It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:36 am


The Roots of Cosmotheism

Fundamental ideas
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

The Roots of Cosmotheism

PostSun May 25, 2014 7:48 am

Hello Folks,

The deep historical roots of Cosmotheism are to be found in both "ancient pantheism"
and even in the modern scientific "panatheism" of Paul Harrison's WPM.
Image


See links below:
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/
and
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/variety1.htm

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

PS--The WPM is "panatheism" and not "pantheism"- as it denies the spirit/soul/consciousness of the Cosmos
all both within our own selves, as in the Cosmos as a unified Whole. It also has Judeo-Marxist-Atheist leanings,
like in their "Politically Correct" statement #4;

"All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity
and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination,
and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty."

or as can be seen linked below:

http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

or in this quoted statement:

"However, if the irrational means abandonment of science, reason and logic, then pantheists reject it.
Once these are abandoned, all beliefs are equally valid - including racism, fascism and the wildest
superstitions."

Those errors of "false reasoning" of the "panatheists" like Paul Harrison's WPM and of others
were warned about by the late Dr. Pierce here:

"Now, in choosing to commit our Cosmotheist doctrine to writing in this step-by-step way, which is the only practical way for us at this time, we make some difficulties for ourselves, and we leave ourselves open to some dangers – and I’ll talk about those in just a minute. But there’s at least one advantage to this way, in addition to the strictly practical one of not having to wait forever to have at least something down on paper. That advantage lies in stressing to ourselves – and to those we come in contact with – what’s fundamental and what’s derived. This work is first because it’s fundamental. It’s the source; it’s the essence from which everything else will grow.

So having this first will, I hope, help us all to avoid the error of putting the cart before the horse – of attaching more importance, more significance, to derived things than to fundamentals. It should remind us, and it should remind others, that Cosmotheists are not people primarily – and I stress the word primarily – interested in promoting certain racial goals, or certain social or political or economic goals. We are people primarily concerned with fulfilling our mission as the bearers of the Creator’s purpose, as agents of the universal will. That comes first.

Everything else – race, politics, culture, economics – is a means to that single end. The reason I emphasize that tonight, the reason I’ve emphasized it many times before, is that it’s easy to slip into error in this regard. We want to always make sure that one of the distinguishing features between us and others who pursue similar racial or political or social policies is that we don’t put the cart before the horse. Everyone else almost certainly will. But we alone are working for ultimate things, for eternal things, for infinite things – and we must never forget that.


Now, having noted that, we should also understand that we will have difficulty in using this pamphlet by itself in carrying out our work. The truth in it is in too concentrated a form for most people to get their minds around it very easily. They need the derivations, they need the secondary things, the specific examples and illustrations which follow from this truth, in order to begin to comprehend its meaning fully. I know that that will be the case with most ordinary people, even though I took pains to state things clearly and carefully in this pamphlet. So we’ll have to put up with some difficulties and do the best we can until we have actually produced some of those other pamphlets dealing with ethics and race and so on.

Now, beyond this difficulty, there are some real dangers inherent in the generality of our truth as expressed here. Those are the dangers of misinterpretation, of drawing false implications either accidentally or deliberately. Let me give you a couple of trivial examples.

The Path states: “Nothing in the universe exists entirely independently and of itself. Everything is a part of the Whole.” Therefore, some will reason, Whites and Blacks are brothers and we should ignore the superficial difference of race.

Another example from The Path: “We’re all parts of the Whole, which is the Creator. Our destiny is Godhood.” Therefore, it will be said, all human life is sacred, as a part of the Creator. We mustn’t hurt or kill anyone. That is, we must be pacifists and humanitarians.

