Thanks Dave. I was rather hoping John M was going to post his reply to you &
me himself at MOQ Discuss himself though God knows why he didn't. (Maybe he
was at confession all week...?)
Anyway, the bottom line (for me anyway) is that anyone who tries to define God
(and we're looking at Plato onwards to 21st Westerners who should really know a
lot better now) are engaged in an IMMORAL act. I wish they wouldn't do it but
I guess it's a form of intellectual arrogance. Anyway, human intellect is
limited, Dynamic Quality isn't. Logically it's a case of a small box trying to
contain a larger one and unless you're a timelord (like a theistic God, another
fiction of some white man/men off his head some where, totally fictional, of
course) it's impossible.
Mind you I always love seeing those socially high level politicians (such as
Blair) professing themselves to be Christians (or what ever theism is flavo(u)r
of the month). Absolutely fucking hilarious... (yes, I know, my sense of
humo(u)r is a little warped.)
Finally, what did one wit (Abraham Lincoln) say once? "You can fool all the
people some of the time and some of the people all
the time but you can NOT fool all the people all the time!"
Well said, Ab!
Ant
"When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom... 'let it be'
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom 'let it be'"
"Whisper words of wisdom... 'let it be'"
"And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree
There will be an answer... 'let it be'
For though they may be parted
There is still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer,
'LET IT BE'."
(Lennon-McCartney, Northern Songs, 1970)
----------------------------------------
John McConnell said sometime last week:
Thanks, David. We seem to get along much better in semi-private dialogue than
on the MD forum. Please seen my reply to Anthony’s email that followed yours.
DMB replied June 27th 2014:
We get along much better in private? That must be some kind of optical illusion
because I did not respond in private. The issues involved in this debate are
perfectly suited to those with an interest in the MOQ and we are not discussing
issues of a personal nature. Excluding the MOQers from such a debate seems like
a squandered opportunity and a very bad choice to me. I hope that's not a
problem for you.
John McConnell said: (to Anthony and DMB sometIme last week):
Thank you for the opportunity. The recurring theme of arguments
against religion in David’s contribution and in Lila is premised upon religion
being a static social pattern. Religious institutions are undisputedly social
structures. Theology, however, is an intellectual pursuit on the same level as
any other intellectual pursuit. Theology is not the same as religion.
Spiritual patterns of value are transcendent; they are not the same as social
or intellectual patterns. The source of Christianity is an event of spiritual
(mystical) significance. It is a Dynamic event, and the immediate static
patterns coalescing from it were not intellectual. In its evolution from that
inception, theological patterns (intellectual constructs) developed. These
were not of the same order as the direct spiritual experiences of faith, but
man being a reflective being, always requires an intellectual representation of
experiences. That’s what theology is.
DMB then said June 27th 2014:
I think you've made some very doubtful assertions there John. One is left to
guess what "spiritual patterns of value" are...
Ant McWatt comments:
"Forgive John father, for he knows not what he does."
DMB continued June 27th 2014:
...and what "the source" and "inception" of Christianity is, for example, but
your basic point is pretty clear. You are claiming that theology "is an
intellectual pursuit on the same level as any other intellectual pursuit". I'd
like to focus on that claim because it strikes me as the most plausible one.
It's a fact that one can earn advanced degrees in theology and the word does
contain the latin root "logos," just like biology, psychology, and all the
other ologies.
But please notice that the word also contains "theos," which is the latin word
for "God," of course. This is very telling. It marks a commitment to theism and
so it begins with God as a basic premise. This is very different from the other
modes of intellectual scrutiny. Philosophy of religion. comparative mythology,
and psychology of religion, for example, are intellectual pursuits which also
focus on the meaning of the various forms of representation and they focus on
spiritual experience as such - but they don't have to begin with any prior
commitments to theism. Unlike their counterparts in the theology department,
they aren't being trained to be an officer in the Church.
As I see it, the difference between institutional religion and theology is
simply one of rank or class. It's just the difference between the clergy and
laymen, between the altar and the pew. There are exceptions, of course, wherein
a theologian becomes an academic or the other way around but this is just a
matter of specific individuals sorting out the two rival value systems in their
own quirky way. I mean, people struggle with this conflict just as whole
nations do.
-------CUT-------
.
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
