Could Pagan "nature worship" actually destroy nature?

[Wolke]

Those in the Neo-Pagan world who are attracted to the worship of elementals and nature spirits instead of the Divine Spirit may actually be seducing and corrupting those spirits, even if, to begin with, they are basically benign, or neutral. If you were being worshipped by thousands of devotees because they were fascinated by you and believed that their contact with you could give them magical powers, wouldn't you be seriously tempted? Wouldn't you be influenced to forget that your only duty is to remember God and obey His will? The nature spirits are also duty-bound to remember and obey the Source of All Life; insofar as they do so, they become conduits which allow the Divine energy of the Holy Spirit to flow into and sustain the natural world. But if they forget that duty in their desire to fascinate and dominate their human worshippers, that flow of vital energy may be cut off. So it may be true that to worship the natural world, instead of contemplating God by means of it, is actually destructive to it, that an egotistical fascination for the nature spirits may in fact be the subtle-plane archetype of the destruction of the natural world by human greed and technology. Charles Upton, The System of Antichrist, page 340.

 

[Sees]

Whole lot of stuff that doesn't make any sense outside of a specific, narrow school of thought.

Which neo-pagans actually worship nature spirits in the sense talked about here besides the ones imagined by non neo-pagans?

 

[outhouse]

Those in the Neo-Pagan world who are attracted to the worship of elementals and nature spirits instead of the Divine Spirit may actually be seducing and corrupting those spirits, even if, to begin with, they are basically benign, or neutral.

I don't buy a single word of that spiritual nonsense regarding nature.

Spirits do not exist scientifically, thus you have no scientific data to suggest damage of any kind.

This makes post like this rather redundant, doesn't it?

 

[Quintessence]

Er... Neopagans don't believe there's some overarching one-god that elementals or nature spirits would have a duty to. All this talk about some singular "Divine Spirit" and "Source" and "God" in proper case does not apply to Paganisms, contemporary or otherwise. This pretty much wipes your entire argument, because it doesn't actually apply to what we actually believe. That, and I think you're not understanding the nature of worship in Neopaganism, nor how various gods/spirits are understood in general.

 

[Me Myself]

I gave a prayer to my garden flower and it whithered

Maybe if we all worship pollution...!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I love it when a neopagan has a "nature is my religion" bumper sticker on their SUV.

 

[Quintessence]

I love it when a neopagan has a "nature is my religion" bumper sticker on their SUV.

I'm sorry, but why?

I think you're falsely assuming that all Neopagans are rabid, foaming at the mouth environmentalists who think all technology is evil and that cars are abominations and not part of nature.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm sorry, but why?

I think you're falsely assuming that all Neopagans are rabid, foaming at the mouth environmentalists who think all technology is evil and that cars are abominations and not part of nature.

I'm not. But I do find it funny that many who "worship nature" would display that on one of the biggest hazards to nature in the world. I found it humorous. I know quite a few and would I be wrong to assume that the nature worshiping neo-pagan religions such as wicca or Druidism are not more consistently environmentally friendly?

Its like writing save the trees on paper.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not. But I do find it funny that many who "worship nature" would display that on one of the biggest hazards to nature in the world. I found it humorous.

I don't find it humorous at all, I find it depressing. Depressing, because no matter how much wants to uphold a responsible environmental ethic, traditional Western culture makes it impossible to do so. At best, you can do little things here and there. You can't do everything. Inevitably, you're going to be a "hypocrite" somewhere. Not everybody has the good fortune of being able to live in a society that actually allows them to live in accord with their values. Survival comes first. And if a person needs a car with four-wheel drive because their job is out in the country and they need a vehicle that handles gravel roads and rugged terrain? What, are they supposed to quit their job, fall into poverty, and live homeless on the streets?

Depressing. It's sickeningly depressing that being homeless in our society is probably one of the most environmentally-friendly lifestyle choices you could make. It's not particularly realistic to expect people to do that. And doing that doesn't solve the fundamental problems that plague our society's backwards approach to environmental ethics.

 

[Wolke]

The problem with internet forums in general is that most of the members are casual readers who want to voice their opinion on everything but lack the knowledge or mental capacity to comment on anything except the most superficial aspects of the topic at hand. The present discussion offers a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. For example while the original argument concerns the effects that nature worship in general, and the worship of elemental spirits in particular, might have on the natural order, it has been objected that the name "Paganism" or "Neopaganism" does not apply to the worship of nature and elemental spirits, as if this would constitute a refutation of the argument itself. It is much easier for the casual reader who wishes to contradict the original poster to say that a given word isn't being used correctly than to say anything relating to the obvious referent of that word, which in this case is the worship of nature and elemental spirits. Although the worship of nature and elemental spirits is something to which the term Paganism legitimately applies, yet by whatever name you call it, such practice exists. If you don't think that some people worship nature and elemental spirits, then you are not sufficiently informed to have a legitimate opinion on this topic. As a former Neopagan, I can assure you that many people (who often call themselves Pagans, Wiccans, Druids, etc) worship nature and elemental spirits. But as I will not permit the thread to get derailed by a pointless discussion on this trivial point, I have nothing further to say on this head. If you believe that the word "Paganism" does not apply to the worship of nature and elemental spirits, I will not contradict you; just substitute every instance of the word "Paganism" or "Neopaganism" with the phrase, "the worship of nature and elemental spirits"; and if you don't believe that people who worship nature and elemental spirits even exist, then you ought to do some research on this topic before commenting, for there are millions of people past and present who worship nature and elemental spirits. Secondly, while it has been objected to the argument on the ground that Neopagans don't believe in a single God that is hierarchically superior to the elemental spirits, yet the argument was not framed in terms of Neopagan beliefs. Such a God exists whether or not Neopagans believe in Him. It is not a question of what Neopagans believe but what they might actually be doing to the natural order, irrespective of their beliefs on the matter. Next, it adds nothing of value to the discussion to assert that I don't understand Paganism (despite having been a Pagan for the greater part of my life) unless you provide us with the correct understanding. Just because I consider Paganism to be a false religion, doesn't mean that I don't understand it; I reject Paganism because I understand it. Finally, to the atheists and materialists who deny the very existence of God as well as elemental spirits: Debates usually require an agreement on basic premises; in the context of biological evolution for instance it would be impossible to have a meaningful discussion concerning the details of punctuated equilibrium with someone who denies the theory of evolution entirely. So why are you even participating in this discussion? If I were to discuss this with you, we would have to discuss the existence of God, then the existence of elemental spirits, then the metaphysical framework in which both of these are to be understood. But these topics can be discussed elsewhere; they don't have to be introduced into every debate about religious topics, any more than Creationism has to be addressed every time someone talks about evolution. I will save my refutations of atheism and materialism for other threads. (Although it was not my intention, I hope this paragraph is long enough to deter casual and superficial readers.)

 

[Poeticus]

Those in the Neo-Pagan world who are attracted to the worship of elementals and nature spirits instead of the Divine Spirit may actually be seducing and corrupting those spirits, even if, to begin with, they are basically benign, or neutral. If you were being worshipped by thousands of devotees because they were fascinated by you and believed that their contact with you could give them magical powers, wouldn't you be seriously tempted? Wouldn't you be influenced to forget that your only duty is to remember God and obey His will? The nature spirits are also duty-bound to remember and obey the Source of All Life; insofar as they do so, they become conduits which allow the Divine energy of the Holy Spirit to flow into and sustain the natural world. But if they forget that duty in their desire to fascinate and dominate their human worshippers, that flow of vital energy may be cut off. So it may be true that to worship the natural world, instead of contemplating God by means of it, is actually destructive to it, that an egotistical fascination for the nature spirits may in fact be the subtle-plane archetype of the destruction of the natural world by human greed and technology. Charles Upton, The System of Antichrist, page 340.

The problem with internet forums in general is that most of the members are casual readers who want to voice their opinion on everything but lack the knowledge or mental capacity to comment on anything except the most superficial aspects of the topic at hand. The present discussion offers a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. For example while the original argument concerns the effects that nature worship in general, and the worship of elemental spirits in particular, might have on the natural order, it has been objected that the name "Paganism" or "Neopaganism" does not apply to the worship of nature and elemental spirits, as if this would constitute a refutation of the argument itself. It is much easier for the casual reader who wishes to contradict the original poster to say that a given word isn't being used correctly than to say anything relating to the obvious referent of that word, which in this case is the worship of nature and elemental spirits. Although the worship of nature and elemental spirits is something to which the term Paganism legitimately applies, yet by whatever name you call it, such practice exists. If you don't think that some people worship nature and elemental spirits, then you are not sufficiently informed to have a legitimate opinion on this topic. As a former Neopagan, I can assure you that many people (who often call themselves Pagans, Wiccans, Druids, etc) worship nature and elemental spirits. But as I will not permit the thread to get derailed by a pointless discussion on this trivial point, I have nothing further to say on this head. If you believe that the word "Paganism" does not apply to the worship of nature and elemental spirits, I will not contradict you; just substitute every instance of the word "Paganism" or "Neopaganism" with the phrase, "the worship of nature and elemental spirits"; and if you don't believe that people who worship nature and elemental spirits even exist, then you ought to do some research on this topic before commenting, for there are millions of people past and present who worship nature and elemental spirits. Secondly, while it has been objected to the argument on the ground that Neopagans don't believe in a single God that is hierarchically superior to the elemental spirits, yet the argument was not framed in terms of Neopagan beliefs. Such a God exists whether or not Neopagans believe in Him. It is not a question of what Neopagans believe but what they might actually be doing to the natural order, irrespective of their beliefs on the matter. Next, it adds nothing of value to the discussion to assert that I don't understand Paganism (despite having been a Pagan for the greater part of my life) unless you provide us with the correct understanding. Just because I consider Paganism to be a false religion, doesn't mean that I don't understand it; I reject Paganism because I understand it. Finally, to the atheists and materialists who deny the very existence of God as well as elemental spirits: Debates usually require an agreement on basic premises; in the context of biological evolution for instance it would be impossible to have a meaningful discussion concerning the details of punctuated equilibrium with someone who denies the theory of evolution entirely. So why are you even participating in this discussion? If I were to discuss this with you, we would have to discuss the existence of God, then the existence of elemental spirits, then the metaphysical framework in which both of these are to be understood. But these topics can be discussed elsewhere; they don't have to be introduced into every debate about religious topics, any more than Creationism has to be addressed every time someone talks about evolution. I will save my refutations of atheism and materialism for other threads. (Although it was not my intention, I hope this paragraph is long enough to deter casual and superficial readers.)

^Anti-Pagan conjecture.

 

[Quintessence]

^Anti-Pagan conjecture.

I'm sorry, Wolke, but that's really how your posts are coming across.

My objections to the OP were not grounded in questioning whether or not some Neopagans revere the elements and nature sprits. For crying out loud, this describes my own path, though I tend to use the word 'gods' to describe these forces. The primary objection I had was this nonsense:

Secondly, while it has been objected to the argument on the ground that Neopagans don't believe in a single God that is hierarchically superior to the elemental spirits, yet the argument was not framed in terms of Neopagan beliefs. Such a God exists whether or not Neopagans believe in Him.

Okay, I might be willing to entertain this notion, but I don't think you're grasping my objection here. Trying to claim our religious practices could destroy the very gods we worship and couching the argument in classical monotheism is not going to appeal to anybody who rejects classical monotheism. There are fair arguments that can be made for the point you're trying to reach, but if you're going to get there, you need to do so in terms that the other side actually accepts. You're never going to get most Neopagans to swallow the premises you've laid out, because for the most part, we flatly reject the existence of the one-god. Or, if we accept the existence of the one-god, we simply do not share the metaphysical assumptions about this "duty" talk that you're asserting. Because of this, the argument automatically reads as nonsense; it doesn't speak to us, it doesn't apply to our theology, and it can easily be disregarded as just so much anti-Pagan rantings. Which really, that's what it is. Especially since you're couching it in a theology we reject. if you want to fairly assess a given religion without coming across as patronizing and insulting, you need to do so from a perspective that's grounded in it's own worldview, NOT one that is grounded in someone else's. Ethnocentrism is unsightly, sir.

But sure. Let's entertain this theological notion that most Neopagans completely disagree with. Let's pretend there's some one-god that all of our gods are somehow bound to and have a duty towards even though there is no evidence of this whatsoever from our perspective. It still doesn't follow that worship of the gods would "destroy nature."

