Re: Pantheism nurturing global following

FBC wrote:

> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> This is probably true, not just of Wicca, but of any topic.  I have come to
> see the internet as the great realm of no accountability.  Therefore it is a
> realm where liars prosper.  (that and Washington DC)
>
> However the source was a magazine quoting a book.  No connection to the web.
>
> > > 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 don't know that I would agree with either statement.  God is mot simply a
> suppostion if I am concluding rightly that He revealed Himself in Scripture
> and in the life of Jesus Christ.  And this of course is a manifestation as
> per your second statement.  The problem for many is that they reject these
> as fanciful, and not from God. I believe they are from God.  And after
> examination took them as evidence, not guided by a presupposition of God,
> but to create a "supposition" of God

In no way do I mean disrespect, but my consciousness sees the bible as part
history and mostly myth.

>
>
> >
> > I for one consider it most rude for any religious adherent to force feed
> their
> > conjectural gods to the world.
> >
>
> It is not my desire to force feed.  But I do sometimes undertake to discuss.
> If you believe me wrong to discuss then please notice the root post.  That
> it was sent to four newsgroups.  Three of which were of opposing viewpoints.
> So if anyone was force feeding it was not I feeding Christianity, but the
> original poster feeding pantheism, which you notice is a viewpoint of God or
> rather god.

As a lifelong pantheist I agree fully. Be it Christianity or Pantheism, I think
the individual should look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> A good understanding of Christianity includes self-responsibility, and care
> for the environment.  Unfortunately most people would settle for a less
> thorough understanding.

Locally fundamentalist Protestant Christians are saying that earth is but an
illusion and meant only as a realm in which to prove ones self worthy of going
to heaven, and that any caring for nature are simply ignorant tree huggers.

>
>
> But whether or not Christianity is a crutch, probably so.  It was a crutch
> designed and given by God to lovingly heal a wound.  Whether being a crutch
> makes it a bad thing has to do with whether or not the wound was real.  (Of
> course I believe it was and that the evidence of the wound is the evil in
> our world)

I have done considerable reading regarding the inquisition. Now that was evil in
my opinion. Wonder if god will forgive the church?

>
>
> Dream up a God?  Of course many do this.  But notice my ideas present the
> need for revelation, that is I believe that God chooses to reveal Himself,
> and I believe that it must be that way because of the tendoncy of humanity
> to create God the way they want Him to be.

Or her!

>
>
> >
> > Just my opinion. Don't burn me at the stake!
> >
> >                     Jim
> >
> >
>
> I won't burn you at the stake, nor do I intend any of my statements to sound
> caustic.

They are definitely anything but caustic. My personal thanks for sharing.

>
>
> PC