JC,
I disagree with you, but I'm not trying to change your mind. I think the
concept
chocked full of harmful vibes, but by all means go for it. Let the show begin.
I'll wander through the stadium getting rich selling moon pie.
Love you,
Marsha
On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:49 AM, John Carl wrote:
>>
>>
>> And I think the use of the term "god" much more degrading because of the
>> commonly acknowledged definitions, connotations and history. I think RMP
>> chose the most appropriate label. Stripping the word "god" of all the
>> garbage
>> would be near impossible, imho.
>>
>>
> I dunno Marsha. It has been tried before. There seems to me to be a
> central problem in human history that when you throw out "God", you throw
> out values. That's the way it's been. The Russian experiment (remember the
> "godless commies?") didn't work out so well and historically, the use of the
> term has served the evolution of society so that evidently those societies
> that use the term do better than the societies that don't. I feel rather
> than tossing it out, the MoQ should analyze.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> That's not the same thing as true atheism. Which is more along the lines
>>> Krimel advocated with the world and all that is being the product of
>> random
>>> chance, with no positive force behind any of it. No matter what you call
>>> it.
>>
>> Here's the definition of atheism I use: Atheists are people who believe
>> that god
>> or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and
>> legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. If Krimel
>> has
>> a more esoteric, sophisticated definition that's fine but it would seem to
>> narrow
>> the discussion to only those individuals who share his definition.
>>
>>
> Ok Marsha. Let's look at this carefully. "man-made constructs" - what
> isn't? Even to use the term implies a supernatural entity, otherwise "man"
> - made is meaningless.
>
> Unless you meant gender-wise and you prefer "woman-made constructs".
>
> It's like gav pointed out about "Freedom" is also a man-made construct, but
> in the MoQ, even subjective patterns have meaning AS patterns of value.
> Since people have gone to war repeatedly over such intellectual constructs,
> I fail to see how defining them as "meaningless" is helpful in analyzing
> them properly.
>
>
>>> I agree that one does not need faith to perceive Quality, whereas it does
>>> take a sort of faith to perceive God. Just one more way that Quality and
>>> God are differing concepts. I guess the purest way I can make the
>>> distinction is that you can ask if God is any good, but you can't really
>> ask
>>> if Quality is any good. God is measured by Quality, not the other way
>>> around.
>>>
>>> Does that make sense?
>>
>>
>> Perfect sense. So what is benefit of holding on to the concept of God?
>>
>>
>
> Communication with 95% of US Population, for one. Discourse with most of
> written history, for another. Those two alone hold enough benefit to tempt
> me to go all, "duh!" on you.
>
> But I won't because I'm too respectful.
>
> Quality doesn't obviate God. Quality tames "God". The comparison with SOM
> is exactly apt - Quality doesn't obviate S/O. Quality tames S/O.
>
>
>
> John the lion-tamer,
> 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
___
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
