> [Michael] > Ron, no. Theism is *not* the belief in deity; deity is a culturally > laden term. > That is my point. > > [Arlo] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism MP: It does not say Theism is Deism, it says theism is belief in a deity (which in itself conflicts with Dictionary definitions depending on how one defines "deity")
de-ism -noun 1. belief in the existence of a God ON THE EVIDENCE OF REASON AND NATURE ONLY, *with rejection of supernatural revelation* (distinguished from theism )." the-ism -noun 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, *without rejection of revelation* (distinguished from deism ). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ). Random House Dictionary Emphases mine. Deism is what MoQers (and quite a few others) demand be proved to them. Theism is something else. The two are not interchangeable. And in definition 2 is definitively inclusive of all g*d belief sets. > [Arlo] > You're trying to redefine the word (and I'm not sure why), MP: I'm not redefining it, I'm insisting it be used as defined. Initially, I sought to at least have it be used correctly because Dave was *so* flippant about conlfating it with "deism" and more so "religion" that it led him to reach conclusions that pedophilic priests were caused by simply believing in g*d or even God as if that had anything to do with it. But in exploring the dialog with you all it has become clear to me that there is an insistence here to limit the definition of theism to its least inclusive meaning for the distinct purpose of rejecting it due to the failings of its many cultural manifestations. There is a distinctly defensive reaction to the concept that Theism itself may have positive quality aspects when considered in its most inclusive. I find the adamancy of the defence unfortunate, because I think there is much quality to be had from revisiting theism and what it has done / can do for humanity, especially in an MoQ context that seeks to move humanity forward from its "evil." > [Arlo] > try using one more accurate in the MOQ context; Zen. MP: Uh... no, because it's decidedly NOT inclusive. I'm seeking to have the word Theism be used as inclusively as possible. Using "Zen" in its place does the exact opposite; it makes it exclusive of all but Zen or its subsets. I'm saying "don't bring religion into it" and you're saying effectively "do bring it in, and use this one, its the least religious." Theism has room for Zen and much else. Zen has only room for Zen. Zen is a subset of th*ism, not an analog of it. > [Arlo] > It almost seems like you are staring with the "need" to use the > particular "theism", and then you're going to great lengths to make it > something it isn't. MP: Perhaps you should consider why it "seems" that way. You presume it seems that way because I am doing something. Have you considered its because *you* are doing something? > [Arlo] > "Theism" is ONE response to mystical experience. It is NOT mystical > experience itself. MP: Correct. It is also however neither deism nor religion. > [Arlo] > And now you're doing the same thing with the asterized "g*d" (or even > "th*ism"). But in doing so you are inadvertently conflating "g*d" or > "th*ism" with Void from which our experience with gives rise to. MP: No, I am not. I'm not saying th*ism is this Void of yours, or that it is THE way or even A way to anything. I'm saying nothing more than it is the *seed root* of *some* ways to something irrelevant to what I'm saying. 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/