Well, among ourselves, we hardly need to go to the trouble to refute these transparent errors. We hardly need to point out in the first example that in a certain sense we are indeed brothers to the Blacks – but in the same sense we are brothers to rattlesnakes, to sea urchins, and to crabgrass, and even to every stone and lump of dirt. We’re all parts of the Whole – but we don’t ignore the differences between the parts. Those differences are as essential a part of the one Reality as is the unity of all things; because it’s a dynamic reality, an evolving reality. In the second example, everything is indeed a part of the Creator and therefore partakes in the Creator’s divine nature – in the same way that every wart or pimple or blackhead on our bodies is a part of us and partakes in our nature. In that narrow sense, everything is sacred in itself. But the overriding importance lies in the particular role a thing plays. It lies in the particular way in which the thing serves the Creator’s purpose. And the fact is that not all things which are parts of the Creator serve that purpose, any more than our warts serve ours.

This is a big topic in itself; we could talk a lot more about these two errors and we could think of a lot more examples of the way in which our truth might be misinterpreted. But I just wanted to illustrate the general nature of the problem that we face, which is inherent in the inadequacy of human language itself.

We can certainly refine and improve the way in which our truth is stated, but we cannot ever entirely eliminate the danger of misinterpretation. If we were the only ones involved, that would be one thing – but we are not the only ones involved in interpreting our truth. There are many others involved. That has both its good and its bad aspects.

Many others are involved because Cosmotheism is an idea whose time has come. I told you before in earlier meetings that we can find partial expressions of Cosmotheism among the writings of the ancients, 25 centuries ago. A great many of the Greek and Roman philosophers understood parts of our truth. The same was true of the pagan philosophers of northern Europe – and also of certain outstanding Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, despite the fundamental contradictions of Cosmotheism with the teachings of the Church.

Then in the 18th and 19th centuries there was an enormous outpouring of Cosmotheist feeling. Cosmotheism, or at least one aspect of Cosmotheism, was the underlying idea of the entire Romantic movement in art and literature, from Alexander Pope to Joseph Turner and William Wordsworth. And Cosmotheism is the underlying idea of 20th century science. Today, more and more thinkers, scientific thinkers in particular, are coming to understand that fact and also to give explicit expression to that understanding.

I pointed out to you in earlier meetings some of the specifically Cosmotheist statements of some of the medieval thinkers and also some of the more modern philosphers: Hegel, Fichte, and others. The more one looks into the matter, the clearer becomes this Cosmotheist thread running through the spiritual and intellectual history of our race.

Every week I run across more and more examples. Just last Thursday someone sent me this statement by the novelist D. H. Lawrence – and I quote just a part of a longer statement by Lawrence: “We and the cosmos are one. The cosmos is a vast living body, of which we are still parts. The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve-center from which we quiver forever. . . . Now all this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.”

Hundreds of other Cosmotheist expressions by prominent men during just the last few decades can be found. There can be no doubt that our people down through the ages have been groping for the Cosmotheist truth – and today, more than ever, they are finding it. Tomorrow, it will be the dominant idea in the world.

Now it’s possible to understand just why this is our moment in history – just why the Cosmotheist trickle over the last 2500 years should have become a flood today. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this tonight, but I will just point out a confluence of things which has led to this flood. Perhaps we can talk about them in more detail at another time.

One of the things in this confluence was the reorientation of Western thought during the 19th century from an essentially static to a dynamic view of the universe. Darwin, of course, is the man who played the key role in this reorientation, though it began before him and it was not complete at the time of his death. The medieval view of the world was as a finished creation. Since Darwin, we have come to see the world as undergoing a continuous and unfinished process of creation, of evolution. This evolutionary view of the world is only about 100 years old in terms of being generally accepted.

Before that, the people who expressed Cosmotheist ideas expressed primarily their feeling of the unity of the universe, in particular of the oneness of God and man as opposed to the Church’s view. These ideas fall under the general heading of pantheism. But pantheism is only one aspect of Cosmotheism. The pantheists, at least most of them, lacked an understanding of the universe as an evolving entity and so their understanding was incomplete. Their static view of the world made it much more difficult for them to arrive at the Cosmotheist truth.


