> [Arlo] > I honestly don't know what the argument is here, expect over your wanting to > redefine theism for whatever purposes you have. Other than that, we seem to > agree on most of this. As I've been saying, I have no trouble with a view that > considers theism (in all its world colors) as paintings on the mural of human > experience, metaphors that people across the globe and throughout history have > used to describe the indescribable. More than this, I don't know what I can > say. MP: LoL. And *I'm* the one seeking to redefine theism??
If you could just manage to say that as "considers theism as the belief in a god or gods" we'd be all set. ;-) It really is that simple. Anything else, is *you* redefining theism to suit whatever purposes *you* have, not the other way around. Why is it so hard to say "theism" is the *idea* that one *can* believe in a g*d, and "religion" *is that belief* defined? If one accepts "atheism" in exactly this way, one is obliged to do so with "theism." Period. Anything else is disingenuous. > [Arlo] > I would say you won't fully understand the MOQ until you understand Zen. MP: I don't doubt you. And I would say MoQ won't fully realize Zen until understands theism. 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/
