Talk:Cosmotheism
"Those worried by the comments of the anonymous re-editor that cosmotheism is an ancient belief tainted by neo-Nazis can note that the "cosmotheism.net" Web site, cited as proof of the ancient lineage, has a home-page dedication to William Pierce, who died in 2002."
Does it really matter if any "neo-Nazi", William Pierce or not, believes in Pantheism/Cosmotheism or not?
The Truth is the Truth regardless of "whom" believes in it, just as the logical and rational mathematical formula or equation of 1 + 1 = 2 still ALWAYS remains true, totally regardless of "who" states it or who "believes" in it.
Hello all
It is clear we disagree on many things. That is antithetical to the inclusionary concept of pantheism. If the two of you can't find a way to agree on the content of this article, or at least civilly allow it to be steadilly improved, I will personally excomunicate you from my local 76th chapter of the american philanthropic pantheist society. Cheers mates Jack 05:11, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How about this?
A new version. In the US at least, "cosmotheism" is so closely intertwined with white seperatists that it would be misleading to ignore that point - but this version puts the dictionary definition first, as well as it should, as it really is the most objective definition.
Does anybody have any good reference material showing when this word originated?
Yes, the term "Cosmotheism" is Ancient Egyptian-Greek in origin, and the 1912 edition of Websters' Dictionary has the modern defintion of "Cosmotheism" as being synonyous with authentic or with Classical "Pantheism".
It appears to be quite modern, even if it purports to embrace ancient beliefs - I can't find any reference pre-dating Pierce, but I don't have the best reference material to work with.
- yeah, well it is an ancient word. Its greek, or whatever. Cosmo, meaning the world, and theism, meaning God believing. You put the two together and make a concept. Apparently the modern word is a synonym with Pantheism, distinct primarily in that it is used by some Nazi guys church. Anyways, its not a new word, and the concept (according to my Pantheistic POV) is present thruout all history, in aspects of many major religions (certainly Judaism and Hinduism), by no means exclusive to any one religious institution, Nazi or Marxist or what-have-you Jack 11:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- The word may have ancient roots, but is it an ancient word? Lots of newly coined terms have Greek/Roman roots. I'm curious whether anybody actually *used* it before Pierce?
Of course, the term "COSMOTHEISM" has been used to describe Classical "Pantheism" at least long since before 1912, long before Dr. William Pierce of the National Alliance was even born.
You will also find the term "Cosmotheism" in the Encyclopedia Britainia and in many other such reputable reference and research works.
- I donno... maybe anonymous user does? Care to share, oh mysterious stranger? Jack 23:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I just have, and I will always continue to "revert" as long as the article descriptions on those topics remain inaccurate and PC-Marxist-Pan-Atheistic nonsense and propaganda verses being the "objective truth".
Stop reverting
I don't agree that content posted by anonymous user was bad enough to revert.
He clearly knows alot about this subject, and while he has brought himself into question on issues of style and NPOV, I would like for him to learn the ways of wiki. reverts are not encouraging to new users. Thank you for your time Jack 03:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thank you. :D
- I often do edit the revert, so you can consider it an extensive rewriting rather than a plan revert. I tried a rewrite or two, but without much success, as you'll see, and it's easier to start with the revert rather than rewriting the whole shlemiel.
(Take a look at the talk on pseudo-pantheism for a sense of the difficulties.)
It will continue there, too, just as long as any "description" there remains both either Marxist-PC-"biased" and/or Marxist-PC-"inaccurate".
The anonymous poster seems unaware of what cosmotheism is, rather than how it's defined in some book - it's as if somebody wrote an item on communism that said "the philosophy that everybody should share fairly" and kept removing any comment about Stalin or Mao - DavidWBrooks 03:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am most likely more "an expert" on the topic of Classical Pantheism or Cosmotheism, including the "unique interpretation" of Dr. William L. Pierce, than almost anyone else you are likely to meet.
By the way, have caution researching this topic online. Every "cosmotheism" related Web page I have gone to, with more than a dictionary definition, has been a white-supremicist page, two of which have tried to hijack my system with spyware.
Apparently, you just have not seen:
http://www.cosmotheism.net
which is NOT any "white-supremicist" webpage, whatsoever.
Which "cosmotheism" webpage has really ever tried to "hi-jack" your system with spyware?
Curious.
Or is that just another lie?
If I ever run for president and somebody gets my ISP logs, I'm in b-i-g trouble! DavidWBrooks 04:00, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why would you then be in any such "big trouble"?
Curious.
I am sure that most of our existing "leaders" all have done far worse! :D
- Lets hear about your organizations heirarchy, racial and otherwise. Jack 10:52, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You can read the article "On Society" at the http://www.cosmotheism.net website to read about the ordering of our community and society.
Otherwise, you can just read about the "Metaphysics of Quality" on-line from a Google Search or here from the "horses mouth" so to speak:
I was asking for you to make additions to this article. To be honest, I havn't found that website particularly helpful. It appears to be under development, and is not particularly user friendly or informative. You however appear to be rarher well informed, and I would appreciate your insight as to the particulars of Cosmotheism, particularly as to the heirarchy. Thank you in advance, Jack 06:18, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Jack,
The "heirarchy" of the COSMOTHEIST COMMUNITY is based solely upon REALITY and upon active SERVICE and active ABILITY and active AWARENESS of our true HUMAN PURPOSE and the meaning of DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS.
