Kingdom of God (rewilding the bible)


My first response

The Christian story infects all Christian believers with complacency. The story revolves around oppresion.

Look at Satan. The Christian deity claims omnipotency, all knowing. he [yes, he] knew his creation would rebel, he knew he would make an example of the Lucifer. An example which says : Do not question THE authority, do not behave autonomously, do not try to find anything out on your own.

Sound like any other system of beliefs?

The megalomaniacal masterminds of christianity said ‘digest this yarn and go to sleep, debate the convolutions if you like but never doubt their Truth, chant Mu-Adib a few times and try to love everyone [wouldn’t that be grand?] especially the ones brainwashing you, thank you for surrendering your $ and power’

I remember another aspect which no longer is there.

-“I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

I had alot more to say… but it’s all fuzzy.


A few thoughts:

  1. Everything in the Bible that’s been translated into English ought to be considered suspect. I don’t know Hebrew, but I have studied at least the book of Genesis in some depth comparing with the Hebrew transliteration and my own hermeneutical understanding.

a. “Genesis.” This is Latin, not Hebrew. In Hebrew it’s “bereshit” which occurs in that exact formation only once in the whole language, namely, as the first word in the book of Genesis/Bereshit. While usually translated as “in the beginning,” a friend of mine who is a Jewish Rabbinical student explained to me once that to flavor the understanding properly in English, one might say “once upon a time in a time beyond all time.” Thus, this is a metaphorical/symbolic/allegorical account.

b. The word “God.” There is no single word for God, but several. In the creation myth it is Elohim, which is not only a verb, but is plural and not necessarily personal (I have a friend who says Elohim is feminine as well but I haven’t seen the evidence for this). While some people translate it as “gods” it can also mean “powers.” It needs to be pointed out, that oftentimes we never have and never will have perfect translations of one language to another. You have to understand it in the spirit of the text. At other point, reference is made to a YHWH, and an Adonai. Never simply “God” so plainly and singularly.

c. The word “created.” The Hebrew word is “barah” meaning to shape or give form. Elohim doesn’t create from nothing, Elohim/the powers give form.

d. Understanding Elohim as a verb meaning “powers,” we thus come to understand the seven days of creation as something like thought-forms, and the word Elohim describing a becoming into something.

  1. “Made in the image of God” First off, I hope you read my point #1, because it is necessary. Secondly, we need to understand this in context and look again to the original Hebrew. The context shows that we have the creation of birds, and each reproduces itself according to it’s kind. We have the creation of animals and beasts of the earth, and each reproduces itself according to it’s kind. Clearly, what is being discussed here is DNA which is self-replicating. The clincher is the discussion of the creation of herbs and plants, each bearing seed according to it’s kind. Seed=DNA=self-replication. Now, then it comes to the creation of man. And Elohim says, “let us create man in our own image.” So what this is literally saying is, that “the powers of creation” will form man in their own image. In the Hebrew text, the letters Lamed-Mem-Nun occur in all the instances of animals begetting after their own kind, plants bearing seeds according to their own kind, and, you guessed it!, man being created in the image of the powers of creation. In other words, humans are the seed of Elohim, the seed of the powers of creation, or, the seed of God! This is why on the seventh day, God rests… because he has created man, who in his own image will continue on with the creative work.

  2. The prime directive. Interpretations which try to say that Genesis commands humans to take “dominion” over the earth again fall prey to language mistranslations and misunderstandings. After creating every species, God says “be fruitful and multiply.” He says to humans “be fruitful and multiply.” Then, he commands ALL the creatures including humans to fill the earth and replenish it. I ask, how does one “dominate” all other beings while still allowing them to fulfill their God-given purpose of being fruitful and multiplying while replenishing and filling the whole earth with creatures? It’s a contradiction! Which highlights the mistranslation and misunderstanding going on here. A different word than “dominate” is needed. While some people have tried to translate the Hebrew וְ כִ בְ שֻׁ ה instead to something like subdue, this still isn’t perfect, and perhaps we’ll never have a perfect translation. But the prior context and the following context give the clues to how it should really be understood. The following context is that YHWH says that the human will “sway” or “move” within all the fishes of the sea, all the birds of the air, and all the beasts of the earth. Of course he would, because human beings carry within them the powers of creation and so are intimately and inextricably connected to all other living beings.

  3. Maybe I’ll share my own translation of the first chapters of Genesis.

  4. Adam & Eve. The whole story of Eve being created from Adam’s “rib”? It probably didn’t happen. The Hebrew word there is transliterated as “angular organ” and probably refers to Adam’s penis. In other words, and in fitting with the whole “self-replication according to it’s kind,” Adam and Eve come together in the union of sex and that’s why the text then says they cling to each other and “become One flesh.” For without Adam, Eve could not birth. And without Eve, Adam would perish (“adam” in Hebrew means “dust/soil” and eve is written as “chavah” meaning “life” – this is a great understanding of masculine/feminine… the masculine drops from the tree of life and dies, returning to dust, but feminine lives on forever and ever from mother to mother). Thus, Eve is the “helper” that God brings to Adam.

  5. The original instructions! The Native American idea of Original Instructions is thus written there beautifully in Genesis. Be fruitful and multiply, make love, tend the earth and care for all beings as we are all related. Yet how many people actually read it that way? :frowning:

  6. Jesus. Lots more context to understand here. Jesus comes from the Essene cult and is a Nazarene, hence the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth.” Samson was also a Nazarene. The Nazarenes took vows of diet and generally lived in the wilderness, and also refused to cut their hair (if you recall, it was the source of Samson’s power). A Nazirite was essentially something like an Indian Saddhu. They were ascetics and spiritual seekers. Surely this tidbit fills in the Jesus character more fully.

  7. Jesus abolished the very concept of sin and removed the mediators (priests) between God and Man. According to Jesus, the church is a rotten place because it is full of priests (the passages about “sepulchre for dead man’s bones”) and most of his parables are really expressing the truth of how shitty and unaccountable humans are in general. Jesus admonishments to “resist not” to evil is the same as the meditative practice of becoming unattached to your thoughts and sensations, acknowledge them but don’t resist them!

  8. In all likelihood, Jesus’ “lost years” were spent in Tibet learning Buddhism. There is a sutra that says as much, naming him “Isa,” beloved of the animals.

  9. John the Baptist was living in the wilderness preparing “the way” and looked to Jesus as the fulfillment of this journey.

  10. Jesus criticized the priests, theologians, and theology in general. He considered them all distractions from true relationship with the living God. When he says, “not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law,” he’s referring to Moses and the Prophets, who said things very differently than the priests who are responsible for such hogwash as Leviticus. It was Moses and the various prophets who always jumped out and said, “Israel, change your ways! Repent!”

  11. Repent from what? Repent from the violation of Original Instructions as in the book of Genesis. Jesus found his way back into Eden, the kingdom of God which is “among you and within you,” and he strove to share that insight and that message. And he was just a man, not the God Christianity makes him out to be. Jesus makes it clear, that whatever power he had, didn’t come from him but came from above, from the Father.

  12. Moses is a really cool, indigenous story too but I’m running out of steam here!

  13. Paul was an imperial Roman who sabotaged Jesus’ attempt at a Buddhistic movement from the inside, like a trojan horse. Paul created Christianity, a religion that celebrated the death of Jesus whereas Jesus celebrated the life of living things. It was a religion that told women to shut up and be quiet, and which established churches and priests, even though Jesus destroyed both churches and priests and inequalities between men and women. Paul established a religion that told slaves to be obedient and for citizens to respect their leaders and pay taxes, even though Jesus was a political radical who lived to subvert the social order. I could go on and on. The gospel writers do some very intentional writing-between-the-lines to spell out Paul as the Anti-Christ. One of the keys is Paul’s original name, Saul. In the Old Testament, Saul was the tyrant king who set out to kill David, the true heir to the throne of Israel. The gospels also say Saul was anointed as Paul by Ananias, who was in a later story struck down dead by God for living a lie and preaching false doctrine. Lol!

  14. Jesus is perfectly compatible with rewilding and ought to be considered a spiritual forerunner and pioneer of rewilding. Christianity, on the other hand, is NOT compatible with rewilding or human freedom spiritual or material but is instead a trap to keep humanity enslaved by their own conditioning and domestication.


If there is compatibility of original Christianity with anticivilization rewilding as I think too, God would watch over those who change with not bringing harm from them to any of the creation, to bless that direction. Where else can we say some thing compatible of Christianity with rewilding will go and lead? What is to be believed of it would find being in the right with this God, who really cares for creation, very desirable. Development of such belief would have to do with this.


I enjoyed reading this entire thread, Thanks to those who contributed and thank you rewild for not removing this thread, like you probably wanted to.


The topic dealing with what works with moving to rewilding, with that away from civilization as should be preferably pursued, should be permitted discussion here, including what beliefs work. God caring for this world and the creatures works, as opposed to such God that gives it away not minding what those who believe they follow that God do with it. Followers of faith in God who cares for all the creation will motivate them more to live rightly in the sustainable way that works well. Certainly, there are other beliefs that may do that.


…That’s to assume that people having a relationship with Jesus are merely espousing His teachings. When people honestly say they have a relationship with Jesus Christ, they’re saying that He, Jesus (not His teachings, but He, God-with-us), has indeed come into their lives, spiritually, and dwells within them by His Holy Spirit. Non-believers can’t understand that–unless and until they themselves give themselves to Him likewise (to Him, Jesus, not to some church, priesthood, creed, formula, method, teaching, etc.) . Christ’s teachings are but verbal expressions of Him. Having Him in one’s life as literal and real Lord and Savior (yes, that means He did rise from the dead and is really alive today, in His Spirit and, in our flesh, and in all of His creation, if not always in His own flesh–though that’s possible too) is the only way His teachings are of any meaning. Jesus can’t be codified into a set of teachings without Him being present in the heart of the practitioner of those teachings. Communism, capitalism, humanism, many other “isms” have tried doing that. They’re all fake “christianity” without the Christ that’s necessary for them to work. Jesus did certainly buck this political, economic and otherwise humanistic world. Certainly Constantine attempted neutering real Christianity by trimming out what Constantine the Great thought was unusable for his Devilish empire of necessarily violent politics. The real Divine inspiration of Scripture, however, is that what’s left in our “canon” form of the Bible–even though thought by Constantine, and the many who claim that “Chrisitanity (or, the form of it they’ve only known) only facilitates civilization (empire, etc.)”–actually still militates against civilization and its empires. Jesus asked for the coin to express to his questioners, who were asking essentially whether or how much tax they should pay to Caesar, that Caesar’s image is on all the money. By saying “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”, Jesus was saying "give Caesar all the money, since Caesar’s image was on all of it. Jesus was therefore saying “quit using it and being dependent upon and victim of the game that only Caesar can win”. Jesus’ other statements about foregoing worrying about how or whence one will get one’s livelihood and, instead, accepting what God has always provided through Nature, His creation, show how Jesus’ Christianity is inherently all about rewilding. The wild is what God made–not the civilization that fallen Man and Woman made (specifically made by Cain, arguably the most debauched result of Man and Woman’s upbringing). Jesus also didn’t necessarily say we should “repress” ourselves sexually–since not only did God make us all sexual beings but, sex is arguably an, if not the, essence of God and His creative sense. Jesus arguably only said “don’t dump one for another”. How many we “have” isn’t limited. In fact, the more may mean the better, since normal sex is the (necessarily mutual) attraction of people to each other that God must have intended by putting us all here by that means and in that (what should be) loving context. That all may, however, be totally lost on this culture’s hangups against a loving outlook on sex-- this culture, instead, thinking of sex as only some form of power (force, legality, possession, violence) over another-- a mean and vicious game to be played-- and the problems with that outlook resulting therefrom. …Looks like Constantine forgot to leave out what Jesus said, since it didn’t make sense to carnally-minded (worldly, political, humanistic) Constantine and his time-honored ilk. Jesus’ words are still there, though–for those who take Him as He is and clear their minds of the carnal interpretations with which “churchianity” has twisted His words to suit their often un-Christian, political purposes.


