Naturalistic Spirituality Vs. Theistic Spirituality

I noticed that those who are spiritual, who do not follow traditions and holy books, they seem to get their beliefs from something else. Some people believe that there is a main god creator out there and everything is made of spirit and we should strive for more compassion so that we can care for each other since we are all spirit, caring for one another is like caring for god. This will also help us to understand and grow... This is what I mean when I say theistic spirituality. It is the belief that love is the way guided by a main creator.

Then, there are those who believe that nature is perfect as it is and it is reflecting spiritual universal laws that we should learn. The ideas are usually balance (light/darkness, life/death, love/hate) and going with the flow (like the animals and plants that just grow).

Which one is true? Do you believe that Earth is in a "low-state" and we need to bring in more spirit of light love compassion so that we can be closer to creator god? Or do you believe that everything is already perfect with balance and humans are just "wishing" and "dreaming" for the unrealistic when they should be going back to nature?

Theistic Spirituality would be beliefs like Christianity or Buddhism, and any other religion that believe in a creator god and believe that "love" is the way, or that believe that there is some path we should "strive" for.

Naturalistic Spirituality would be more like Daoism, or any other belief that believe that everything is perfect it is just that humans are out of balance and therefore have the wrong perspective, they are not going with "The Way" or "The Flow" of nature...

What do you think about this?

reply to post by arpgme


Humans are the most unnatural thing on earth. The Earth existed for millions of years in the same general conditions (cyclical, of course) before we came along. We come along, and BOOM! 2,000 years later, the earth is unrecognizable.

My faith comes from a melding of science and religion. Religion will only remain religion while it is in the heart and not the mind. That's essentially what it is...heart and mind.

reply to post by arpgme


Whenever you set up a pair of opposites...such as Naturalistic Spirituality Vs. Theistic Spirituality...transcend them. Don't try to chose between them. You just create imbalance by doing so.

Have you read much Joseph Campbell? Nowadays people seem to think they can understand religion without comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparative mysticism. Nope. No one can.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


There is nothing unnatural about the human per se, since nature created the human, we have an organic brain which allows us to create things from organic materials (wood, stone, metal, etc). At one point the world was ruled by volcanoes, and the world was all snow and ice, then all water, then grass and water, now den's made of wood that humans live in called "houses". Tools made of metal and electricity which humans call "the computer", and so on.

Since things are always changing, the way the earth look in millions of years, will probably change again just like it changed from ice, water, to grass, and now cities.

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by arpgme

 

Whenever you set up a pair of opposites...such as Naturalistic Spirituality Vs. Theistic Spirituality...transcend them. Don't try to chose between them. You just create imbalance by doing so.

No, it doesn't. There are already people believing in one or the other so it balances itself out. This is like saying trying to ascend "+ 1 - 1", you can't, you'll just get "nothing", "non-existence".

This is like saying Truth vs Fiction, do not worry about which is true, you cause imbalance. No it doesn't, some people don't care about truth, but I do so it balances out.

the disclaimer here is that all terms and concepts are generalities, and an in depth conversation of such a topic is a far more nuanced thing such generalities can imbue. that being said;


i've understood the Theist religion as 'Transcendental' religions, in that the goal is to 'transcend' this current state of being... as the OP has said, the Abrahamic Religions & Buddhism would fall into this category.

the Naturalist Religions i've called Cyclical religions, in that they follow the cycles of the earth, sun, moon and the forces of nature. traditional pagan religions, druidic, etc.

The theist religions are Yang in principal, in that they are "seeking to go beyond".
the naturalist religions are Yin, in that they are "coming to rhythm with the environment"

in this regard i agree with the OP, though my vernacular differs a bit.



however...
just as though the forces of Yin and Yang (male and female) balance the other, i believe that a healthy spirituality is not Theist VERSUS Naturalist, but Theist AND Naturalist.

the VERSUS is what gets us into a great deal of trouble.


when the Snake was condemned in the Garden of Eden, this was a defamation of the Naturalist/Cyclical forms of spirituality. the Snake is, in most cultures, a symbol for the cycles of the world and the wisdom of such a cycle (the shedding of skins is a powerful metaphor). but in naming the snake Evil (and the Woman the original sinner), the authors have created the VERSUS of which you speak. the Transcendental God is against the Cyclical God. heaven is against earth.

this core division of God Vs. Nature, i believe has cause a great many of the problems we face today and is what allows for atrocities such as strip mining & clear cutting.



i believe the Hindu religion captures the merging of these two principles of spirituality fairly well. their pantheon of deities often reflect reverence for the natural world, and yet the more esoteric concepts of Transcendence are reflected in their Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu & Shiva.

anyhow... my perspective on an interesting topic.i could wax on, but alas...

cheers.

reply to post by mythos


Wow...Whoever edited the Bible did a lot of damage, didn't they? Hitler looks like Mother Theresa compared to this.

reply to post by mythos


Yea, I only said labelled these two in contrast for the purpose of discussion. I like your words for it better "Transcendental Spirituality" and "Naturalistic Spirituality", I called it "Theistic" because I couldn't think of a better word at the moment.

Maybe this is what "The Golden Age is", maybe the Earth itself go through times where destruction is more dominant and when peace is more dominant. Maybe people think we are going through an "Ascension" when really, this is what's happening - we are simply shifting from the destructive side to a more peaceful side by laws of nature / universal law.

Originally posted by arpgme
I noticed that those who are spiritual, who do not follow traditions and holy books, they seem to get their beliefs from something else. Some people believe that there is a main god creator out there and everything is made of spirit and we should strive for more compassion so that we can care for each other since we are all spirit, caring for one another is like caring for god. This will also help us to understand and grow... This is what I mean when I say theistic spirituality. It is the belief that love is the way guided by a main creator.

I am in that category. Mostly because I do not claim something that I do not know. Most religious people claim that what they believe in is true, they stand by it. You will not hear me say something about spirituality and tell you that I am sure. Yet, when it comes to the faith in God, my faith has begun to grow outside of the normal concept - waking up and praising God, believing that you are existing in the physical kingdom of God - a planet called earth. My faith has begun to imply that there is a magical aspect to reality. So when a religious person gets in a discussion with me we may agree on many spiritual ideas, but they may not put love first in their demonstration of communication. The magic is in coming together, so anyone without love will be seen immediately as not wanting to come together. The belief in a spirit or soul is very hard to come by - to me it is an easy gamble because there is no consequence to the alternative. If we don't have spirits or souls then living as if we did would have no negatives. The evidence is few but one has to have an open mind to even see the evidence of a subject.

The main difference between a religious and a spiritual society for me is that religion would fail to come together as a whole (as our current day). Spirituality means that we are spirits, unique and we have a creator of our soul. As a spiritual person I agree with religion, but I am also more of a realist, yet I have the mind of a child, I believe magic is possible, 4th dimension in possible.

In spirituality it is important to love every person, so how can I not love Jesus? In fact the teachings of Jesus were amazing, the story is amazing, and I don't have enough reason to believe it was all a hoax. But I keep it to that. We have to use psychology just as much as spirituality, because how are we to believe every single person and our keep sanity?

The world is not to be believed, which brings us to your conclusion that we seem to get our beliefs from something else. You are right, it is simply wanting everyone to see you as a truly loving person, just as you want to see them as the same. There are many that hate me, but the psychological and spiritual things going on with people in the present day and so much of a puzzle to figure out, it would not be good to have a mental love for a certain tradition or practice and not be an example of love in the world. It is interesting, because if someone did take me into a church, I would recognize all the world religions as being created by people of different character, the Creator would be the one who gave us the living soul, and we would kneel or bow down to that which have gave us both the living soul.

reply to post by arpgme


When a cat does something that is very much un-catlike, we call it unnatural.

When a species is created or born that destroys the very system that supports it in order to keep themselves alive, oddly enough (the first species to do so) I call it unnatural.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by mythos

 

Wow...Whoever edited the Bible did a lot of damage, didn't they? Hitler looks like Mother Theresa compared to this.

i do feel the adam & eve story is fine for an allegory, but as the End All Be All story of human creation, it is rather dangerous. it contains too many divisions, and labels the earth, and a woman's bonds to the earth as something that is the source of all our evils... evils that in turn 'caused us to have to sacrifice God's "only" son to redeem.

that puts a great deal of blame onto the woman, and the serpent... both of which are symbols of a Naturalistic Spirituality. it unbalances the union of Male & Female. from my perspective, it is a bit of propaganda.

a disclaimer--- there are beauties and noble truths to be found in the bible, so i am not whole sale stating that the book is a calamity. but there is a great deal of strife woven within it... strife half this world keeps playing out as descendants of Abraham.

reply to post by mythos


The book itself is like a weapon of mass destruction. The same will be said for anything that can be used to kill thousands of innocent people, or instigate such a process.

The book isn't a calamity, it's just dangerous.

reply to post by arpgme


i liked your terms as well. the concepts are very similar, just the wordage differed a bit.

and yes... we live in a time of unbalance, when the pendulum is swinging in extremes to counterbalance itself.
we shall see what becomes of us silly humans. a shame we have to drag down half the planet with us, as we work through our own growing pains.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by mythos

 

The book itself is like a weapon of mass destruction. The same will be said for anything that can be used to kill thousands of innocent people, or instigate such a process.

The book isn't a calamity, it's just dangerous.

edit on 30-6-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

regretfully... i agree. it is dangerous. it is imbued with too much power... to siphon the eternal concepts of Spirituality into one book, then have that one book translated and retranslated via whichever cultures lense that happened to get a hold of it. yeeesh...

again, there are good things done in the name of said book. but there are also lots of bad things as well.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by arpgme

 

When a cat does something that is very much un-catlike, we call it unnatural.

When a species is created or born that destroys the very system that supports it in order to keep themselves alive, oddly enough (the first species to do so) I call it unnatural.

edit on 30-6-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

What is "un-catlike"? Are you talking about the HUMAN perspective of what they are FAMILIAR with seeing a cat doing? If it is not familiar, it is therefore unnatural and wrong? This sound similar to those who are afraid of the unknown.

Originally posted by greyer

In spirituality it is important to love every person, so how can I not love Jesus? In fact the teachings of Jesus were amazing, the story is amazing, and I don't have enough reason to believe it was all a hoax. But I keep it to that. We have to use psychology just as much as spirituality, because how are we to believe every single person and our keep sanity?

Maybe it wasn't a hoax, maybe it was a misunderstanding, a mythology, or even astro-theology. This illustrates the problem with people who do not believe in balance. They can not accept criticism. They only want to see the "positive" of their belief and not the "negative". They become blinded with love and ignore the evils of the person.

For example, most people see Jesus with only positivity, and yet, they ignore the negative side, such as him saying that he approves of The Old Law in Matthew where Moses is saying that God told them to have slaves and even how to treat them and to cut off their ear to keep them for life, of how Jesus said in Luke that anyone who doesn't accept him should die, not go to hell, he was commanding that they actually bring them before him and kill them. He also said that "ye are my friends, if you do whatsoever I command of you", sounds very controlling and vindictive, but because people are in denial of darkness, they pretend it doesn't exist, they ignore it, and they are blinded by light.

Like they say: Love can be blind, just look at all of those leaders through out time who people thought were "holy" , they couldn't see the evil because they were blinded by love. Same for The Bible.

reply to post by arpgme

If it is not familiar, it is therefore unnatural and wrong?

What, then, of an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old? Just because you re not familiar with it, or wouldn't do it yourself, it is wrong?

These are things we live with every day. Only when you think of it through the eyes of a different circumstance do you see how very controlling our world is, and how very judgmental.

This sound similar to those who are afraid of the unknown.

There is no such thing as being afraid of the unknown. Those who are afraid of the unknown, are actually just afraid of their imagination. Unknown is a lack of data, and a simple sheet of blank paper does not cause nightmares.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by arpgme

 

What, then, of an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old? Just because you re not familiar with it, or wouldn't do it yourself, it is wrong?

That is what I was asking you. You said that the "un-catlike" behavior is considered unnatural, and I was responding to the reason. When people see things that they are not familiar with, they call it unnatural, doesn't make it so. It could just be a phenomena that people are unfamiliar with. The age limit for sex depends on where you live. There are different age laws for different places.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by arpgme

 

There is no such thing as being afraid of the unknown. Those who are afraid of the unknown, are actually just afraid of their imagination. Unknown is a lack of data, and a simple sheet of blank paper does not cause nightmares.

I don't think this is accurate. A blank piece of paper is known. A person can, however, be scared of walking into a dark room, they don't know if there are rats or spiders, or centipedes in there that will bite. They don't know what would be inside, so it is therefore "unknown" and they are afraid of it - the fear of the unknown.

Originally posted by arpgme
Maybe it wasn't a hoax, maybe it was a misunderstanding, a mythology, or even astro-theology. This illustrates the problem with people who do not believe in balance. They can not accept criticism. They only want to see the "positive" of their belief and not the "negative". They become blinded with love and ignore the evils of the person.

Understanding psychology would mean that one would be able to determine if people were misunderstanding in today's world, just because we are still so ignorant but obviously better than cavemen. I think I can determine if what they are believing is more right or less right, but I don't think we can pinpoint it. Perhaps you have listened to many people who had it wrong.

For example, most people see Jesus with only positivity, and yet, they ignore the negative side, such as him saying that he approves of The Old Law in Matthew where Moses is saying that God told them to have slaves and even how to treat them and to cut off their ear to keep them for life, of how Jesus said in Luke that anyone who doesn't accept him should die, not go to hell, he was commanding that they actually bring them before him and kill them. He also said that "ye are my friends, if you do whatsoever I command of you", sounds very controlling and vindictive, but because people are in denial of darkness, they pretend it doesn't exist, they ignore it, and they are blinded by light.

Jesus had a peaceful mindset in my opinion which came along with 1,000 years of evolution. Obviously it is better to treat people fairly because the world will be a better place, everything I learned from Jesus taught me to love my neighbor. It sounds like you are interpreting it wrong in my opinion, can you provide links to the scripture, the two you mentioned?

Like they say: Love can be blind, just look at all of those leaders through out time who people thought were "holy" , they couldn't see the evil because they were blinded by love. Same for The Bible.

I think that many people are blind, I was talking about many religious people. But love being blind is a different topic - that is sexual love. The love from which realization of the soul provides is not like a sexual love, it awakes you, when you are correct in saying the other love will make you fall asleep. It tells me that I am asleep because I still crave lustful feelings of the body.

reply to post by greyer

I think I can determine if what they are believing is more right or less right, but I don't think we can pinpoint it.

The only way to determine if someone's beliefs are wrong, is to first accept that they have the right to destroy their own lives, then measure how their beliefs will affect others. If the cost is more than they have the right to, that is where their beliefs become wrong.

And to further clarify, we must realize that in a world where every word has multiple usages, belief is not knowledge. We are allowed to believe in something that is incorrect. That's why it is called 'belief'.

Jesus had a peaceful mindset in my opinion which came along with 1,000 years of evolution.

And 2,000 more years has given us what, in terms of evolution?

The love from which realization of the soul provides is not like a sexual love, it awakes you, when you are correct in saying the other love will make you fall asleep. It tells me that I am asleep because I still crave lustful feelings of the body.

What if lust is a natural motivator, a hardwired incentive, for something greater? What if sex is a form of worship and divine experience? This would make sense, considering the Church has been known to demonize everything that threatens its status as the middle man of religion. If it does not require the authority of the Church, it is sacrilegious.

reply to post by greyer

Jesus had a peaceful mindset in my opinion which came along with 1,000 years of evolution. Obviously it is better to treat people fairly because the world will be a better place, everything I learned from Jesus taught me to love my neighbor. It sounds like you are interpreting it wrong in my opinion, can you provide links to the scripture, the two you mentioned?
[/qupte]

"Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." - John 15:14

That doesn't sound like a "friend", that sounds like a "commander" someone who wanted to control you.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Luke 19:27

Jesus is saying kill anyone that does not accept him as king. So much for being a peaceful' leader.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." - Matthew 10:34-35

Even if this is a metaphor, it still shows that Jesus was not for peace, but for dividing people even more.

love being blind is a different topic - that is sexual love.

You blame it on sexual love, but that just isn't so. People love their leader and the leader can deceive them and lead them to death, or even worse, make them slaves and make them work for him and make them suffer, all the while the people who "Love" are BLIND to this fact.

reply to post by arpgme


On the first quote, Jesus said to love the higher power and to love thy self, and in realizing the love for ourselves we will love our neighbor because of the spiritual knowledge we will gain. 'Friend' is a good word. As Jesus demonstrates he would not object to a friendship, giving himself up. It reminds me of a friend I have, he doesn't believe in God but he will surely ring me out if I do something wrong. To my knowledge from studying Jesus said to put the other person at the front of the line and you remain in the back of the line, which means to give them the power of decision. Do you know what ringing out and objecting means? It means ridicule. I feel like you guys want me to object, but why would I argue when I am supposed to put the other person before me? This is the thing that Christians forget which frustrates me, and this is the thing that athiests forget also. Even if it doesn't have to do with the afterlife it still has to do with social communication on earth, which does mean a great amount to emotion from the aspect of psychology when on this planet distant in space.