Participants in this conference might find this interesting:

             members.aol.com/Heraklit1/index.htm

It's a site devoted to "Scientific Pantheism," which it calls "the
religion for the Third Millenium."  There is a long section about the
relationship between Scientific Pantheism and paganism, which the
author sees as the relationship between theory and practice.  (Or at
least one kind of practice.)

Here's a brief excerpt from the first page:

"What Pantheism believes.

At the heart of pantheism is reverence of the universe as divine
and for the natural earth as sacred.

When we say THE UNIVERSE IS DIVINE we are not talking about a 
supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our 
emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that 
surrounds us.

We are part of the universe. Our earth was created from the universe and 
will one day be reabsorbed into the universe. 

We are made of the same matter and energy as the universe. We are not in 
exile here: we are at home. It is only here that we will ever get the 
chance to see the divine face to face. If we believe our real home is 
not here but in a land that lies beyond death - if we believe that the 
divine is found only in old books, or old buildings, or inside our head 
- then we will see this real, vibrant, luminous world as if through a 
glass darkly.

The universe creates us, preserves us, destroys us. It is deep and old 
beyond our ability to reach with our senses. It is beautiful beyond our 
ability to describe in words. It is complex beyond our ability to fully 
grasp in science. We must relate to the universe with humility, awe, 
reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding - in 
other words, in many of the ways that believers relate to their God.

This divinity is everywhere inside you and outside you and you can never 
be separated from it.  Whatever else is taken from you, this can never 
be taken from you.

Wherever you are, it's there with you.
Wherever you go, it goes with you.
Whatever happens to you, it remains with you.

When we say THE EARTH IS SACRED, we mean it with just as much commitment 
and reverence as believers speaking about their church or mosque, or the 
relics of their saints. But again we are not talking about supernatural 
beings. We are saying this: 

We are part of nature. Nature made us and at our death we will be 
reabsorbed into nature. We are at home in nature and in our bodies. This 
is where we belong. This is the only place where we can find and make 
our paradise, not in some imaginary world on the other side of the 
grave. If nature is the only paradise, then separation from nature is 
the only hell. When we destroy nature, we create hell on earth for other 
species and for ourselves.

Nature is our mother, our home, our security, our peace, our past and 
our future. We should treat natural things and habitats as believers 
treat their temples and shrines, as sacred - to be revered and preserved 
in all their intricate and fragile beauty."

33 responses total.

Interesting.  What did you think of it?  Which bits do you support or disagree
with?

I really identify with this strongly. I dont' like the nihilist undercurrent,
though (when we die, we cease to be...)

Re #1, I was very interested when I first found it.  Many of the
sources the author cites in his "quotations" pages are my fave
writers (Wordsworth, Emerson, etc.)  I also liked the idea of a
more or less formal "theology" for paganism.  He does seem a little
absolutist in some of his positions (e.g. the humanist [I wouldn't
say "nihilist"] undercurrent that Paul objects to), and I definitely
parted company with him on a couple of issues.  For example, somewhere
he recommends lava lamps, wave machines and plasma globes as tools
for meditation.  What's wrong with stuff you don't have to plug in?

All in all, I'd call it a very good start.

true, it occurred to me after i posted that nihilist was a mighty strong
word...

Wow, this does sound very interesting - and also more or less in line with
what I've been thinking recently anyway.  I will definitely have to check this
out.  Thanks, md

I read through a few more of the pages, and it indeed sounds appropraite. 
I also disagree with him on a few small points, and I don't think I could
literally belive a lot of what he says, but it is a very interesting place
to think from, and there are some ideas that really struck a chord with me.
I'll have to think about this more.

I am a young seeker, looking for someone that could perhaps teach me. I am
very willing to learn anything. Does anyone need an apprentice?

Lesson #1:  Be very very careful what you learn, and that it has meaning to
you.  Don't just "learn anything."  
Lesson #2:  Feel what you need, don't just "learn" it.
<font dissapears in a mysterious cloud of smoke>

and perhaps a Lesson #3:  Do what works for you, not just what is claimed to
work.

   and lesson 4: question *everything* that you learn as vigorously
as you can. should you ever encounter a "teacher" who expects you to
regard him/her as the final, absolute authority, flee. immediately.
don't look back. 

agreed.

        Void's #4 seems to be violently at odds with font's #1 - if you're
searching for a particular thing, the pattern-recognition engine in your
mind will gladly oblige you.  

I contain multitudes.  :-) But also, the two can co-exist, jazz...
I mean if you don't listen to what someone is saying, how will you 
know that they are saying that they are the know all and be-all?
<shrug>

        Hey, I used to think _Stay_ by Shakespear's Sister was a wonderfully
romantic song, until I learned it was supposed to be sung by a Catwoman from
Mars for her astronaut lover, and that "you'd better hope and pray that you
make it safe back to your own world" was quite literal and unpoetic. :)

?

