Revere or refute nature?

Revere or refute nature?

Diana and Actaeon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_and_Actaeon

Can there be a balance between the Abrahamic rejection of nature, and the Hellenic consequence of rejecting it? I think the Hellenic mythology suggests that the rejection of nature, and of ones natural being, is immoral due to its lack of reverence for earthly divinity. More that psychologically we are causal beings, and a rejection of that fails to understand the utility of our existent forms, its needs and desires. though I assume the initial rejection of nature has some root with the same ideas in the mind forming the eventual christian doctrine [I.e. in the minds eye of the original thinkers].

So what is the reason for the rejection of nature ~ the initial impulse if you will?

Can there be a balance when both parties demand obedience entirely? One would think that any amount of rejection, would naturally not comply with a ‘mutual acceptance’ required for a balance to be struck? With forces in physics we see the opposite, where powerful forces can indeed be balanced.

_

I prefer Bullfinch’s
luminarium.org/mythology/actaeon.htm

While I can see where you get the balance of nature, I always thought this story was more: Pay attention to your surroundings and do not hesitate to run.

We can balance once we simply provide for science and technology to do so rather than competing for money and power.

That’s interesting too, and makes sense. I was just using it here to cut the difference clearly, as between rejection and reception, and in the change between pagan and Christian philosophy.

Sure, but the balance here is a spiritual and philosophical one for each individual. I see it as a fundamental integer in the transformation of that age. I also been thinking about how having no reverence for nature for the last two thousand years, has almost destroyed the planet. If we don’t sort that out soonish, science and tech wont be achieving anything without resources!

Paganism was more of the respect of nature whereas monotheism is the refutation and conquest of it.

How did you arrive at “monotheism is the refutation and conquest of it”?

Sexual stratification??? Why does that sound familiar on this site??? Who was it that was obsessed about this??

Ecmandu… and then it filtered down to others. Never heard the term before and don’t ever want to hear it again… like the terminologies libtards, value ontology, cucks, etc. enough!!!

this thread wasn’t about sexual stratification, but the spiritual acceptance/denial of nature and our natural being.

Mankind should revere nature, so Mankind will not go extinct. That is if it isn’t already too late.

Humanity must do both in order to evolve.

What do you mean by man must do both to evolve? Evolve how?

To develop in tune with nature.

Nuts and bolts, what does that mean?

Develop without destroying nature, if we have reverence and common sense towards nature, we can grow and develop without bringing about our own demise.

Tell me what you think it could mean please.

I don’t know how both can be done if we’re talking about Mother Nature. The refuting aspect is in hyperdrive currently, so that’s why I asked. I cannot see us evolving while we continue to destroy the environment.

I didn’t see anyone mention sexual stratification (which happens in every animal species on earth and is not the same as something like “libtard”)

Show me the quote

Ok , nature: We are bonded to the nature of this planet, food ,water, air, shelter etc. that is the physical. The mental bonds are there as well , emotions, intelligence etc. We need nature. We with our sentience must be the older responsible sibling to the other species of life. There is your reverence that we need to survive and teach us how to evolve. But, look at it all. In order to physically and mentally evolve me must remove ties that bind us.
We must use , change and end nature to rise or change beyond where we are even as we revere it and care for it. There are insects that gain nutrients through their skin. Another that uses light or energy to sustain it. And there are creatures we have yet to learn. We can adapt through science and change our physical needs eventually, well there is a high probability that we could if allowed. Would you like to live in the water??? How about being able to live underground or see without sight?? How about live on another planet without wearing a protective suit, Etc etc. We can refute what nature made us into. We can go beyond and protect and revere nature. We can by taking nature apart live far longer than we can imagine. We can only do this by revering and refuting nature.