Vine Deloria Jr. on Our Relationship to the Unseen 

+strongheart woman I need some help, overall what is Vine Deloria Jr??? Is he anti-creationism and pseudo-science? What does he believe in aka what theories DOES he believe in???

Im a Lutheran Christian but this is sad

While I'm Christian and I ultimately separate the history of Christianity from the theology, I feel like his critiques apply to the evangelical Christian culture in America and the "official" theology of Western Christianity in general.

@@Thehoodphilosopher Perhaps the 'offical' theology of certain denominations. I'm not aware of many Evangelicals who would deny God working in the lives of individuals, however. One of the main tenets of Evangelicalism is that God interacts with individuals. It is true, however, that Evangelicals see the Bible as being the final authority on God's word, yet still experience God on a personal level... much as how scholars such as Deloria would argue the Amerindians experienced spiritual elements/religious experiences through their interactions with nature.

@@johnbarham6406 I don't think any Evangelicals would deny God working within their personal lives. Most of the theological differences aren't explicit, but implicit. For example, while most Evangelicals believe that demons and angels inhabit Creation, the doctrine of soli deo gloria essentially prohibits any interaction between the faithful and these spiritual forces. (Even if these forces are from God) This itself is based on the assumption that prayer is inherently an act of worship rather than a neutral form of spiritual communication, which is itself based on the rejection of the veneration-worship distinction. This effectively de-sacralizes Creation, even if you technically believe in its spiritual power on a theoretical level. While this isn't really theological, but more cultural, the fact that more hardline Evangelicals often interpret/perceive anything remotely spiritual as satanic or "not of God" doesn't help. One additional note: even when they describe God as "working in their lives," especially the Holy Spirit, it's often an internal and psychological experience rather than an external sign within the natural/material world.

@@johnbarham6406 I don't think any Evangelicals would deny God working within their personal lives. Most of the theological differences aren't explicit, but implicit. For example, while most Evangelicals believe that demons and angels inhabit Creation, the doctrine of soli deo gloria essentially prohibits any interaction between the faithful and these spiritual forces. (Even if these forces are from God) This itself is based on the assumption that prayer is inherently an act of worship rather than a neutral form of spiritual communication, which is itself based on the rejection of the veneration-worship distinction. This effectively de-sacralizes Creation, even if you technically believe in its spiritual power on a theoretical level. While this isn't really theological, but more cultural, the fact that more hardline Evangelicals often interpret/perceive anything remotely spiritual as satanic or "not of God" doesn't help. One additional note: even when they describe God as "working in their lives," especially the Holy Spirit, it's often an internal and psychological experience rather than an external sign within the natural/material world.

@@johnbarham6406 I don't think any Evangelicals would deny God working within their personal lives. Most of the theological differences aren't explicit, but implicit. For example, while most Evangelicals believe that demons and angels inhabit Creation, the doctrine of soli deo gloria essentially prohibits any interaction between the faithful and these spiritual forces. (Even if these forces are from God) This itself is based on the assumption that prayer is inherently an act of worship rather than a neutral form of spiritual communication, which is itself based on the rejection of the veneration-worship distinction. This effectively de-sacralizes Creation, even if you technically believe in its spiritual power on a theoretical level.

The story of Vine is not a complicated one. His ideological, philosophical and spiritual discourse is engaged with the credo that every tangible identity, be it man, or rock or a shell, is derived through a paternalistic spiritual realm. All things are deferential, sacred and living.

Danymity's reply is largely unhelpful. There are a lot of nuances and depth to what Vine Deloria Jr. offers over his long history of legal, cultural and literary work due to its basis in his intelligence and that of his Lakota culture. His amazing contribution to balance in this modern mistaken world can be found in his books and in his very clear and available words right here on RU-vid. Keep looking beyond what you think he is about and what you presume is his lack of value, surmised from the nature of your question, True2Live.

JUST "LISTEN"! Your .."what is Vine Deloria Jr" tells a lot about you...NOT GOOD!

To actually answer your question: if someone uncritically accepts the authority of the scientific establishment, then he certainly peddles "pseudo-science." If someone takes an excessively literal interpretation of the Biblical Creation account, then yes, he is "anti-creationist."

Oh wow I didn't know that the Cherokee that took the trail of tears went to Black Wall Street, my grandmother on my mothers side is Cherokee...thank you for that info.

@sideusest admortem it's good to hear someone with a broader understanding, but I would like to take it one step farther. What makes you think the blacks weren't Native Americans? To me, it makes no sense to assume all blacks in America are descended from African slaves. I think the Dawes commission was up to no good. I've never heard of blacks being sold north. Only sold south or sold down the river as they say. And bringing blacks from Africa directly to the US was punishable by death by 1820. In fact, there were reports of sending colored people from the US to Africa in the late 17 hundreds. Have you heard of Liberia.?

@Thunder Bird if you're goind to look at it that way, then that applies to everyone.

@Thunder Bird That's called cherry-picking. We've all heard the Elmer Fudd Hollywood version of history. The middle passage is just as ridiculous as the out of Africa hypothesis. Not only is there no evidence of either one, but both are quite impossible. In the US importing blacks from Africa was illegal in the 17 hundreds and punishable by death by 1820, 40 years before the civil war.

@Thunder Bird - thank you.