​

When people express skepticism of this idea, it's for two reasons: 

​

-Atheism (and this all sounds like "woo-woo")

or

-Monotheism (and this all sounds like "worshiping the Creation, instead of the Creator")

​

This page addresses the latter objection.  If you're a Christian, Jew, or Muslim - or any kind of monotheist, worry not!

 

Not only is geocracy compatible with monotheism, but it's actually demanded by monotheism.  If you believe in God as the Creator, then geocracy is the most logical way to govern society.

​

Here's why.
 

If God created Nature, then Nature is God's work.

​

His art.

​

When you experience art, you are glimpsing the mind of the artist.  Art carries the energy signature of its maker.

​

Nature expresses the mind of God.  Not only does it do that, but it does it better than any other thing within the Creation.

​

​​​​Even more so than a book.  Any book.

 

Nature was made by God.  A book was made by Man.

If you're going to draw inspiration from someone's handiwork, wouldn't you choose God's above any human's?

Now sure, you can say "But God inspired the Scriptures!  They're His works!"

Well even if that's true, they're still a collaboration between God and Man.  Man was involved in the Creating process, since he's the one who actually put quill to parchment, and it was his language from which God selected the words.

Nature is the work of just God.  No Man was involved in the creation of the forest, or the mountains, or the ocean.  A tree in the wild was shaped by nothing and no one except Nature and "Nature's God."

Books, even if divinely inspired, are still partly Man's work, and therefore bear the marks and imperfections of Man's mind within them.  No matter how perfect the words are, they're still only words, and no word fully encapsulates that to which it points.

 

Especially not the complex, abstract, spiritual words. Is the word "Redemption", or the word "Salvation", identical to the actual phenomena to which they point?  One set is a set of sounds made by the mouth and vocal cords.  The other set is... well... what DO those words actually refer to?  Whole books and treatises and theological careers have been devoted to exploring singular questions like those.  Nobody has exactly the same conception of these things, and when you talk about them to someone, you can't even be sure that he or she understands them in exactly the same way you do.

That is the limitation of words.  Of language itself.

Language was made by Man, and if Man's mind bears the limitations of the Fall, then so does his language.  And so does any message written IN language.  

No matter what you read, if you're reading words, you're absorbing interference from the mind of Man.

But a tree doesn't bear those imperfections.  A wild animal suffers no corruption from Man's fall.  A virgin forest bears very few, if any, marks of the technocratic simulacrum that Man has been calling "civilization", and trying to superimpose on top of God's Creation.

It's just the artwork of God, and nobody else.

Ancient cultures revere trees, animals, the sky, the clouds, the Sun, the rivers and lakes and oceans, and the mountains and the earth, and the entire ecosystem itself, and the celestial bodies, because these are the things that were made by God, and which therefore express the nature of His mind.

Without the interference of Man's mind distorting the signal.

Even if you close your eyes and say, "I'm going to picture God, in my mind, and worship Him there"... you're still worshiping a picture - a mental picture, but a picture nonetheless - and any picture is part of the Creation.

If you're picturing a particular face or person - maybe the fellow in Michelangelo's mural, or maybe the face in your favorite painting or icon of Christ - you're using a work of Man.  It was painted by Man, according to language developed by Man, in a book that in many cases was translated by Man.  There are multiple levels of interference, or "radio static", inherent in such a process.

No matter how you attempt to worship God, and no matter how hard you try to select the purest image you can muster - even if it's just a generalized "Pure White Light" or something - it's still just a picture, and still part of the Creation.

Anything you worshipis part of Creation.  Including a picture - even if you mean it to be a picture of God - because all pictures are things, and all things are creations.

If you're engaged in worship, then you are, by definition, worshiping something in the Creation.  That's what worship is.

And ancient cultures knew this, and were OK with it, because they understand that you can still worship God through whatever the creation is that you're worshiping.  If it's a tree, you can worship the Creator through His Creation, the tree.  If it's the Ocean, you can worship Him through the Ocean and its motion, which whispers of the very laws of physics that He encoded so many aeons ago.

If you want to worship him through an image in your mind, that's OK too.  But just be aware that the image is part of the Creation too.  So you're worshiping part of the Creation, just like the pagans are.

And not only that, but you're worshiping a collaborative creation - a joint venture made by God AND Man. (The "Man" in this case being yourself, since you're the one envisioning the image, as well as the painter or sculptor if you're borrowing a famous image).  So you're worshiping Man's work, and specifically your own work.

You're worshiping Creation, AND it's partly Man's creation, AND partly your OWN creation.  

Isn't it obvious that there's "static" in a signal like that?

There's no static in Nature.  The closer you are to Nature, the closer you are to God.

If you're going to worship Creation (which you already are, because that's what all worship is), then you might as well do it with the pure artwork of the Creator, rather than the imperfect simulacra of Man.