Greetings Michael,
At 02:52 PM 2/25/2009, you wrote:
> Marsha said:
> Obviously I failed to dispel your skepticism towards my wish for you
> to receive an abundance of joy.
MP: Obviously.
> Marsha said:
> I want EVERYONE to have an abundance of joy.
MP: How does using negation of my joy further your professed intention of
wishing joy to me unless you are establishing yourself as an arbiter
of what is
and is not joy?
You demand this joy be on *your* terms when you question the way in which
others pursue theirs. Quoting Deuteronomy to accentuate what you see as
"blatant contradictions" in "the Bible" seems an odd way for you to
wish me joy
when you know I find my joy through a faith in the God of that Bible no?
When you negate the position of others to bolster yours, you also
distract from
your own message by delving into the complexities of that of others. You know
yours very well, but you don't necessarily know others.' Your quoting
Deuteronomy highlights the degree to which you really don't understand
another's POV when you have decided you disagree with it. "The Bible." The
Bible consists of many books, each with a distinct history and
purpose. Do you
know what Deuteronomy is? Where in the Bible it is found? Why it is found
there and not elsewhere? Who wrote it it? Why he he did? When he did? That it
precedes John by some 5,000 years? That something major occurred shortly
after John spoke those words and what that major event meant to the books of
the Bible that preceded the event? Do you know what the New Testament
means to the Old? Do you know what believing in Christ means to one's
relationship to the Old Testament? Deuteronomy is no more a contradiction to
John than Copernicus is a contradiction to Hawking.
Was there a different God in the old and new testaments? Or has your
god come under the spell of Darwin's evolution? Of course it has
because the mythos evolves.
That you used that quote the way you did implies to me you don't know the
answers to these questions. Yet you presume to tell *me* my flavor of joy is
somehow illegitimate? To do so completely undermines the credibility of your
contention that you wish an abundance of joy to me. You profess one
thing, but
act contrarily. That may not have been your intention, but the
valuation result on
my end of your actions is undeniable: no joy, low quality, avoid.
You may very
well wish me joy, and I may in fact find it, but so far, it won't be
based on any
positive contribution on your part.
The unfortunate thing I see is that based on what I gather of your
joy so far, it
needn't be that way.
I have given you my reasoning and point-of-view which just so happens
to disagree with your point-of-view. What more do you want?
> Marsha said:
> As for
> 'theism' and 'God', those concepts have no meaning for me
> personally.
MP: Oh, no, my dear! They clearly have TREMENDOUS meaning to you. No
matter how much you deny it, and the more you deny it, the more you show just
how much so. By denying they have meaning to you you only avoid the
repercussions of making an honest admission to the contrary in this context.
Your continued participation (and instigation) of threads on theism
reveal just
how important they are to you, and your avoidance of seeing the discussions
through once they've started confirms your reticence to admit your
position. But
the message, even unspoken, is clear; they *have* meaning to you. The
problem you are faced with is while you seek to live in a world of joy, those
terms mean something to you that is not joy. It is a problem for
you, that I do
believe.
Denying something is not a basis for knowing the thing. If I deny
that I have green eyes, it doesn't mean I know I have green eyes. If
I state that I do not like the flu, it doesn't mean that the flu has
TREMENDOUS meaning for me. When I wish you an abundance of joy, you
tell me 'joy' hasn't meaning for me and that it is a problem for
me. What kind of an argument is that Michael?
> Marsha said:
> I did provide a number of quotes by RMP indicating that
> the MOQ was atheistic and anti-theistic which you choose to
> ignore.
MP: To the contrary. I have responded at length to a number of those quotes
several times. Your reactions to my responses were revealing, mostly in their
absence, but also in their negativity.
Responding at length doesn't mean you've successfully refuted the
fact that the MOQ is atheistic and anti-theistic.
> Marsha said:
> I do not denigrate one approach to love over another,
MP: Yes, you do. Else why quote Deuteronomy as you did? The contradiction
you think you see in "the Bible" is one of your own making, and has
nothing to
do with faith in Christ being a source of joy for me or not. Its all
about *you*
when you take it upon yourself to attempt to undermine what works for me
simply because it doesn't work for you, and then in a manner that reveals the
degree to which you don't understand my joy in the slightest.
I have not *ONCE* said that you (or anyone else) need to believe in
God to find
joy, have I?
Yet how many times have you denigrated theism? How many times have you
gone out of your way to undermine its legitimacy as a source of joy,
of quality?
How many times have you started a thread about theism by posting something
*negative* about it? How many times have you said "Okay" accompanied by a
negation of someone else's POV? If joy is your goal, why so much negativity
about anything, let alone someone else's source of joy?
I have denied that God and theism are meaningful concepts to me. I
have demonstrated that the MOQ, according to RMP, is atheistic and
anti-theistic.
My impression is that you are sincere in your desire for joy,
Marsha. I do think
you believe what you say. But your words don't match your actions
here. I don't
think this is intentional either. I don't know that you necessarily
recognize the
degree to which what you say doesn't align with what you profess to live, and
more so the degree to which that contradiction undermines what I sense as
strength in your position.
I haven't professed to live by anything. I TRY to live in the
moment. I wish all people an abundance of joy. And, by the way,
this isn't about me. The MOQ is atheistic and anti-theistic. Why
cannot you accept this?
http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm
I wish I could read you speak about your joy absent a negation of something
else. There are plenty of atheists and antitheists here and out
there that have
negation down to an art form, but have little of quality to add in
their destructive
approach. I get the sense that you do. I get the sense that you have
something
to offer that can be expressed without defining it in negation of
something else,
and wonder why you insist on undermining your offering by resorting to doing
so.
Well, you're making no sense to me. I didn't state anything about my
joy. I did state that I wish all peoples an abundance of joy. And I
stated that joy wasn't dependent on god or theism. I negate
murder. Does that offend you?
I get the sense you are meticulously diligent about defining your
world in terms
of joy. This is commendable. Yet are doing so in a world where there
are plenty
of unjoyful things. How you confront those things and remain consistent in
defining things through joy is a puzzle indeed. I don't envy your conundrum.
God's been at it forever and look where we are.
But lets please allow each other the space to find our joy our own way.
Meticulously diligent? What are you talking about? Where is this
drama coming from? Your comments are not making any sense to me.
Believe whatever you like, that does not convince me of anything.
Marsha
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
