Re: Pantheism nurturing global following

FBC wrote:

> 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.)

Wicca is a religion that gives recognition to and worships supposed gods.
Everyone and their dog calls themselves a Wiccan these days. The world wide web
is the last place to learn about their beliefs and practices as the least
qualified to speak do most of the ranting.

>
>
> > 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.)

Your cherished god is but a supposition. If "he" were real, "he" would manifest
and all this childish bickering would go away.

I for one consider it most rude for any religious adherent to force feed their
conjectural gods to the world.

>
>
> >
> > 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

Most of humankind need a crutch to lean on. It is easier to dream up a god than
to assume self responsibility.

Just my opinion. Don't burn me at the stake!

                    Jim