> Ron wrote; > The difference is faith, how you define it in line 2 has nothing > to do with what you just explained. If you choose to call > expereince god, thats fine, MP: I do *not* call experience God. I said I see evidence of God through experiences I've had that those who don't hold that faith obviously haven't.
But this is not to say I hold that experience *is* God. > Ron wrote; > The whole point with using the name quality > is because of it's descriptive power in relation to the function we describe. > A vanilla term to be sure. Calling experience quality is not enough > but some accurate term must be used in relation to the total > concept, MP: Why? Tao's "the Way" is so vanilla as to have almost no meaning. "Quality" in that sense is more confusing than anything else. When you all get down to arguing a rock is a rock because of atoms reacting to Quality its starts to sound like Arlo's Leprechauns. Its not that I don't understand Quality in the MoQ. I get it well enough I think. And I'm not questioning it. Literally, this entire argument is based on my reaction to Arlo's being so arrogant in his criticism of theism that he is undermining MoQ. He criticized theism for relying on faith rather than proof. All I'm saying is "Well... then "prove" MoQ." > Ron wrote; > To me the term God takes one further away from what is being > expressed as nothing in particular but experience in the now. MP: In the common understanding of "God" as espoused my most mainstream J/C/M faiths, I'd agree. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
