"Hello, is there anybody in there...?" A call to pagans, pantheists, and assorted...

[Prince_James]

Jessiej90:

Haha, no, I see where you are coming from, but let's say, for example, you punch that wall so hard that it caves in on you and crushes you. The wall obviously then hurt you more then you did it, especially since the wall can't feel and doesn't give a damn. The wall had no conscious intent of caving in on you, but because you damaged it, the force came back at you much stronger anyway. I guess that's where I'm going with will and intent. The stronger the force you send out to damage something, the more likely it can come back at you with an even stronger force because you have no control over it. I think the moral behind the threefold law is different then just eye for an eye. Eye for an eye implies that because someone hurt you, it gives you the right to hurt them back, which just perpetuates a cycle of negativity and/or violence. The threefold law insinuates that if you hurt someone then you will hurt even more when it comes back to you, effectively trying to discourage people from behaving in a harmful or violent way.

So basically you link it back to the idea that our actions carry unknown complications and weight, yes? Thus accidentally killing oneself by causing a wall to crash ontop of one via punching it, even if the force was only enough to dislodge the bricks immediate to the area of impact.

 

[jessiej920]

Jessiej90:



So basically you link it back to the idea that our actions carry unknown complications and weight, yes? Thus accidentally killing oneself by causing a wall to crash ontop of one via punching it, even if the force was only enough to dislodge the bricks immediate to the area of impact.

Yes, I believe our actions carry unknown complications and weight, like you said. That's why it's important to think before you act. What if you punched the wall because you just felt angry, you didn't have intention of hurting yourself except that your hand might be sore, but because you acted without thinking, then the stupid wall came crashing down on you and killed you. A pointless accident that resulted in death. What if you punched the wall with the intent to damage it because you were mad at the person whose wall you were punching, then boom, it came down and killed you. Which one is karma? Was the first one karma for some other unknown incident which you had coming to you or the second because you had intent to cause damage to something that belonged to someone else? I don't really know. Then everything can be seen as karma. But if you just hadn't punched the wall in the first place then you'd still be alive.

The reason I use the threefold law is because it is meant to make one think before they act in a malicious/damaging and/or stupid way. Do you really want the wall to fall down and kill you over a matter that might be very trivial when compared to your own death or suffering? When you punched the wall you had the intent to cause damage and the universe, whether consciously or not, responded back. Like I said before, it's the idea behind the law that matters, not necessarily whether or not the universe will respond thrice as powerfully. I'm thinking in terms of, say, black magic or curses, or even just morals. Let's say you beat the crap out of someone over something stupid. Two days later the guy you beat up comes back with a couple of his buddies and puts you in a coma. You behaved in a bad way, you hurt someone else so they came back with reinforcements to make sure you learned your lesson. I think the threefold law is symbolic. Think about the consequences of your actions because you never know when the wall is going to come crashing down on you.

 

[Prince_James]

That is an interesting and useful exegesis on the meaning of the term. I think it is appropriate to always consider the rammifications of our actions. Surely, that will help us live better lives.

You've taken a good lesson from what I had seemingly prematurely dismissed as a bit of fluff. Even if I would not agree with it being called "three-fold", it is nonetheless a good principle to live by with your conception.

 

[Simon Anders]

Yes, I believe our actions carry unknown complications and weight, like you said. That's why it's important to think before you act.

This is a poor general rule. Even in the example of the wall that might fall on you, you would never know when to stop thinking about the possible outcomes - what if there is a bomb in the wall, what if I am dreaming, what is someone thinks my expression of anger is about them, what if.... and on and on. The only way to decide you have weighed enough variables is INTUITION. And intuitively you might have known that it was OK, right from the beginning - the wall was drywall in a house about to be torn down or whatever.

We do not always need to think before we act. In fact to do so is to be paralyzed because we can never know we have thought it all through.

Apart from the many situations where thinking before you act is dangerous, rude, a waste of time (probably most situations), it is making your conscous mind, the little decision maker in the head who thinks he or she is the decision maker or the only one do things that other parts of you can do vastly better, generally in much short periods of time.

