Dear Sam,
How are we supposed to keep a discussion going on static and Dynamic aspects
of religion and mysticism if you either agree on what I write or put it in
your "MoQ for
processing" folder (-: ?
We even may have comparable problems with making Reason into a moral
authority. Whether Anglicanism is original in doing so or not doesn't seem a
very worthwhile type of dispute to me.
You agree that preserving society is no task of religion any more in our
(Western) society, but hesitate about making prophetical criticism of the
status quo its priority. What is for you the difference between prophetic
critique being the fruit of religious development and it being religion's
raison d'être? One knows a tree from its fruits, not? What else would be
religion's raison d'être? Are you sure your raison d'être for religion can't
be 'quite easily integrated' with mine just like our definitions of
religion...?
If preserving (our) society is no task of religion any more, wouldn't a
logical conclusion be that religion's social relevance then must be to
change society (to the better, of course)? Would you also agree with the
following statements:
- The static aspects of religion are less relevant today then its Dynamic
aspects.
- The static aspects of religion refer to its self-preservation (if it has
no task in preserving society any more), its Dynamic aspects refer to the
Dynamic of its own development and (to the extent that it is still relevant
in modern society) to its role in social progress.
- To be relevant to social progress religion must rely on its Dynamic, i.e.
prophetic, roots.
- To be more relevant to social progress, religion must limit its static
aspects to the minimum needed for survival, maximizing thereby its potential
role as a medium for DQ.
You wrote 24/11 12:03 -0000 that according to you there are static and
Dynamic aspects in both 'priest' and 'prophet'. Could you give examples of
the Dynamic aspects of priesthood and of the static aspects of prophecy?
I wouldn't say that 'the advance of Quakerism is to have embedded at the
heart of it "we could be wrong"'. Rather that "we have found a path that
leads beyond right/wrong, see the results in our way of life and if these
speak to your condition try it for yourself".
I said: 'Describing experience in science is only a means. Its end is
convincing people of the "truth" of the "reality" science describes.'
SO I would NOT say that this aim of science is overly ambitious. Rather the
opposite... Science HAS convinced most people in our type of society that
the 'reality' it describes IS Reality, e.g. that our confusing experience
can and should be explained by the interplay of subjects and objects.
Your story of 'Moses and the Shepherd' certainly appeals to some of my
religious values. I don't understand the last bit (the Shepherd's reply)
however and I doubt the authenticity of Moses' divine revelation: in my
experience God is far less wordy. I find a much better expression of those
values in John where Jesus is reported as meeting the Samaritan woman at the
well and telling her that the time is coming and now is when we will worship
God in Spirit and in Truth...
What do you think of these quotes from William Penn (Quaker and founder of
Pennsylvania):
'It is not opinion, or speculation, or notions of what is true, or assent to
or the subscription of articles or propositions, though never so soundly
worded, that ... makes a man a true believer or a true Christian. But it is
a conformity of mind and practice to the will of God, in all holiness of
conversation, according to the dictates of this Divine principle of Light
and Life in the soul which denotes a person truly a child of God.' (1692)
and
'The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of
one religion; and when death has taken off the mask, they will know one
another, though the divers liveries they wear here makes them strangers.'
(1693)
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:02:09 BST