From: BIll Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Tue Mar 19 2002 - 00:29:39 MST
Lots of snipping, a few drinks into the evening - for once. Pardon mistakes.
> [Mermaid]My response to your post was along the reasoning that Nature does
> exist and is within our grasp to understand it. Hence the evidence that its
> real. It is also beyond human capability to conquer nature. Man has also
> been 'worshipping' nature for a very very long time.
>
I agree with everything you say above.
>
> [Mermaid]It was my understanding that Bill Roh considers 'God' as a human
> conception. Going by Michelle and Bill Roh's subsequent response, it seems
> that 'worship' is a human conception. In which case, my response does not
> match Bill Roh's initial post.
>
> [Mermaid]However, even then I have to wonder how 'worship' is a human
> conception. Considering someone or something worthy of worship is
> *perception* and not the creation of a concept. All human responses are
> based on human perceptions.
>
I think I use the word "concept" very loosly. I just mean an "idea of man". Perception
plays a passive role, whatever "idea" is the response to those perceptions is a
creation of man. I would image that this is true of even non-deliberate action; moving
to music for instance. I can see how my loose use of the word concept could cause
confusion.
>
> [Mermaid]I was a little confused by Michelle's response and even more so by
> Bill Roh's agreement. Is there no evidence for nature being real and
> supreme?
Nature is real and supreme, we are a part of and in no way outside of nature - at
least if we have the same idea of nature. Nature has existence outside of human
conception. It is more than only an idea. If one chooses to go through that set of
emotions that is worship then - whoohoo, go get um.
> How is the 'man-made' evidence enter into the argument? What is the
> difference between prostrating to the rain gods because of the perception
> that by appealling to their kindness, the rain gods will diminish their
> ferocity<also consider that nature worship includes celebration and the
> acceptance of nature being superior to humanity>and the uttering of the most
> loathsome words I have ever heard in my life, "Our father, who art in
> heaven. Thy will be done." To me, the difference is vast and hence
> considering nature and the elements to be worshipful is a valid perception
> because of the evidence that nature cannot be conquered and controlled.
Well, I am happy that you find nature worthy of worship, I am sure it gives you
satisfaction - and I am saying that in a friendly way. For me though, I really see no
difference between worshiping nature/dancing for rain, then praying to a Christian
god. The only difference I see is in the worshipers themselves. I prefer, for the most
part, the nature style. I have a love for the ecosystem, but it does not "feel"
magical in any way. Just the system of which I am a part.
>
>
> [Mermaid]Having said that, I have to add something else. Religion has also
> evolved over time, right? But it has taken a turn for the worst. The more
> primitive religions which worshipped nature and elements personified the
> forces of the unknown as deities and translated their fear of the impending
> definite disaster into a theraputic, cathartic process which is was part
> ritual, part prayer and part fatalistic resignation.
In some cases yes they did. But there was plenty of bloodshed as well back then -
religion didnt discover violence in it's name just now.
> Of course, the downside
> to it all was superstition. What really interests me is the ritual part of
> the worship process. A methodical, repetitive pattern of action that offers
> a sense of security and comfort. Something useful during times when there
> were no head shrinks to offer Prozac? A protective, psychological shield if
> you can call it that. Compare that to the sunday services to an imaginary
> entity called God which cannot be touched, seen or heard. From where I
> stand, there is are distinct differences in several levels of comprehension
> including conception. However, both perceive 'God'/Nature in the same
> way.i.e.as someone who is supreme and powerful. But again, like I said
> before..perception can not be anything but 'man-made'.
>
> [Mermaid]I hope I made my point clear. I realise there is a confusion in the
> terms used and I am still not clear about what you two mean. Clarify if you
> think whats above doesnt gel together with your querying posts.
>
I think your point is much more clear to me. I should have been more precise myself. I
do not see the levels of difference you mention, but I'll be thinking about it this
evening before I hit the sack.
Sweet dreams to all
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT