"But, that is NOT the point. What I object to is the use of pantheistic and Gaia inspired language that, if adopted on an international level in a legal treaty, will have the effect of making ‘Mother Earth’ the new deity of a green-religion forced onto all of Earth's citizens."

Well.... Isn't that just a two way street above, however modern religions keep telling us how we end up is Gods will.....well I beg the differ.....at 7 billion......how long do you think we can wait for GOD?

Now peoples:) Some say Iam the one thats tipped the scales for this type of thinkings, and your right:) For five years I've been calling for all peoples around the world to have a good look at your planet, go on...have a good look at what hamkind is doing.

Mother earth is correctly stated as it presents its selves to us by definition.

It does give and support life! and its the only one we have.

The reality for the 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth is that something needs to change; to continue on a destructive path is certainly unsustainable. But the answer is not to anthropomorphise the environment, to give rise to a crass spirituality or empower the most weirdly radical movement of the modern era. Nor is it to throw the human race into an era of reliance upon heavily regulated food production by profit-driven corporations reminiscent of the science fiction classic, Soylent Green.

The answer lies in education and self-regulation of our own consumerism. We may not be doing enough in a timely manner, but we are making changes, slowly and surely.

Collin Mullane......making changes, slowly but surely........I dont know how your reading our time scale, but I can show with links details of how quickly we are and you.....are eating this planet alive.

Soon 8 billion then nine billion and so on.

I call for balance, not a one sided affair concerning what we believe.

You have only conducted.....and not provided solutions.

Good luck.

LEAP

Collin,

I agree, but religiosity need not be anti-scientific:

Science is there to tell WHAT is in this world and HOW it works.
It does not even attempt to answer the questions of WHO and WHY.

Science seeks to understand - religion seeks to be.

Science and religion can therefore live peacefully side by side.

Yuyutsu. Its come to the attention of the many, that religion has served its purpose well, no-one denies that point, however your quote of Buddha said "with-in 500 years his teachings will be gone" thats incorrect and what the people of this earth choose to believe in, will be their choice. Many religions have come and gone, so why is yours or Buddha's any different?

I am going to point out that religion has to change in order to survive in 21 century, and these links will show why.

http://www.youtube.com/user/PINASISM6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB-vknOyNIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SJc8yhHkZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqy1WDdcxvo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhwpitHgG-k

Lets let the people decide.

LEA

Lea,

"Many religions have come and gone"

As I just explained, "religions" is NOT the plural of "religion". Religious orders and teachings come and go - religion stays.

Religion does not change or needs to change, as it already teaches kindness and good-will:

Glory to God in the Highest,
and peace on earth,
good will towards men.

[Luke 2:14]

The application of good will and peace obviously changes according to circumstances.

Regarding Buddha, I did not understand whether you are disputing that he said what he said (that in 500 years his teachings will deteriorate) or that his words actually came to pass (and thus it is still possible today to become enlightened based on his teachings).

Regarding the movies you presented, even when they present valid points (such as the need to reduce earth's population), I generally find them violent and unworthy of spending my monthly download-quota on. I do not agree with this new-age nonsense as if we are "energy", nor to the unfounded idea as if we are into a new-age in the first place. I certainly do not agree with the idea of coercion and destroying others on the grounds that they are "cancer" (in your eyes).

Whether or not we survive in 21st century is a secular concern. Survival has its value of course, but not at any cost. Life without God is better not lived.

In my youth I used to think a one-world religion would ensure peace on earth and goodwill to all men. No division, persecutions in the name of religion or worse, deaths at the hands of fanatics of any variety.

However human beings would find division, maybe it comes from our anthropological tribal roots (genetics?). Whether it be class, money, race/ethnicity, or religious differences human beings tend to group themselves by one or more common factors.

Even Christians, Muslims and Buddhists who probably make up the largest groups find divisions among themselves. There appears no cohesive force to bind or heal those divisions. Much of it is about power relationships.

Yuyutsu
"Life without God is better not lived."
That is a big statement and a bit sad. What if life without God worked for you. What if people continued to make decisions just as they do now on the basis of doing good without the need for a supernatural force to legitimise that goal? (Albeit acknowledging that human societies will never be perfect)

The difference between those who believe and those who don't seem to my simple interpretation be less about the existence of God (or proof vs faith) but the idea of a legitimate higher being to ensure that force for good be realised.

Yuyutsu said in this very sane statement.

"Whether or not we survive in 21st century is a secular concern. Survival has its value of course, but not at any cost. Life without God is better not lived."

And with that above Pelican, I rest my case:)

The word is certifiable in the second definitional meaning of catatonic.

Iam now for sure going to church:0

All the best.

LEAP