Nature as Sacred

[Bear Wild]

Do you know about the Alliance of Religions and Conservation?

Thank you, it is a very good organization. There have been some important efforts by Yale and Harvard as well as other schools increase understanding of ecology/environment and religion. I have been following the religious naturalism site with its discussions as well as some native American/First Americans sites discussing nature as sacred as well as some from pagan sites. I only hope that we are not too late in making people aware of what is at risk.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes. Sacredness of nature isnt religious in and of itself. A lot of religious nature lovers etc are connected because their religion opens them up to the sacredness of the world and living around them.

Hopefully, religious views would help creation and living, though. Many people see creation and other living below them.

There are nature lovers in other religions that may not consider the sacredness of nature as religious but there are religions that do. The Religious Naturalists and Pantheists see nature as sacred in and of itself. Several pagan religions consider nature as sacred as a religions belief and Many native Americans/First Americans also do.
I do agree with your hope that all who appreciate nature will help.

 

[Bear Wild]

Nature is neutral, not sacred. If we were not here "nature" would simply be a cosmic non-sequitur. Nature is also not self aware; I don't believe nature could or would even care if it existed.

Nature is sacred for those who believe it is and nature is self aware in that it has components that are self aware - examples are found in mammals and birds. We are a part of nature and I do care.

 

[Bear Wild]

Hello. Oh boy, you pressed a button for me on this topic.

To me it is simple. If you believe in a Creator God then cherishing all of Creation is our obligation. Treating nature as a commodity is evil.

Peace

Thank you.

 

[Bear Wild]

adhering to what our planet needs....yeah.....we should do
we all shall perish otherwise

but the label sacred will not stick to big business

they will do as they please until man-made law stops them

it may already be too late

Unfortunately you may be right that it could already be too late. If the entire world would wake up and take action there would be hope. Unfortunately humans have too much trouble cooperating on even simple issues. Its not until there is so much suffering that the will seem to wake up. By that time it may be too late for all of us.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes, we should. We are not separate from nature. When we abuse nature, we pay the price sooner or later because we have abused the "house" we live in.

Nicely put, thus Earnst Haeckel used the term ecology for the study of Nature's household.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are nature lovers in other religions that may not consider the sacredness of nature as religious but there are religions that do. The Religious Naturalists and Pantheists see nature as sacred in and of itself. Several pagan religions consider nature as sacred as a religions belief and Many native Americans/First Americans also do.
I do agree with your hope that all who appreciate nature will help.

Yes. I am a pantheist. I think the word sacred and spirituality and divinity is dodged because it has abrahamic implications. When I first came on RF, one person mentioned that nature 'just is' in respects that he or she is one with it but not insofar as worship. Nature is sacred because thats how we see it.

Sacredness is a name we put to nature but if you asked nature if its sacred, the great thing about it is -it just is-. Its simple and to the point. Its its own "bible". I wouldnt use sacred, though. Worshiping nature is different than being a part of it. Worship separates one from nature, pantheism (not panentheism) doesnt do that.

Maybe youre talking about panentheism where there is a worship involved at the same time nature and all earth and living are one. But Im not a panthenism since I dont worship. The good part of nature-connection is the simplicity "zen" of it.

We can either acknowledge and interact with it or not. But worship or seeing it sacred, maybe in Paganism or Neopaganism, definitely Panthenism, but from what I believe and what I know here (I havent heard of the word outside RF) its a natural part of life being a part of nature.

How we interact with it is individual, though, many apply sacredness to abrahamics so I dont know what other words they use to define their interaction with nature.

To me, simplicity is sacred in its; interacting with nature is, in itself, simple. We learn a lot about life through pantheistic point of view. Definitely not separate. Thats like calling myself sacred; not a word I would use for the interaction and one as nature and all.

 

[syo]

Can nature as sacred be practiced in harmony with most religions?

Pagan yes. Christianity I don't know. But it doesn't say in the bible ''pollute nature'', so maybe yes.

 

[BSM1]

Ahhh.... Did you invent music? What came first music or music theory?

I play an acoustic guitar, with 29 rings per inch in its sitka spruce top. Now, i can say its a dead dead dead slab of wood from a dumb dumb dumb tree. But a few bit oh magic happens with that dumb dead slab Of wood. It has a voice.

Now its voice is my voice, and my voice is its voice its dead and i am alive. A long time ago a woman walked into a room full of men, her voice aligned with the very dead, and her voice his voice became one. He has risen.

I tend to take a luthiers perspective on guitars. Luthiers tend to be rather enamored with the nature of trees.

The sum is always greater than the total of the parts.

Not sure of your point but I play a guitar that's constructed of a man-made composite. And the luthiers I know only see the tree as a means to an end, not some mystic force of the universe.

 

[sojourner]

With the present events in our world progressing with the rapid destruction the non-human part of our world and accelerating climate change, would humans be better off to treat nature as sacred?

We share a world with other life which we are intimately connected with and dependent on. Something so essential for our existence should be entitled to reverence and respect. If sacred we should give our non-human aspect of the world the respect it deserves we should then treat it with such respect. This might change our behavior towards our world and make the sacrifices needed to prevent its destruction.

Can nature as sacred be practiced in harmony with most religions?

It certainly can with Christianity. I’ll point you to a couple of books by theologian Sallie McFague:
Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age, 1987, Fortress Press
The Body of God: An Ecological Theology, 1993, Fortress Press

 

[BSM1]

Nature is sacred for those who believe it is and nature is self aware in that it has components that are self aware - examples are found in mammals and birds. We are a part of nature and I do care.

Well-duhh-anything can be sacred if you care to believe it is. Doesn't necessarily make it sacred. Seems that there's a prominent religion that holds cows as sacred. You think anyone's been condemned by eating a T-bone steak? I had a grandchild that thought Cheerios were sacred for a while. Throw a dart; whatever it lands on someone is going to say it's "sacred".

 

[David T]

Ahhh.... Did you invent music? What came first music or music theory?

I play an acoustic guitar, with 29 rings per inch in its sitka spruce top. Now, i can say its a dead dead dead slab of wood from a dumb dumb dumb tree. But a few bit oh magic happens with that dumb dead slab Of wood. It has a voice.

Now its voice is my voice, and my voice is its voice its dead and i am alive. A long time ago a woman walked into a room full of men, her voice aligned with the very dead, and her voice his voice became one. He has risen.

I tend to take a luthiers perspective on guitars. Luthiers tend to be rather enamored with the nature of trees.

The sum is always greater than the total of the parts.

Not sure of your point but I play a guitar that's constructed of a man-made composite. And the luthiers I know only see the tree as a means to an end, not some mystic force of the universe.

I have yet to actually meet a luthier that isn't a kooky artist type. There is always a deeper narrative than the one we communicate amongst ourselves as a species. Its never confined to or by what we call religion or science or any intellectual pursuit. The intellect becomes overly enamored with itself religiously and scientifically. Its our strength and or weakness. We have a very very small perspective and no magic is involved on that at all its self induced. Nature as sacred is totally "christian" actually. Its What is death what is life? Thats the question the text asks. Its actually a very grounded in nature text read by people not grounded. Are you proposing its about something other than nature? Thats what all atheists preach!!! I am certainly not that but i also dont "believe".

 

[Twilight Hue]

With the present events in our world progressing with the rapid destruction the non-human part of our world and accelerating climate change, would humans be better off to treat nature as sacred?

We share a world with other life which we are intimately connected with and dependent on. Something so essential for our existence should be entitled to reverence and respect. If sacred we should give our non-human aspect of the world the respect it deserves we should then treat it with such respect. This might change our behavior towards our world and make the sacrifices needed to prevent its destruction.

Can nature as sacred be practiced in harmony with most religions?

Could that be applied to a locust swarm?

 

[David T]

It is sad that words become empty of meaning when being repeated, but not embodied. And not experienced. Religions turn to dogma and force when they have no spiritual soul left to offer anyone.

Yes you nailed it very nicely. In the 1960s as the enviromental movement developed it attacked christianity. It was a lack of maturity, and a lack of understanding of the text. Is church confused? Yes its fulled with very "normal" people thats its weakness sometimes. I might say nature as sacred is the heart of the new testament no longer seen or understood. And like christianity even eco psychology is rapidily becoming absurd as its co-opted narratively into accedemia.

I am carrying on a rather interesting debate in regards to ken ham noahs ark thread i pushed the story back in history to pre literacy and atheists are howling at that!!!!! They seem to not understand the story makes sense if its understood nature as sacred which is how we all understood nature 20,000 years ago!!!! Seems we lost that between there and here. So yea our native american traditions were seeing nature differently than us moderns do for sure. Its in noahs ark and is a really old story retold to fit its time frame.

 

[PureX]

Yes you nailed it very nicely. In the 1960s as the enviromental movement developed it attacked christianity. It was a lack of maturity, and a lack of understanding of the text. Is church confused? Yes its fulled with very "normal" people thats its weakness sometimes. I might say nature as sacred is the heart of the new testament no longer seen or understood. And like christianity even eco psychology is rapidily becoming absurd as its co-opted narratively into accedemia.

I am carrying on a rather interesting debate in regards to ken ham noahs ark thread i pushed the story back in history to pre literacy and atheists are howling at that!!!!! They seem to not understand the story makes sense if its understood nature as sacred which is how we all understood nature 20,000 years ago!!!! Seems we lost that between there and here. So yea our native american traditions were seeing nature differently than us moderns do for sure. Its in noahs ark and is a really old story retold to fit its time frame.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religion, in particular, is based on this idea that nature is the physical expression of "God's will", and that many of the myths in the Bible are representations of that ideal. Although, now that I just wrote that, I realized that ancient taoism, which underpins most eastern religious tradition and ideology, is likewise based on the idea that the world that we live in and experience is merely a physical reflection of a mysterious "divine realm" that serves as it's archetype. And that although we cannot comprehend the workings or intentions of this "divine realm", we can align ourselves with it by aligning ourselves with the "flow of existence" as we experience it. And we can thereby fulfill our place and purpose within the 'whole of being' (divine and actual) without having to figure it all out, which is not possible for us.

