own reasons (like help in Holy War).

I don't know enough of the Bible to really say whether or not prayer can help. The story of Job essentially says you get what God wants to give you, actually I think most of the Old Testament is about how god does what he want whether you like it or not, but you should pray and be submissive because in the end he'll have the best in mind. In this life or the next.

I'm not so sure about the the New Testament. The Gospels would suggest a God that actively helps people, although he did do it through Jesus back then...

In Catholic tradition, the idea of power of prayer is very strong. You don't just pray to God, you pray to Mary and the Saints too. And they will help you then. (Not a prayer goes unanswered, I wonder if it's in the Bible or I remember that line from my upbringing).

Of course, who better to answer the question then a modern day Messiah a Rock Star !

"You cannot petition the lord with prayer !" -Jim Morrison

I think that settles it :bow:

Don Corleone

06-21-2005, 22:08

Redleg

06-21-2005, 22:14

Don Corleone

06-21-2005, 22:16

Well, that's closer to my point, but you're still missing it....

Let me give an example. You guys remember this February, when my dog disappeared for 2 1/2 weeks during an ice-storm and I was convinced she wasn't coming back?

At certain points, I felt a little guilty begging God to return her. If He wanted to return her, He would. If He didn't want to, He wouldn't. As a good Christian, aren't I supposed to get my mind around what God wants, not vice versa?

doc_bean

06-21-2005, 22:17

You guys are missing my point. I'm not rehashing John Calvin's old arguments.

My point is, God has His desires, we have ours. If we're really trying to obey God's will, shouldn't we just 'take what we can get', and isn't the asking, in and of itself, rebellious and therefore sinful?

Didn't Adam ask for Eve ?

I think you will find several stories in the Bible that have people praying for something (and God either giving it or denying it). I don't think it's inherently wrong.
We as people are 'less' than God, but are not His servants, we have to live by certain rules and we should strive for the Kingdom but I don't think we can't ask god for anything. we have to accept that he doesn't give it though :bow:

Steppe Merc

06-21-2005, 22:30

I don't understand how worshipping nature is bad... certaintly some of the most interesting cultures came out from it. Don't Buddhists worship nature? Their religion is pretty peaceful, I believe. And American Indians, at least most of them worshipped nature along with higher beings, I believe. I might be wrong, though.
And one thing is for sure, nature worshipers (if they can be lumped into one group, which they I'm pretty sure they can't) treated the enviornment a lot better than other forms of religion. And that is certaintly a good thing.

The romanticizing of nature, let alone the ascribing of divinity to it, involves ignoring what really happens in nature. I doubt that those American schoolchildren who conducted a campaign on behalf of freeing a killer whale (the whale in the film "Free Willy") ever saw films of actual killer whale behavior. There are National Geographic videos that show, among other things, killer whales tossing a terrified baby seal back and forth before finally killing it. Perhaps American schoolchildren should see those films and then petition killer whales not to treat baby seals sadistically.
And there is one difference between human cruelty and animals killing each other: animals do so for survival. This is often not so with humans. Perhaps nature is amoral. Thus it is not evil, as this lady is describing.
And I have seen pictures of killer whales tossing about seals. It got me no more abset than when I saw lions eating gazelles. I get angry when people kill those baby seals to wear their fur. There is a huge difference between people acting cruel and the harshness of the animal world.

PanzerJaeger

06-21-2005, 22:37

Steppe Merc

06-21-2005, 22:38

Ah. Well I can make the argument that worshipping anything is bad for humanity. I really don't get this guys point...

PanzerJaeger

06-21-2005, 22:44

"Elevating nature above humanity is a bad thing" is the point I got out of it.

Radical environmentalism would stifle many human activities for to benefit nature. The author is questioning whether such an elevation of nature is really a good thing.

Steppe Merc

06-21-2005, 22:58

PJ, the articale you posted in that other thread, as well as Don's stories gave got me thinking.
All of those stories show extreme cruelty (10 year old boy raping a 3 year old, guy raping his neighbours dog to death, kids killing a mentally challenged nice person, woman drowning her kids so her boyfriend won't have to be a parent).
No where in nature is it that cruel. Harsh, yes. But animals don't go out of the way to do such cruel and horrible things. Yes, sometimes animals will drive off and kill weaker animals, etc. But that is for survival. The above examples are just human cruelty. So while nature might not have "good", it also has no "evil".

Radical environmentalism would stifle many human activities for to benefit nature. The author is questioning whether such an elevation of nature is really a good thing.
It's not elevation because it's stopping destroying things that were around way before we are. It isn't just for nature's sake, though that is a big part of it. It is also for ourselves and our offspring that nature must be preserved.
And I must admit, I am confused by the author claiming god is above nature, thus nature doesn't need to be saved. Isn't it bad to destroy god's creations? If god didn't think that they were needed, why did god make them in the first place? If humans were "meant" to do all that they have done, why didn't god just not create Tasmanian tigers, dodos and other species humans have killed off?

PanzerJaeger

06-21-2005, 23:07

You make a good point about the evils of man. All I can say is that you wont find love or compassion in nature either.

And I must admit, I am confused by the author claiming god is above nature, thus nature doesn't need to be saved. Isn't it bad to destroy god's creations?

Maybe i read into it wrong. I dont think the author is saying not to save nature, only not to elevate it over humanity.

An example would be if they found a cure for cancer in an almost extinct animal and the only way to get that chemical compound would be to kill the animal. What should we do - drive the animal into full extinction or preserve a dying species for the sake of preserving it.

doc_bean

06-21-2005, 23:09

yes. But animals don't go out of the way to do such cruel and horrible things.

Not even cats ?

It's not elevation because it's stopping destroying things that were around way before we are. It isn't just for nature's sake, though that is a big part of it. It is also for ourselves and our offspring that nature must be preserved.
And I must admit, I am confused by the author claiming god is above nature, thus nature doesn't need to be saved. Isn't it bad to destroy god's creations? If god didn't think that they were needed, why did god make them in the first place? If humans were "meant" to do all that they have done, why didn't god just not create Tasmanian tigers, dodos and other species humans have killed off?

The article is just saying one thing to try and justify another.

Redleg

06-21-2005, 23:11

Steppe Merc

06-21-2005, 23:14

You make a good point about the evils of man. All I can say is that you wont find love or compassion in nature either.
While this is pretty much true, I believe that certaint animals certaintly do care for thier offspring, and sometimes even their mates. It varies species by species of course, but there are some animals that won't abandon a dead offspring or mate, and end up starving, or something to that effect.

An example would be if they found a cure for cancer in an almost extinct animal and the only way to get that chemical compound would be to kill the animal. What should we do - drive the animal into full extinction or preserve a dying species for the sake of preserving it.
It's plants that have medicines, not animals, silly. ~;)
But just for the sake of arguement, could they wait until one of the animals dies, then artificially replicate that chemical? And if not, how much does this chemical does it have, and how much does it take to cure the cancer? Cause if their are only a few animals left, and they kill them all, only a few cancer survivors would be cured. It would be smarter to grow them in captivity, and wait until they die of natrual causes, this way being able to cure cancer patients in the years to come as well.

edit:

Did you know that male bears will often eat the cubs if the mother does not watch them closely.

Did you know that certain species of fish will eat there own young.

The list goes on - certain behaviors in nature are also found in man. And vice versa.
Good point. And I don't know if this is cruelty, or an instinct to survive for example, males killing off offspring of a female with another mate so the male can mate with the female. I don't know if this is cruelty or not. And I do know that some animals will kill off their young if they are weak.
However, I would like to say that humans can be far more cruel than anything in nature. And kinder too, I suppose.
But one thing I believe is not found in nature: war. And that is certaintly one of the most barbaric human practices.

Redleg

06-21-2005, 23:30

But one thing I believe is not found in nature: war. And that is certaintly one of the most barbaric human practices.

And Wolf Packs, Lion Packs fighting each other over hunting terrority.

Lions and henia's are supposely two animals that will fight each other at the slightlest hint of a trespass by one into another's terrority.

And then Males of many species fighting each other over females.

While its not war in the sense that human fight - animals do fight each other and often to the death because of the amount of damage they do to each other before one quits.

And then there are ants - where wars between different species of ants do happen.

One thing is that Nature is a very violent place - only the strong survive in the world of Nature. Nature has no place for the weak - that is why Nature is always amoral - it does not care if something is good or bad - but that it is strong enough to survive and flourish.

GodsPetMonkey

06-22-2005, 00:00

In ancient Egypt, for example, gods included the Nile River, the frog, sun, wind, gazelle, bull, cow, serpent, moon and crocodile.

It's about here this article lost a lot of credibility for me (didn't take all that long really). If the author is unwilling to put any research into his examples, I doubt he did much for his main point. And if he is to be taken seriously on points of theology he should have the courtesy not to spout myths about religions.
Egyptian god's had features of animals (typically the animals head on a human body) but there was no 'frog god'. Their pantheon was as complex, if not more so, then those of the classical age (Roman, Greek, etc.), stories and legends included. However, the Egyptian god's could take the guise of an animal when needed (typically the one they held the head of) which is one of the causes of the famous animal cults, from where this silly misconception comes from.

Despite this bad start, I see the thread was able to lift itself to a decent discussion.

Also Judaism was not the first to claim a supernatural God. Before them were the Zoroastrians who believed in a single God

First of all, jews/christians were not first to pray to One god, the Egyptians were.

Thats not what he claimed. Also the Egyptian religion didnt last long
True, true and true.
In truth we will never know who was the first to worship a monotheistic God, however it was not the Judeans. Both the Egyptian experiment (no matter how short) and the Zoroastrians beat them to it.
The Old Testament and Egyptian monotheistic religion don't have much in common, so I don't think the Jews took much (if anything) from there, however, the Old Testament as (re)written during the Babylonian exile has a lot in common with the Zoroastrian beliefs, like a rigid concept of heaven and hell and an eternal battle between God and Satan. No major surprise here though, as many Zoroastrians were also exiled in Babylon at the time.
The point is religions evolve, taking on parts of other religions (via various means). Dennis Prager is going to be shocked when he learns that many of the foundations of his Judeo-Christian values come from 'nature worshipping' religions.

Radical environmentalism would stifle many human activities for to benefit nature. The author is questioning whether such an elevation of nature is really a good thing.

To take a recent example, the hunting of whales.
Is the protection of whales elevating nature above humanity? Parts of humanity enjoy eating whales, so you could claim that they are suffering for the sake of nature. I live very close to the Humpback Whale migration route and I enjoy looking at the whales (it's an awesome sight, in the true meaning of the word) and it generates a lot of money in tourism and business, so by hunting them to near, if not total, extinction, you are also severely disadvantaging us.
So really, it's not such a black and white issue as many like to make out. Cutting down the forests benefits one group of people, protecting them another (and not just radical environmentalists). To base the decision entirely on God making us superior to nature seems folly, and often ignores the long term.

An example would be if they found a cure for cancer in an almost extinct animal and the only way to get that chemical compound would be to kill the animal. What should we do - drive the animal into full extinction or preserve a dying species for the sake of preserving it.
Once it's been driven to extinction then no one can be saved. Lose-lose situation, no matter what opinion you have.

The solution? Clone the animal! But that opens another can of worms.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-22-2005, 00:03

One thing is that Nature is a very violent place - only the strong survive in the world of Nature. Nature has no place for the weak - that is why Nature is always amoral - it does not care if something is good or bad - but that it is strong enough to survive and flourish.

And that is the point of the article. You might as well worship your car. There is no morality in nature. It comes to me as a miracle when I look at the things man has made from nature. Its really incomprehensible. Should we feel guilty for beingthe smartest and the top of the food chain. No other animal would. Again people always seem to think of humans as unatural in some way.

GoreBag

06-22-2005, 00:15

Actually he did not - Lazul was describing something else besides Satanism.

Those who call themselves Satanists to anger Christians and Muslims - verus worshipping Satan are actually doing something else then practicing religion.

The term Satanism requires a belief to occur - that belief is in Satan being the diety in which they worship - if you practice Satanism - then by defination you are worshipping Satan. If you call yourself a satanist to make others angry - you are actually doing something else - its called being an antagonist (SP)

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

ichi

06-22-2005, 00:29

All I can say is that you wont find love or compassion in nature either.

Look at the way an elephant or cougar or grizzly bear cares for its young, and I think you'll see love. Even male and female ravens the things I've seen one do for theo ther, surely looks like love.

Radical environmentalism would stifle many human activities for to benefit nature. The author is questioning whether such an elevation of nature is really a good thing.

First, we can argue extremist positions if you want, but I prefer to discard the most extreme and deal with the reasonable differences in thought that might come from objective analysis. The term radical environmentalist has come to be used as pejorative that includes any and all who would stop and question the industrial path we are on. The use of the term does no more to help the debate than does the use of terms like murderer for hunters, or callous desecraters does for those who pollute.

The motiviation for environmentalism comes from each person's moral and ethical framework. Some want to ensure that we don't cause a catastrophe that disrupts ecosystems or other conditions to the point that we cannot sustain life: e.g. overfishing that leads to marine ecosystme collapse, or smoke that leads to global warming/cooling, or pesticide use that leads to toxic chemicals in our food chain. The loss of ecosystems and the parts thereof could have significant adverse impacts on humans.

Others want to protect the environment simply because it exists. There may be some problems with this line of thought, but hey, if people want to believe that cows are their deceased relatives or God's army of angels is just waiting for the Temple of Israel to be rebuilt, who are we to deny them that.

From a Christian perspective, I sure don't want to have to stand there and explain to a wrathful God that I condoned or aided in the destruction of His wonderful creation. If I made a place as cool as earth and came back and found that some honyockers had totally fouled it up, I'd be pist.

There's a difference between worshipping nature and understanding the need to properly manage it.

Sometimes it is necessary to curtail the behavior of one or a few when the consequences of their actions will have negative impacts on the rest of us. This isn't 'placing nature above humans', it's requring that a few do not benefit while the rest of us suffer.

ichi :bow:

Redleg

06-22-2005, 00:35

If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

LOL - the word defines itself. But then again you probably don't understand what the concept of Satanism is in itself - but to help you out since you attempted to be flippant. Another trait of not only Satanists - but those who rather be antagonistical verus informative.

Satanists are followers of a Satanic religion: Most religious historians, mainline Christians, liberal Christians, etc., view Satanism as Satanists themselves do: as a very small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies. There are perhaps ten thousand Satanists in North America. By far the largest Satanic organization is the Church of Satan. Accurate membership numbers are quite impossible to estimate.

However since you are an advowed Satanist - this is actually how the religion is defined - which is close to the context and intent of how I stated it.

the terms "Satanist" and "Satanism" be used only to refer to religions that have some direct involvement with Satan in some form. Thus a "Satanist" is one who either:

1. Worships the Christian devil. Although the Christian Churches taught during the Renaissance that devil worshipers were very common, such individuals were in fact extremely rare, and remain so. The very few who do exist appear to be solitary practitioners; they do not appear to have formed an organization.
2. Accepts Satan as a pre-Christian life-principle concept worth emulating. These are religious Satanists, who follow a number of religious traditions, of which the largest by far is the Church of Satan.

and then there is this one - just for you.

It is important to realize that the Satan that they recognize has few if any points of similarity with the historical Muslim or Christian concept of Satan. The Satanists' concept of Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality. To almost religious Satanists, Satan is a force of nature, not a living quasi-deity. Their Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks, sadistic torture, buying people's souls, demonic possession, performing miracles, human sacrifices, cannibalism, and profoundly evil deeds.

So you see NeonGod - we are both correct - Satanism has two forms - the one that I defined based upon the word Satan - and the one you claim to be. You do demonstrate the main trait of a Satanist - to be agtagnotisic when someone confronts your belief.

Care to understand something requires one to read and understand - instead of being flippant. However I doubt if you are truely a member of the Church of Satan - but are stating what you did to be antagonistic (SP).
http://www.churchofsatan.com/

Steppe Merc

06-22-2005, 00:55

Redleg

06-22-2005, 01:05

Redleg, excellent point. I suppose terrotorial battles are wars. And indeed nature is amoral. But it is beatiful, and hopefully be here when we are long gone. That is why so many people love it. I don't worship it or anything else, but the articale seems that it's saying that Nature is a horrible thing. It is harsh and only favors the strong, but it is also a thing of beauty that must be preserved.

I for one am absolute dedicated to preserving nature as best we can - however that is a far cry from worshipping it.

That and I am not a very good Christian since I have a shelf full of Native American fetish's that have different meanings and I know what they are. And in my office I have a Navajo Sand Painting to ward off bad luck.

GoreBag

06-22-2005, 01:15

LOL - the word defines itself. But then again you probably don't understand what the concept of Satanism is in itself - but to help you out since you attempted to be flippant. Another trait of not only Satanists - but those who rather be antagonistical verus informative.

I have no need to "be informative" to anyone arrogant enough to make sweeping, generalized statements about a religion of which they obviously don't much. I'm flippant, whoopee; you're arrogant. I suppose we're even?

So you see NeonGod - we are both correct - Satanism has two forms - the one that I defined based upon the word Satan - and the one you claim to be. You do demonstrate the main trait of a Satanist - to be agtagnotisic when someone confronts your belief.

Actually, I do believe Lazul, and then I, used the phrase "Modern Satanists", which excludes the "traditional" belief, meaning devil-worship.

Care to understand something requires one to read and understand - instead of being flippant. However I doubt if you are truely a member of the Church of Satan - but are stating what you did to be antagonistic (SP).
http://www.churchofsatan.com/

You're not implying that I'm claiming to be a Satanist without understaning the implications of being one, are you? I assure you, I've read my share and understood. Not all Satanists are members of the Church of Satan, in fact, such an organization is in itself un-Satanic.

Oh, nice link. I'm incapable of typing it up myself...what am I supposed to do with it?

Redleg

06-22-2005, 01:26

I have no need to "be informative" to anyone arrogant enough to make sweeping, generalized statements about a religion of which they obviously don't much. I'm flippant, whoopee; you're arrogant. I suppose we're even?

being informative is what a message board is about - however I see that you are still not only flippant but also applying my arrogant standard.

However once again you have not shown where my defination is incorrect nor that it is a broad sweeping generalization. What has been shown is that it was not completely correct - that there is a slightly different defination that is also being applied along with the old defination that I initially used. And it wasn't even you that demonstrated that information.

So I guess you are trying to imply that the books on the occult that were being spread around in the 1970-1980's were not Satanism? Could of fooled me - especially since I picked a couple of them up to read out of coursity back when I was a little younger. Definations change over time - however once again its interesting to note that even Satanism from several sources still acknowledge that the worship of Satan as a diety is included in their definations. Has I have already shown.

You're not implying that I'm claiming to be a Satanist without understaning the implications of being one, are you? I assure you, I've read my share and understood. Not all Satanists are members of the Church of Satan, in fact, such an organization is in itself un-Satanic.

Sure I am. You have demonstrated it yourself without knowing that the Church of Satan is actually located in the Church of Scientilogy (SP) and a few other things. The Church of Satan has as a doctrine exactly the "modern" defination of Satanism. Again a religous doctrine has a doctrine be it the classic Christian Defination of Satanism - or the new dogma of the Modern Satanist.

Again I refer to this defination taken from a Modern Satanism website.

the terms "Satanist" and "Satanism" be used only to refer to religions that have some direct involvement with Satan in some form. Thus a "Satanist" is one who either:

1. Worships the Christian devil. Although the Christian Churches taught during the Renaissance that devil worshipers were very common, such individuals were in fact extremely rare, and remain so. The very few who do exist appear to be solitary practitioners; they do not appear to have formed an organization.
2. Accepts Satan as a pre-Christian life-principle concept worth emulating. These are religious Satanists, who follow a number of religious traditions, of which the largest by far is the Church of Satan.

Oh, nice link. I'm incapable of typing it up myself...what am I supposed to do with it?

Educate yourself on your advowed religion before assuming that others are incable of understanding a different concept - or that they don't have the base knowledge about the subject.

Hurin_Rules

06-22-2005, 01:35

Gawain,
This is a request and not in any way meant to be an ad hominem: but could you please cite the source or provide a link when you post long editorials like the one you posted to start this thread? I always wonder where you're getting this from and who it is that is writing and in what forum. This would really help us a lot.

Now, as pointed out, the article make a number of uninformed and erroneous assumptions about ancient religions, most notably Egyptian and Zoroastrian faiths. This seriously undermined the author's credibility, to the point, I would say, that the entire argument collapses. Judaism did not begin this 'revolution' because the Judeans were not the first montheists. What remains of the argument, I'll leave to you all. But this just shows what happens when you don't do your research.

Steppe Merc

06-22-2005, 01:56

I for one am absolute dedicated to preserving nature as best we can - however that is a far cry from worshipping it.
I was aware of your love of nature, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. I am glad we agree that we have to preserve nature.
But the author seems to be lumping those that care about nature with nature worshipers with this:

Major elements in secular Western society are returning to a form of nature worship. Animals are elevated to equality with people, and the natural environment is increasingly regarded as sacred. The most extreme expressions of nature worship actually view human beings as essentially blights on nature.
The author seems to be condemming all of those that care about nature, which is a very slippery slope to be on. One could be called a nature worshipper (or more commonly tree hugger) for some of their views, but not be a nature worshipper. And I'm pretty sure there aren't that many nature worshippers around anymore.

That and I am not a very good Christian since I have a shelf full of Native American fetish's that have different meanings and I know what they are. And in my office I have a Navajo Sand Painting to ward off bad luck
Where did you aquire them, if I may ask? I've seen different Native American stores when I went to Colorado, and also closer to home in New Hope, and most of the stuff was either insanely expensive, and I really doubted any of it was remotley authentic. Some of the pipes were interesting though...
And nothing wrong with having a good luck charm, it's best to cover as many bases as possible. ~D

Papewaio

06-22-2005, 01:58

I like a good sunset, roses, surf, forests, Kaori, Pine, insects, dolphins etc

I studied physics and hence natural phenomena is a subject I am very interested in.

I realise that we are natural beings and as such we are not physically above the other animals in the environment. Our grace is our minds, which are far more godlike then our physical form no matter what olympians, playboy bunnies or footballers you may desire to be like or with.

I think environmental damage is strategically stupid, I don't think you should destroy something that you need without the ability to rebuild it, I don't believe in a static pristine environment, I would meditate in a wood and absorb the experience of nature but in no way on God's green Earth would I ever worship nature as in pray to it.

kiwitt

06-22-2005, 02:32

I agree with what the article says that worshipping nature and treating it as divine is wrong. However, that is different from respecting it. We should respect nature enough to care for it as it sustains our life on this planet.

Some people like to believe that nature was created by a "Supreme Being". Given what I know about the size of the universe (Bigger than I can imagine), I find it extremely hard to see how "one" god could create all that. And if he did, where does he reside; another universe, and who created that one, and so on

No I stick with my view that the world and it's universe that it is a member of, is greater than I or anyone else can understand (that is why we have many scientists currently studying and research it).

People seek a "God" to help understand it, that is fine let them. I simply ignore those questions and concentrate of my nearest and dearest, and our day to day concerns.

BTW: I am not an environmetalist, but I do recycle, and limit what I consume.

JimBob

06-22-2005, 03:35

Where is the morality there?
It's Taoist morality. Taoism believes in allowing one's self to flow with the Tao like a log flows with a river(damn they like their water analogies). The water is moral in the Taoist sense because it does not try to destroy the mountain, or slash the earth. It just does. Action through inaction, wu-wei, pu, and such.

As to environmentalism. Destroying the environment ranks pretty high up on the dumb scale. If you destroy the environment you destroy yourself because we rely on the environment to provide food, water, oxygen (mildly important), and general enjoyment. Destroying it is like a runner cutting his leg off.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-22-2005, 03:49

It's Taoist morality. Taoism believes in allowing one's self to flow with the Tao like a log flows with a river(damn they like their water analogies). The water is moral in the Taoist sense because it does not try to destroy the mountain, or slash the earth. It just does.

And a sword doesnt try to penetrate flesh, it just does. Just let it flow through your body.

As to environmentalism. Destroying the environment ranks pretty high up on the dumb scale. If you destroy the environment you destroy yourself because we rely on the environment to provide food, water, oxygen (mildly important), and general enjoyment. Destroying it is like a runner cutting his leg off.

Brilliant. Why didnt I ever think of that? ~:confused:

I agree with what the article says that worshipping nature and treating it as divine is wrong. However, that is different from respecting it. We should respect nature enough to care for it as it sustains our life on this planet.

The article doesnt say its fine to destroy the enviorment. Its only stating that there are people out there who seem to think we are not natural and that worshiping nature is silly as it has no morality. It just is.

kiwitt

06-22-2005, 03:54

Gawain, I don't think I said the article says it is OK to destroy the environment. I was just comparing worship with respect. If it appeared that I did then I am sorry for any confusion.

Redleg

06-22-2005, 04:17

Where did you aquire them, if I may ask? I've seen different Native American stores when I went to Colorado, and also closer to home in New Hope, and most of the stuff was either insanely expensive, and I really doubted any of it was remotley authentic. Some of the pipes were interesting though...
And nothing wrong with having a good luck charm, it's best to cover as many bases as possible. ~D

Sent a PM - but here is a good link for some types of fetishes.

http://www.e-pueblo.com/products/fetish.shtml

What some of them mean

http://www.indiansummer.com/addition.htm

Gawain of Orkeny

06-22-2005, 04:54

Gawain, I don't think I said the article says it is OK to destroy the environment. I was just comparing worship with respect. If it appeared that I did then I am sorry for any confusion.

I understood you quite well there was no confusion other than maybe in my reply. Actually I was agreeing with you. Thats also what the article is saying. So the apologies are also mine for the confusion. ~;)

Quietus

06-22-2005, 05:08

LOL. Nature is LIFE itself. You should thank the sun that you are alive today!!!

You can feel and observe Nature, something you CANNOT do with your imaginary "Gods"(!!!) and fictional texts/scriptures. ~:) :balloon2:

GoreBag

06-22-2005, 05:37

being informative is what a message board is about - however I see that you are still not only flippant but also applying my arrogant standard.

I'm not here to educate you.

So I guess you are trying to imply that the books on the occult that were being spread around in the 1970-1980's were not Satanism? Could of fooled me - especially since I picked a couple of them up to read out of coursity back when I was a little younger. Definations change over time - however once again its interesting to note that even Satanism from several sources still acknowledge that the worship of Satan as a diety is included in their definations.

Could "have" fooled you, and yeah, they did. That period was full of Satanic mania and most of the information produced was propaganda. I assume you also picked up LaVey's Satanic Bible, and, plagiarism that it is, did not read it, or at least, did not understand what was written. Am I correct?

Has I have already shown.

WHAT?

However once again you have not shown where my defination is incorrect nor that it is a broad sweeping generalization. What has been shown is that it was not completely correct - that there is a slightly different defination that is also being applied along with the old defination that I initially used.

Well, since it is not immediately obvious to you, I guess I'll illustrate it. One of them worships the "evil" figure in a dualist religion, the other has no deity figure. This is the information that Lazul presented, which I affirmed.

And it wasn't even you that demonstrated that information.

How pertinent.

Sure I am.

And it's a surprise to you that I come off as arrogant?

You have demonstrated it yourself without knowing that the Church of Satan is actually located in the Church of Scientilogy (SP)

When was that brought up?

...and a few other things.

How specific.

The Church of Satan has as a doctrine exactly the "modern" defination of Satanism.

If you knew anything about Satanism, specifically the modern kind, or the Church of Satan, you would know that statement to be false.

Again a religous doctrine has a doctrine be it the classic Christian Defination of Satanism - or the new dogma of the Modern Satanist.

"A religious doctrine has a doctrine"..? Your proficiency with the English language baffles me.

Educate yourself on your advowed religion before assuming that others are incable of understanding a different concept - or that they don't have the base knowledge about the subject.

You can delve a little deeper into the philosophy of Satanism before I'll take that statement to heart.

Unrelated note: It's "definition".

Lazul

06-22-2005, 11:06

Rodion Romanovich

06-22-2005, 11:53

I think Satanists worship nature. I can't think of any other modern religion that does that.

Actually, nature, which is according to Judeo-Christian belief made by God, is indeed worshipped by most religions, because it's the most significant way in which God shows himself. Buddhism worships the perfection of nature and the brahma, world soul. Judaism and Christianity still has traces of a hatred of society and civilization and worshipping of nature in Genesis, first part. There are still traces of the original religion, which stated that birth of civilization, represented by the methafor of Adam and Eve eating those apples, is the reason for all human suffering today. In the beginning, God punished humans directly for their deeds, then he suddenly stops - but more or less hidden it's hinted that "humans will punish themselves because of the civilization they've created". And indeed the rest of the bible shows punishment after punishment given to humans for abandoning nature. Large scale wars, diseases, starvation, crime and so on, things that DID exist in nature but in MUCH smaller scale. Even though much of this message is well hidden and partly removed in favor of popular tales and similar, it's still apparent that the Jews during their nomadic period before settling in cities had a nature-friendly religion.

