Nature religions and poor culture. (Earth, tradition, beliefs, blood)

[Master Vigil]

"For excample , when one talks about Jewish Spiritualism , one is usually talking about the Kabbalah , something outside the standart Religion ."

Like I said, this is jewish mysticism, not spiritualism.

"Religion implies a set standart of moral codes , worship , and the like . In other words , a Religion tends to have a dogma . A code set down by some authority ."

Yes, but even if one worships in one's own way. The moral codes, dogma, and religious authority would be one's self.

"A Spiritual Path is one's own search for God ."

All religions are one's own search for god. There is no difference. No two catholics worship the same, nor do two jews, or hindu's, or buddhists. And why would you not want others to tell you about it, where do you learn anything from? Aleister Crowley and the Thelemic Order are by no means any different than the roman church.

"We can set our own moral codes , but that doesn't make us religious . We can worship our own version of a Creator , but that alone doesn't make us religious ."

I think it does, only if our moral codes bring us closer to god, or the divine. And any worship of any kind of creator would make you religious.

"Can one be Spiritual and not worship anything ? I don't think so ."

I do, spirituality does not rest on the belief of anything. It only rests on the emotion of said person. I believe you give spirituality too broad of a meaning.

"Spirituality is a personal Path ."

Only if nothing is worshipped, if something is, than it is a religion.

"Yes , some channelers / mediums call themselves Spiritaulist . But that does mean their way is the onlt Spiritual way . And is it a religion ? That would depend upon your defination of religion ..."

No, but they are known as spiritualists. Others can have difference spiritual attributes, but once something is worshipped, that is when religion occurs.

[Master Vigil]

Religion in latin means "to bind back." Whatever is being bound back to, makes it a religion. If your spirituality makes you meet the divine in some special way that is religion. When a divine is worshipped, that is religion.

[kreeden]

We are arguing over terms , not the ideals behind them . Perhaps I do take a too board view on Spiritualism , but in my opinion , you would take too narrow a view . And that is my point . Personal views . A Church states what a dogma is . In my view , that is a Religion . And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that , just that some chose a different way .

BTW one definition of of mysticism is " a religion based on mystical communion with an ultimate reality "
One definition of Spiritualism is " the view that spirit is a prime element of reality "

Is there really that much difference in the two ?

[Adie]

Regarding the statement about nature religions and "poor" culture- I think that those who subscribe to nature religions have priorities that are simply different than the current (current being at the time, and not necessarially right now. If someone is talking about religion during the Roman era or if they're talking about religion today. I'm simply using the term "current" as a general idea of the culture) idea of wealth. Someone who has fields of crops and herds of animals is just as wealthy, in their own right, as someone who has piles of gold. Likewise with someone who has a clear cut view of how to attain access to the ultimate reality. Wealth is relative. Wheather someone who subscribes to a nature religion is poor because their religious views don't put an emphasis on material gain or because their lack of material success causes them to reorder their priorities doesn't matter. So long as they are comfortable within their situations, why should anyone else judge them?


Religions today have the same basic principles and ideas as their foundations, but the smaller details are so different from where they began. Hindus, though their caste system is so important to the religious order, have only recently begun to break the system and claim that those of the lower caste or women can become enlightened. At the birthtime of Jainism, it was mandatory for people to walk around naked, but now Jains have the option of wearing clothing. Look at the differences between Theravada and Mahayana (or Hiniyana... and forgive my spelling. I don't have any books around me to refer to... lol) Buddhism. Even Christianity is incredibly different from where it began. The arguement over mysticism and spiritualism and whatnot is just displaying different aspects of a perticular religion, but at the foundation that religion is always the same.

I hope this makes sense.... ( ;

[kreeden]

Well , I still don;t like the term " religion ". But you are correct Aide . Vigil has answered my question , and I have tried to answer his , anything now is just an arguement . BTW Vigil , you may be interested to know that I walked away from religion in 1969 . I returned to it for a few months once because it had something I had to learn at the time , but only for six months max . The thing is , I walked away from religion , not God . And God has never walked away from me nor even turned his back . And I still have the same God that I always had , only I understand him a little differently .

[Master Vigil]

I do agree that we are disagreeing over terms. I'm just trying to use the terms that I find are regularly used in the scholarly world. I may be wrong, but that is what I am trying to do. I also believe in a difference between organized religion and religion. And I believe in a difference between religion and theology. And I also believe a difference between religion and spirituality. But the distinction as is plainly seen by our discussion is not distinct at all. Here are my definitions...

Religion - action taken towards the spiritual or divine. (worship, theoretical views, sociological attributes.)

Theology - of course the study of, or about religion.

Spirituality - recognization of the spiritual or divine but with no action.

Perhaps that will help with our discussion here.

[Kay]

But my general question was... does the egotistical idea of being above nature hinder enlightenment and peace?

I do believe that much of humanity has become detatched from nature. Most of us don't even know what the current moon phase is without looking at a calendar.

IMO, being detatched from the natural rythms of this world has contributed to the sense that humans are seperate from, not only plants and animals, but each other. Realizing that we are all interconnected would go a long way towards fostering peace.

[painted wolf]

I don't think that thinking you are above nature nessisarily hinders enlightenment.
There have been a great number of enlightened/at peace Christians for example.

I agree Kay that we need to work on forming connections again. We have become to seperate for our own good.

wa:do

[michel]

Originally Posted by Kay

I do believe that much of humanity has become detatched from nature. Most of us don't even know what the current moon phase is without looking at a calendar.

IMO, being detatched from the natural rythms of this world has contributed to the sense that humans are seperate from, not only plants and animals, but each other. Realizing that we are all interconnected would go a long way towards fostering peace.

A lovely post! Through learning (from the moment we are born) we lose touch with that "oneness"; the more we grow, the further back we burry those thoughts and abilities that we have to "connect" with nature - Unless (for some wonderful reason) we try to stay on that original path.

[kreeden]

And anyone who thinks that humans are " egotistical " has never met a Raven . Or a Cat .

I don't know , but I do not see Nature as " peaceful ". It can be . But it also can be very cruel and unforgiving . That is not to say that much can be achieved by understanding our place in Nature . By forming " connections ". But there is more to it then that I believe .