No one. Absolutely no one on earth thinks before every act.

One trick is to know when to think and rationalize around a choice or action and when not to.

But again to be wise and choose when to intuit and when to use the rational mind IS AN INTUITIVE DECISION.

And thank God.

Yes, there might be a snake in my boot. But I am not going to mull over looking inside the damn thing EVERY TIME i PUT IT ON, unless I am tenting in the outback.

 

[jessiej920]

This is a poor general rule. Even in the example of the wall that might fall on you, you would never know when to stop thinking about the possible outcomes - what if there is a bomb in the wall, what if I am dreaming, what is someone thinks my expression of anger is about them, what if.... and on and on. The only way to decide you have weighed enough variables is INTUITION. And intuitively you might have known that it was OK, right from the beginning - the wall was drywall in a house about to be torn down or whatever.

We do not always need to think before we act. In fact to do so is to be paralyzed because we can never know we have thought it all through.

Apart from the many situations where thinking before you act is dangerous, rude, a waste of time (probably most situations), it is making your conscous mind, the little decision maker in the head who thinks he or she is the decision maker or the only one do things that other parts of you can do vastly better, generally in much short periods of time.

No one. Absolutely no one on earth thinks before every act.

One trick is to know when to think and rationalize around a choice or action and when not to.

But again to be wise and choose when to intuit and when to use the rational mind IS AN INTUITIVE DECISION.

And thank God.

Yes, there might be a snake in my boot. But I am not going to mull over looking inside the damn thing EVERY TIME i PUT IT ON, unless I am tenting in the outback.

Hmmm....I never said that I believe it's necessary to think before EVERY act. Obviously that would be a tedious waste of time. The wall concept got brought up as a metaphorical example. I don't agree that the threefold law is a poor general rule. When you are consciously aware that a decision you are about to make could affect yourself and others in a negative way then to think before you act, to think about the outcome, is not useless at all. I'm confused about what you disagree with. I think it is morally sound to think about the consequences of your actions. If more people did it, then the world might not be so screwed up. Intuition plays a huge part, of course, in how we act, but if you are premeditating an evil deed then to think about the outcome, the way it will affect you and others, is not useless.

 

[Prince_James]

Simon Anders:

This is a poor general rule. Even in the example of the wall that might fall on you, you would never know when to stop thinking about the possible outcomes - what if there is a bomb in the wall, what if I am dreaming, what is someone thinks my expression of anger is about them, what if.... and on and on. The only way to decide you have weighed enough variables is INTUITION. And intuitively you might have known that it was OK, right from the beginning - the wall was drywall in a house about to be torn down or whatever.

We do not always need to think before we act. In fact to do so is to be paralyzed because we can never know we have thought it all through.

Apart from the many situations where thinking before you act is dangerous, rude, a waste of time (probably most situations), it is making your conscous mind, the little decision maker in the head who thinks he or she is the decision maker or the only one do things that other parts of you can do vastly better, generally in much short periods of time.

No one. Absolutely no one on earth thinks before every act.

One trick is to know when to think and rationalize around a choice or action and when not to.

But again to be wise and choose when to intuit and when to use the rational mind IS AN INTUITIVE DECISION.

And thank God.

Yes, there might be a snake in my boot. But I am not going to mull over looking inside the damn thing EVERY TIME i PUT IT ON, unless I am tenting in the outback.

Your critique seems to be based on the assumption that a depth of thought outside the normal parameters of reasonableness is implied by "thinking before every action". We gain plenty of insight into the normal workings of the every day world and the circumstances we are in to be sure that certain courses of actions will result in fairly uniform results. Neither Jessiej90 nor I am suggesting, for instance, that we ought to mull over for an hour whether a scorpion is on our boot, lest we had a reason to suspect that such a critter was in fact hiding there. That being said, being mindful of the consequences of one's actions is a notable good, which permits one to follow a path towards greater excellence and virtue, as well as simply being more succesful in one's endeavours.

