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

[Master Vigil]

So much of my research brings me to the understanding that mostly all nature based religions were developed within poor cultures and societies. Take the tribal religions. Their whole lives were based on their natural surroundings. The jungle, forests, the hunt. Their survival was dependent on nature and what nature produced. This even affects those who are poor and living in civilization. Take for instance the romani, and sinti gypsies. Very poor, and only made money from hunting, trading, wood work, metal work, and things that nature provided. It isn't hard to see that their religious beliefs were very nature based as well. If riches cloud the mind and demean the soul, would the poor and nature based religions be the true ways to practice? After the primal religions left, the basic religious difference was the idea of self, above and apart from nature. Is this egotistical idea hindering those who hold it from achieving enlightenment and true happiness?

[painted wolf]

The religions of the Aztec and other meso-american cultures were not 'poor' they lived in some of the largest cities on earth... (The Aztec capitol was larger than London at the same period of time)
The same goes for the Ancheint Egyptions.... And I'm shure many other cultures.

Also many Native Americans who still worship in the ways of their ancestors *cough* live in urban environments... Historically N.A peoples lived in large settled villages that depended more on farming than hunting for food... Meat was a nice addition to the diet but not the major source of food.

In short I think that 'poor' culture has little to do with disconnection from nature.

Wa:do

[Hirohito18200]

1 thing, for the sake of clarity, could u define 'nature based religions'? at they're heart, most religions are nature based, at their core at least. In most traditions, the dieties were responsible for miraculous natural occurences. anyway. Doesn't the focus of the religion say something about the society in itself? The people in with nature based religions are going to have priorities leaning more toward reverance toward natural versus material things. If I were to worship a fire god, wouldnt i be more likely to assosiate with fire than if I worshiped a god of gold and wealth? I think that while most religions started off as 'nature' religions, you are right in that the material prosperity of the society probably did have something to do with the evolution of the religion. Good point. And were the meso-american religions really 'nature' religions at the time of their monumental building and warfare? At that point in their history they behaved more like pre-theocratic Jews than wiccans. my dos pesos

[Green Gaia]

A society's economy, political structure and kinship influence, and are influenced by the society's religion. You have to understand these other factors before you can understand the society's religion.

[Hirohito18200]

I would say the opposite, that a societies religion is influenced by those factors. People will manipulate religion to justify/promote their behavior, look at medieval Christianity or Islam.

[painted wolf]

well... the gods of Meso-america were often personifications of natural events such as Rain, Corn, Death, Blood, Wind and so forth... having cities didn't lead them away from such respect for nature. Many people still lived in and visited the smaller rural areas, and they certenly depended on them for survival... not having many domesticated food animals (dogs were food as well as friends) they still depended on hunting for meat and other things. Also the farmlands (at lest in the Aztec captiol) were integrated directly into the design of the city and would have been a major part of the scenery in many areas. Thus you end up with a city that still has a strong connection to the natural world.

as for weather a religion molds society or vice versa... I would say that it is a mix of both. Culture and religion are intertwined in shuch as way that a change in one make a change in the other.

wa:do

[Hirohito18200]

yes, I would agree with you. When I talk about meso american societies, I'm looking at the socio-political landscape of the countries, being a theocracy. Yes, im sure the roots of the religion are in nature, but the evolution of the religion turned it into more of a ruling tool, which is how I end up criticizing it.

[Master Vigil]

I guess I shouldn't have used "poor" per se, but think about this. Nowadays we do not need to hunt to survive, we do not need to plant to survive. We need others to do this for us but we do not care about it. Nowadays the western idea of god is above, transcended from earth, and the earth no longer is sacred. But for those people who depended on the earth, native americans, shinto, gypsies, africans, etc... Their beliefs were very "nature" based (in that they make good with the gods of those things they depend on here on earth.) Its true, all roots of religions came from the hunter gatherer peoples and their nature based religions. They did not have what we have today, they depended on nature, and this is why their beliefs were shaped as such. But my general question was... does the egotistical idea of being above nature hinder enlightenment and peace?

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

as for weather a religion molds society or vice versa... I would say that it is a mix of both. Culture and religion are intertwined in shuch as way that a change in one make a change in the other.

wa:do

Exactly. We were just discussing this in my religion class the other night. Change one fundamental thing about a society and change all the others.

[painted wolf]

but nowadays we are seeing an increase in 'nature' based