Re: Pantheism nurturing global following

Please note, I snipped the sections that I did not comment on.


>
> "God is not the voice in the whirlwind," novelist Margaret Atwood
> wrote. "God is the whirlwind." If you believe that, you may be a
> pantheist: a person who views the universe and nature as divine.
>

I thoroughly disagree with Pantheism, because it de-personalizes God.
However let me make a comment aside about the paragraph above.  It fits
exactly with some of the statements being made to promote Paganism, Wicca
and New Age ideas.  Pantheism is not an idea that stands alone easily but is
generally linked to one of these other ideas.  Although I cannot recall the
author, a recent example out of Wicca that I heard said "If you place the
Bible that the Christians worship out in the rain and wind it will be gone
in a couple of months, I worship the wind and the rain."  (Of course she is
incorrect that we worship the Bible, but her quote shadows the above quote
so closely I thought I would mention it.)



> Ignorance of the word pantheism poses the group's biggest obstacle,
> but Harrison is hopeful because he sees acceptance of pantheistic
> ideas in the popularity of films such as the "Star Wars" series and in
> animated films such as "Pocahontas" and "The Lion King." "When someone
> calls on the Force, they are not calling on God, they are calling on
> the universe," he said.

Good observation, these movies do in fact teach ideas that are contrary to
Christianity.  Unfortunately most Christians do not see it and therefore
continue to promote this point of view without realizing it.




> Pantheism's emphasis on caring for nature promotes benign values,
> Smithouser says, but it rejects the notion of God as a separate,
> personal being, as understood by Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
> Christian doctrine labels pantheism heretical; according to the
> Catholic Encyclopedia, "The church has repeatedly condemned the errors
> of pantheism."

Yes, and rightfully so.  When we change the definition of God we dishonor
Him.  He deserves to be identified as He is, not as we want Him to be.
Therefore sources of authority, that is who or what we believe as a source
of information about God becomes crucial.  I believe the Bible.  I reject
any perspective which comes down to human reason standing alone without the
aid of revelation.  (To explain that further, I reject a use of intellect
that begins and ends with human reason, but instead believe that God must
reveal Himself to us in a manner that clearly thwarts our desire to
'redesign' Him.  I believe this is one of the main purposes of Scripture.)




>
> However, without a personal notion of God, people can experience the
> divine more freely, pantheist Katherine Peil said. "We see God in all
> of nature, which liberates religion and eliminates the need for
> intermediaries," said Peil, a Seattle psychologist. "You don't need
> Scripture, or popes, or channelers, and you don't need devils."

Here she does a great job of stating the authority issue I mentioned.  She
begins with the assumption that God is not personal, and then builds the
authority or revelation of God to be from nature.  However if God is
personal then all of the ideas built forward of the assumption are false.
Or at least built upon a poor foundation.

Notice also that the quote refers to Scripture as an intermediary.  This is
not the normal terminology I would use, but if you use her terminology then
in fact is she not simply replacing the Bible with Nature and making it her
intermediary?  That is to say her source of authority is nature, but she too
is relying on something to indicate God to her the same that I use
Scripture.

PC