 

[jessiej920]

Simon Anders:



Your critique seems to be based on the assumption that a depth of thought outside the normal parameters of reasonableness is implied by "thinking before every action". We gain plenty of insight into the normal workings of the every day world and the circumstances we are in to be sure that certain courses of actions will result in fairly uniform results. Neither Jessiej90 nor I am suggesting, for instance, that we ought to mull over for an hour whether a scorpion is on our boot, lest we had a reason to suspect that such a critter was in fact hiding there. That being said, being mindful of the consequences of one's actions is a notable good, which permits one to follow a path towards greater excellence and virtue, as well as simply being more succesful in one's endeavours.

My thoughts exactly Prince_James.

 

[Prince_James]

Glad we concur, dear.

 

[jessiej920]

Glad we concur, dear.

Being somewhat lazy at times , I didn't read through all the postings on this thread before you and I got talking...do you consider yourself a Pagan or identify with some sect within Paganism or a witch? I think I remember reading that Wicca isn't something you identify with, so I was wondering where you place yourself on the spectrum. I'm curious as to what, specifically, you practice. Maybe we could compare notes or ideas?

 

[Prince_James]

Jessiej920:

Being somewhat lazy at times , I didn't read through all the postings on this thread before you and I got talking...do you consider yourself a Pagan or identify with some sect within Paganism or a witch? I think I remember reading that Wicca isn't something you identify with, so I was wondering where you place yourself on the spectrum. I'm curious as to what, specifically, you practice. Maybe we could compare notes or ideas?

Philosophically I am a non-personal pantheist (existence has qualities traditionally attributed to God but is not conscious). My romantic, mytho-poetic side, however, affirms an indescript European polytheism, ala the old Greco-Roman, Germanic (Asatru), and Celtic religions. I also consider this a prime means to connect with my ancestral roots and cultural identities. Or as I wrote earlier:

I am a non-personal pantheist philosophically, an indescript European pagan for romantic reasons.

As for my view of deity: God = existence with the important qualities of infinity, eternity, omnipresence, et ctera. The divines I will not comment on, save that I am lead to suggest their ability to inspire the romantic side of my nature. That is to say, I shall not lead a defense against their existence philosophically, nor their non-existence, but if I must I will comment further if you have specific questions.

As to the topic of magic(k) and such: I've also always been fascinated by historic magic. I read antique and medieval grimoires for fun and due to their philosophical connections. As such, you might call me an occultist in a loose sense, although you shall rarely find me spell crafting actively. I also used to post on occultforums (some of my philosophical essays appear on both Sci and Occult).

I'd be extremely glad to compare notes on any of these topics.

 

[jessiej920]

Jessiej920:



Philosophically I am a non-personal pantheist (existence has qualities traditionally attributed to God but is not conscious). My romantic, mytho-poetic side, however, affirms an indescript European polytheism, ala the old Greco-Roman, Germanic (Asatru), and Celtic religions. I also consider this a prime means to connect with my ancestral roots and cultural identities. Or as I wrote earlier:



As to the topic of magic(k) and such: I've also always been fascinated by historic magic. I read antique and medieval grimoires for fun and due to their philosophical connections. As such, you might call me an occultist in a loose sense, although you shall rarely find me spell crafting actively. I also used to post on occultforums (some of my philosophical essays appear on both Sci and Occult).

I'd be extremely glad to compare notes on any of these topics.

I think your descriptions of your beliefs are interesting. I consider myself a Pagan with Wiccan leanings, as I like to call it. I don't really like to consider myself a Wiccan because, as you mentioned before, a lot of it is new age fluff, but I do believe that the moral concepts found within Wicca are similar to what I believe. I'm more interested in the occult, like you, and have also posted on occultforums as well. I enjoy reading a variety of occult material and am especially interested in High Magic and the different practices and techniques derived from Kabbalistic traditions. I think old European witchcraft is fascinating as well. I agree when you say that it can be a way to connect with your ancestral roots. I'm Norwegian and Irish so I feel a special affinity with the old Norse mythology as well as the celtic fairy traditions and the Druids as well.

While I also don't always actively practice spellcraft, I find meditation, grounding, and pathworking to be extremely powerful. I was wondering what your ideas are on the subject of Demons and the summoning of them. In thinking about karma and the threefold law, I was also wondering about your ideas on white, black, and gray magic. Like I said before, I'm more worried about affecting the here and now, then worrying about where I go when I die and I see the God(s) and Goddess(es) as symoblic archetypes. What have been your experiences in spellcraft and what, exactly, are your opinions on existence after death?

 

[Prince_James]

Jessiej920:

I think your descriptions of your beliefs are interesting.

Thank you.

I consider myself a Pagan with Wiccan leanings, as I like to call it. I don't really like to consider myself a Wiccan because, as you mentioned before, a lot of it is new age fluff, but I do believe that the moral concepts found within Wicca are similar to what I believe. I'm more interested in the occult, like you, and have also posted on occultforums as well. I enjoy reading a variety of occult material and am especially interested in High Magic and the different practices and techniques derived from Kabbalistic traditions. I think old European witchcraft is fascinating as well.

I am very glad to see someone from Occultforums here. I know one or two people from there have come here. It is also nice someone who recognizes Wicca's flaws and also its virtues.

As to the High Mgaick, that is the stuff I am most interested in. I'm actually trying to get Honorius III's grimoire. I find it both fascinating for itself, as well as the fact that is purported to be the personal grimoire of the Pope! The delicious irony of a book of spells from the Pontiff of Rome is too much to bear.

My favourite grimoire is The Black Pullet. Have you read it? It's a fascinating book on ring and amulet craft. More contemporary than I am used to (19th century) but still great.

I'm Norwegian and Irish so I feel a special affinity with the old Norse mythology as well as the celtic fairy traditions and the Druids as well.

It's really quite nice how these "old beliefs" tend to resonate with one's ancestry.

While I also don't always actively practice spellcraft, I find meditation, grounding, and pathworking to be extremely powerful.

Pathworking? That I am not familiar with. Tell me about it?

I was wondering what your ideas are on the subject of Demons and the summoning of them.

I have never summoned a demon personally, nor do I find it likely that I would do such. Generally speaking, the entities as described do not seem to be the sort that I'd want to bring into my life, and it is telling that one has to use evocation that borders on the spiritually cruel to contain these beings from harming oneself. I'd also wager that these beings would be looking for revenge once you release them from their fetters, leading one into all sorts of dangers.

That being said, I am not particularly fond of the idea of conjuring, whether evocation or invocation. Perhaps I am a bit of an egotist, but I do not like the idea of relying on another being to accomplish my ends, were I to seek to do anything of the sort. Sigil work and creating servitors and such seems a bit different, as technically they are your own creations, but...established demons, angels, elementals, et cetera? They seem too fickle for my taste.

I was also wondering about your ideas on white, black, and gray magic.

Well, as a magician, I'd tend to favour the thamaturgical (practical) aspects of magic rather than the theurgical (spiritual). As such, my view of magic is in line to "what can I gain in the here and now from it?" were I to practice this. As such, I disagree with Crowley in ascribing "black magic" as that which furthers one's interests rather than one's spiritual interests. Instead, "black magic" would mean to me the type of magic which would come from pursuining unvirtuous ends. No spell would be inherently black or white or grey (I am not sure if the latter category makes much sense, though). For instance, even evoking a horrible demon and sending it after Osama bin Laden would be a laudable, and therefore white, magical act to me.

What have been your experiences in spellcraft and what, exactly, are your opinions on existence after death?

Whenever I have attempted magic, I've tended to focus on sigil work. I failed to make the Yankees win with my "Go Yankees!" sigil I made a few years ago as a test. Since then, I've made a few others, and as their results are more ambigious, I cannot tell you how they have fared fully. That being said, I find at least a few have given me indications to suggest they are at play.

I would, if I could either work bronze myself or knew a cooper, forge the rings and amulets of The Black Pullet to test them out.

I like to treat magic, in as much as I've ever attempted to do it, as a science. I try to record my data, find empirical proofs, et cetera. I've been putting off doing a simple occult experiment with cursing/blessing plant growth. I need to get me some small plants to do that with. I'm also playing with the idea of creating a system that I think could be useful.

As to life after death, I am not sure. I have been heard here on Sciforums and elsewhere proclaiming my preference for a heathen-styled afterlife. I'd much rather go to the Avalon or Valhalla or the Isles of the Blesst. I'd also state that reincarnation, if life after death is real, is also highly likely. Those empirical studies which have attempted to show some proof for such have convinced me that there is something potentially at play, as well as the fact that I think it is a preferrable situation to eternal life in a static afterlife or permanent death. Also, some notable philosophers have held to it (Plato).

 

[jessiej920]

Jessiej920:



Thank you.



I am very glad to see someone from Occultforums here. I know one or two people from there have come here. It is also nice someone who recognizes Wicca's flaws and also its virtues.

As to the High Mgaick, that is the stuff I am most interested in. I'm actually trying to get Honorius III's grimoire. I find it both fascinating for itself, as well as the fact that is purported to be the personal grimoire of the Pope! The delicious irony of a book of spells from the Pontiff of Rome is too much to bear.

My favourite grimoire is The Black Pullet. Have you read it? It's a fascinating book on ring and amulet craft. More contemporary than I am used to (19th century) but still great.



It's really quite nice how these "old beliefs" tend to resonate with one's ancestry.



Pathworking? That I am not familiar with. Tell me about it?



I have never summoned a demon personally, nor do I find it likely that I would do such. Generally speaking, the entities as described do not seem to be the sort that I'd want to bring into my life, and it is telling that one has to use evocation that borders on the spiritually cruel to contain these beings from harming oneself. I'd also wager that these beings would be looking for revenge once you release them from their fetters, leading one into all sorts of dangers.

That being said, I am not particularly fond of the idea of conjuring, whether evocation or invocation. Perhaps I am a bit of an egotist, but I do not like the idea of relying on another being to accomplish my ends, were I to seek to do anything of the sort. Sigil work and creating servitors and such seems a bit different, as technically they are your own creations, but...established demons, angels, elementals, et cetera? They seem too fickle for my taste.



Well, as a magician, I'd tend to favour the thamaturgical (practical) aspects of magic rather than the theurgical (spiritual). As such, my view of magic is in line to "what can I gain in the here and now from it?" were I to practice this. As such, I disagree with Crowley in ascribing "black magic" as that which furthers one's interests rather than one's spiritual interests. Instead, "black magic" would mean to me the type of magic which would come from pursuining unvirtuous ends. No spell would be inherently black or white or grey (I am not sure if the latter category makes much sense, though). For instance, even evoking a horrible demon and sending it after Osama bin Laden would be a laudable, and therefore white, magical act to me.



Whenever I have attempted magic, I've tended to focus on sigil work. I failed to make the Yankees win with my "Go Yankees!" sigil I made a few years ago as a test. Since then, I've made a few others, and as their results are more ambigious, I cannot tell you how they have fared fully. That being said, I find at least a few have given me indications to suggest they are at play.

I would, if I could either work bronze myself or knew a cooper, forge the rings and amulets of The Black Pullet to test them out.

I like to treat magic, in as much as I've ever attempted to do it, as a science. I try to record my data, find empirical proofs, et cetera. I've been putting off doing a simple occult experiment with cursing/blessing plant growth. I need to get me some small plants to do that with. I'm also playing with the idea of creating a system that I think could be useful.

As to life after death, I am not sure. I have been heard here on Sciforums and elsewhere proclaiming my preference for a heathen-styled afterlife. I'd much rather go to the Avalon or Valhalla or the Isles of the Blesst. I'd also state that reincarnation, if life after death is real, is also highly likely. Those empirical studies which have attempted to show some proof for such have convinced me that there is something potentially at play, as well as the fact that I think it is a preferrable situation to eternal life in a static afterlife or permanent death. Also, some notable philosophers have held to it (Plato).

First off, just for my the sake of myself and others, how do you quote just sections of a persons post without quoting the whole thing? I'm not that comp savvy and as stupid as it sounds, I still can't figure it out?

Anyway...Back to magick and the occult. I have never heard of The Black Pullet...it sounds interesting. I've perused some of the old grimoires, but my study has been limited by lack of time. I also disagree with Crowley and his theories on black magick. I don't necessarily believe there is a straight line that can be drawn because even white magick with the intent to do good can be seen as black by others (like your Osama Bin Laden example) which is what I mean by gray magic. Let's say you did a spell to get yourself a thousand dollars so you could pay medical bills, two days later your uncle dies in a freak car accident and leaves you ten grand in his will (Is it white or black magic? I would say gray because you didn't have the intent to kill your uncle etc.) That's just my philosophy.


As far as Demons go, I have never tried to summon one and find the idea both terrifying and fascinating. I'm curious just to see if it would work, but the time and preparation it takes to pull off a ceremony like that is intense, not to mention that if said Demon does pop up I would be rather unexperienced in handling such a force. I also agree when you say those powers are rather fickle. I wouldn't want to use any of them to achieve my ends. I would think it would come back to kick you in the ass.

Pathworking is like taking a mental journey while in a trance state. Some see this as meditation, but meditation can be just free-form and open ended, while Pathworking involves a journey to achieve certain goals or to gain insight to yourself. Pathworking can be a way, I believe, to reach a higher realm of thought where one can communicate with higher or outside forces. In some ways, it's like trying to go into a dream, but consciously control your actions. I really believe in the power of the mind and dreams and Pathworking, much like grounding, is just another excercise of the mind.

As for my views on life after death, I'm still undecided. I do believe there is something 'at play' like you said, but I do not know what. I think reincarnation is what I'm going with too.

 

[Prince_James]

Jessiej920:

First off, just for my the sake of myself and others, how do you quote just sections of a persons post without quoting the whole thing? I'm not that comp savvy and as stupid as it sounds, I still can't figure it out?

I copy and paste then place the quote brackets around the area I want to.

Anyway...Back to magick and the occult. I have never heard of The Black Pullet...it sounds interesting. I've perused some of the old grimoires, but my study has been limited by lack of time. I also disagree with Crowley and his theories on black magick. I don't necessarily believe there is a straight line that can be drawn because even white magick with the intent to do good can be seen as black by others (like your Osama Bin Laden example) which is what I mean by gray magic. Let's say you did a spell to get yourself a thousand dollars so you could pay medical bills, two days later your uncle dies in a freak car accident and leaves you ten grand in his will (Is it white or black magic? I would say gray because you didn't have the intent to kill your uncle etc.) That's just my philosophy.

I think that is very reasonable. It also bears the traditional aspects of tragedy so often in magick, which makes the explicit declaration of one's will so prominent. There are all those folktales of magic gone awry because one does not declare. Specifically when another entity is around.

Here's a link to the Black Pullet (the title is an alternate title for the Golden Goose):

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/grimoire/theblackpullett.pdf

As far as Demons go, I have never tried to summon one and find the idea both terrifying and fascinating. I'm curious just to see if it would work, but the time and preparation it takes to pull off a ceremony like that is intense, not to mention that if said Demon does pop up I would be rather unexperienced in handling such a force. I also agree when you say those powers are rather fickle. I wouldn't want to use any of them to achieve my ends. I would think it would come back to kick you in the ass.

Yes. Playing with those types of entities, whatever they are, seems to me to reek of foolhardiness. I do not want a demon pissed off near me. An invocation of an elemental spirit might be a lot safe, or even moreso, an angel.

Here's perhaps the most basic magickal ritual there is, the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram:

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Lesser_Ritual_of_the_Pentagram

Pathworking is like taking a mental journey while in a trance state. Some see this as meditation, but meditation can be just free-form and open ended, while Pathworking involves a journey to achieve certain goals or to gain insight to yourself. Pathworking can be a way, I believe, to reach a higher realm of thought where one can communicate with higher or outside forces. In some ways, it's like trying to go into a dream, but consciously control your actions. I really believe in the power of the mind and dreams and Pathworking, much like grounding, is just another excercise of the mind.

