Seems to me in spirituality you have two basic choices

(Well, three/four if you count Athiesm/Agnosticism. I guess. But I'm directing this to people who are committed to some sort of spirituality).

1) Choice 1: You accept that there is a higher power than yourself that is fundamentally higher, a creator God perhaps, such as in the Abrahamic religions (fundamentalist, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity, plus Islam and Judaism, for example). The worshipper must "bow down" in supplication to this God. The God dispenses divine justice, in most cases. The God is the creator, and you are the created. You will never "merge with" or "become one" with this God...you may pray, contemplate, supplicate, sacrifice, etc...but He will forever be master and you servant.

2) Choice 2: You accept that it is possible to merge with the higher power in a mystical or transcendent experience. You perhaps experience the cosmos as panthiestic. In this vision, there is no fundamental separation between living creatures and God...we are manifestations of Him/It and by modulating our consciousness we can become One with the Divine. Moreover, we can achieve this fusion here and now...we don't have to wait for death.

Choice 1 is, as noted, the standard view of the Abrahamic religions. Choice 2 is the view of mystical schools, Eastern philosophies, "mystery religions," Mystic Christians like the Rosicrucians, etc. The strict Abrahamists consider the later to be blasphemous perversions of Christ's message ("mystery babylon") that attempt to make a human into a God, thus recapitulating the unweening pride that caused Lucifer's fall and will damn all such practitioners to unending hell torment. Those who pick choice 2 tend to see the strict Abrahamists as fear-saturated, overly-literal dullards who miss the true meaning of spirituality and deny their chance to become illuminated or enlightened in this very life.

It seems you cannot hold both views at the same time. They are utterly incompatible, as far as I can tell. So, (for those who consider themselves religious or spiritual), in which direction do your sympathies lie?

I see it as BOTH/AND, in other words that God is BOTH innerent AND transcendant.

I also think that for love to be love, there is always an I-thou relationship, between a beloved and a beloved other, and in this love, there is also consumation, and the comingling of the spirit of God and of man.

I am with God and God is with me AND I am in God and God is in me.

I am convinced that the design of man is intended in this way to hold both things, both ways, because surely God is also forever transcendant, and preserving that duality in unity is vitally important, or there's no one to love and be loved by.

It's both. They are not mutually exclusive imho.

And to bow down before the magesty of the grace of God, and give thanks and have appreciation for, it also wholly appropriate. Indeed I am a created being, and not the creator in totality, that's absurd, and yes, supremely arrogant, and somehow rude and an insult to the part of me that IS one with God.

I just finished taking an advanced Buddhist worskshop from one of THE most highly acclaimed practitioners in North America, and there was something distinctly missing in it, a reverence for the transcendant divine Being, for the Supreme One who is greater than all.

To love God above all and neighbor as self, holds both together in the most appropriate way imho.

But God is spirit, and truth also - not some bearded man in the sky.

It's a mysterious paradox which ought not be collapsed.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I see it as BOTH/AND, in other words that God is BOTH innerent AND transcendant.

I also think that for love to be love, there is always an I-thou relationship, between a beloved and a beloved other, and in this love, there is also consumation, and the comingling of the spirit of God and of man.

I am with God and God is with me AND I am in God and God is in me.

I am convinced that the design of man is intended in this way to hold both things both ways, because surely God is also forever transcendant, and preserving that duality in unity is vitally important, or there's no one to love and be loved by.

It's both. They are not mutually exclusive imho.

Interesting, I'll have to think about this for a bit. I hope you are right in them not being mutually exclusive, but this problem has tormented me for years.

It seems to me you either WORSHIP GOD in supplication as a superior being, OR you seek to become a god in your own right (through mystical fusion). I can't see how such radically different views can even begin to be reconciled...but perhaps I'm not being imaginative enough.

reply to post by silent thunder


I edited my post above.

Think of the word AND as the "Holy Conjunction", think Innerent AND Transcendant.

It IS a disgrace to call one's own self, no matter how vast, God in totality! Oh that gives me the heebie jeebies! And I don't think it's because of any religious predisposition, it just feels so totally wrong, in the deepest part of me who shares a place with God, because the love of God wants me to be with him, forever, and never be forced to set me apart from him for making a play for his throne. Oh! Never! That's disgusting!

Buddhism is flawed imo in precisely this area, so this is where I prefer to incorporate or appropriate the Buddhist teachings into my Christian mysticism.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Well, I am a pantheist in its truest form in that I strongly feel that the universe itself is the supreme being involved in running things and it is sentient. That being said, I don't see how you can bow down to the universe or merge with it either, since you are already a part of it and are so insignificant to it on a unit level that the showing of respect would be no more significant than a single electron leaving a single atom is to us.

well religion itself is of thousands of sources
what you feel inside your soul, admitting you have one even,
that is all up to you,
there are many people pushing Jesus
He's a great choice,
two different directions of course
Mohammad will have you die and go to paradice bombing people
you never need go to school to get this wealth
or being Christian you go to college and become someone
so you can give money to charities.
personally the Muslim thing, Im not a student,
but it seems money is less prevelant in that religion.

I'm pretty sure that God is a loving consciously aware being above it, and who knows us intimately, and loves us unconditionally, but not without a loving discipline which dovetails somehow with our own conscience. So again, I think it's another paradox, in that we are both masters of our own fate, responsible for our own lives and choices, having absolute free will, AND, are watched over and guided by a power greater than ourselves, but one which is certainly VERY personal and not the least impersonal, so in this way, I am no different from the fundamentalist literalist in many ways, though I've arrived at the same place from a very different path.

reply to post by rogerstigers


But surely the universe, unless it is without cause, and therefore without purpose or intent, and thus without consciousness - is a God created matrix, or the created infrastructure for the play of form and function, and varied experience, or in other words for God's own enjoyment and play.

Originally posted by silent thunder
(Well, three/four if you count Athiesm/Agnosticism. I guess. But I'm directing this to people who are committed to some sort of spirituality).

...you're misinformed... atheists dont believe god(s) exist and thats all there is to being an atheist - nothing more... anything else an atheist chooses to believe is their own personal deal and has nothing to do with being an atheist... atheists can be spiritual, since the definition of such is a personal determination... agnostics are not sure if god(s) exist but that does not mean they are void of spirituality either...

This is quite interesting. I have personally chosen neither of the two. I accept the possibility that there is a higher power but have rejected to either fuse with it or bow to it. Instead, I have taken the stance that all conscious beings have the potential to become one of those higher powers themselves. Given the proper training and/or evolution. (be it darwinian evolution or simple mind evolution)

And I think the church of satan expresses this same opinion. (I am uncertain because I do not commit myself to any religious organization)

Bottom line, I'm just glad there's something and not nothing at all. It's more fun this way, and not as lonely.

Originally posted by Mr. Toodles
This is quite interesting. I have personally chosen neither of the two. I accept the possibility that there is a higher power but have rejected to either fuse with it or bow to it. Instead, I have taken the stance that all conscious beings have the potential to become one of those higher powers themselves. Given the proper training and/or evolution. (be it darwinian evolution or simple mind evolution)

And I think the church of satan expresses this same opinion. (I am uncertain because I do not commit myself to any religious organization)

You sound a lot like my GF, a hard-core satanist. Personally, I'm a Buddhist who spent 4 years in a monestary in Japan. It makes for some interesting dinnertime conversations, to say the least.

She may be even more hardcore than you because she'S deep into these rituals where she turns her body into an "altar" or doorway for the so called "ancient ones" to manifest in this world. She also believes she's been part of the first generation of elites to willingly accept the mark of the beast. This kind of thing makes my skin crawl...but oh the passion! Aries meets Scorpio -- watch out world.

She doesn't post here much but here's here info if you are interested:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Greetings,

Well, I must also disagree with your either/or dialectic. I will say this, and I am not speaking for Islam or Christianity (at least not in the mundane varieties you tend to find (perhaps Gnosticism and Suffism, although I am more a fan of the latter than the former personally).

Mysticism itself is a vital aspect to the "Abrahamic" faiths, as you are so fond of referring to them. Think of it this way, as is brought down in Jewish Mysticism (I'm talking the actual stuff, not some cult that Madonna or whoever follows)-- there is but one Singularity that exists. You can generically call that God, and the pantheist will call it "the Universe." I don't see much difference here, other than some territorial squabbles, from people caught in some semantic quagmire, of whatever particular variety. The point here, as far as I see it, and forgive me, I am only offering my opinion-- is that there is one organic SINGULARITY that exists, and from it all of Creation is manifest and sustained.