        Well, it destroyed the poetry for me.  I told a friend, and she said,
"Yeah, well, Gabriel's _Kiss that Frog_ was really about oral sex, too."  I
re-listened to the song and almost threw up.  I've since not tried to explain
my dissappointment to my friends.

What's wrong with a song about oral sex?

Hey, if a woman performs oral sex on me, I'm quite willing to
treat her lke a princess.  >8)

<rotflol>

What's wrong with having your own private interpertation of a song?  As an
artist, I am fully aware that not everyone will take pictures, songs, etc
in the same way as I intended.  In fact, my own art is one of the few places
where I will keep my mouth shut about it's meaning and listen to other people
talk about it, and usually they come up with equally valid and  beautiful
meanings to the art as what drove me to do it.  
Oh, and I don't have any problems with oral sex... I just thought that this
point should be pointed out.

For that matter, Tool's "Stinkfist" is literally about anal fisting, but
that's hardly what the song's "about."

Well, whether or not you have any problems with oral sex, I imagine it would
be something of a dissappointment to discover that your associations with a
song aren't 'valid'.

Why aren't they? Just because the author had some other thought in mind, why
does that make your interpretation "invalid"?

        Because the song's not about Bleu Cheese, either, and anyone who
has listened to it and believes it's about Bleu Cheese isn't paying attention
to the song at all.

        Accepting that people will make their own interpretations of anything
which is less than clear-cut (and many things that are), and that people often
carry an enormous amount of emotional and perceptual baggage into their
interpretations, doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid.

that's your baggage, dude. Poetry and art mean whatever the interpretant want
it to mean, to the interpretant.

Then again, I'm a radical subjectivist.

Way back in response #7, Vamp asked for help finding a teacher and a
direction.  We began with some cautions about when a teacher is suspect.
 Does anyone have positive suggestions or comments about the learning/
teaching process?  About working as a solitary (by contrast)?  About
useful sources of information?
Vamp, I have a couple of questions for you (if you're still around...)-
a) *how* young a "very young seeker" are you?  There can be some concerns
about parental permission and liability, and also, in suggesting books,
it's a good thing not to choose ones that require a certain degree of
experience to make any sense, if I'm talking to someone "very young".
b)what avenues have you explored, or what sort of interests and experiences
are prompting you to ask this question?  It would help to know how to
direct you, if I have some notion of what you're looking for.

Well, as for 'working as a solitary'...
When I first discovered paganism, it was actually by drifting into this
conference and reading what people had to say.  I was fascinated, never really
having realized that religions other than the big 'name-brand' ones were
available.  Unfortunately, I also had absolutely no clue what I was doing,
nobody to point me in the right direction, and no inclination to look very
hard.  So, I wound up slapping together a few 'neat ideas' I'd had and calling
it paganism.
Well, eventually I relized that religion consists of more than slapping a
label on yourself, and started looking in earnest.  I think had I gone into
it with a different attitude, I might have been able to work well as a
solitary from the beginning, but I think also that it would have been much
easier to have someone to guide me from the beginning, so I wouldn't have
needed to make that sort of mistake.

Um...what's a mistake?  (I think I know...but I want it to be demonstrated
for the benefit of the watching public..)
also:  which is better?  Learning by rote or learing from your own mistakes?
(or being shown how? or a combination?)  I like to tackle things on my own,
so I may not be avery good person to answer this.  (after all...I am also very
careful and paranoid...I had some rash and angry people to watch do all the
wrong things so I sorta knew where *not* to go...as well as being guided by
my own concience..or at least what *I* think is wrong. <font bows humbly>

        The ideal learning is deep learning;  not just the hows and the
methods, but the whys and wherefores.

The Mistake:  It's actually a lot harder to phrase this than I would have
thought...  Insidious little typeface...
The mistake was thinking that I could take on religion without changing 
myself - thinking that I could pick and choose beliefs that would fit with
the way I was already living.  There's more to this game than just choosing
rules that let you do whatever you're already doing, to put it a bit more
bluntly than necessary.  
And I still don't think I'm really ready.  I still am not really capable of
having enough faith or trust in a belief that I can make significant changes
in the way I life, or in who I am, solely on the grounds that what I believe
tells me I should.

        A lot of people do just that, though - they pick and choose beliefs
according to what's convenient, comfortable, or "feels right" for them
personally. 

        While I give a certain amount of stock to what "feels right", I was
trained at far too early an age to treat everything with enough cynicism to
take nothing on faith and to attempt to hold everything to the candle.

Yes, but "feels right" and "doesn't take any work" are _very_ different.  

But would you invest anything into that which doesn't take any work?
IMHO, a part of spirituality is discovery, often about yourself.
(for me, a very large part)  (something tells me that this is a part of your
point...at least the first line of my response)

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss