Jump to content

Environmentalism as Religion

Recommended Posts

Edited part: le Voyageur, bite your tongue! I do all those things every Christmas for my DIL's second grade class, dressed as Santa himself, of course. One child to the other in the hallway: "Do you think he's really Santa?" second child, "Sure he is, he's OLD!" that sweet, sweet child.


lol...what a hoot (biting my tounge), and a tip of the hat your way....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Exactly Kahuna.

Your definition of religion coincides with my idea of environmentalism. It is a religion. It has a set of ideals, rules, faith and reverence that every organized religion does.

Yet we have people who ridicule it, mock it. These same folk would never ridicule another sky god based religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all these bogus definitions of what a religion is it any wonder why almost all the wars fought throughout human history have had a religious conflict at its roots.


GalHill- why don't you get an education in theology before pontificating the nonsense you have been preaching in this thread, your lack of understanding of even your own simplistic idea of Christianity is so blatantly obvious that you make yourself look backward and foolish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Gern:


I didn't realize you were fully serious.


The UN guys seem to me to be proposing "environmental religion", not as something they personally consider fact-based, but as a tool for social manipulation. Such an attitude has a long history in Western culture, particularly since the 'Enlightenment'. But it's always been insincere, in the same manner as a school teacher who uses her putative belief in Santa Claus as a tool to manipulate 1st graders behavior the weeks before Christmas.


But, if you actually worship Nature, I have to respect your sincerity.


I will ask to to explain what you mean by "reverence", "Nature" and "worship". You are not using the words as I would, or to mean what I might, and I really have no idea what you do mean.


However, I will say that all modern forms of that worship that I have encountered to date are absolutely anti-rational, in that they express a rather pristine form of double-think, since the holders of those views that I have encountered so far all assert both (1) a pure naturalistic reductionism, in their view of science and nature and (2) a vague non-natural entity, "Nature" which is viewed as somehow informing religious moral imperatives, ie, "Save the Earth".


Perhaps you hold a view that is not so anti-rational. I don't know, because I don't know how you are using the core words involved, or what -- precisely -- you mean by them.




@ DanKrow:

I seem to recall that you are Wiccan? If so, I accept your correction, and would then modify my statement to refer to those who identify themselves as Wiccan. I gather that this may be a larger group than those who are officially or actually Wiccan?




@ Voyaguer:


You, I don't respect so much. You started off rude and supercilious, and the asserted silly PC claims like "the most dangerous animal is the human over fatted on religion". You followed that up by self-confidently piling obvious error on top of obvious error.


I don't know whether you are actually as ignorant as you seem, or if you just got up on the wrong side of the bed today.


Regardless, let's catalog your nonsense by the numbers, last first. I'll have to get to your ridiculous claim about the RCC murdering a "billion", after I've done some more checking. It's worth doing, because something similar is often claimed, though your "billion" is by far the most extreme claim I've seen.



Short version:


1. No, I knew who Shem . . . and Ham and Japeth were all by myself.


2. I'm guessing if you had *really* studied under "Ruth DeEtte Simpson", you would have learned to spell "Lewis" (sic) Leakey's name correctly. I'm not sure where you hear of Ms. Simpson, but I'm guessing that "semester", may really have been only a 'siesta' taken after reading an article about her.


3. Regardless, Ms. Simpson's chief fame to claim seems to have been the bogus the "Calico" dig where she both proved she couldn't tell rocks from tools, and also managed to bring an end to Louis Leakey's career.


4. None of Ms. Simpson's 'achievements', or even her curatorship of the "Gene Autry Museum of the West" exactly qualified her to speak expertly about ancient Middle Eastern texts.


5. I've read both the Gilgamesh Epic, and the account of Noah several times. If you had done so, you'd have known that the two accounts share features, but are not identical. The oldest copies of the Epic are older than Genesis, which is interesting, but not proof of anything. Many, maybe most, old cultures have flood stories. Even the Aztecs had a flood story. But, even though Genesis preceded the Aztec stories, I doubt they'd "plagiarized" theirs from Genesis!



Long version:

1. No, I didn't Wiki or Google for Shem's name, nor for the connection between Shem and "Semitic". I not only knew that, I also know the names of Noah's other two sons (Ham & Japeth) without resorting to reference materials. I can further tell you that Canaan -- the ancester of the Hittites, as recorded in the OT -- was not a son of Noah, but was his grandson. I did, however, check Google (and Wiki) for info on the Hittites. Googling is, however, a practice to be recommended to anyone who'd like to know more tomorrow than they do today.


I have to assume, given all the obvious errors you've made, that you are not a fan of Googling, since, a few minutes with Google would have saved you the thumping you're about to get.



2. You claim to have studied under a "Ruth DeEtte Simpson", who was indeed an acolyte of Leakey. Maybe you actually did so. I have my doubts, however, since if you had, I'm pretty sure you'd have known that Leakey's first name was Louis, not "Lewis". (I didn't have to Google for Leakey's name, since I already knew that.)



3. I did Google for Ms. Simpson however, who I'd never heard of before. I feel that this was a forgivable lapse, since I don't think most people would keep up with the identity of the chief curator of the Gene Autry Museum of the West! I did discover that Ms. Simpson's primary claim to scientific fame was the infamous "Calico", noted for generating a set of rocks that may be either primitive artifacts or just rocks. Apparently, the most widely accepted opinion today is that what she was digging up were just rocks.


Leakey's involvement with her apparently brought the curtain down on his scientific career.


I had not known, previously, that Leakey through out his adult life suffered from severe zipper problems. (he could not keep his pecker in his pants). His 2nd wife Mary, who according to her obit in NY Times was the real scientist of the pair, and accused Lewis of losing it over this affair.



4. Regardless of Ms. Simpson's skills, or lack thereof, as an archeologist or curator of the "American West" there is nothing in her career that suggests that she was an expert in ancient Semitic culture or language. In fact, it would appear that she was about as qualified as I am to judge the relationship between the Gilgamesh Epic and the account of Noah.



5. Given your comments, I have to question whether you have read either, much less both. (I have, and not just today, either.) There are some similarities. But they are by no means identical. The oldest copies of Gilgamesh Epic predate the oldest dates for Genesis. This is often assumed to establish a textual relationship. But, that's only an assumption, and there's no other proof of a relationship.


It may surprise you to know that the Aztecs ALSO had a flood story. Their version, postdates the version in Genesis. If we follow that the earlier version must have been "plagiarized" in any latter version, I suppose we can therefore conclude that the Aztecs copied Genesis! No doubt, that makes more sense to you, than it does to me.


In fact, many, maybe most, ancient cultures have a flood story. There are several possible explanations, none of which fit the tired and antique 'animism to monotheism' theory, most notoriously exhibited in Frazer's The Golden Bough over a century ago. TS Eliot, who so famously promoted this text via references in 'The Wasteland', much less famously rejected it when he converted to Christianity a few years afterwards


Let me see if I can really blow your mind: the Aztecs also have a redemptive 'dying god' story, a la Balder.


For an interesting parallel version, see: http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/parallels.htm

For a translation of the 11th Gilgamesh tablet, see: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

For the account of Noah in Genesis, see:






PS: BadenP, would you be so kind as to point out where I defined "religion"? I scanned the whole thread, and while I *referred* to religion numerous times, I never defined it. It appears that any "bogus definitions" must be either in someone else's thread that you confused with this one, or else just a figment of your imagination. It is rather novel, however, to be castigated for doing something badly, when in fact I hadn't done it at all!

Link to post
Share on other sites



"Nature is not God in any religion",

"Ignorant urbanites, environmentalists, and liberals have deified nature"


Neither of these comments are true and are evidence of your own ignorance of religion as a whole and of who God or the Divine Creator really is. There are several other similiar ludicrous statements in your posts. God or the Creator created the world we live in according to many different religions from early tribal societies, through the ancient hebrews, ancient eastern religions, and early Christianity right up to their modern counterparts today. The one common bond that ties many religions together is the belief that a God, Creator or a Higher Power created all of the universe, this includes Christianity, so that higher power is part of that natural world as are we intertwined together. Your own shortsighted view of what you think religion is or is not is not based on anything logical, factual or even intellectual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is great! It reminds me of colleagues having a friendly discussion in the hallway.;)

I just want to note that there's also a really neat (yes, I said 'neat', as in Beaver Cleaver - students seem to like this 'retro' stuff) version of the flood myth in the Uncle Remus tales as well. Gotta love those crayfish!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The UN guys seem to me to be proposing "environmental religion", not as something they personally consider fact-based, but as a tool for social manipulation. "


This is great. In arguing your point that environmental religion is bunk, you make the case that all religion is bunk.


Let me swap out a few choice words..

The Vatican seem to me to be proposing "Catholicism", not as something they personally consider fact-based, but as a tool for social manipulation.


Here's how I use reverence: honor or respect felt or shown; deference; profound adoring awed respect


Does your definition differ?


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to see reverence? Present a troop of cold, hungry scouts with a warm campfire, a big pot of hot chocolate, and a Dutch oven full of hot, fresh peach cobbler. That's when you'll see reverence. Heck, I'm about to drop down to my knees in prayer just thinking about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religions, by definition, are characterized by (1) beliefs in supernatural forces/beings, (2) ritualized behaviors designed to influence the supernatural, and (3) a system of behavioral rules/ethics designed to enhance group success.


Which of the following meet all 3 criteria? Scientology, Buddhism, Wicca, Consumerism, Capitalism, environmentalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this:


"The atheists... maintain that a religion that has to be learnt

from books written by men cannot be a true one. But they don't

seem to see that besides printed books... God has given us as one

step the great Book of Nature to read; and they cannot say that

there is untruth there - the facts stand before them... I do not

suggest Nature Study as a form of worship or as a substitute for

religion, but I advocate the understanding of Nature as a step,

in certain cases, towards gaining religion" (Rovering to

Success, Robert Baden-Powell, 1930, p. 181).



Read more: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scouting/rec.scouting.issues/section-11.html#ixzz0ZPaH36Pq


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, how about conservatism as a religion. I read this about a week ago and I found it appalling.




So this group is re-translating and/or editing the Bible to make it conform to conservative political thought. To hear them say it they are merely undoing liberal influence in previous translations. Seems like they are twisting "Biblical truth" to fit and support their political beliefs.


Apparently the court of King James was crawling with liberals and socialists as some of the things that they are editing were in the KJV.


I wonder where they come down on the quote about the camel and the eye of a needle?


BTW, Michael Crichton died a little over a year ago so I fear he is unavailable to help Voyageur with his chicken plucking.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...