Belief systems, such as religions, ultimately fail to live up to their
expectations because language is an imperfect tool for communicating
"what is". In order for immaterial concepts to be effectively
communicated, the sender and the receiver have to be on the same plane
-- that is, they must both be free of motive.

Otherwise, what is written or spoken is filtered through the veil of
wanting, which consists of your desires, prejudices, and (mostly
subconscious) agendas, which is the past. As a result, "what is" never
manifests. You're stuck in old thought habits.

The most obvious example of this phenomenon is organized religion. We
have an extraordinary person (Christ, Buddha, for example)
communicating these very subtle, but powerful truths, but they become
mangled and twisted by humans who are not in the proper state of
receiving.

So the very communication of these truths, oddly enough, turns them
into thoughts, which become grossly misinterpreted ideas, and the
ideas becomes institutionalized. The religions of the world merely
represent the various prejudices that were thrust upon these truths by
people with psychological, emotional, and spiritual baggage.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:58:40 -0700 (PDT), ta nc.rr.com> wrote:

ta nc.rr.com> wrote in news:b3679742-b9db-4396-88b7-ea9c84f1b076@
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:

The reason communicating "what is" is difficult is that no one has the
faintest idea what is. Nor do they have any means of finding out (and thus
resolving the disagreements). Hence they invent hypotheses which they try
to peddle to one another (and often, if the buyer is not receptive, the
seller pulls a gun).

No. They merely have to share the same hypotheses.

On Jul 10, 10:25 am, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:58 am, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:

Religion, no more than kindergarten, fails.

BOfL

"ta" nc.rr.com> skrev i melding
news:b3679742-b9db-4396-88b7-ea9c84f1b076@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

What does it mean for a belief system to fail to live up to its
expectations?
Is it disappointed?

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:58:40 -0700, ta wrote:

Religion is also, maybe even more so, a matter of ceremony. I do not
think religion ever tires to define 'what is'. but rather 'what was, is
and always will be'. That which is not changeable. Here science, with
it's 'laws' and religion can intersect.

Religion usually, well always, involves self-surrender. The novitiate
gives themselves up and then re-forms in the likeness of something
greater. So receiver comes from a position of want or need.

On Jul 11, 1:59 am, "Tron" wrote:

Religion aims to "save" mankind. It fails.

On Jul 10, 1:25 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 1:36 pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

Speak for yourself. ;-)

That seems to be the norm, but by no means is that the way it has to
be.