The more CONSCIOUS and COMPLEX any LIFE FORM is,
the higher it is on the scale of BEING and vice-versa.
Also, with such CONSCIOUSNESS comes the RESPONSIBILITY of DHARMA/DUTY towards the ONE PURPOSE which is DIVINE SELF-REALIZATION and COMPLETION.
Those that thwart the DHARMA/DUTY towards the ONE PURPOSE are lowest of all beings as they not only do not uphold their own DUTY towards the ONE PURPOSE but also because they constantly prevent many others from actually doing so.
That is our "heirarchy", Jack.
"On Society" is here:
http://www.cosmotheism.net/onsociety.shtml
Best regards,
Needle aka Paul Vogel
"* Well, that clears that up, eh?"
Yup, Jack, it sure does, and that is why marxist pan-atheists like "Naturyl" and his lying hypocritical ilk oppose any Classical Pantheism or Cosmotheism, because it truely recognizes the internal order of the COSMOS in all aspects of being.
"Don't know how we could have been uncertain in the first place."
Well Jack, due to deliberate mis-leading pc propaganda of "pan-atheists" just like "Naturyl" and his ilk, perhaps?
Jack-
Regarding any "revisions" of mine for greater clarity or "accuracy", why would that ever constitute any kind of "vandalism", Jack, whatsoever?
Also, you must truely understand that this "Naturyl" of the UPS has been slandering "COSMOTHEISM" and has been slandering all true Classical Pantheist "COSMOTHEISTS" just like me for a very very long time.
Enough already!
Curious?
Here is just an example from one of "Naturyl's" network of "Pan-atheists":
Best regards,
-Needle aka Paul Vogel
That would certainly cause something or even anything so inherently clear to become "uncertain", just like their falsehood of equating pan-"atheism" with being a "naturalistic pantheism".
What else isn't new?
Best regards,
Needle aka Paul Vogel
Heh... I told you he was nuts.
" I'm "Nuts", Naturyl?
I am not the one that was on "psycho-active" drugs, you were, remember?"
Like I said from day one, be prepared to revert over and over again, because he will not stop until he is banned. Trust me, I know.
"The only "reverts" I do will be for greater "accuracy" and more "objectivity" and no more and no less. If that ever causes me to be "banned" than why "wiki" at all?
"This maniac has been following me around for over three years now. He is one of those pit bull psychopaths who latches onto you and never lets go. The man is definitely a few beers short of a 6 pack."
"Not quite. :D
This is just "Psychological Projection", at its worst, by "Naturyl".
"Naturyl" and his pan-atheist ilk were the actual ones that did their best to "ban and censor" the very first "Cosmotheism" website only because they just can't stand for the non-marxist-pc Whole Truths of Reality ever to be told, and that very "censorous behavior" is what is truely "psychopathic" and is what is also commonly termed "malignant narcissism"."
Don't take my word for it, though, just read what he has written here and on his own sites. The sooner he is banned from the Wiki, the better for everyone. His behavior will convince you of that.
-Nat
"Yes, indeed, don't just take "Naturyl" and his ilks word for it. Do read what I have actually written here and elsewhere and do understand why. Do see that the real reasons for any of my bannings has always and only been that what I have said was only the "whole truths of reality" and that these marxist-pc-pan-atheists just can't ever stand or bear to hear, which is why they always attempt to ban or censor me. Actions do speak louder than words and having actual "personal integrity" is the actual "behavior" that really does count the most."
Best regards,
Needle aka Paul Vogel
No insults
read what I wrote on the Talk:Pantheism page. And no more insults or threats, please. It is unbecoming, and fails to display the necessary reverence for one of Gods creatures :) Jack 03:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Dear Jack,
I could not agree with you more!
We Humans are all creatures of GOD, whether that GOD is a personal GOD or whether that GOD is an impersonal GOD of COSMOS.
Best regards,
Needle aka Paul Vogel
Is it considered vandalism to cut up someone's comment? I would appreciate it if Jack or someone else would try to ensure that comments are not broken up by other users. One should reply to comments in a separate paragraph or section rather than insterting text between the lines. This is not polite, nor does it make for good communication.
Cut up comments
I also agree that it is rude to cut up anothers text. While I am honestly uncertain as to if this is vandalism or no, it is clearly impolite. If you would like to refer to particulars of others posts, you may copy and quote such portions; I and others would strongly prefer that. I will admit I am no expert on the official policy on this, and like so many things on the wiki is is most likely in a state of being properly defined. Perhaps interested parties should involve themselves in the development of such policies, and create them if they do not exist :). Jack 04:19, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jack,
Why would anyone ever consider it "vandalism" to break-up any text or why is it at all considered "rude" or "impolite" when any such "personal insults" just like calling another poster "nuts" are actually being hurled within those very same so-called sections or "comments"? Curious. The pot calling the kettle black?
- You're right, it is rude to make insults, and it's against the policy of wikipedia. But it's also rude, as well as confusing, to cut up other people's comments - that makes it hard for people to follow the conversation, and leads to misinterpretation. Please put your comments after the end of other people's comments, as we have done. - DavidWBrooks 01:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
David,
Shouldn't you enforce the policies that you do have first before asking any others to follow one that is currently not against the existing policies of wikipedia?
Curious.