The difference between a (logical) spiritual theory and a religion

It has been brought to my attention there are people who confuse the word “logic” with the word “rules”. Now, this is highly relevant when talking about anything related to religions, spirituality, and natural laws, like what I am doing here. Now… Let me explain the difference between religion and logic, first.

You have 4 apples in a bowl on the kitchen table. You have a 2-year-old daughter, who isn’t tall enough to reach the table and get apples. You are the only one that your religion allows to take apples from the table to give it to any other family member. You go to the toilet, and once you get back, one apple is missing, and your daughter is eating it. Your spouse is in the room. Whodunnit?

This requires LOGICAL thinking. The child is too young and is physically incapable of taking an apple for herself. Your spouse is physically capable but is forbidden by your religion to touch the apples in this way. Logic dictates that your spouse ignored the rule of the religion and gave the daughter the apple while you could not.

What the Free Spirit Theory that I am developing discusses is NOT rules, it’s about logically concluding what is possible and actual in the realm of spirit and psychology. It is arguing that it is DUMB to stop the other spouse from giving the apple to the damned kid when the kid’s hungry.

A religious person, and people who believe in man-made laws

A religious person tries to stop and alter the natural course of natural events. (Religious thinking: “Let’s decide only one spouse is allowed to touch apples to give to a child, despite both being able to.”) Religion is trying to STOP the natural flow of events. Logic tries to understand and explain the natural flow of events.

The same is true for a law-abiding person: “your natural instinct says to kill this person because you are THAT ANGRY, but the law says you will go to prison if you do.” Most people agree that to be a sensible level of control over “the beast” in us.

Some religious people feel that the indignation of someone breaking “a holy law” is reason enough for killing.

A spiritual person

A spiritual person is a person who wishes to ALLOW the natural flow of events without stopping it from happening. Most otherwise spiritual people accept the existence and usefulness of man-made laws that make co-existing in large human societies possible for all kinds of people despite their beliefs and differences. A fully spiritual person (anarchist) would believe that the spirit SHOULD be able to flow and take action despite consequences. As in: “I am so angry with you (personally) that I want to kill you.” That would be extremism as far as spiritualism goes. (Extreme religions, however, see anger over a broken rule, whether the person promised to follow the law or not, similarly.)

(I can SEE the merit in anarchist spiritual thinking, personally, but I don’t think humanity is ready for it, and I believe laws should be abided to like the rules created for underage children. We’ll be ready one day, but not just yet. We’ll be ready when we understand different kinds of thinking better and thus killing becomes less of an obvious way to “solve” a conflict. Having said that, it adds a good motivation to learn to interact with others in a more positive way. The skill of avoiding making people that angry is a good trait in terms of survival.)

Religious and societal laws

Societal laws are based on the natural flow of human spirit. They try to make it possible for everyone to exist in peace, harmony, and relative safety. Religious laws are very different. They often seem to be based on flawed science and psychology and very personal views on sexuality and love (mainly). Religion creates unnecessary reasons to be angry, “YOU TOOK THE APPLE AND GAVE IT TO OUR DAUGHTER?! HOW DARE YOU?!”

All the world’s religions (as you’ll notice) are written by either polyandrous (Christianity), polygynandrous (Hindu), polygynous (Islam). Some religions accept most of them, but Christianity fights its own polyandrous base thinking (in the core of the religion is the duality of a whore, that represents natural thinking to a polyandrist and a virgin, who represents devout thinking). Hinduism hides their polygynandry a bit but it’s visible in both male and female gods, and Islam has turned toward monogamy due to international pressure, I believe. Still, their heaven promises 72 virgins for a devout man to enjoy. Buddhism also seems to stem from polyandrist thinking, considering the monasteries who collect men together to contemplate, a seminatural state of being for a polyandrist. A somewhat novel polygynous response would be a convent, present in modern-day Buddhism and much of Christianity. Polygynandrists would create mixed monasteries. Just to give a few examples.

My theories.

Now, I am trying to logically argue why certain beast-controlling habits supported in the convention (like monogamy) should be retired. I believe we are ready for the next stage in evolution. Although we are probably not ready to end the control for killing, we are certainly evolved enough to stop the control of our natural sexuality.

I also believe, that once we stop controlling our sexual behavior the way we are controlling it now, we will also stop much of the reactively violent attacks on each other. Once we let ourselves love who we love, fuck and make love to who we love, and live with who we love, we allow our spirit to take the natural course, relieving the pain, frustration, and tension that we suffer from now every day.

Therefore, I am not here to make new rules. I’m here arguing on the benefits of removing a good chunk of old rules as outdated and unnecessary to the psychological and spiritual well-being of people everywhere.

A big part of the process is to explain HOW OTHER PEOPLE THINK, and why they want what they want. What is tempting in the sanctity of traditional marriage, for example, when, to other people, the thought of it represents a Hell on Earth? Why do we all still seek and wish to find true love? Why does true love look so different depending on a person? Why does marriage represent true love to some people automatically, while to others marriage is but a piece of paper compared to a true love relationship that doesn’t NEED that paper to validate it?

These questions are at the core of the Free Spirit Theory, albeit far from being limited to them.

Subscribe to get a Daily Message