Greetings Bo and all,
At the risk of whingeing like an upset 'devotee' and digressing away from
the MoQ to yet another discussion about religions, I should point out some
of the following:
Bo wrote:
> OK, there
> are two major branches as everybody knows and what I describe is
> the Lutheran, Catholicism may be a bit more you-are-good-if-you-
> do-good-God-knows-we-aren't-always-thinking-correct-thoughts and
> as such more like its Semitic relatives.
>
There aren't 'two major branches' - there are in fact three: Roman
Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and the various brands of Protestantism
(Anglicanism would claim to be a different strand again, but it's not really
a 'major' branch; at root it's closest to the orthodox). The first major
split was between Latin Europe and Greek speaking Europe, conventionally
dated to around 1054AD. A large factor in that split was theological
disagreement over just the questions you're talking about; put brutally
simplistically, the Eastern Orthodox view (and the universal understanding
of Christianity in the first millenium) is wholly compatible with what you
describe as the 'Eastern' orientation. In particular, a major focus of the
split was that the Latins thought it possible to talk intelligibly about
God, the Greeks thought you couldn't. (For an introduction to this, look at
Karen Armstrong's book the Search for God).
Bo quotes Watts:
> > The West has no
> > recognized institution corresponding to Taoism because our
> > Hebrew-Christian spiritual tradition identifies the Absolute -God -
> > with the moral and logical order of convention.
This is an astonishingly ignorant comment, and betrays a profound lack of
knowledge of "our Hebrew-Christian spiritual tradition". If you took out of
the Bible all the aspects that were critical of "the moral and logical order
of convention" you wouldn't have a lot left (get rid of Moses, the prophets
and Jesus for a start). I would argue (with, I believe, 99% of theologians)
that the heart of the tradition is precisely the opposite of this, ie
criticising the establishment. What else is prophecy? (For a good primer on
this point, see Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination)
Bo again:
> What Watts says is that tying social moral/value to (a) God is
> wrong because it's impossible to change them without a feeling of
> revolt against reality itself. If God has said - through the holy
> scriptures - that women are to 'shut up in assemblies' or 'cover their
> hair' or that one animal is unclean ...etc. it becomes "sinful" to
> break the rule. This is part of Christianity too ....
I completely agree with the point being made, but the assumption that 'holy
scripture' is the literal word of God, in the sense you describe, is
primarily a Modern, post-1500 Latin development. (Given that the vast
majority of Christians were illiterate, and copies of the Bible were
restricted within monasteries, that's not too surprising). It did not exist
in the medieval mentality, and it still doesn't exist in Eastern Orthodoxy
or (largely) in Roman Catholicism. Put theologically, this point is about
idolatry - to make something into God which isn't God. Fundamentalism (which
is what you describe) is an outgrowth of mistaken Latin theology - it is NOT
Christianity.
> I'll not pursue this further only repeat that the Western
> sphere is the next candidate for a quantum jump into an
> easternlike insight and the MoQ is the WAY.
I agree with that - because the "West" is not synonymous with Christianity,
and the "West" is completely screwed up about rationality, science and
meaning. As dissected by Mr Pirsig himself.
Enough.
> Hope this is not too patronizing.
Not patronizing, just needing to be disagreed with! ;-)
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:34 BST