Indeed, what is the real Jesus, that any would have a relationship with, and have in their lives, speaking to them? Is it a Jesus that is true to the words that Jesus spoke, or a Jesus that has it not matter what were the words that Jesus spoke, and that can go in a different direction from what Jesus spoke? I would give more weight to the Jesus that is consistent with what Jesus spoke. Relevant for rewilding, we can say the earth that is of God’s creation is God’s possession, and we are left here to care for it, while we have a home here, with others making a home here. So we have responsibilities here, and are not to mess it up, though this is what our kind is doing. Only the most sustainable way can be pursued for doing what is right. And this will be away from civilization, with depending on what is available in the most sustainable way, and caring for the world around us to not continue being harmed. Anything else hurtful or destructive to this earth God would be against.

Am I a believer? Indeed I am. I will not choose to live in a harmful way with contribution to what is harmful, in this world, and would live in primitive simplicity as I see that is right to do, to approach the most sustainable way to live, and with any with me, apart from civilization, which can’t continue as it is.


I was reading the posts above and was very interested in peoples thoughts, what I am about to share is from my own journey, so I trust it does not offend. I actually came to rewilding mostly via my journey in Christianity. How some might ask?

I read the Bible differently then many, I see it as a guide and stories of what happens when one does not live in a nomadic, rewilded state. Part of humanities first sin, beyond eating the fruit, was not careing for the perfect garden, for if they had, the evil one would have never gotten in and been able to tempt humanity at the tree. From there we see many stories of not living at peace and harmony. The flood? People were destroying each other and nature. Abraham, Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah? Abraham chose to live a nomadic tent dwell. Lot chose to live in cities, which lead to his down fall. (Cities bad, wilderness good.) This continued till the time of Joseph, when due to famine the fled to a city/civilization. This lead to by the time of the next book, being slaves.

The narrative of coming out of Egypt is very much a coming out of civilization and into the wilderness where one is close to Yahweh again. The following books give stories of living in the wilderness an even guidelines for safely living in tent dwelling communities. If one is planting anything, every 7th year let the land rest, and live off the wild of the land again. Even the names for the first 5 books of the Torah, can be translated from the original language "In the Beginning, Departure, He (Yahweh) called, ‘In the Wilderness, This is the Way.’ "
From there one comes to the Prophets and Poetry, which paints nature into the picture majorly, paints a picture of a perfect future earth, where all creatures, humanity, and all the hunters and prey, will stop fighting and live in peace again. Again, we are told, “There is a voice in the Wilderness crying, “Prepare the Way of the Lord (Yahweh)” In the Desert, "Make Staight a Pathway.

But one might say, that is the Torah, Prophets, and Poetry which Christians call the Old Testament. One has to understand that foundation, to understand where Yeshua (Jesus) came from, one has to understand the narrative he points back to. As all of the Gospels begin, the word echo again, “There is a voice crying in the wilderness, "Prepare the way of the Lord (Yahweh), make straight his pathway in the desert.” We are told Yeshua (literally Yahweh saves) is Emmanuel (the God who dwells with us). He is a king-priest who is of the order of Melchizedek, (the king-priest of Salem (later called Jerusalem) at the time it was nomadic tent city tying back to Abraham who gave his tithe to Melchizedek).
So Yeshua, the nomadic-teacher - who does not have a nest or den , says he is bringing his kingdom here,may happs a peace loving tent city, with a royal priest leading it, is the picture we are given. Then were did the mansions of heaven come from? Yeshua said he was preparing as place for us. Later generations turned that place into mansions.
The early disciples (the followers of Yeshua never once called themselves Christians, in fact everywhere it is used in the New Testament it was a dirogitory term used by those who were outside of the faith) struggled with this neo-nomadic life, having nothing that was there own, but sharing what they had with all in need.

From there things slowly got away from the teachings of Yeshua, until the time of being co-opted by Rome in the 300sAD and used as a tool of the empire to service the breaking down of boarders, at this time the dirogitory term first used as a put down (meaning little Christs) became the name of the faith, Christianity. There were some who recaptured part of it: the Celtic Christians, Francis of Assisi, to name a few.

