MP: Quality is not a form of absolute universal?
Ron:
No
> Ron
> Therefore Quality
> is not God but the creator of the concept of God.
MP: So Quality *does* do something after all? I thought it was humanity that
created the myth of God through DQ experience? I see turtles on the horizon,
Ron ;-) ...
Ron:
You misunderstand, Quality is a word for expereince. God is a word for
expereince.
Humans generate words to describe expereince.
> Ron
> If you will remember, you asked for a definition to agree on. I
> simply put the most
> encompassing and general ones out there, I did'nt write 'em.
MP: No, you only put *one* out there, and I'm saying quite to the contrary to
what you claim, you picked the *only* one that is the least encompassing of the
bunch by virtue of the fact that it defines God while defining theism. The
others I
refer to, do not do this. They let the definition of God deal with God, and
stick to
defining theism on its own.
Ron:
Look again, I supplied two, the point is theism is the belief in deity.
correct? rhetorically you are picking knits to obscure the matter
of conversation.
MP:
I think it not unreasonable to posit the notion that the experience of
believing
there is a g*d can be disassociated for the purpose of argument from the notion
of what that g*d is.
Ron:
That just makes this exercise meaningless then, once you disassociate what god
is
from the the belief of gods existence. It nuetralizes your arguement, one may
not seperate belief from meaning, they are linked. thats the arguement.
MP:
If you all are uncomfortable calling this "theism" then lets call
it "th*ism", or something else not otherwise laden with additional cultural
baggage. But "theism" seems like a reasonable enough way to go given most
commonly accepted definitions already do this, given that "atheism" already
does it while attacking theism and that we can refer to "cultural
manifestations
of theism" to refer more specifically to what you guys narrowly insist is the
meaning of "theism" while allowing for a broader notion of theism to exist at
the
same time.
Ron:
The belief in deity has broader notions, like universal meaning and purpose.
MP:
My purpose is I think noble; it is to seek a way to integrate and evolve
cultural
understanding of God to a more MoQ harmonious level. I don't seek to re-
define MoQ to accept theism (in any definition) I seek to redefine theism to
accept MoQ.
I think the difference is not semantic.
Ron:
A reformation is indeed needed, I can not express the care that must be
exercised in this matter for it is all too easy to fall to the same traps.
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/
> Ron
> Moq is nihilistic.It does not subscribe to any form of absolute univerals
> other than the empirical fact of mystical experience.
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/