Another thing in the historical confluence leading to the acceptance of Cosmotheism today has been the drastic decline in the role of the Christian church in the last hundred years. Until fairly recently, the Church dominated the intellectual life of the West. Church doctrine, which as I just mentioned is fundamentally opposed to our truth, strongly influenced the outlook of most – in fact, nearly all – thinkers, most teachers, and most writers. Today the Church directly influences only a relatively small minority of the leading thinkers. So this fundamental barrier to the acceptance of the Cosmotheist truth, a barrier which stood for more than a thousand years, has crumbled. I don’t mean, of course, that Christianity is dead, or that the Church has no more influence. Among the masses of the people, Church doctrine is still relatively powerful – but it is no longer so among the leading minds of the West.

Finally, there is the inescapable fact that Cosmotheism is the outlook towards which one is led by modern science – whether one approaches the world microscopically or macroscopically, whether one is studying elementary particles or stellar evolution. And so I repeat – Cosmotheism is the wave of the future."

http://nationalvanguard.org/2013/07/tomorrows-religion/

"But just as we rejoice that this is so – that there are many more people now than before who are able to understand and to accept our truth – we must also be gravely concerned because of the dangers that this brings with it.

A minute ago I gave you a couple of examples of ways in which our Cosmotheist truth might be misinterpreted. We can be sure that it will be misinterpreted, both accidentally and deliberately. In fact, it is now being misinterpreted. It’s being misinterpreted accidentally – or, we might say, without malicious intent – by people who have found their way to the essence of our truth and accepted it, but who simply do not have the courage to follow that truth when it leads them into areas which have been made taboo by modern liberalism. They do not have the strength of character, the degree of independence from peer pressure, to allow themselves to draw the correct conclusions from the fundamental truth they’ve accepted when those conclusions are contrary to prevailing liberal dogma. And so they try to bend that truth, unconsciously, to yield conclusions which are socially acceptable to a degenerate and decaying society – to a society which is morally and intellectually corrupt, to a spiritually empty society.

It’s worthwhile noting here the difference in the type of opposition we face from the liberal establishment today and that which pantheist philosophers faced from the Church in past centuries. The Church was opposed to pantheism and to Cosmotheism on fundamental grounds. The Christian church had men who were genuine philosophers, true intellectuals who were deeply concerned with the nature of reality and with knowing the truth. They were wrong, but they were still sincere men concerned with fundamental ideas. When Meister Eckhart was charged with heresy in the 13th century, it wasn’t because he refused to say the Mass according to the prescribed manner or because he rejected the dogma of the virgin birth or any of the other things having to do with his duties as a priest of the Church. In all those things he was strictly orthodox. His heresy lay in his deepest philosophical writings, and the church immediately spotted this deviation and jumped on him for it.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is not at all concerned with truly fundamental ideas. Liberalism is not a philosophy but a disease of the soul. The true liberal is never a true intellectual because liberalism is fundamentally anti-intellectual. Liberalism consists of a collection of related tendencies, which at any particular time may be given concrete expression in a body of dogma. But liberal dogma is not derived from any fundamental philosophy which can be held up for comparison with Cosmotheism and the contradictions noted. And so we have a situation relative to liberalism today which is essentially different from the situation relative to the church in the past. A person who follows the herd in observing liberal dogma can nevertheless accept our truth with no danger that his liberal friends and co-workers will shun him or stone him. There’s no contradiction, no heresy, no social penalty –until one draws conclusions which don’t jibe with liberal dogma. And so there is, and will be, a strong social incentive for the people who are finding their way to the Cosmotheist truth to draw the wrong conclusions from it or to refuse to draw any conclusions at all.

Cosmotheist truth is arrived at through the synthesis of subjective and objective knowledge, or, to use the same words that are used in The Path, through the perfect union of the Creator’s immanent consciousness in man with man’s reason. Our truth comes to us through a blending of the universal consciousness in our race-soul and our genes with our reason. Thus our way at arriving at truth is fundamentally different from the way of most major religions, which depend in a very basic way on revelation, whether through oracles or prophets or what have you. It’s also different from the purely mystical, purely subjective religions of the East which are a fad among so many lost souls in the West today, just as it is different from the pure rationalism which used to be the undisputed philosophy of science until recently.

We’re not subject to the sort of problem that the revealed religions have, in which the prophets may contradict one another, or some fine morning someone may claim that he had a vision – or that an angel showed him a book written on leaves of gold – or that Jehovah appeared as a burning bush and handed him a couple of stone tablets inscribed with a new set of laws. And no Cosmotheist can get away with babbling whatever nonsense comes into his head, like the Maharaj Ji and the other yogis can, because our truth is absolute: It must agree with our observations of the universe. And, because our truth comes from the soul, it’s something toward which everyone who shares the same race-soul, the same genes, naturally gravitates. This is, as I pointed out before, is why one can find a Cosmotheist thread running through the entire length of Western spiritual history, including those periods when fundamentally opposed ideas ruled.

But despite these advantages, we do have problems. We do face dangers. As I said, one danger is that of misinterpretation so as to draw socially acceptable conclusions. There’s also the danger of deliberate perversion of our truth. The Jew, after all, even with a different race-soul, is heavily involved in the intellectual and spiritual life of the West. Despite fundamental tendencies which have historically expressed themselves in an entirely different way, he is playing a role in modern science in particular. It may be generally true that the Talmud is the typical expression of the Jewish race-soul and that the Jew with intellectual pretensions is epitomized by the modern hair-splitting, haggling lawyer. Nevertheless, some Jews have seen the Cosmotheist truth underlying modern science, and they are quite clever and quite energetic enough to try to establish for themselves a dominant position in giving expression to this truth – and in interpreting it for everyone else, so that they can blunt the danger it poses to them, and so they can turn it aside and guide it into safe channels. It would be quite naïve of us to say that Cosmotheism is our truth, not theirs, and that we have a natural advantage in interpreting it and that it would be as unnatural and awkward for a Jew to try to set himself up as a Cosmotheist as it would be for a White man to set himself up as a Talmudist and try to debate the rabbis on points of Talmudic doctrine. After all, a Jew, Baruch Spinoza, was one of the foremost expounders of pantheism in the 17th century, at a time when that was hardly a safe or a popular position for anyone to take. He was, in fact, excommunicated by his fellow Jews as a consequence. But because Spinoza was a Jew, he couldn’t help but give a Jewish flavor, a Jewish interpretation, to his pantheism. In particular, the ethical conclusions that he drew from his pantheism were strictly Jewish, and I think it’s only fair to assume that Spinoza had no ulterior motive.

We are in a rather different era today and ulterior motives abound. The danger exists and it’s a very great danger, but there is a way to overcome it – just one way. That way is to give concrete form to our truth, to spell it out not only in its generality, as in The Path, but also in all its particulars – and then to embody those particulars: the ethics, the racial policy, the social policy, and all the rest in a living, growing community of consciousness and blood. That’s what we must do, and that’s what we’re beginning to do now".


Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2013/07/cos ... he-future/

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Offline
User avatar

Kevin Alfred Strom

Site Admin

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:02 pm
  • Location: Western Pennsylvania

Re: The Roots of Cosmotheism

PostSun May 25, 2014 9:29 am

Thanks for this, Cosmotheist.

I have never before heard the term "panatheism." What are its linguistic roots, if you know, and what does it mean? Is it pronounced "pan-atheism" or "pana-theism"?

I had heard of panENtheism before, though.

What are the specific differences between pantheism, panentheism, and panatheism?

Best regards,

Kevin.
Offline
User avatar

Michael1488

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:49 pm
  • Location: New York

Re: The Roots of Cosmotheism

PostSun May 25, 2014 9:35 am

I've also never heard of "panatheism." This is the first I'm hearing of it. I would guess it's pronounced "Pan-Atheism," maybe the difference being the belief in nature as a whole without alluding to the word "God." Again, just my opinion, I must look into this futher.

Regards,

-Michael
"Freedom is not free, free men are not equal, and equal men are not free." - Richard Berkely Cotton

Always Remember O.R.I.O.N. - Our Race Is Our Nation.
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

Re: The Roots of Cosmotheism

PostSun May 25, 2014 2:26 pm

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:Thanks for this, Cosmotheist.