So basically, it is like guided meditation? That is nifty. Do you know a simple one off hand? I might give it a whirl.

As for my views on life after death, I'm still undecided. I do believe there is something 'at play' like you said, but I do not know what. I think reincarnation is what I'm going with too.

I hold a more positive view of reincarnation than the East, though. I don't view life as suffering and desire no annihilation. This is another reason I dislike Crowley: The final ritual of Thelema is to annihilate the self in the pit of Chronozon and attain unity with God/nirvana. It is essentially Western yoga. I have no desire at all.

Crowley: God damn Left handed path black magickian

James: Hey, fuck you, you heroin addicted nancy boy!

Crowley: This is true...this is true.

 

[Enmos]

Although, atheism and paganism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Atheism simply is not believing in a deity or deities. The literal belief of the figures in pagan religions aren't absolutely necessary.
But, understanding the points and morals from the stories and myths, and deriving good ethics from them, are.

In that case I might consider myself an atheist pagan.
But i do think the universe is 'primarily dead', is this going to be a problem ?

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Yeah, that is a bit of a problem.:bugeye:
A prime belief to most pagans it the sacredness of all creation, all the way down to the atomic level.
Nice try tho. Keep workin' it Enmos. (Hey, dem bugs you photo are god, too.!.Just like you, [and everyone else] are god.) (Or is that 'is god'.:shrug
As Robert A Hinelan-(I don't know how to spell his name)said in 'Stranger in a Strange Land'- "Thou art god!"

T1G! out!!

Ps. Tho, GWB just might be Jehovah's partner in crime, Satan.
Pps. Jehovah is not "God" he's an interloper at best. More like 'usurper'.

 

[Enmos]

Yeah, that is a bit of a problem.:bugeye:
A prime belief to most pagans it the sacredness of all creation, all the way down to the atomic level.
Nice try tho. Keep workin' it Enmos. (Hey, dem bugs you photo are god, too.!.Just like you, [and everyone else] are god.) (Or is that 'is god'.:shrug
As Robert A Hinelan-(I don't know how to spell his name)said in 'Stranger in a Strange Land'- "Thou art god!"

T1G! out!!

Ps. Tho, GWB just might be Jehovah's partner in crime, Satan.
Pps. Jehovah is not "God" he's an interloper at best. More like 'usurper'.

But why is it a problem ?
I don't believe in divine creation, but in abiogenesis and evolution.
Living creatures are composed of dead matter, just like non-living things are made up of (are rather are) dead matter.
Actually 'dead matter' is somewhat of a pleonasm, I just say it for clarity.
And still I consider nature sacred, especially life.
In my opinion there is no need for a God, let alone worship any.
But I do in a way worship nature, and more specifically life.
What am I ?

 

[Carcano]

A prime belief to most pagans it the sacredness of all creation,

There can be no 'sacredness' without a spiritual dimension.

If the universe is dead...nothing is sacred.

 

[Enmos]

There can be no 'sacredness' without a spiritual dimension.

If the universe is dead...nothing is sacred.

Not is the strict sense of the word, I agree.

However:

sa·cred
–adjective
4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object
5. regarded with reverence
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right

rev·er·ence
–noun
1. a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.
2. the outward manifestation of this feeling
3. a gesture indicative of deep respect; an obeisance, bow, or curtsy.

 

[Simon Anders]

There can be no 'sacredness' without a spiritual dimension.

If the universe is dead...nothing is sacred.

And if ecosystems are simply machines, then one can replace all their parts. And if a planet is simply a machine with a thin layer of other machines - IOW dead things, essentially, with a few 'higher' speciies having consciousness as an 'epiphenomenon' - than we can dispose of the whole thing or replace the whole damn thing.

I really do think it is time for the dead paradigm to leave the earth, while life still has some chance.