From: Mermaid . (britannica@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 18 2002 - 23:03:42 MST
[Mermaid earlier]Worship of nature and the elements - fire, water, earth,
space and air?
[Michelle]Worship is man-made... I think Bill's asking for non-man-made
_evidence_.
[Bill Roh] Thanks Michelle, I also think that worship is an invention of
man. but what I am curious about is why you Mermaid, think that it is not.
[Mermaid]I wanted to wait until I saw Bill Roh's response.
[Mermaid]Lets go to the very first Bill Roh post.
http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::WgVYTQ1q-T2NG-JUVd-Gxsa-TG5gXgZiNCh7
[Bill Roh earlier] I say that there are "green frilled nurples" (GFNs) with
teats on their heads. They are all powerful, control time and the very laws
of physics completely. They exist I say - I'll even write it down - so it
carries the same power of human conceptions as "god".
Now - prove that GFNs do not exist. HAH - You cannot disprove my GFNs, just
like you cannot disprove Zeus, unicorns or dragons.
By your argument, anything that can be conceived of cannot be proven to not
exist.
My argument is: Human conception of any thing is an argument against
existence outside of conception alone. If humans conceive it, but have no
evidence to support it - it does not exist outside of conception. It's easy
to prove that all conceptions of gods have so far been conceptions of man.
After all - every bit of evidence for a god is man made - find one that is
not and you are the winner!
[Mermaid]I didnt understand from the above that 'worship' was the conception
you were talking about. Rather, it seemed to me that you were contesting the
concept called 'God'.
[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.
[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.
[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? 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.
[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. 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.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT