> From: Andre > MP to Andre: > As such, I think God and Quality can be equated relationally. > > Andre: > Cannot accept this Michael.The God concept is loaded with definitions and > powers swaying HIS (!!!) scepter or whatever to rule his creation; whack in > on the head one time, patting it on the back another time. > Quality (and already I should not say anymore but will for clarification) is > nothing...the Buddhist no-thing. MP: Andre, see mel's recent astute recognition that there may be a linguistic issue causing confusion with respect to the word "God" being used. In relation to that observation, and my comment, please substitute "g*d" where I used "God." I've been speaking precisely about a "non-loaded" g*d.
> From: Andre > Michael: > As to how I can believe in something that cannot be defined? Easy; (ducks) > Faith. Faith based on empirical observation in light of an acceptance that > something I cannot define is nonetheless something to which things I see are > related , part of, in concert with. Gut feeling is another way to describe > it. > How do you do it? > > Andre: > By experiencing... plain and simple...no faith or belief needed. MP: Ok... um... you asked how I believe in something that cannot be defined. Yet you answer that you yourself don't need belief to do it. You're answering that you believe by not believing when it becomes necessary. Pardon me for raising an eyebrow, but how exactly do you believe in something without believing in it? As to my answer; it was essentially the same as yours; your "experience" is my "empirical observation", your "belief without belief" is my "faith." IMO we are saying the same thing, but I'm doing it from a theistic linguistic basis and you are not. This harks back to the conversation with Marsha about theistic v. scientific languages. > From: Andre > I enjoy our exchanges (and you with the others) Michael. Nil desperandum > illigitimus carburundum. MP: LoL. Hadn't heard it put that way before. Gratia. :o) > From: Andre > This is one reason I have difficulty with e.g.the RC church, Islam, Mosaic > Law, Judaism etc....any theistically loaded PoV. They all claim ultimate > good, ultimate truth, ultimate this and ultimate that...to the exclusion of > other PoV's. I find it low quality indeed. MP: And I as well. I have this beef with my own church's theology. This is my primary reason for using the most inclusive definition of "theism" (much to the consternation of some) and now realize I was not clear I was using the most inclusive form of g*d. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
