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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

Their called enviormentalist wackos over here.

Mostly liberals.

[JimBob]

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]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[Lazul]

"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?

[JimBob]

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

[Redleg]

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.

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

[Lazul]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Lazul]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[GoreBag]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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 , 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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

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]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

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...