hiya,
"In the third stage, that of 'absolute religion', the selfconscious subject and
its object, Nature, are seen as distinct yet essentially related, and at the
same time as grounded in an ultimate unity. And God is conceived 'as the Being
who is at once the source, the sustaining power, and the end of our spiritual
lives'. This does not mean, however, that the idea of God is completely
indeterminate, so that we are forced to embrace the agnosticism of Herbert
Spencer For God manifests Himself in both subject and object, and the more we
understand the spiritual life of humanity on the one hand and the world of
Nature on the other, so much the more do we learn about God who is 'the
ultimate unity of our life and of the life of the world' <<<<<The MOQ
would add a fourth stage where the term “God” is completely dropped as a relic
of an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic freedom. The MOQ is
not just atheistic in this regard. It is
anti-theistic. >>>>>""
gav: so the term 'god' is dropped but the concept remains? ie there is an
ultimate unity of our life and the world but we don't call it god we call it
quality or dynamic quality or tao or becoming or nagual or some other word?
i am confused - seems like a cop out to me...what difference what we call it?
maybe that's why the indians have hundreds of names for it....
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/md/archives.html