Now, I understand that some people like to anthropomorphosize (sp?) this concept and like to attribute human characteristics to It. well, let's look at the history of religion and mythology in the human experience. To be fair, if you get to the core of what Abraham actually taught, He was about *experiencing* the *reality* of "God," not believing in abstract concepts. God was not a person, which the OT is adamant about stating- Exodus anyone?). So whatever that meant to him, as a historical welcomer to strangers and guests, it seems that he taught meditational practices of an experiential nature to his guests. Now, it's open to anyone's interpretation what exactly he was trying to express the reality of, some say it was less of a "being" and more of the nature/fabric of the space-time continuum.

Abraham believed there was a underlying consciousness to the Universe, and that this outer manifestation was perhaps akin to a body, but there was ultimately a "Mind" behind it. That's actually the origins of the ancient Hebrew concept of "God." Now let's look at the Greeks, they had Gods that were humans, or part human, or always coming down and mating with human women. The emphasis, which makes sense when you look at Greek philosophy in general; there is a distinct emphasis on humanity. Is it any surprise that Christianity, which is perhaps more Greek than it could ever be considered Hebrew, insists that God was/is a Man. The Trinity is a sad example of fusing Jewish Monotheism with Greek Polytheism.

Well, to simplify everything, in terms of the original cosmology of Abraham, he believed that the only thing that actually exists is this "over-mind" of sorts, this unseen aspect which transcends and manifests this "physical world." To Abraham, the only thing that exists is "God" (which is not a name, it is a title, an abstract concept created by humans). So we exist either as figments of the Divine Imagination, or as some necessary element that is structurally and integrally created to work within a holistic system and perhaps in some small way allows (although I don't want my use of this term to be misunderstood) this Greater System to function in the way it's Architect intends. So, as a result, there is no individual.

There is no self-hood in an absolute sense, there is only a totality beyond our conception. The whole "Angry Bearded Guy in the Sky" thing, or the dying "we have to eat his body and drink his blood or else we burn in hell eternally" concepts are equally just man projecting it's weird and limited understanding/fear onto the very fabric of nature. I guess what I'm saying is, that your two choices are a false dialectic, there is only one Reality, but it is so infinitely complex that we will never understand it, and by virtue of it's infinitude we exist as semi-autonomous beings. I say semi-autonomous, because at the Universal level, everything is connected into a vast Ecumenical system.

-Hex23

The two choices you list are a limitation that you have imposed on the question. The answer is a lot more complex than that. First of all with question number one you talked about the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions as being a servant to the master. But you are only seeing the surface of these religions and not the mystery behind them. The religious institutions have their place in society but they are only a reflection of the inner teachings. In Judaism there is the Cabala, in Christianity there is Gnosticism, the Grail mystery, and other examples of a more spiritual teaching. In Islam there is Sufism. And just as Jesus criticized the Sadducees for sticking to the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam have fallen into the same trap. That seems to be the way of large religious establishments. First comes the inner spiritual message, then comes the teachers, then the institution that seeks to preserve itself. You also left out Zoroastrianism and the religion of Ahknaton, the source of the Rosicrucian philosophy.

Pantheism is no different. It is just a different approach. Instead of treating with a omnipotent, omnipresent god, pantheism breaks god up into different characteristics, aspects, powers, etc. Now in the magical based pagan religions, it is believed that you can use these different aspects through magic ritual. The trap of paganism is ego and the belief that you can control gods power and thus become like god. The true magi (saint, etc) knows that all aspects are a reflection of one and that even as a co-creator, there are responsibilities, limitations, and rules. The narcissist refuses to believe that and indulges themselves in the belief of their own power. The magi knows how to be a co-creator.

Either path, Monotheism or Pantheism is a recognition that there is something greater than ourselves and that in the end we are all connected, our actions affect the people and things around us. In a spiritual journey the simple things can be the most profound and you can sum up the mysteries in a few words and spend your life understanding them. In the end it is about respecting ourselves, the people around us, and knowing that we can control our destiny.

Do under to others as you would have them do unto you.
As you believe so shall it be.
Those who wish to be first must be last of all and the servant of all

The Thomas Christians might be said to believe in both. By the way I don't know if that is what they are called it is just what I call the christians (many in india) that have chosen to follow the gospel of Thomas more then the Gospel of John.

I like the have it both ways belief. It is how I run my life, having things both ways. My beliefs have a sort of fluid certainty in that I am certain that I am right but am willing to accept that I am not.

My personal thoughts on God lately have been that the universe is but his daydream. He can influence it if he wants but mostly he just enjoys the show. That stance might also be considered to have both views of a God that we do not merge with staying separate little figments of his imagination but still as his day dreams an intimate part of him.

reply to post by Antsoair


I have a feeling we both wrote our responses at the same time, based on the posting of them. I find that an amusing example on some level of this sort of "Collective Consciousness" I was implying but couldn't get into due to the limit of characters one can use in a post. I don't agree with everything you said, but I think that the point was well-taken by us both. I don't put much into Christianity in a theological sense, but where I have seen it work well is in a psychological sense-- those sincere individuals who are transformed by some particular fantastical belief in their life-- well, that's a good thing if it leads to the right ends (even if it is a fairy-tale, I'm concerned about morality, not theology when it comes to Humanity in general-- no one religion is right, and this is not a contest, that's man-made foolishness). I think you can believe any foolish idea you want, as long as you adhere to the Universal codes of morality (which I think of more like the logical moral out-crop of the Laws of Physics), and you connect with the Source in whatever way you can, however limited that might be for any of us. "God" is bigger than any religion teaches. In fact, "God" can be found without any religion whatsoever, if you do it right Not to say that I'm right..

-Hex23

Edit because my spelling is obnoxiously bad this time of nite/morning

[edit on 8-7-2009 by hexagram23]

reply to post by silent thunder


In my opinion, traditional religeons are based on fear and we are controlled by not one true god but mortal priests on a power struggle. The fact that there ar so many different traditional religeons in practice assures me that they must be missing something. They do not obey the god they believe in but rather engage in selfish wars in search of more power over more people. The time when we all acknowledge the one true divine power will be the time of enlightenment and awakening.

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

reply to post by silent thunder


spiritual (adj.) Look up spiritual at Dictionary.com
"of or concerning the spirit" (especially in religious aspects), 1303, from O.Fr. spirituel (12c.), from L. spiritualis, from spiritus "of breathing, of the spirit" (see spirit). Meaning "of or concerning the church" is attested from 1338. The noun sense of "African-American religious song" first recorded 1866. Spirituality (1417) is from M.Fr. spiritualite, from L.L. spiritualitatem (nom. spiritualitas), from L. spiritualis). An earlier form was spiritualty (1377).


Breath belongs to everyone living, hence "The living God".

Did you know that prophets were traveling musicians? They spoke of "current" events. They were well known people.

Did you know that Judah means "celebrated"? The Jews literally means "the celebrated" or "Celebrities".

"You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship for salvation is of the celebrities"....how true is that? Nobody knows Joe Schmoe, but everyone knows celebrities...even when they die, they are remembered by the "living god".

Some celebrities are known for thousands of years. Their names are taken up by the "living god" and spoken....even names like Hitler are recalled by "the living god".

We speak in spirit. I don't believe that is what you are looking for. I believe you are looking for the second part...truth. Only true things are true, namely the things you know. Everything else, you have no need to worry about, but what ever you speak, let it be accomplished. Be a witness to spirit by manifesting what is said, then it is truth.

Peace

Originally posted by silent thunder

You sound a lot like my GF, a hard-core satanist.

Ok, maybe you mis-read my post. I am not a satanist. I took up this belief long before I knew anything about Satanism. I do not perform satanic rituals. I do not conform to ANY religious organization.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


I use the word "spirtual" because it seems slightly less loaded than "religious" to me...in my mind, the "spiritual" includes both the formally religious and the more informal mystical experiences all people tend to have from time to time. The word "truth" seems even more loaded to me. I don't know what to call this "phenomenon" other than spiritual (or sometimes I use the word "psychospiritual." Perhaps you can suggest another one. "Truth" with its connotations of black-and-white scientific rigor, while a good, strong word in its own right, doesn't seem to me to cast a wide enough net to cover what I'm trying to cover here.