So it seem that the idea that the physical world (natural world) is expressing some sort of more essential/archetypical, spiritual world, or being, is perhaps common among nearly all human theological belief systems. But that it's in how we choose to characterize this relationship that determines how we act toward the world around us (and thereby toward each other).

 

[BSM1]

I have yet to actually meet a luthier that isn't a kooky artist type. There is always a deeper narrative than the one we communicate amongst ourselves as a species. Its never confined to or by what we call religion or science or any intellectual pursuit. The intellect becomes overly enamored with itself religiously and scientifically. Its our strength and or weakness. We have a very very small perspective and no magic is involved on that at all its self induced. Nature as sacred is totally "christian" actually. Its What is death what is life? Thats the question the text asks. Its actually a very grounded in nature text read by people not grounded. Are you proposing its about something other than nature? Thats what all atheists preach!!! I am certainly not that but i also dont "believe".

Now that you mention it, the only true luthier I know reminds me of 'Doc' from "Back To The Future".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

With the present events in our world progressing with the rapid destruction the non-human part of our world and accelerating climate change, would humans be better off to treat nature as sacred?

We share a world with other life which we are intimately connected with and dependent on. Something so essential for our existence should be entitled to reverence and respect. If sacred we should give our non-human aspect of the world the respect it deserves we should then treat it with such respect. This might change our behavior towards our world and make the sacrifices needed to prevent its destruction.

Can nature as sacred be practiced in harmony with most religions?

It depends on what you mean by sacred. Sacred/Holy means set apart for God's purposes. For example, the Black Hills are especially Sacred to the Lakota. The Temple Mount is especially sacred to Jews. Mecca is especially sacred to Muslims.

But that doesn't mean that nature doesn't bear the finger print of the Divine. All creation has sublime worth because God is holy, holy, holy and the world is the creation of God.

When Hashem gave us dominion over all of creation that came with responsibilities. We are to care for his garden, which he called "good," and which gives glory to him.

 

[sojourner]

Well-duhh-anything can be sacred if you care to believe it is. Doesn't necessarily make it sacred

Yeah, it kinda does, since we are the ones who set things apart for special purposes. It’s sacred if we say it’s sacred.

 

[Bear Wild]

Could that be applied to a locust swarm?

A swarm of locust are not sacred by themselves but they are a part of a world that should be considered sacred. Interesting that you mention an aspect that is considered destructive since humans are even more destructive than locusts to the world which owe our existence too.
Nature is sacred because we are apart of nature. Its creative forces created humans so we own in respect. We cannot exist without the other living organisms that make up the natural world so we should respect other living things. We are dependent on the rest of the natural world for or existence. Why would something that important not be held sacred?

 

[Quintessence]

With the present events in our world progressing with the rapid destruction the non-human part of our world and accelerating climate change, would humans be better off to treat nature as sacred?

I'm always leery of questions that are framed in terms of "better off" as this is prescribing norms and a value judgement. I'd frame it as "would recognizing that 'person' means more than 'just human' increase awareness of the impact of human activities on non-human persons?" Keeping in mind that recognition non-humans as persons may or may not involve declarations of sacredness or divinity, the answer to that is a fairly straightforward "yes."

Where things go from there is complicated. In animistic cultures - ones that do recognize "person" means more than just "human" - seeing something as a person doesn't mean you don't kill it, destroy it, or harm it. These cultures tend to recognize the inevitability of what we might now call ecological cycles and trophic webs; matter/energy aren't created or destroyed, they flow and cycle through various systems. Destruction is a necessity, and without it, there is no creation. Animism does provoke a mindset shift, though. When non-humans are subjects for ethical consideration, you consider reciprocity. You think about things like "okay, if I destroy these trees to build this building, how am I giving back? Is this act of destruction really needed?" You'd see more stuff like this:

LandChoices: Conservation Development - learn how to preserve land and develop parts of it using conservation subdivision design

Can nature as sacred be practiced in harmony with most religions?

Given there are tens of thousands of religions I couldn't begin to guess at the quantity of religions that would be compatible with such ideas. I can only say that some definitely are not, and some definitely are. Some religious traditions are quite insistent about rejecting the divinity of anything that isn't some transcendent omnimax force. Those, for better or worse, dominate Western culture. While there have been "green" interpretations of the Bible, historically it's been used to justify "dominion" over the non-human world and treating it as an object rather than a subject. The Enlightenment reinforced that notion for much of Western culture, with its vision of the universe as some impersonal machine that can be understood through impartial sciences. There are some scholarly analyses of these things about here and there... I've read a few, but it's been some years. It suffices to say that recognizing non-humans as persons remains a distinct countercultural minority in Western cultures as a whole. It's a mainstay of my own religious demographic - contemporary Paganism and especially Druidry - but on the whole isn't very prevalent.