Hi Struan
Thanks for the inclusion of the cosmotheist piece in your post of 26th Feb.
On 26 Feb 99, at 23:20, Struan Hellier wrote:
> One has to be slightly careful as the term cosmotheist originally meant
> almost the same as pantheist and so someone with no sense of context might
> legitimately claim it to be innocent enough.
I found a site on Scientific Pantheism, which I think, Ken posted, some time back. It looks
interesting and lacks the racist crap of the National Vanguard site. There was also a post a
while back from Paul, apparently running down Scientific Pantheism:
On 16 Dec 98, at 16:59, Paul Vogel wrote:
> Cosmotheism is not " Politically Correct ", the way that Scientific
> Pantheism is, but, Cosmotheism, is very intellectually honest, in a way
> that, Scientific Pantheism, has not yet evolved towards, but it will,
> and must. Reality will out, even if it is not liked very much, for the
> Truth, can be ugly, but is of the Highest Value of The Good or
> Excellence.
Perhaps this is the view of Cosmotheists in general? If they are intellectually capable of
having an independent view that is.
> However, since nobody in the
> modern world referred to themselves as a cosmotheist before Pierce and
> nobody (sensible) who didn't share his intent has since Pierce, I suggest
> it is fair to assume that either Paul doesn't have a functioning brain, or
> he shares the racist, radically violent pre-millenarian eschatology
> illuminated in the following article.
Well I suppose Death and Destiny are wonderful things - as long as it's your own destiny
to cause someone else's death and not vice-versa.
> The bibliography should be
> sufficient to lead people with an interest to both primary sources and
> critiques from which, I'm sure, we can all make up our own minds.
I'll see if I can find some of them. Thanks again.
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:53 BST