I have never before heard the term "panatheism." What are its linguistic roots, if you know, and what does it mean? Is it pronounced "pan-atheism" or "pana-theism"?

I had heard of panENtheism before, though.

What are the specific differences between pantheism, panentheism, and panatheism?

Best regards,

Kevin.


You are most welcome, Kevin.

To answer your question, just check out this link:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/panatheism
or this one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/panatheism?s=t
It is pronounced "pan-atheism" and not "pana-theism".

Yes, and Dr. Pierce's own Cosmotheism is actually a modern
and a scientific form of "panentheism". As the "Whole" of a
"Cosmos" is always "greater" than is the sum of its parts. It
is true with Humans as well. The Race is greater than any of
the individuals that are of and are within it. As above, so is
it below.

Image

Panentheism, Science, and Religion
09-08-2011, 08:54 PM

I'm convinced that Panentheism and appreciating Man's role within it will be the religion of the future that eventually unites science and the essence of religion assuming humanity survives its mutual rituals of self destruction long enough for its realization.

Now that it is slow here there may be some that enter who would be interested in discussing Panentheism and why it can unite science and religion. If the topic appeals to you, just say so and perhaps we may be able to exchange on it temporarily free of stone throwing.

In the meantime, here is a short article on Panentheism. It isn't easy to understand when first exposed to it but once the sublime logic of it becomes more clear, it opens doors to greater understanding.


Panentheism
by Stephen Nuttall

“Divinity is the enfolding and unfolding of everything that is.
Divinity is in all things in such a way that all things are in Divinity.”

Nicolas of Cusa (1401-1464)

Panentheism is a noun that has a marvellous ring to it, but very few people are sure of exactly what it means. Strangely, you will be hard pressed to find it in any contemporary dictionary even though the word has been in use since the early nineteenth century. It was in 1828, to be precise, that the German thinker Karl Christian Friedrich Krause originally coined the term in order to clearly delineate his own philosophy and since that time it has been retrospectively applied to a fairly wide range of philosophical schools.

Panentheism has its linguistic roots in the Greek words pan, en and Theos, and therefore literally means All-in-God. Krause qualified his overall perspective with the assertion: “Everything is in God and God is in everything, but God is more than everything.” According to this outlook, God is an essence that contains the entire universe within itself but is not exhausted by it.

Put simply, it is the premise that divinity includes the cosmos as a part though not the whole of its being. And, to one extent or another, this concept can be found at the heart of belief systems as seemingly diverse as Creation Spirituality, Gaudiya Vaishnavism (a form of Hinduism), Kabbalah, Process Theology, Shin Buddhism, Sikhism and Sufism, as well as certain kinds of Neopaganism. Moreover, although as a world-view panentheism outwardly appears to be an emerging new theology, it can actually be traced back to times prior to recorded history. Archaeological findings indicate that nearly all of the ancient hunter-gatherer societies developed a panentheistic culture. Correspondingly, modern anthropologists have discerned that the panentheistic mind-set was manifested by way of Goddess worship.

Throughout our own epoch, stretching back two millennia, Western culture has been chiefly influenced by a traditional Christian theology that always stressed the transcendence or apartness of God. Despite this, many notable Christians over the centuries – including the likes of the great medieval women theologians, Hildegard of Bingen, Mechtild of Magdeburg and Julian of Norwich, plus Nicolas of Cusa and, closer to our own time, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and John A T Robinson – were convinced of divine immanence in all worldly phenomena. In other words, like the pantheists, they recognised that the material universe was pervaded by the very presence of deity itself. In fact, in keeping with all this, Bonhoeffer aptly described God as “the Beyond that is in our midst.”

Today, Panentheism – an ism that was almost forgotten – is enjoying something of a renaissance. Not only, as previously stated, can this sublime axiom be perceived within most of the major faiths, but also it is evidently playing a role in the ongoing dialogue between science and religion.

Viewers of The Panentheist will likely be aware that contemporary scientists often speak of a quest for the Theory of Everything. Such research, succinctly described by New York University’s Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics as being at “the intersection of particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology,” ultimately leads to what has come to be termed the New Science.