Re people who say nature is evil and lacks moral: Well, that's not true. The theory of evolution created by Darwin (and the even more misunderstood and wrong version of "survival of the fittest" that was used by nazis and is a popular misconception of the theory on the streets in the late 19th and early 20th century) is very lacking, and so wrong from reality that it's a model that shouldn't be used. For example it fails to recognize how altruism and cooperation is often more benefitial than egoistic struggle. If egoism and strength had been everything, humans wouldn't have existed. Humans are extremely weak, have extremely low agility, are slower at moving than most other animals, need extremely much food to survive in comparison to their body size, and they also have lost the ability to metabolize cellulose, which means they're unable to eat trees, grass and similar things, which means they have a real big problem getting food because they have neither the ability to metabolize the food they can get easily nor the ability to hunt down food that they CAN metabolize. At least ALONE. Only in flocks do they have a chance of hunting down what they need. Similarily, they are too weak to alone resist predators who want to eat them.

Really, if altruism and cooperation hadn't been important in evolution, only elephants and bears would exist because most other animals are too weak and fragile! Rabbits, rats, mouses, humans, apes, swines, cows, deers etc. etc. Most animals are in fact weak and small, but thanks to living in flocks they survive.

This cooperation was fundamental for survival in human flocks before civilization. Therefore internal fighting was restricted to the relatively peaceful sexual rang fights, who were fought in an honorable way where the winner would always have mercy over the loser because if he'd kill everyone he defeated in rang fights he'd lose his flock and thereby the only way of getting food - humans are too weak and fragile to be able to work alone any longer period of time. Sure, it might be egoistic to cooperate in an altruistic way for own gain, but if the circumstances are the right and favor altruistic behavior, then egoism is the most divine and morally correct instinct a being can have. Now this cooperation is no longer fundamental in the same way. A human in civilization can, thanks to enough money, grow in power and strength enough to do whatever he wants without being punished - on the contrary he might be rewarded. A rich sultan/khan/etc. could form a harem and his offspring could fill up earth, whereas a nice guy while rebelling would get impaled on a spear.

Another example of altruism and morality being favored by nature is the genetical variation. Animals who have a totalitar rule over the flocks, and only let the flock leader reproduce, soon lose genetical variation, which in the long term makes them MUCH more likely to become extinct. For very primitive animals with fast reproduction rate and almost no systems of DNA reparation, like insects, there's no harm in letting only one individual reproduce, as the lack of DNA reparation automatically allows creation of genetical variety among the offspring by plenty of mutations and the large amount of offspring. For animals with advanced DNA repair systems, like humans, genetical variety is necessary and therefore humans in nature don't only let the flock leader reproduce. The few mammals that have a system like that, for example lions, have plenty of genetical disorders and their chances of becoming extinct are huge. Ever wondered by female and not male lions hunt? It's because the male lion gene pool has been destroyed by inbreeding, because only the flock leader reproduces. So - harems and random raping didn't benefit the criminal in nature, and therefore criminals were removed by evolution.

We can't compare animals very distantly related to humans when judging cruelty or lack of cruelty in nature. For example, animals without a complex menstruation cycle and without complex enough genes to have a benefit from mating with a certain individual in the flock rather than anyone, wouldn't see raping as a sin. In fact, for those animals, being raped is the best thing that could possibly happen because then they're more likely to get an offspring. Humans and other animals complex enough to need a system for choosing the best possible partner benefit from avoiding raping, and that's also why female humans don't like getting raped - they have, by evolution, developed a system of instincts which by giving them suffering in a such situation tells them to avoid it.

To use the example with the killer whale to compare to human compassion: the killer whale killed a seal, not another killer whale. That is to be compared to humans killing other animals, not to be compared to humans killing other humans. And indeed, humans kill plenty of animals to eat them, just like the killer whales. They raise the animals they're going to kill in narrow little booths, give them food every day but keep them in their tiny prisons so they won't move to much because it'll spoil the meat. Then they kill them with machines specially created for killing animals. We're talking about "tossing a baby whale" for 5 years in humans society. Also, humans in civilizations are among the few animals that kill each other in very large numbers with special tools created solely for that purpose. Now what's a killer whale flock hunting for 5 hours compared to that? In fact, the killer whales are better christians than humans... And the killer whale video from national geographic also showed a compassion unusual even for humans - the whale's mother stayed and tried to help the baby for 5 hours, that's why it took 5 hours instead of 1 minute. Similarly, the killer whales showed considerable compassion to each other by helping each other with the hunt, sharing the work evenly. I know many humans who don't do the latter.

So neither murder nor rape, which are perhaps the worst sins in today's society, were favored in nature. This shows how nature didn't need laws and punishment after the deed to prevent those things from taking place - the deeds alone were their own punishment, or at least didn't favor the guilty in any way whatsoever.

Also, the most important thing of all is that our concept of what is moral and immoral has been created by evolution! Not only can we see that nature is indeed more moral than civilization by not favoring rape and murder, but we can also see that our concept of what is moral and immoral has been developed in a way that is pretty much exactly the same as the system you'd get in nature. You don't get an instinct which makes you scared or suffer psychologically when bad stuff happens unless it grants better survival to get that instinct.

Civilization has not been created by a serious striving for a good place to live, it has been created by greed and curiosity, but in civilization many people live who strive to improve the system with the outline already given by what the greedy have created. That's why it can never work.

So nature is indeed worthy of worship, also with Jewish and Christian ideals. From Jewish and Christian point of view, it's God largest and most important creation - it's the only way in which most people get contact with God. And if you open your eyes, you'll see that most cruelty in the world in born by the circumstances. The guilty of comitting a cruel deed are pressured, driven mad or similar, and the very factor that drove them mad was the environment around them. Today, with civilization, the environment around most people is very different from nature. It consists mostly of manmade civilizational institutions. That they are better at driving humans mad than the natural society, is evident from how much worse the deeds today are from those in nature. Today we fight wars (often those wars are justified, on both sides, due to civilizational institutions). It's not a "natural evilness" that drives us to war, it's natural and justified instincts that makes us react to UNNATURAL threats around us. In a society where we create too much threats, and can't avoid tensions, we sooner or later HAVE to fight wars. Sure, it's our natural instincts that makes us start the wars, but it's only because they were driven to make us commit such acts by society factors. If we want to live in a society that drives our natural instincts to commit evil deeds, then we have to abandon our natural behavior and fight our instincts. Become more of machines than humans. It usually works, for a majority of people. But since we're chosing such a hard way, there will always be some who fail. Some who can't fight their natural heritage, their natural instincts. One or two of those every century is enough to create war, to create destruction and death. And that's what humans have been doing since the eve of sin, the creation of civilization.

But God doesn't care anymore, according to the bible (Genesis). He stopped punishing humans shortly after they created their civilization. Shortly after they gave up on the nearly perfect system God had created for them to live in. And now, he lets the humans punish themselves, and that is what happens today. THAT is what inherited sin means, not that we'll get extra punishment after death, but that we'll be punished in life even though we might be innocent of committing any cruel deeds.

So, in conclusion, with all due respect, saying that nature isn't worthy of worship is either deliberate heresy or a misunderstanding of the message of the bible. It's to say mans creation - civilization - is greater than God's creation - nature.

Edit: Worship doesn't necessarily mean praying, as I've seen in some posts. Praying isn't worshipping, that's begging for services/items/good fortune. It's taking, not giving. Worship is about giving, not taking.

Real worshipping is by respecting. Worshipping nature in my meaning is to respect nature and realize we can't live without it. I find it very ridiculous when some people think saving nature is about being a good, helpful guy - it's about saving ourselves from certain death. Just try holding your breath from now on. Didn't work? I guessed so. Fresh air is only one of the many things we need nature to GIVE us. If we destroy nature, we can't expect nature to give us that. And that's also the case in many societies today. Fresh air and fresh water is not yet a scarcity in the western countries, but it will be. Eventually. In the 19th century hundreds of humans died in industrialized cities. We got rid of the problem by making the chimneys higher, so the polluted, poisonous air was more evenly distributed over earth. Now our production of such pollution is a thousand times bigger than in the 19th century. Soon, the long chimneys won't be enough if we continue as we are doing right now. The society structure, the civilization, is worth more than humanity now. We can't abandon our posts, we can't disobey the rules that civilization has given to us. We must keep producing, until we start dying from the polluted air, the melted polar ices, the earth stopping to yield any harvets, like flies in a hot car in a summer day. One third of the land area of earth is being used for growing things to eat. One third is unusable arid ground. The last third is forest. We now have a very nice choice, thanks to the behavior of our ancestors from the last thousands of years. Either we chop down more forest to grow more food for the ever growing earth population, with the result that the carbon dioxide in the air increases so much that the polar ices melt, and around 20 percent of the land area ends up under water, and that we might get a new ice age, and that the air becomes harder - maybe even impossible - to breathe. Or we leave the last third of the landmass of earth forested, and starve because we don't have enough food. This starvation will get even worse in the future because we're using methods of growing food that in the long term makes the soil quality sink. With enough energy, we can use separation methods to get many of the chemical elements removed from soils back to them, but more energy means more pollution, and the climate change alternative mentioned above. If we don't fix it, we'll step by step getting a smaller and smaller amount of useful soil, at the same time we eutrophicate the lakes and make fresh water harder - if not completely impossible - to find. Cheers ancestors ~:cheers: , thanks for creating this civilization and killing me, your son, and my brothers and sisters. Or will it be my and my brothers' sons and daughters? Doesn't matter much, really.

Redleg

06-22-2005, 12:41

I'm not here to educate you.

Then why post in a message board. Your contradicting yourself.

Could "have" fooled you, and yeah, they did. That period was full of Satanic mania and most of the information produced was propaganda. I assume you also picked up LaVey's Satanic Bible, and, plagiarism that it is, did not read it, or at least, did not understand what was written. Am I correct?

You are incorrect. I base my judgement off of reading several different books to include research books by those who spend time researching the subject. Satanism consists of many different aspects. Denying that it involves the belief of Satan is a failure to understand the concept of religion and the dogma of that aspect of it.

WHAT?

try reading the defination of Satanism again - it has two definations. One that points out a belief in the devil and one that points out a belief in the physical "natural" aspects of life. Edit: And according to another avowed Satanist we are both wrong - seems to be even more definations of Satanism then just two.

Well, since it is not immediately obvious to you, I guess I'll illustrate it. One of them worships the "evil" figure in a dualist religion, the other has no deity figure. This is the information that Lazul presented, which I affirmed.

LOL - already stated several time and at least once by myself

How pertinent.

Yep

And it's a surprise to you that I come off as arrogant?

Nope

When was that brought up?

Its in the research - you claim to be the Satanist - you should know this stuff before accuse others of not knowing anything. Edit: well it seems that after even more research - that my point still stands - see the definations provided by another avowed Satanist in response to Lazul.

How specific.

yes indeed it is.

If you knew anything about Satanism, specifically the modern kind, or the Church of Satan, you would know that statement to be false.

LOL - you need to check out there website.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

If you actually knew all the aspects of your avowed religion to include all the different philisophies of it - you would not attempt to assume others have no knowledge. Hell I don't claim as a christian to understand all apsects of christianity - only the aspects that I know of, and I am continully surprised by the parts and aspects of the many forms of the religion that I have no knowledge of. It seems that instead of accepting that there is actually a different aspect to your religious term of Satanism - your being like some die hard communists who deny that Stalin was a communist leader.

So many websites to chose from which shows the doctrines of different Satanist - care to guess how many deal with one aspect of the term satanists over others. Here is one from Wikipedia - which is probably cosidered reliable by many in this forum.

Satanism is a religious, semi-religious and/or philosophical movement whose adherents recognize Satan, either as an archetype, literal being, pre-cosmic force, or anything inbetween. Some Satanists celebrate aspects of human nature represented by the usually Christian or literary (Milton, Goethe) Satan archetype. Many Satanists do not worship a deity called Satan or any other deity. Unlike many religions and philosophies, Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. However, some Satanists do have moral codes, e.g., the 9 Statements or 11 Laws of the Laveyan Satanists.

It should be noted that the depiction of so-called "Gothic Satanism" is not actually practiced in the world today. This is the Satanism accused during the Inquisition, with tales of murder and baby-eating.

Many contemporary Satanists eschew traditional religious beliefs, attitudes and worship in favor of a more egotistic worldview and practices such as magick. Groups or individuals described in some sense or another as Satanic can largely, though incomprehensively, be described as belonging to one of two unofficial sub-groupings: Philosophical Satanism or Religious Satanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

"A religious doctrine has a doctrine"..? Your proficiency with the English language baffles me.

Well good - maybe you will understand this one - religions have doctrines and dogma. Many religions have different aspects that all fall within the same catergory of the religion. Satanists are in that same mold. There are two doctrines within the concept of Satanism - multiple sources back up this statement. Read the Wikipedia defination above to understand the full context of the statement.

You can delve a little deeper into the philosophy of Satanism before I'll take that statement to heart.

No need to - I understand fully both aspects of Satanism. (Edit: It seems that there is even more then two aspects of Satanism) One is the worship of Satan as I stated initially - and one aspects is has defined by other sources. Was I wrong in my initial statement - nope because I can find many websites and good source material that confirms it. However it seems that what you prefer to call Satanism - fall into more of hedonism.

Epicureanism is the best-known form of ancient hedonism. Epicurus identified pleasure with tranquility, and emphasized the reduction of desire over the immediate acquisition of pleasure. In this way, Epicureanism escapes the preceding objection: while pleasure and the highest good are equated, Epicurus claimed that the highest pleasure consists of a simple, moderate life, spent with friends and in philosophical discussion. He stressed that it was not good to do something that made one feel good if by experiencing it, one would belittle later experiences and make them no longer feel good. For example, sex might increase lust which in turn might cause one to be dissatisfied with one's sexual partner, leading to unhappiness.

The Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is sometimes classified as a type of hedonism, as it judges the morality of actions by their consequent contributions to the greater good and happiness of all. Note that this is considered to be "selfless" hedonism; whereas Epicurus recommends doing whatever makes an individual happiest (over the long run), Mill promotes actions which make everyone happy. Compare individualism and collectivism.

Some of Sigmund Freud's theories of human motivation have been called psychological hedonism; his "life instinct" is essentially the observation that people will pursue pleasure. However, he introduces extra complexities with various other mechanisms, such as the "death instinct".

Christian Hedonism is a term for a theological movement promoted by several prominent church leaders of past and present, the tenets of which are that humans were created by (the Judeo-Christan) God with the purpose of lavishly enjoying God through knowing, worshipping, and serving him. This philosophy recommends pursuing the happiness and love of God as the ultimate in human fulfillment. Similar to the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure is regarded as something long-term and found not in indulgence but in a life devoted to God.

Quite a few people equate hedonism with sexuality and having a very loose or liberal view of the morality of sex. On the other side of the spectrum would be antisexual, though the denial of sex as the highest pleasure in no way resigns one to fully abstaining from sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

Unrelated note: It's "definition".

Correcting typos and spelling mistakes now are we?

Just love the verbal sparing - its very entertaining don't you agree.

Redleg

06-22-2005, 12:46

Redleg, I described the majority of those who call themselfs Satanists. Ive even done some work about modern satanists in school.
The modern thought of satanism started around 1700 I think when French nobles got sick of the Church and wanted to piss them of, so they started to pray to something they called "Satan" but ment that "Satan" was the the EGO of the human. While Christianity is focused on devoting your life to God, satanism ("modern") is about devoting yourself to yourself.
There are ofcourse other kinds of Satanism, ocult satanism, and there are examples of it through out history but they are Very very few.

I might add that the different words for the Devil; Baal, Mephisto, Beelzebub and Satan, are all stolen from other religions or sects wich became enemies of the christian church. For example In north africa the church of Baal was widely spread. The Christian Curch simple pointed at them called them ocultists and satanists.

Well I would counter with the definations of Satanism as provided by an avowed Satanist on the internet - which again goes along with such definations as provided by reliable sources like Wikipedia.

Traditional or Spiritual Satanism - Also called Theistic Satanism or Luciferianism, is the oldest known form of Satanism. It has been around for Thousands of years and has even been traced back to the Roman times before the christian lord and savior "Jesus Christ" ever walked the Earth. The Traditional Satanists do actually claim the existence of a Satan or Lucifer as a "Higher Power or a Guiding Force." The Traditional Satanists don't literally worship Satan or Lucifer as their God. Those misconceptions have been created by the church and other nae sayers who want their respective religions to flourish on the fear of society. The Traditional Satanist looks at Satan or Lucifer as a "Father Figure" and idolize him in that capacity. It is in my understanding that some Traditional Satanists have performed a Sacrificial Ritual, but it is not required in their beliefs. Some Traditional Satanists touch on Demonology and go a lot deeper into that aspect of the spiritual realms.

---------------------------------------------------------

LaVeyan Satanism - LaVeyan Satanism is a label given to Satanists found mostly within but is not limited to the Church of Satan™ members. Anton Szandor LaVey founded the Church of Satan™ in October of 1966. A.S. LaVey was a very outgoing Satanist who helped propel Satanism and bring it into the publics eye. A.S. LaVey has 5 books written by him, and several others written about him since. The most popular of these 5 is "The Satanic Bible." The contents of the book might not have originated on LaVeys desk, but he compiled the information in such a way as to literally spark a (r)evolution in your mind. This book alone has brought A.S. LaVey and the Church of Satan™ millions of dollars as well as thousands of members. It is a good read and should be the platform for which to build your lifestyle, beliefs, and thoughts. A.S. LaVey is only a man, a philosopher, and the founder of the Church of Satan™, but there are many out there who have chosen to Idolize HIM while at the same time they are a Satanist. This is where the LaVeyan Satanist term is coined.

--------------------------------------------------------

Rebel Satanism - Rebel Satanism is a form of Satanism where you find the most misfits and social outcasts. This is the form of Satanism that actually brings Satanists in general a bad name. They are the rebellious teenagers and the drug addicts who might not have ever even read The Satanic Bible and just use the "evil image" of Satanism as a release. I am not trying to imply that "Goth's" are social outcasts and degenerates in their rebellious ways, but this type of Rebel Satanism is such and commonly associated with Gothic Lifestyles. I have actually found some of the most thoughtful, kind, and intelligent people in the world are the freaks who wear spikes, black clothes and ragged hair. Being a Rebel Satanist is usually a phase and they move on to something else shortly after it gets "old" or they actually pick up a book or two with a "cooler" belief system.

---------------------------------------------------------

Modern Satanism - Modern Satanism is what the majority of Satanists are in this Century. There are several Orders, Temples, Guilds, Grottos, and Churches who have popped up since the Church of Satan™ began to change their ways and members broke off. The two biggest ones: The Temple of Set™, and the First Church of Satan™ were both founded by previous members of the Church of Satan™. Modern Satanism is very similar to LaVeyan Satanism only you wont see as many "LaVeyan" supporters. This does not mean LaVey is frowned upon, or walked on, but he is only one individual in the world, and we Modern Satanists tend to always want more.

