Natural vs. revealed religions

Natural religions are mythologies and traditions that arise out of a collective culture that describe aspects of the universe and natural world.
Revealed religions are usually the Revelations of one man, Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Jesus, etc.
Where as revealed religions are concerned Buddha is more towards a spiritual lifestyle rather than the worship of nature.
Natural religions seem to promote spiritual growth which leads to proper behavior and revealed religions promote obedience and behavior in accordance to strict observations. It seems even at the base level there are two opposing forces of tyrrany and freedom. It seems to me that a good vs evil dynamic didn’t actually arise until the first revealed religions came about. But I could be wrong.


That is a brilliant observation.

Resonates as true.

The natural world, including macro and microcosm are inextricably linked to magick.

“Though shall not …” may be the root of all evil.


That’s​ kind of where I am on the issue.


So when you dictate a limit, you create a threshold that if crossed becomes evil.



The act of dictating a restriction is the beginning of evil.


Fascinating ideas. I find myself agreeing with both of you.


I just had a thought, I remembered the ten commandments vs the 42 principles of Ma’at.
Now just right off the bat you can see the difference between the two an obvious difference is the 42 is many more then the 10. But less obvious is that in the overall tone and attitude is different.

Egypt has the emphasis on being dead and having something to show for the life you lived. The ten commandments has the emphasis on the life happening at present and being obedient.

The one is more about striving for virtue and the latter is more about avoidance of sin.

The biblical narrative is more of a control by design and a very tyrrany based dominant and submissive relationship between human and Divine.

The Egyptian narrative seems more along the lines of having a full purpose and a goal of achieving a higher moral standard on one’s own merit and by ones own desire to be virtuous.

The Bible says you will never be good enough but if you don’t there will be hell to pay, so you are set up to fail from the beginning, simply by the very attitude one takes. " A person can never be perfect or even come close enough bla bla bla," well not with that attitude you won’t. The whole​ thing is negative in nature, negative reinforcement and negative world view causing people to become anti active in morality because one is attempting not to act on impulse or temptation.

The Egyptian Outlook is more like saying, " there’s no such thing as perfect instead be the best you can be." It is positive reinforcement, it is pro active and not anti active. Active because the individual has no desire to the temptation an example would be stealing. In a striving for virtue the participant has no desire to steal, where as in the other attitude the participant is told to resist stealing. It’s in the presuppositions…


Beautiful. These certainly aren’t evil when you look at it from the perspective of reflecting on your life. When formulated as a list of “though shall nots” , then it is kind of sickening.

It certainly is all about perspective.

I’m curious, what do you think it means: “I have not multiplied words exceedingly” ?

1 Like

sounds to me like i have not gossiped lol but idk.


Of course!!! Duh.

Thanks Arianna.


anytime… :kissing_heart: