• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Natural Gods vs. Personal Gods

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
There is a large difference between what I call "Personal Gods" and "Natural Gods".

A personal god is one with attributes given to it by humans and a natural god is worshipping a part of the natural world without giving it attributes.

Therefore if you worship nature, your god exist though I find there is little reason to worship it. (Though Einstein appeared to do so according to his notes).

I hope that those predisposed towards religion will one day embrace Natural Gods rather than Personal Gods.

What do you think on this subject and why?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
What do you think on this subject and why?
I think that just considering 'natural gods' and 'personal gods' is too limiting.

I believe that Consciousness is the only thing that is real and matters. I call all consciousness (including ours) God/Brahman. This consciousness is really all One at its source and that is what we are slowly learning.
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
I think that just considering 'natural gods' and 'personal gods' is too limiting.

I believe that Consciousness is the only thing that is real and matters. I call all consciousness (including ours) God/Brahman. This consciousness is really all One at its source and that is what we are slowly learning.

Tell me what do you know of Brahman?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Tell me what do you know of Brahman?
Brahman is best described as pure consciousness sat-cit-ananda (pure being-awareness-bliss). Many believe this realization is experienced but not satisfactorily explainable in finite thinking. I am not a rare Brahman-Realized master but I believe what is taught by a consistent school from such masters.

But before you go further in the challenge, I do not claim physical proof; just the teachings of many who after full consideration I have come to accept as knowing beyond the normal man. My study of the paranormal was my springboard to believing there is more to consciousness than physical consciousness.
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
Brahman is best described as pure consciousness sat-cit-ananda (pure being-awareness-bliss). Many believe this realization is experienced but not satisfactorily explainable in finite thinking. I am not a rare Brahman-Realized master but I believe what is taught by a consistent school from such masters.

But before you go further in the challenge, I do not claim physical proof; just the teachings of many who after full consideration I have come to accept as knowing beyond the normal man. My study of the paranormal was my springboard to believing there is more to consciousness than physical consciousness.

So your deity is the sum of the human consciousness?

Or are you attributing the entire universe consciousness?

Or are both of these wrong/true?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So your deity is the sum of the human consciousness?

Or are you attributing the entire universe consciousness?

Or are both of these wrong/true?
Consciousness exists in many ways some very, very different from human consciousness. There is only Brahman experiencing in an untold number of ways.
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
Consciousness exists in many ways some very, very different from human consciousness. There is only Brahman experiencing in an untold number of ways.

Ah seeing this post and your post on another thread.

I would consider you to have a personal god because assign attributes to that deity.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
There is a large difference between what I call "Personal Gods" and "Natural Gods".

A personal god is one with attributes given to it by humans and a natural god is worshipping a part of the natural world without giving it attributes.

Therefore if you worship nature, your god exist though I find there is little reason to worship it. (Though Einstein appeared to do so according to his notes).

I hope that those predisposed towards religion will one day embrace Natural Gods rather than Personal Gods.

What do you think on this subject and why?

I think it's a very good distinction to make, even if not entirely complete. I'm not sure how deified humans, for example, would fit into that, since human-Gods are inherently still as human as everyone else. (Though I naturally tend to question the completeness of any dichotomy; "see two things, ask for the third", as it were.)

I don't really agree that "Natural Gods" should one day entirely replace "Personal Gods", since the latter can be very useful. But I certainly wish for the day that they're not confused with each other, or that "Personal Gods" aren't forced onto other people. There's a reason when people say "Gods DEFINITELY don't exist! Prove me wrong!", I get snarky and go "pretty sure Sun exists", but never cite the more well-known Gods that I worship, such as Woden or Freya, for that snark.

Tell me what do you know of Brahman?

Just going to say this now, since I used to practice Hinduism. Brahman is a concept that's VERY tricky to wrap one's head around. I'm honestly not even sure that Brahman can be described as a God of any kind, let alone fit into your dichotomy, except that it sometimes gets deified. (And yes, I really mean "it".)
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
think it's a very good distinction to make, even if not entirely complete. I'm not sure how deified humans, for example, would fit into that, since human-Gods are inherently still as human as everyone else. (Though I naturally tend to question the completeness of any dichotomy; "see two things, ask for the third", as it were.)

Personal, since they are adding attributes to something that did not have them.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Is there somewhere you came upon this particular dichotomy, @Taylor Seraphim? I can't say I've run into it before. I'd be interested in seeing the sources that inspired it, if applicable.

As for the topic at hand, the term "personal god" confuses me on the whole, and I've encountered different perspectives on precisely what that means (most of them framed through a classical monotheist lens). I'm never sure if I want to use that term or not to describe my gods. On the one hand, as an animist, I understand all things as persons, but on the other hand what I mean by "persons" is not as typically understood (including the understanding you present in the OP). For now I just eschew the "personal" term entirely as I don't know what to do with it.

I can't say I hope that people abandon their particular conceptions of god(s) to head in one particular direction or another. I hope that people find an understanding of god(s) that is meaningful and fulfilling for them. If that means they don't use the word "god(s)" at all, that's fine too.

I am curious why you feel there would be little reason to worship what you call "natural gods." Could you expand on that, perhaps? What does that word "worship" mean to you?
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
Is there somewhere you came upon this particular dichotomy, @Taylor Seraphim? I can't say I've run into it before. I'd be interested in seeing the sources that inspired it, if applicable.

As for the topic at hand, the term "personal god" confuses me on the whole, and I've encountered different perspectives on precisely what that means (most of them framed through a classical monotheist lens). I'm never sure if I want to use that term or not to describe my gods. On the one hand, as an animist, I understand all things as persons, but on the other hand what I mean by "persons" is not as typically understood (including the understanding you present in the OP). For now I just eschew the "personal" term entirely as I don't know what to do with it.

I can't say I hope that people abandon their particular conceptions of god(s) to head in one particular direction or another. I hope that people find an understanding of god(s) that is meaningful and fulfilling for them. If that means they don't use the word "god(s)" at all, that's fine too.

I am curious why you feel there would be little reason to worship what you call "natural gods." Could you expand on that, perhaps? What does that word "worship" mean to you?

1) First of all it is an idea that I have read in the writing of Hitchens and while he advocated for the followers of natural religions to not use the word god in order to stop confusion, I disagree with him.

Another term that is used and may be more applicable is to call Personal Gods, Supernatural Gods instead.


2) Unfortunately they might find killing in the name of their god to be meaningful and personal to them.



3) Worship: show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.

I do not find it necessary for me physically or mentally to do that.

HOWEVER I do know that some people are predisposed to being religious and do need that for their mental well being, so therefore I find it would be very good for them but not me.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Personal, since they are adding attributes to something that did not have them.

I'm not so sure, though, that that's necessarily the case.

It might help if you explain what you mean by "attributes"?


As context for certain experiences that, for instance, can help cope with hard times, or getting psyched up. People who are naturally inclined to theistic thinking, such as myself, do better with such contexts than without them.

Besides, "Personal Gods" tend to make for FAR better stories.

They may not be useful for you, but it's not for any of us to judge what people should or should not find use in certain things so long as they're not harming others.
 

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
As context for certain experiences that, for instance, can help cope with hard times, or getting psyched up. People who are naturally inclined to theistic thinking, such as myself, do better with such contexts than without them.

I am sorry you have the inclination.

However I think natural religions can fill that role very easily.
 
Top