> MP expounds on the meat of the subject:
> 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;
> If all theists thought as you, the world would be a much better
> place, alas, most hold a book as THE true word of GOD and any thought
> to the contrary is the work of satan.
MP: Ron, thank you for your honesty and patient persistence with this. Its
refreshing. And "alas" indeed. However, If *I* as a theist can think this way,
does that not allow for the possibility of others? I'm not special in that
sense, no
genius, no savant. Just thinking hard about what I believe and why.
Ron:
We are definitly in the minority, we choose to question. To inspire others to
question
their own lives is the sincerest form of initiating change. Religion requires
faith, philosophy
requires inquiry, faith is easier to attain and often social, inquiry is ever
ongoing, arduous often lonely.
MP:
I will say though that if you think *my* hoe is tough to row, how will it be
any
easier to row trying to apply MoQ on a society where they can't even manage
theism without botching it up?
Ron;
Heh, the farming term is to hoe rough hard ground and not up root your row of
crop.
Rowing a ho, well, thats what a gondalier in the red district might do, the
difficulties
could be comparable...
One does not apply Moq to a society, to use a metaphor you may recognize, MoQ
merely exposes a path to individual enlightenment. The trick is to inspire
others to take
their own journey of discovery.
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/