Regarding what he often refers to as Neoscience, philosopher and writer Frank Parkinson has pertinently opined:

“The connection between the emerging new science and religion lies essentially, but not entirely, in the fact that the former is telling a creation story which forms the basis for a new theology and, together with evolutionary biology, provides us with a new awareness of what it means to be human. This is not a passive understanding, for in offering us a view of where the universe and the human species have come from it forces upon us a decision about where we want the species, and ourselves, to go.”

Notwithstanding this, it is important to note here the ingrained influence of theological precepts on the scientific mind. Quoting Russian physicist Andrei Linde, science writer Margaret Wertheim (New Scientist, vol. 156 issue 2102, p. 28) observed:

“He (Linde) believes that the whole of modern cosmology has been deeply influenced by the Western tradition of monotheism. "When scientists start their work," he says, "they are subconsciously influenced by their cultural traditions." In particular, the central idea of modern cosmology - that it must be possible to understand the entire Universe through one ultimate Theory of Everything - is an outgrowth of belief in one God. Thus cosmology has itself become a sort of religious quest: a search for "God" in the form of an equation.”

Seemingly then, the relationship between religion and science is, and always has been, a symbiotic one. Sallie McFague, Distinguished Theologian in Residence at the Vancouver School of Theology, is certainly one person who firmly believes that panentheism is in accord with science. She says, “Science is describing the process of creation while theology is suggesting the meaning of creation.”

Moreover, McFague attests, “God is seen not only as the agent that started the big bang, but rather as the continuing creator who is the source and power of life and love in the universe.”

A final point about panentheism worth consideration is the fact that being a holistic philosophy it refutes the notion of objective evil. For panentheists, what is deemed evil is simply a product of human subjectivity. As the renowned 20th century Unitarian theologian, Alfred Hall, remarked: “All that we mean or can mean when we say a thing is evil, is that it falls below our standard or idea of good.” The inference of this opinion is that human imperfection is but a stage both in the evolution of our species and, in a wider context, the unfolding of the cosmos.

One could argue that it is the essential integrity of panentheism, with its profound intimations of wholeness, that is probably its most inspiring feature.

The esteemed medieval Sufi mystic Kabir once sagely noted: “All know that the drop merges into the ocean, but few know that the ocean merges into the drop.”

While this still basically remains the case, evidence of the reappearance of the panentheistic viewpoint on the spiritual and intellectual horizon is definitely there for all to see. If, in time to come, this wonderful philosophical tradition proves to be a bridge between science and theology on the one hand and people of differing faiths on the other, then it will surely serve a noble purpose, not just in the search for ultimate truth, but perhaps more importantly in the cause of a much desired global harmony.

By Stephen Nuttall in 2011
First published in The Inquirer, December 2006

The "Logos Echo" is within Everything that exists.

http://logosecho.home.mindspring.com/4% ... 0Unity.htm
See:
http://logosecho.home.mindspring.com/Bo ... iption.htm
About the Author:
http://logosecho.home.mindspring.com/Book%20Author.htm
or to order here:
http://home.mindspring.com/~logosecho/

Pantheism means "All is God".
Panentheism means "All within God".
Panatheism means "All isn't God".




And here is another idea related to the above:




And where elaborated in much more detail here:




And here:




Robert Lanza is mostly correct but really only up to a point.
His view of the world is still all an entirely subjective one.

From the Oxford dictionary:
solipsism, the view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge
or the only thing really existent; subjective, existing in the mind only,
without anything real to correspond to it.

See:
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentr ... -universe/

Humans are "co-creators" of the Cosmos but a "panpsychism" within it all also
had first "created" the "objective-reality" all from the moment of the Big Bang.

A Creative Consciousness "is within all that exists" within the Cosmos,
and everything is within that "all-unified and interrelated and Creatively
Conscious Whole", and all at the same time.

