At 11:39 PM 2/6/2009, you wrote:
> Marsha
> Okay, you like the label G*d. Is G*d like the color I pick to paint
> my bedroom? Or does G*d have a function?
MP: I'm detecting sarcasm...
No sarcasm.
To the first: Yes, when speaking of theism in its most inlcusive
definition I have
found that in here it is necessary to keep using "g*d" (no caps) as a word to
describe a god absent cultural layering being the focus of the
belief invested in
the definition of theism in that regard. I seem to not be able to
convince some
here that the word "theism" *can* be used this way, that it is *not*
a four letter
word.
A concept with no value will soon cease to exist. But, also, how are
you going to get everyone to take up your inclusive definition of
g*d? Maybe you're not convincing because your argument doesn't make
much sense?
To the second: No, I don't see that g*d to be a color. :-\
I don't see that g*d has any more value than the color I choose for
my bedroom. I believe blue would be nice. How are you going to make
me think differently?
To the third: The question misses the point entirely. No; once that g*d has a
function, it ceases to be g*d, and becomes "god" or "God" or "Allah"
or "Yaweh"
or... But as a word ("g*d" v. "God") yes that word g*d has a
function; it is the
necessarily divine focus of a belief prior to its being culturally
manifest. Anything
more than that and it needn't have the "*" and we're no longer talking about
theism in its most inclusive definition.
I do not see the value of g*d. What divine focus prior to
belief? Are you talking about DQ? Or DQ intersecting with
sq? Isn't that just moment-to-moment experience? What is divine
focus? I'm not familiar with that pattern. And why bother to talk
about theism?
That's the point of the "*." To allow the word "theism" to be used
in a context
where the main meaning of the word is centered on the act of
believing, not on
the subject of the belief.
But why? Theism is a word with very thick and static
connotations. What is the 'act of believing'? Do you mean like
believing in Santa Claus and Tinkerbell? Why can I not believe
whatever I like, like the color blue would look nice on my bedroom walls?
It focuses the word's meaning to be about the
*experience* of the belief rather than the *object* of the experience.
What happened to 'divine focus prior to belief'? Experience is
experience, how you describe it is something different.
> Marsha
> What is the relationship between theism and knowledge and how is it
> determined?
MP: IMO, it depends entirely on the definitions of "theism", "knowledge" and
"determine" being agreed upon ... My experience here so far would lead me to
be hesitant to answer what appears to be an otherwise
straightforward question
without some degree of mutual agreement of those definitions.
Well, I don't agree with you that theism or g*d are valuable to the
MOQ. I haven't heard a valid argument that they are?
But I'm willing to go out on a limb and posit that both are
humanity's attempt to
attain greater understanding of the human condition in a reality
that is not easily
explained within the limitations associated with being human. One
way seeks it
through intellectual rigor, the other through mystical experience.
Neither intellectual rigor or mystical experience depend on g*d or
theism. And I think the MOQ offers a greater understanding of
reality than the concept of g*d or theism.
Marsha
_____________
QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!
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/
