K. S. Ryan wrote:

> Hello-
>
> Religion is a system of beliefs describing our place in the cosmos.

Better go back and look up the word "religion" again.

>
>
> Tha basic premise of all religions is that we are best when we act in
> accordance with universal principles.

I'd rephrase this to something like:
  "The basic premise of *most* spiritual doctrine is that...."

>
>
> Prophets describe our place in the cosmos by explaining universal
> principles.
>
> Fundamentalists of all sorts are in conflict with the modern world because
> universal principles are increasingly scientific, secular, and physically
> practical.
>
> Old school religions are losing market share to the modern world.
> But the modern world does not offer a unified system of beleif describing
> our place in the universe.

I think this is an uneducated conclusion. That is if you continue to misuse
the term "religion" in a consistent fashion.

The creation of old-world dogma was for the benefit of the young souls
that by virtue of their own mis-expression, demanded a harsh dogma and
religious expression to find their way back to god.

The spiritual principles that these "old school religions" as you put it are
based
on are just as valid today as they were then. Similar in concept to
saying: electromagnetism was
just as valid back then as it is today.


One can divide spiritually evolving humanity into 3 major groups:

 -Those that obey spiritual law out of fear of punishment

 -Those that operate within spiritual law out of desire for reward in heaven

 -Those that cooperate and spontaneously express spiritual law out of love of
others


Most of humanity falls into the first category hence, their spiritual point of
view will
tend to dominate the public eye.

The last category is occupied by very advanced people and their spiritual
point of view
is unlikely to be understood much less accepted by the bulk of humanity. Few
are ever
likely to know one of these people upon meeting them without being one of
them.


> Contemporary truths are not packaged as a whole,
> as a spiritual intellectual-emotional raison d'etre. Thus, while educated
> modern worlders may not be convinced by old school religious beliefs, there
> is not a modern unified system to replace them.

There is. The "modern worlders" as you call them would draw to them an
expression
of spiritual doctrine that they need to see without asking. They do not
because most
of these "modern worlders" are rebelling against the spiritual in favor of the
self in the
world.

The arid intellect is a construction of a soul that will not see. It is not
necessary to
convince an intellectual of the existence of god. In their souls, they already
know and
have made their decision.

Put another way: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink



> Because we are human, we
> think a lot, and need to know what the individual means to the whole. What
> is our place in the cosmos? That is the question. And there is turbulance.
>
> -Kevin

Robert W.



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply via email to