But how does that effect me? How did that lead me to being a rewilder? In studying the Word, Celtic Christians, and Francis of Assisi, I was brought into the naturalistic wilder side of the faith. I know saddly, those thoughts I present above are not liked by many churches (I have had some issues due to teaching the above in the past). But it has started some dialog along the way, for the better… slow moving forward…

I trust, my thoughts as a follower of Yeshua, who is also a rewilder, adds to the thoughts here. There is so much more I could add, but just touched on the outlines.


Are you familiar with Wilderness Way in Portland, OR?


No, I am not. I will have to see about their info. I am clear acrossed the nation in SE Kentucky.


Thanks indeed Peter for sharing that. I am pretty far, but will follow that site, and can hopefully come sometime when I can visit that.

I have the view that Christians generally are far from essential things, but hope for some who will listen will change in what needs to be focused on, with how they will live. I could say it for others too, even among rewilders. There is more truth than what any are already accepting, and I expect there will be more for me myself to see that I so far have been missing.

Whatever will be needed, it will include more sustainable ways than what we have had so far with how we live. We need such change desperately in our world. If we see God is sovereign, that does nothing to change that we are responsible in our position to how we will have the world we are in treated, and God would have us deal with consequences for acting irresponsibly.


@Frankprimalanswers Would you agree, that if from the Christian-rewilder view (aka also my view) God is a Creator God, and we view mankinds first “job” was to be caretaker of creation, which we failed at… that would be what we should return to? Not destroying the world, but returning it to its wilder, balanced created state? That would include mankind living in restored true sustainable ways, returning wild creatures to the lands, and other such rewilding…

Honest questions… as I am seeking honest communication about this.


“I mean, try to tell the above paragraph to anyone in civilization that identifies as Christian and I highly doubt they will interpret it that way.” Just because most christianity has been corrupted by Empire, does not mean that the basis for christianity is not consistent with rewilding. I mean, ask any athiest, or Taoist, or whatever kind of person that is currently part of civilization, and their interpretation of the foundation of their beliefs is going to be counter to rewilding, because civilization is the one thing that is shared by most modern people.


Behold, I AM YE who spoke ye random thing about ye ‘ROOM’ and I now christen thee with thine new prophecy of REWILDING. Here ye here ye: Rewilding is not the development of Human-nature relations but rather first the development of Human-human relations. As the Human-human relation is enhanced ,the Human-nature relation in turn is enabled to develop. In it’s early stages of development, Rewilding was moving into independency without direction while endorsing anarchy. This didn’t prove to be fertile soil from which the movement could effectively develop. And so Rewilding is redirected toward interdependency. It is a cultural movement, not only intent to undo domestication but also evoke community development in context with nature.


Hm. Human-nature vs Human-human. If we become undomesticated, are we not humans made natural, therefore at this point human=nature too? So maybe we seek human=nature-human=nature relationships. And the juicy glue of that nature gestalt which we are a part of will seep into all the nooks and crannies of that human=nature-human=nature relationships, making us wholesome, whole, and gratified for once instead of sucking the mean dead fumes of civilized deficiency and depression.


grandiose | ˈɡrandɪəʊs |
extravagantly or pretentiously imposing in appearance or style: the court’s grandiose facade.
• conceived on a very grand or ambitious scale: grandiose plans to reform the world.

interloper | ˈɪntələʊpə |
a person who becomes involved in a place or situation where they are not wanted or are considered not to belong: Japanese consumers have in the past been unreceptive to foreign interlopers in the cell phone market | to her I was always an outsider, an interloper.

In regards to your pen name Grandioseinterloper I have provided an official definition so as not to make any assumptions about it implying something derogatory or degrading to any person(s).
The frame of reference from which I am responding is uniquely peculiar. If a person were to read it from a main stream point of view they might postulate an ignorant version of it’s meaning.
Please allow me to extrapolate for clarity.
Rewilding began as somewhat of an experimental ‘sub-cultural’ movement. It forged forward in it’s self discovery primarily by means of a counter-cultural movement.
Rewilding is a sect derived from the principals of the punk anarchy movements, grass roots pro activism and primitive skills movements.
Rewilding did not have a pure form by which it could be clearly defined and thus needed one.
In defining it with a reference given to interdependency, so as to give it directive so that it may be developed, in particular on the internet, it naturally fit under the sect. of non-secular Humanism. Once Rewilding took it’s base from Human-human relations, instead of effecting to deprive it’s base from Human-nature relations then it can develop from realizations derived from the Human-devine relations.
In this Rewilding can be fortified cohesively with new growth.
Rewilding belongs to interdependency. Not independency as it was previously thought to be because of it’s revolutionary upbringing. In independency there is a connotation of disorder because of effecting to match the natural laws of ‘nature’ which in and of themselves are in a state of disorder. Juxtaposed to capitalist Globalism which is also a form of disorder but not connected to nature to ground the chaos. This indirect contrast to Globalism brought the subculture of Rewilding into a standstill or ‘catch-22’. It is only the umbrella of Humanism that could be redirected.
The purpose of Rewilding previously was thought to be simply ending domestication.
And now with a redirected focused it can be defined as not only ending domestication but reconstituting Globalization with matching the natural laws of nature. Now cultural movement in society without the purpose of ending domestication but stewarding the ecological environment to integrate a reconstituted globalized scale-free network of sustainable technology.:tulip:


I see. So that’s what it truly is. I stand corrected. The history and truth have been brought to light and I was clueless prior to the revelation. I thought rewilding centered around harmonizing oneself with the ever so lovely and singing heartbeat of the natural loving world and becoming the kind, compassionate person that such a reforming made possible, ready to deal with life at it’s worst by way of generating what stems from humanity at it’s strongest. Simple. Easy-peasy. Or something like that. I think I was just spewing poorly rooted garbage like a halfwit gasbag trying to sound pretty anyway. That is my main pastime it would seem. I will say it again, I stand corrected, which is (in my opinion) better than crawling corrected. :slight_smile:


Hello ladyfoxfeather. This God we may see is the Creator of all, and certainly people at first were living differently, with what was compatible with responsibility in our world, and we fell from this, and our civilizations were a wrong turn, and humanity with this has been living in irresponsible ways to our natural world. God as such could let us suffer hard consequences with that, especially with civilization not being stable, with lack of sustainability in this world. I yet care for what are the most sustainable ways. Included in that is seeing need to find alternatives to being with civilization, as there is not adequate sustainability with it. This would be return to the most ideal things that were meant for us, living in a right way in this world, without civilization or what things it provides, at cost to this world.


Glad to see this topic revived. I am of similar persuasion, ladyfoxfeather. I just came across interesting information. Apparently, Gen 1:28 (I think) where it talks in most translations about humans filling the Earth, actually says that God told us to “replenish the Earth” which is quite different. I am all for replenishing.

This civilization has failed at replenishing, but I agree with the statement of the person who opened the thread that Christianity is not in conflict with rewilding. Post Constantinian Christianity got co-opted by power, exactly the thing Jesus was tempted by and refused.

And I also agree with the claim that the kingdom of God is nigh (within our reach, here on Earth). As Jesus said, this was the good news he came to preach. Few remember that (the Anabaptists are a notable exception).


The church after Constantine was authoritarian, but Jesus is seen by some of his followers as being anarchist. Jesus is no more supporting of civilization than is the beginning of Genesis. There is the kingdom of God to respond to, which means God is the one in authority, but Jesus makes that relationship direct, and there isn’t some individual needed to be the spokesman who makes the rules for God’s kingdom. But there is responsibility in how we live in this world, and seen in current circumstances, it is for his followers to see that going along with civilization is not what there is call for, and there is sustainability in living to come to that is distinct from what is possible with civilization. the real sustainable way is with simplicity away from civilization, and especially with having what is needed growing on the land where one is, and with being with others as a group or community for it. And there is a trend in our urban society of isolating ourselves more from what we might have in real community.