Hi Everyone, >
> Dan comments: > > It seems wrong somehow to label Native Americans as either theistic, > atheistic, or anti-theistic. Their concept of the Great Spirit was > completely foreign to the European missionaries. In order to stamp out > any trace of the old religion, Native Americans were shut away on > reservations, made to convert to Christianity by outlawing all the old > tradtions, and even forbade to speak their own language. > > As far as being against education and thinking, there are a number of > contributors who seem just that, so it is good to see you again, Matt. > > Thank you, > > Dan > [Markl] I guess I would seemingly hold another view of Theism, which would include American Indians. I subscribe more the notion of a Perennial Philosophy. This points more to the similarities than the differences. I understand the need to attack a conceptualization of the Christian God as it is taught through religion, but such conceptualization is simply a finger pointing and can not be taken literally as some do. It is subject object limited, and we know better. It is an interpretation that allows many to participate, but it does not present the personal feeling; that is, what happens prior to conceptualization. We can suppose that such a thing as pre-intellectual does not exist, and any philosophy (including religions) lies only in the intellect, as some would propose by attacking a personal view. To propose that Theism is somehow less, or uniformed, or stupid would deny the pre-conceptual part. I do not think MOQ does that in its basis, although it has been interpreted that way by some. If one is suggesting that there are better interpretations, then that is a personal choice. Others may not feel it that way. Strange thing this need to find enemies or an anti-Christ. It really does not define, and is not intellectually derived; it points to irrationality and emotion. If one looks into the perennial nature of these expressions, a commonality can arise that also depicts Quality. This would not be unusual since all are interpreted by more or less the same brain structure. The interpretations of course vary depending on social and historical cues. To put the Western God in a box, as some wish to do, denies much of Christian history where rationally sound interpretations have abounded. I do not see the purpose in approaching MOQ with the negational side unless there is some fear of not being credited with some intelligence. We can certainly create the illusion of MOQ being better by putting the other forms down, but I do not think this is necessary or appropriate for an intellectual discussion of such. Appreciate the read, Mark 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