First, it's being assumed that the gods are necessarily corrupted by being given demonstrations of gratitude and respect, which is nonsense. You can't prove that, and given we're dealing with non-human aspects of reality, it really doesn't make sense to project human responses onto them, much less assume the responses would be universally the same across all of the gods.

Second, everything is nature. Even assuming a minority of gods somehow turn into egomaniacal jerks because we say "thank you" to them, at most, nature is transformed into something else. Reality will continue to exist, regardless. I'm pretty darned sure there's no risk of the entire universe collapsing into some supermassive black hole because a single hairless ape on a single planet decided to give respect and thanks to the gods.

Third, there's at least half a dozen steps in the logic that are missing in the opening post. I really, truly don't understand how you're getting from "people paying respect and reverence for the gods" to "gods destroying themselves and all of reality." It makes no bloody sense, sir. And that's part of why I said you simply don't understand Neopaganism or our gods. But I suspect you're not interested in understanding, you're interested in projecting foreign theology onto us to judgmentally damn and demean us, so go figure.

 

[Riverwolf]

You know, the title of the thread almost had me. After all, it's possible that some rituals may have negative effects in terms of pollutants or other problems (example: bonfires on midsummer in a heavily-polluted or very dry region would be an EXTREMELY bad idea.) Such things definitely should be taken into consideration.

Then you started talking about spirits, and a singular God which I don't believe in, and all that was lost. Simply saying "God exists whether you believe in him or not" is not going to deter any of us, as I could just as easily say "the God of Abraham is nothing more than El the Sky King God of Canaan, one of many Gods, whether you believe that or not", and it would have the same effect because the statement is equally flawed in terms of argumentation.

 

[Poeticus]

What's even more absurd is the following:

I reject Paganism because I understand it.

No. You do not understand Paganism.

 

[Riverwolf]

No. You do not understand Paganism.

Yup. Understanding Paganism through the lens of Abrahamic religions is not understanding Paganism.

 

[Quintessence]

You know, the title of the thread almost had me. After all, it's possible that some rituals may have negative effects in terms of pollutants or other problems (example: bonfires on midsummer in a heavily-polluted or very dry region would be an EXTREMELY bad idea.) Such things definitely should be taken into consideration.

Oh, yeah. That's the sort of thing I was thinking about when I saw the thread title too. I've seen practices described in many a book that are not particularly sensitive to the environment. Granted calling it "destroying nature" is a gross exaggeration, but the point stands that some practices aren't thought through. A typical book on candle magic will talk about burying the remains of your candle out in the woods somewhere. Wax candles - even if it's made from a more "natural" wax like beeswax - don't exactly biodegrade quickly. You're burying litter in the middle of that forest. A better suggestion is to tell people to hold onto their candle leftovers and make them into a new candle! Plus, that's a heck of a lot more fun.

 

[outhouse]

The problem with internet forums in general is that most of the members are casual readers who want to voice their opinion on everything but lack the knowledge or mental capacity to comment on anything except the most superficial aspects of the topic at hand.

I have to ask if you were looking in a mirror when you wrote this? :sarcastic

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't find it humorous at all, I find it depressing. Depressing, because no matter how much wants to uphold a responsible environmental ethic, traditional Western culture makes it impossible to do so. At best, you can do little things here and there. You can't do everything. Inevitably, you're going to be a "hypocrite" somewhere. Not everybody has the good fortune of being able to live in a society that actually allows them to live in accord with their values. Survival comes first. And if a person needs a car with four-wheel drive because their job is out in the country and they need a vehicle that handles gravel roads and rugged terrain? What, are they supposed to quit their job, fall into poverty, and live homeless on the streets?

Depressing. It's sickeningly depressing that being homeless in our society is probably one of the most environmentally-friendly lifestyle choices you could make. It's not particularly realistic to expect people to do that. And doing that doesn't solve the fundamental problems that plague our society's backwards approach to environmental ethics.

I laugh at depressing things.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is an interesting topic. If that is true, wouldn't the nature spirits just ignore the worship given them by humans? It's like people who worship Angels, I would think the Angels would just direct them to worship God as they did in the Bible.

 

[Wolke]

Quintessence,

It is true that the argument presupposes the existence of God. I also acknowledge the existence in a certain sense of the Pagan gods, but I prefer to call them elemental spirits, angels, devils, or the powers of the air mentioned in Ephesians 2:2 (the "air" denoting the etheric dimension which appears to be separated from the world of the five senses by the electromagnetic spectrum). The elemental spirits are worshiped or invoked by the votaries of Freemasonry, Wicca, Druidry, and other Pagan and Luciferian cults. Since the elemental spirits connect nature with the Creator of all things, I think it is wise to inquire as to what effects the worship and invocation of these beings might have upon the natural order. The original post offers a speculative answer to this question, but it is not baseless conjecture. It is educated speculation based upon true religion in the light of traditional metaphysics. The thread title is an open question; it is not intended to be construed as a definitive statement of fact.

Paganism I believe is a false religion, but it contains many a truth. It is a deterioration of the primordial religion that prevailed before the Fall of Man (which is to say, before the separation of human consciousness from its Source; an event in archetypal not linear time). In the primordial religion, which is based on the metaphysic of pure virgin nature rather than religious doctrine, God was seen in everything -- in earth, sky, moon, sun, ocean, etc. But due to the Fall of Man, these symbols degenerated into uncomprehended idols or "gods"; while the Creator of all things, no longer a vital presence in the lives of men, faded into a distant memory. A period of spiritual darkness descended upon humanity, lasting for many generations... until at last God revealed Himself to us in the form of the revealed religions. The rebirth of Paganism is thus a regression of the human species which in these latter times of the Kali Yuga will only add to the spiritual turmoil that will pave the way for the Antichrist... (BTW an invaluable remnant of the primordial religion has survived among those "primitive" peoples who have retained some conception of the Great Spirit, even if they consider Him to be too distant to be addressed directly. The American Indians are not "Pagans" in the true sense of the word, despite the clumsy misunderstandings of overzealous Christians who label any religion they don't comprehend as "Paganism" or heathenry - even misconceiving Hinduism to be a form of polytheistic idolatry, when it actually possesses the purest metaphysical formulation of the saving Truth that Christianity conveys through its own symbolism; but I digress.)

You claim that nature is "everything", but this is an error; for Nature is Substance. Hence, to say that Nature is everything implies either that everything is Substance, which is to deny Essence, or implies a misidentification of nature with Essence, which is to confuse Substance with Essence. The elemental spirits are not Substance but eternal essences which in relation to man are "personified" or incarnated in the world in which we live. They hold a very powerful position within the hierarchy of being that has God at its apex. If they should exalt themselves as gods instead of glorifying and submitting to their Creator, why wouldn't this introduce an imbalance in the cosmic order? You say they won't succumb to that temptation, but you have no way of knowing this. Pagan nature worship may be a perfectly harmless activity in itself, but with our very limited knowledge of the ways of the elemental spirits, and in the light of the revealed religions which have been sent to us from heaven to remind us of God, we must regard all "nature worship" as a potential danger of cosmic proportions. It can only serve to please the vanity of nature spirits, who may or may not respond to such flattery. And this is all based on the optimistic assumption that they are not actually devils in disguise.

I would rather discuss the topic at hand than respond to personalisms, but since you have asserted that I don't understand paganism and that I look down upon pagans, I will say a couple of things about myself, for which I apologise to everyone in advance, as there is nothing about me that is remotely interesting or worth knowing. I am a former Pagan. I do not look down upon Neopagans. I consider them as my misguided fellow men who have been lead astray by ideas that are aesthetically attractive but spiritually vacuous. I am not a dogmatist when it comes to religion, but I am not a subjectivist or relativist either; I seek the truth, and truth does not depend upon anyone's beliefs. Because I am guided only by a desire to know the truth, wherever it may lead me, even if it should lead me to atheism and death (though as God has revealed himself to me, I am immune to both afflictions), I have a right to discern between the true and false in religion; and therefore I do not apologise for bluntly stating that Paganism is a false religion. Just because you are a pagan does not mean that you are a better authority on paganism than anyone else, or that anyone who rejects your religion has no understanding of it. If I made a statement which betrays a misunderstanding, then you ought to offer the correct understanding. If you merely assert that I don't understand something without explaining my error, I believe you make that assertion only because you disagree with me, not because I have displayed an actual misunderstanding.