Modern Satanism is a belief system that empowers the individual to be their own God, to be their own caretaker. This does not mean you cannot have a partner in life, a significant other, or a loved one. It means you take care of yourself as opposed to prayer and false hopes asked of a God or complete stranger to do it for you. You are supposed to accept your own responsibilities and be able to accept the outcome of your actions. As a Modern Satanist, you should not depend on a myth to pay for your actions. The stories that some Jesus Christ came to Earth and has paid for your sins does NOT mean you are above the laws today, and you will be held liable for any crimes committed.

As a Modern Satanist, You thank YOURSELF for all the hard work and repetition of a task to perfect it, not some man made God. You are the one who soaked many a rag with your sweat and hard labor to become what you are. You need not thank any higher power for these skills. You would want to thank family, friends, and coworkers for their support, and comforting they have provided along the way.

It is common to find a Modern Satanist who chooses not to be apart of ANY of the Orders or Organizations about and wants only individualism. Herd Mentality is something commonly found in the Christian or Catholic Church where you're made to feel as nothing without paying them your money, or having someone else in your life. Satanism per se teaches Self-ism and Individuality. Some Satanists refuse to "join" in on anything and it makes them more comfortable being "solo." Modern Satanism as a whole is NOT Anti-Christianity. Satanism is Anti-Stupidity. Some Satanists may be, but surely not all of us. There are Anti-Religious people in every aspect and every walk of life. Satanism per se, does not speak of opposing Christianity and destroying everything they believe in. I have always tried to spread Religious Tolerance, and the rest of the Satanic Community, for the most part, feels the exact same way.

Modern Satanism per se is not full of Hate and Racism. Satanism, by some, has been considered an Elitist Belief System. This is simply because as a Satanist you should always stride to better yourself. Never settling for second best, and Never think of anyone as being better than yourself. "Second Place Iis The First Loser". The Teachers whom we encounter in life have the knowledge to pass along, and the experience of doing it before you, this does not make then BETTER than you. There is segregation in every walk of life. It is NOT the Satanic Communities who house and support the Race oriented, Hate groups, or other Militant Factions, now is it? Yet there are militant and ignorant Satanists who feel they want to take the law into their own hands and end up harming people unnecessarily.

We as Americans have the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. What most Americans do not understand is this: You have Freedom of Speech, the right to say anything you want to say, but this does not mean you are exempt of the ramifications of your words. The Freedom of Religion means you should be able to worship, and or believe as you see fit. Regardless of social acceptance and scrutiny, be it that it is within the boundaries of the law. At times I'm led to believe Christianity is above Freedom of Religion because if you don't believe what they do "you're wrong", "you're insane", "you need help", or my favorite one is, "you're going to hell!". I am sure not all of the sheep think this way, but enough of them do.

Modern Satanism is Anti-Stupidity. Satanists are challenged to think for themselves. Satanists are challenged to use their mind. To question what does NOT seem right to them, and to NOT accept something as fact simply "because it has always been done this way!". It is pure Stupidity to follow the crowd and not know where it is going. Know where you are and what you want, this always makes it easier to get there in tact. Satanism, as with ANY religion, has Dogma. These are Basic Rules and Guidelines in which to live by, and to better yourself by. Satanism is a religion that is very flexible, and allows you to be yourself in dress, attitude and life.

Below I have provided these very Rules and Guidelines are known as The Nine Satanic Statements, The Eleven Rules of the Earth, and The Nine Satanic Sins which were established by Anton Szandor LaVey and The Church of Satan™ but surely not the ONLY Guidelines in life which the Satanist must use for Parameters in life.

http://www.modernsatanism.com/

GoreBag

06-22-2005, 18:51

Then why post in a message board. Your contradicting yourself.

I'm beginning to wonder.

Satanism consists of many different aspects. Denying that it involves the belief of Satan is a failure to understand the concept of religion and the dogma of that aspect of it.

Where did I deny that there different kinds of Satanism?

try reading the defination of Satanism again - it has two definations. One that points out a belief in the devil and one that points out a belief in the physical "natural" aspects of life. Edit: And according to another avowed Satanist we are both wrong - seems to be even more definations of Satanism then just two.

Actually, I'm the Modern Satanist going by the account you posted just below the post which this post is quoting. I'm well versed in the different forms of Satanism.

Oh, and there's no such thing as a defination.

Its in the research - you claim to be the Satanist - you should know this stuff before accuse others of not knowing anything. Edit: well it seems that after even more research - that my point still stands - see the definations provided by another avowed Satanist in response to Lazul.

I know it. Nothing you have brought to my attention is new or shocking. Granted, I did accuse you of not knowing as much on the subject as I do, and I'm still quite sure you don't, but that's beginning to drift from the subject at hand.

If you actually knew all the aspects of your avowed religion to include all the different philisophies of it - you would not attempt to assume others have no knowledge. Hell I don't claim as a christian to understand all apsects of christianity - only the aspects that I know of, and I am continully surprised by the parts and aspects of the many forms of the religion that I have no knowledge of. It seems that instead of accepting that there is actually a different aspect to your religious term of Satanism - your being like some die hard communists who deny that Stalin was a communist leader.

So a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas? And Stalin WAS a fascist..

My problem with the Church of Satan is that it has become a funhouse mirror image of the organization its members despise so much, not that its official statement deviates from the conventional idea of LaVeyan Satanism.

Well good - maybe you will understand this one - religions have doctrines and dogma. Many religions have different aspects that all fall within the same catergory of the religion. Satanists are in that same mold. There are two doctrines within the concept of Satanism - multiple sources back up this statement. Read the Wikipedia defination above to understand the full context of the statement.

Well, yes and no. Modern Satanism, under whose mantle I would sit, is incomplete without a refutation of doctrine and dogma.

Correcting typos and spelling mistakes now are we?

Just love the verbal sparing - its very entertaining don't you agree.

It is. It is just as much a contradiction as your above example - that I'm not on a message board to provide information; in order for anyone to understand what information you are attempting to provide, you must adhere to certain rules of language, pertaining, in this case, to orthography.

Redleg

06-22-2005, 19:23

I'm beginning to wonder.

You might want to check into what a discussion forum is all about - its not a simple message board. The moderators and staff encourage debate. Therefor by itself the forum is designed to share ideas.

Where did I deny that there different kinds of Satanism?

By saying I had no knowledge of which I type.

Actually, I'm the Modern Satanist going by the account you posted just below the post which this post is quoting. I'm well versed in the different forms of Satanism.

If you are well versed in the different forms of Satanism - then you would not have challenged my defination initially - but informed all that there are varying forms of the term Satanism. To clarify that the initial definition provided was not complete. However you decided to challenge and say that I had absolute no knowledge. There is a major difference in the techinque there.

THe definition I have used happens to come from not just Wikepedia but from several sights that deal with the subject matter. Care to quess how many websites deal with Satanism as a religion that acknowledges the devil?

Oh, and there's no such thing as a defination.

Trying to correct someone's spelling again I see. Very good - you lose points in a verbal debate for that one. But then if that is all you are focus on - then you might want to focus again on the definition of Satanism. Something you have yet to show that I am wrong on.

I know it. Nothing you have brought to my attention is new or shocking. Granted, I did accuse you of not knowing as much on the subject as I do, and I'm still quite sure you don't, but that's beginning to drift from the subject at hand.

LOL - other then a practicing Satanist - I probably am versed enough on the subject to understand it and discuss it. You assumed because I am a christian that I have not studied othe religions or cultures - your error not mine. When you want to discuss aspects of the Native American Culture which was part of the initial discussion - then you can pick several tribal groups that I have absolutely no knowledge of - but I do know several of the basic tenates of how Native America cultures percieved and practiced their religion. But as you state you drift from the subject with such accusations.

So a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas? And Stalin WAS a fascist..

Why yes, a protestant must understand and accept certain Catholic Ideas since by definition both are christian religions. The protestant religions are a branch off of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the New Testiment, which was initially written to support the spread of the new church founded in Rome. The Esipicol (SP) Church - a protestant religion cites several Catholic creeds in its religious dogma.

And no Stalin was not only a fascist - he was also a member of the Communist Party.

My problem with the Church of Satan is that it has become a funhouse mirror image of the organization its members despise so much, not that its official statement deviates from the conventional idea of LaVeyan Satanism.

And that gives you the grounds to inform someone that they have no clue about Satanism because they are Christian - yep sound logic on your part.
I don't go the Church of Satan - but I have read on it and studied it for a thesis in a philisophy class I once had.

Well, yes and no. Modern Satanism, under whose mantle I would sit, is incomplete without a refutation of doctrine and dogma.

Dogma is defined as - 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

To claim there is no dogma sounds kind of funny since I can easily post the creed of the modern satanist.

It is. It is just as much a contradiction as your above example - that I'm not on a message board to provide information; in order for anyone to understand what information you are attempting to provide, you must adhere to certain rules of language, pertaining, in this case, to orthography.

LOL - and if you can not understand what is written - you ask. Once again why particpate in a message forum that discusses issues if you are not willing to help others understand and learn. Unless it is of course just to troll.

If you want proper english and spelling with correct punctuation then your not wanting to discuss or inform others on your opinion - but to quibble on context - not discuss the content.

GoreBag

06-22-2005, 19:49

By saying I had no knowledge of which I type.

That's an odd reductionist statement. I don't quite follow that logic - "You denied information I presented/will present by saying I knew nothing."

If you are well versed in the different forms of Satanism - then you would not have challenged my defination initially - but informed all that there are varying forms of the term Satanism. To clarify that the initial definition provided was not complete. However you decided to challenge and say that I had absolute no knowledge. There is a major difference in the techinque there.

Wrong is wrong.

The definition I have used happens to come from not just Wikepedia but from several sights that deal with the subject matter. Care to quess how many websites deal with Satanism as a religion that acknowledges the devil?

Sites, and there are plenty.

Trying to correct someone's spelling again I see. Very good - you lose points in a verbal debate for that one. But then if that is all you are focus on - then you might want to focus again on the definition of Satanism. Something you have yet to show that I am wrong on.

Well, this isn't a verbal debate, but if it was, I'd correct you for ending a sentence with a preposition.

LOL - other then a practicing Satanist - I probably am versed enough on the subject to understand it and discuss it. You assumed because I am a christian that I have not studied othe religions or cultures - your error not mine. When you want to discuss aspects of the Native American Culture which was part of the initial discussion - then you can pick several tribal groups that I have absolutely no knowledge of - but I do know several of the basic tenates of how Native America cultures percieved and practiced their religion. But as you state you drift from the subject with such accusations.

Probably? You're not quite sure? In any case, I'd be glad to take you up on that, provided we can end this quibble in some sort of satisfactory manner.

I'll remember to drop you a line if I become curious about the religions of North America's aboriginals.

Why yes, a protestant must understand and accept certain Catholic Ideas since by definition both are christian religions. The protestant religions are a branch off of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the New Testiment, which was initially written to support the spread of the new church founded in Rome. The Esipicol (SP) Church - a protestant religion cites several Catholic creeds in its religious dogma.

The Episcopal Church is really the Anglican Church...in America. As such, I would argue that it is not a Protestant religion, but Catholicism missing only a few not-so-crucial practices.

If a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas, then the purpose of Protestantism is defeated. Protestantism did break off from the Catholic church, yes, and they do share the view that the New Testament is crucial reading. I would say that that would make the New Testament a shared, Christian object, and not a Catholic object that Protestants revere, although that point may be contested because of the history. In any case, the key word you used was "certain"; Devil-worshippers may conduct themselves in the same way I do, and we may share certain beliefs, but I don't need to accept the existence of Satan as a deific being, as they do, in order to be a Satanist.

And no Stalin was not only a fascist - he was also a member of the Communist Party.

So what? I could join a Christian organization if I wanted.

And that gives you the grounds to inform someone that they have no clue about Satanism because they are Christian - yep sound logic on your part.

I agree, it is an unfair judgement, but is no less fair than the assumption that I am not a Satanist in practice as well as in name on the grounds that I did not accept a certain definition of a Satanist.

I don't go the Church of Satan - but I have read on it and studied it for a thesis in a philisophy class I once had.

Alright, I'll take your word on it.

Dogma is defined as - 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

To claim there is no dogma sounds kind of funny since I can easily post the creed of the modern satanist.

That creed would include passages and essays dealing with the idea that a Satanist may pick and choose his or her own beliefs as they pertain to Satanism, right?

LOL - and if you can not understand what is written - you ask. Once again why particpate in a message forum that discusses issues if you are not willing to help others understand and learn. Unless it is of course just to troll.

To download EB, mostly. At least, that was my inital reason for joining. Why spell if you can't do it properly? Unless, of course, you don't intend anyone to fully understand your posts.

If you want proper english and spelling with correct punctuation then your not wanting to discuss or inform others on your opinion - but to quibble on context - not discuss the content.

Your comments about my reasons for being on the forum at all are just as much about context than content.

Redleg

06-22-2005, 20:10

Wrong is wrong.

Yep you are definitly wrong - you have yet to show that I have no knowledge about the subject matter.

Well, this isn't a verbal debate, but if it was, I'd correct you for ending a sentence with a preposition.

And again you would lose points - attacking structure not content or context.

Probably? You're not quite sure? In any case, I'd be glad to take you up on that, provided we can end this quibble in some sort of satisfactory manner.

The quibble is yours not mine - your allegation is that the definition I provided is wrong - however you have not shown it to be wrong - just not complete.

The Episcopal Church is really the Anglican Church...in America. As such, I would argue that it is not a Protestant religion, but Catholicism missing only a few not-so-crucial practices.

And in that you would be incorrect.

If a Protestant must accept Catholic ideas, then the purpose of Protestantism is defeated. Protestantism did break off from the Catholic church, yes, and they do share the view that the New Testament is crucial reading. I would say that that would make the New Testament a shared, Christian object, and not a Catholic object that Protestants revere, although that point may be contested because of the history. In any case, the key word you used was "certain"; Devil-worshippers may conduct themselves in the same way I do, and we may share certain beliefs, but I don't need to accept the existence of Satan as a deific being, as they do, in order to be a Satanist.

The main one in common is that Jesus Christ is the savior - a common idea between both sects of christianity. Some protestant religions still site the Nicean (SP) Creed also.

So what? I could join a Christian organization if I wanted.

Your beginning to get the point.

I agree, it is an unfair judgement, but is no less fair than the assumption that I am not a Satanist in practice as well as in name on the grounds that I did not accept a certain definition of a Satanist.

Point taken - however again you haven't shown where the initial definition provided is incorrect. I have a tendency to go tit for tat with verbal sparing.
A weakness of mine so to speak. Statement as such normally get a response that is arrogant from me If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

That creed would include passages and essays dealing with the idea that a Satanist may pick and choose his or her own beliefs as they pertain to Satanism, right?

That is the one - a creed counts as a doctrine from what I learned many years ago.

To download EB, mostly. At least, that was my inital reason for joining. Why spell if you can't do it properly? Unless, of course, you don't intend anyone to fully understand your posts.

Why spell correctly - no need to if the word is close enough for someone to understand. I have verbal conservations all the time with people who barely speak english and we communicate fine.

Your comments about my reasons for being on the forum at all are just as much about context than content.

Not at all - your in the backroom - which is primarily a discussion forum not a down load area. If you did not want to share your opinion and inform the community about different things that you have knowledge on - why come back to the tavern for a discussion?

Taohn

06-23-2005, 01:23

And a sword doesnt try to penetrate flesh, it just does. Just let it flow through your body.

Brilliant. Why didnt I ever think of that? ~:confused:

The article doesnt say its fine to destroy the enviorment. Its only stating that there are people out there who seem to think we are not natural and that worshiping nature is silly as it has no morality. It just is.

The natural world is moral to Taoists insofar as it embodies the principles of unassuming, effortless spontaneity in action. A common analogy: “birds do not build castles, plants grow imperceptibly.” The competition in the natural world is not inherent to human nature, as Taoists hold that mankind has fallen from grace/enlightenment (been cast out of Eden, if you will, though no deity was involved). Later incarnations of Taoism built up a mythology around this principle, where humans were once immortal, able to commune with plant and animal life (the use of this colourful analogy is not found in the earlier texts, however, where Taoism is more of a philosophy than a religion). To reclaim this state, the Taoists seek, not surprisingly, to live in accord with the Tao (way). Tao is a concept closely connected with the ontology of the world as it denotes a well-defined process, the cosmic norm, “or, more descriptively, the inevitable unfolding of things in the cosmological process.” Here, inevitable should not be construed as the result of a transcendental force which decides human fate, but rather as “destiny” in the sense of “the inevitable evolution of things according to the principles inherent to them.”

As a cosmic principle, Tao underlies all phenomena in the universe, and is in a sense their creator. However, in the Western tradition, the entire universe, all of existence, is the result of the will of God. The creation accounts show the act of creation as an exercise of will, and thus it can be said that the will of God is ontological, the fundamental grounds of existence. This is not so in Taoism, where Tao is the ‘creator’ in a sense more akin to the way that soil is the ‘creator’ of plants. But creator and created are held to be one and the same, and there is no fundamental distinction between the two. To borrow Western terminology, God is we, and we all are God. The idea of a willful creator is one of the earliest foundations of Western moral discourse, but the lack of such a principle does not undermine East Asian concepts of the same, though it does give the traditions a very unique flavour (the larger geographical term being justified in that this unity between creator an created is shared by many East Asian and even Indic traditions distinct from Taoism). Broadly, East Asian traditions are this worldly and much less concerned with notions of an afterlife. But it is this very worldliness that justifies the Taoist morality: the strife that permeates human existence is a direct result of being out of consonance with the Tao. Misfortunes, in their many varieties, decrease in likelihood to the degree that one lives in accord with Tao, the principles of which can be observed by careful observation of the natural world. There is nothing inherently “wrong” about the nature of the material world. Evil (i.e. suffering) can occur in our plane but it is by no means inevitable. This is not an individual matter, as personal discord with the Tao resounds throughout one’s society, the effect being compounded by each who is so benighted. Some quotes from the Tao Te Ching, the oldest and most highly regarded Taoist text, follow for your interest:

78.
Under heaven nothing is more soft and yielding than water.
Yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better;
It has no equal.
The weak can overcome the strong;
The supple can overcome the stiff.
Under heaven everyone knows this,
Yet no one puts it into practice.
Therefore the sage says:
He who takes upon himself the humiliation of the people
is fit to rule them
He who takes upon himself the country’s disasters deserves
to be king of the universe.
The truth often sounds paradoxical.

18.
When the great Tao is forgotten,
Kindness and morality arise.
When wisdom and intelligence are born, t
The great pretense begins.
When there is no peace within the family,
Filial piety and devotion arise.
When the country is confused and in chaos,
Loyal ministers appear.

19.
Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone.
Give up kindness, renounce morality,
And men will rediscover filial piety and love.
Give up ingenuity, renounce profit,
And bandits and thieves will disappear.
These three are outward forms alone; they are not sufficient in themselves.
It is more important
To see the simplicity,
To realize one’s true nature,
To cast off selfishness
And temper desire.

77.
The Way of heaven
is like drawing a bow:
the high is lowered,
the low is raised;
excess is reduced,
need is fulfilled.
the Way of heaven
reduces excess and fills need,
but the way of humans is not so:
they strip the needy
to serve those who have too much.

13.
Accept disgrace willingly.
Accept misfortune as the human condition.
What do you mean by “Accept disgrace willingly”?
Accept being unimportant.
Do not be concerned with loss or gain.
This is called “accepting disgrace willingly.”
What do you mean by “Accepting misfortune as the human condition”?
Misfortune comes from having a body.
Without a body, how could there be misfortune?
Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.
Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things.

GoreBag

06-23-2005, 03:34

And again you would lose points - attacking structure not content or context.

Oh, nonsense. One can hardly think to have an argument with a wigger, full of his nonsense slang and silly colloquialisms. My problem with your lack of interest in maintaining a proper level of proficiency with the English language is just that; already have I had problems trying to understand what you're saying.

The quibble is yours not mine - your allegation is that the definition I provided is wrong - however you have not shown it to be wrong - just not complete.

Oh, that's a lie. You're keeping up the debate as much as I am.

An incomplete definition is a wrong definition when it is presented as the entirety of the definition. What do you know, that's about the way it's presented. By the way, it is structure that I'm "attacking", right? I've apparently gone from "context" to "structure" without knowing it.

And in that you would be incorrect.

How's that, now?

The main one in common is that Jesus Christ is the savior - a common idea between both sects of christianity. Some protestant religions still site the Nicean (SP) Creed also.

Semantics. My point stands.

Your beginning to get the point.

You're going to need to explain that comment.

Point taken - however again you haven't shown where the initial definition provided is incorrect. I have a tendency to go tit for tat with verbal sparing.
A weakness of mine so to speak. Statement as such normally get a response that is arrogant from me If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

That's just about your original definition of Satanism, which was an incorrect statement. Yes, it was incomplete, and in that, it was also untrue and misleading. You have corrected yourself, and you have admitted that you have, but there seems to be something blocking you from admitting that it was, indeed, wrong.

That is the one - a creed counts as a doctrine from what I learned many years ago.

A doctrine that is not a doctrine. Hence "yes and no".

Why spell correctly - no need to if the word is close enough for someone to understand. I have verbal conservations all the time with people who barely speak english and we communicate fine.

You're lucky he's so intuitive.

Not at all - your in the backroom - which is primarily a discussion forum not a down load area. If you did not want to share your opinion and inform the community about different things that you have knowledge on - why come back to the tavern for a discussion?

Boredom, mostly. But now, I get to come back everytime and see another, differently spelled out version of "I wasn't wrong".

Redleg

06-23-2005, 05:32

Oh, nonsense. One can hardly think to have an argument with a wigger, full of his nonsense slang and silly colloquialisms. My problem with your lack of interest in maintaining a proper level of proficiency with the English language is just that; already have I had problems trying to understand what you're saying.

It's really rather easy - my use of the language is really rather simple. Spelling mistakes and typo's come from typing to fast and not always editing. However once again your arguement on this is what is called sharp-shooting - and in such you loose because your not argueing against the postion.

Oh, that's a lie. You're keeping up the debate as much as I am.

Now that statement is false - and a quibble on your part.

An incomplete definition is a wrong definition when it is presented as the entirety of the definition. What do you know, that's about the way it's presented. By the way, it is structure that I'm "attacking", right? I've apparently gone from "context" to "structure" without knowing it.

Actually the definition was not wrong - and contained one of the main points of the definition. Often one can make a word mean only one of the area's of the definition. Its done with several words in the common english language. Just check out a Webster's dictionary sometime.

How's that, now?

Already stated - that is really a simple answer to your statement.

Semantics. My point stands.

So its semantics now - one can say that about your arguement about Satanism.

You're going to need to explain that comment.

Naw - you should be able to figure it out.

That's just about your original definition of Satanism, which was an incorrect statement. Yes, it was incomplete, and in that, it was also untrue and misleading. You have corrected yourself, and you have admitted that you have, but there seems to be something blocking you from admitting that it was, indeed, wrong.

Like I stated comments like that get certain responses.

A doctrine that is not a doctrine. Hence "yes and no".

Its either a doctrine or its not a doctrine. One can pick and chose pieces of a doctrine - but one can not deny that they are at least following aspects of that doctrine. Hence the answer is very simple.

You're lucky he's so intuitive.

Not at all - its called communication.

Boredom, mostly. But now, I get to come back everytime and see another, differently spelled out version of "I wasn't wrong".

Boredom is often what leads one to have a discussion on a subject.

Ser Clegane

06-23-2005, 08:24

I would greatly appreciate if the discussion would focus on the topic at hand instead of further derailing into petty squabbling (borderlining personal attacks) about semantics and spelling errors

Gawain of Orkeny

06-28-2005, 22:34

And he comtinues ~;)

Without man, the environment is insignificant (Part XVII)
Dennis Prager (archive)

June 28, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

One major conflict between the Judeo-Christian value system and the various secular ones competing with it revolves around the answers to these questions: Is nature created for man or is man merely a part of nature? Or, to put it in other words, does the natural environment have any significance without man to appreciate it and to use it for his good?

The Judeo-Christian responses are clear: Nature has been created for man's use; and on its own, without man, it has no meaning. Dolphins are adorable because human beings find them adorable. Without people to appreciate them or the role they play in the earth's ecosystem to enable human life, they are no more adorable or meaningful than a rock on Pluto.

That is the point of the Creation story -- everything was made in order to prepare the way for the creation of man (and woman, for those whose college education leads them to confuse the generic "man" with "male"). God declared each day's creation "good," but declared the sixth day's creation of man as "very good."

Critics find three biblical notions about nature unacceptable: that man shall lord over it; that it was created solely for man and therefore has no intrinsic value; and that it is not sacred.

I discussed the last notion -- that God is outside, not within, nature -- in Part XVI.

As regards man "subduing and conquering nature," this was one of the revolutionary ideas of the Old Testament that made Western medical and other scientific progress possible. For all ancient civilizations, nature (or the equally capricious and amoral gods of nature) ruled man. The Book of Genesis came along to teach the opposite -- man is to rule nature.

Only by ruling and conquering nature will man develop cures for nature's diseases. We will conquer cancer; cancer will not conquer us. And only rational beings, not irrational gods of nature, can do so. Judeo-Christian values are the primary reason science and modern medicine developed in the West. A rational God designed nature, and rational human beings can therefore perceive it and, yes, conquer it.

The notion that it is secularism, not Judeo-Christian values, that enabled scientific inquiry constitutes perhaps the greatest propaganda victory in history. Virtually every great scientist from Sir Isaac Newton to the beginning of 20th century saw scientific inquiry as the study of divine design.

As for the modern secular objection to the Judeo-Christian notion of man as the pinnacle and purpose of nature, one can only say woe unto mankind if that objection prevails. When man is reduced to being part of the natural world, his status is reduced to that of a dolphin. It is one of the great ironies of the contemporary world that humanists render human life largely worthless while God-centered Jews and Christians render human life infinitely sacred. Man's worth is entirely dependent on a God-based view of the world. Without God, man is another part of the ecosystem, and often a lousy one at that.

So let's say what cannot be said in sophisticated company: Nature was created as the vehicle by which God created the human being, and in order to give emotional, aesthetic and biological sustenance to mankind. Nature in and of itself has no purpose without the existence of human beings to appreciate it. In the words of the Talmud, every person should look at the world and say, "The world was created for me."

Does this mean that the biblical view of nature gives man the right to pollute the earth or to abuse animals? Absolutely not. Abusing animals is forbidden in the Torah: The ban on eating the limb of a living animal, the ban on placing two animals of different sizes on the same yoke and the ban on working animals seven days a week are just a few examples. To cause gratuitous suffering to an animal is a grave sin. As for polluting the earth, this, too, is religiously prohibited. If the purpose of nature is to ennoble human life and to bear witness to God's magnificence, by what understanding of this concept can a religious person defend polluting nature?

We are indeed to be responsible stewards of nature, but for our sake, not its (Part XVII)

I like how he starts

Without man, the environment is insignificant

It reminds me of the old saying without man there is no god. I mean what good is god to you if your not here? So then it could likewise be said that without man god is insignificant.

AggonyDuck

06-29-2005, 01:57

As for the modern secular objection to the Judeo-Christian notion of man as the pinnacle and purpose of nature, one can only say woe unto mankind if that objection prevails. When man is reduced to being part of the natural world, his status is reduced to that of a dolphin. It is one of the great ironies of the contemporary world that humanists render human life largely worthless while God-centered Jews and Christians render human life infinitely sacred. Man's worth is entirely dependent on a God-based view of the world. Without God, man is another part of the ecosystem, and often a lousy one at that.

Hmmmm, his thoughts seem quite strange to me. It's almost like he's obsessed by humanity and in claiming that humanity would not be a part of the natural world, but in fact be something better than nature itself.
You could compare it to a community ruled by a rich fella, who believes he is the reason why the community exists and the community exists to be ruled and conquered by him...(I would had said serve, but decided to stupidly put in some of Prager's words)
I would call that rich fella an egoist, so might it be that humanity is so consumed by our love of ourselves to notice the fact that we're a part of nature and not the reason for it?

Also is it so bad to have the same status as a dolphin or any other animal?
I can't really see anything negative with it, except the fact that to have a status there must be a difference in them. I suppose the reason for a status is just to simplify things. Give things an easy reason and so on.

I also think his comment about a man's worth being dependent on a God-based view of the world is total rubbish.
I do not have a god, yet a human being does have a worth to me, although this is dependent on my view of myself. So to me it makes to change the sentence to:
"Man's worth is entirely dependent on his view of the world."

I will end this reply with claiming that; Yes, man is a part of the ecosystem and we're usually a lousy one at that... ~;)