That is the "Whole Cosmotheist Truth" of the late Dr. Pierce.
See these links:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-prim ... ciousness/
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_consciousness
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism


I hope all of those links do help both you Kevin and also Michael
and any others here to answer most if not all of your questions. :D

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

Re: The Roots of Cosmotheism

PostSun Aug 17, 2014 10:16 am

Hello Folks,

This is interesting relating to the historical roots of Cosmotheism.

See:

http://www.academia.edu/7692264/Coperni ... ical_Light

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jacob_Zimmermann

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism

And:

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com ... 3-01402004

This is to show that "cosmotheism" was "latent" even within
Protestant Christianity by some "heretics" like Zimmermann,
a follower of Jakob Böhme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_B%C3%B6hme

"The Signature of All Things" written by Jakob here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sat/index.htm
seems to prefigure the "Logos Echo" of Steven Romer,
of "The Textbook of the Universe" mentioned in above
post.

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1028
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: The Roots of Cosmotheism

PostMon Apr 20, 2015 1:24 am

We evolved in the forest roof to collect fruit and berries. True, after
millions of years of evolution, we've developed ICBMs and guns, and even
flung a piece of metal outside the solar system. But despite SuperColliders
containing enough titanium wire to circle the earth 16 times, we've no more
of an understanding of the universe than the first thinkers of civilization.
Where did it all come from? Why does the universe exist? Why are we here?

Our ancestors were challenged to believe that the earth was round even though
the horizon looked flat. Nothing in ordinary experience hinted at it: "If the
earth were really round," it was argued, "then the people at the bottom would
fall off." The notion of the earth as a ball of rock was nonsense 500 years
ago. Years later, people accepted it as spherical, but saying it spun around
the sun was more than they could fathom. No one could feel the earth moving.
Indeed, if we were really whirling through space at 67,000 m.p.h., then the
hair would blow off our head.

This slideshow points out eight more scientific "truths" that, if biocentrism
is correct, will be turned upside down. Switching our perspective from physics
to biology undoes some of the biggest "facts" we've been taught about the world,
including life and death, time and space, and God and the universe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-la ... 23696.html

tripping.JPG
Out There
tripping.JPG (54.44 KiB) Viewed 1892 times
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

Re: The Roots of Cosmotheism

PostMon Apr 20, 2015 10:41 am

Wade Hampton III wrote:We evolved in the forest roof to collect fruit and berries. True, after
millions of years of evolution, we've developed ICBMs and guns, and even
flung a piece of metal outside the solar system. But despite SuperColliders
containing enough titanium wire to circle the earth 16 times, we've no more
of an understanding of the universe than the first thinkers of civilization.
Where did it all come from? Why does the universe exist? Why are we here?

Our ancestors were challenged to believe that the earth was round even though
the horizon looked flat. Nothing in ordinary experience hinted at it: "If the
earth were really round," it was argued, "then the people at the bottom would
fall off." The notion of the earth as a ball of rock was nonsense 500 years
ago. Years later, people accepted it as spherical, but saying it spun around
the sun was more than they could fathom. No one could feel the earth moving.
Indeed, if we were really whirling through space at 67,000 m.p.h., then the
hair would blow off our head.

This slideshow points out eight more scientific "truths" that, if biocentrism
is correct, will be turned upside down. Switching our perspective from physics
to biology undoes some of the biggest "facts" we've been taught about the world,
including life and death, time and space, and God and the universe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-la ... 23696.html

tripping.JPG


Again, biocentrism is correct but only up to a point.

His view of the world is still all an entirely subjective one.

From the Oxford dictionary:
solipsism, the view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge
or the only thing really existent; subjective, existing in the mind only,
without anything real to correspond to it.

See:
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentr ... -universe/

Humans are "co-creators" of the Cosmos but a "panpsychism" within it all also
had first "created" the "objective-reality" all from the moment of the Big Bang.

A Creative Consciousness "is within all that exists" within the Cosmos,
and everything is within that "all-unified and interrelated and creatively
conscious Whole", and all at the same time, and all from the beginning.

That is the "Whole Cosmotheist Truth" of the late Dr. Pierce.

See these links:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-prim ... ciousness/
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_consciousness
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
And:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1985

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

Return to Religion and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest