From: Charles Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Sat Aug 07 2004 - 02:53:57 BST
> The problem of evil? Ain't none. It's just a matter of considering
> things to be important that are smaller than we are capable of or that
> are defined by social convention. [lots more possible]
"The Problem of Evil" is a 500 lb. gorilla serving tacos in a
mini-skirt the minute anybody starts spinning creation mythology.
mel, I don't follow these threads with the intention of harassing you,
it just seems that way.
Enjoy your trip and "Godspeed,"
Chuck
On Aug 6, 2004, at 4:46 PM, ml wrote:
> Hello Marsha,
> I'm mel, nice to meet you.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MarshaV
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: MD MOQ, Intellect, DQ and Woman
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks. I'm happy to be back.
>
>
> You stated, "The term God has specific meaning in philosophy, it is
> that which nothing exceeds." I think the term god has the same
> specific meaning in religion. But, a Christian philosopher, for
> example, would also believe "God" is a personal god. One who may have
> influence on the lives of humans. Seems to me 'the existence of a God'
> has been a major debate in Western Philosophy for centuries. The
> problems with the 'existence of evil' are also based on there being a
> personal God. The meaning you stated is too simplistic for all
> Philosophy.
>
> What is "God's" relationship to MOQ? What is "God's" relationship to
> the Intellectual Level, the highest level?
>
> I still think the gender specific word, God, is dangerous because it
> is confining. God (him, he) is an incomplete concept. This word is
> wrong whether used by philosophers, the Pope or the Dali Lama. If God
> is masculine, where does that leave things that are feminine?
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> mel:
>
> Regarding your first point and third point:
>
> The Being the greater than which none can be conceived. (God, Larry
> Ellison, gawd, Dio, Deus. El, YHWH, money, beer &c) Alternatively:
> Pure intentional consciousness, has been well wrapped in mythology and
> shall always remain so. The current evolved concept from the millennia
> of multi-cultural syntheses is merely that. How else can a brain
> possessed of insufficient awareness to remember the location of car
> keys even begin to deal with a being even just slightly greater than
> ourselves, much less ever-so-more-so greater.
>
> So, we create the myth, wrapped around the referent for something
> "TOO-MUCH-SO". Hence we can assign any gender or combination or lack
> that we choose.it's OUR myth.
>
> Regarding your second point:
>
> If the Boston catechism is somehow hinting at the reflection of an
> answer, Q: "Where is God?" A: "Everywhere,"
>
> which means complete conscious interpenetration of everything always,
> everywhere, then the relationship is simply non-interfering presence
> and awareness. Free-will allows the lesser being to reach out and
> interact or not to on what ever level is recognized or chosen. The
> problem of evil? Ain't none. It's just a matter of considering things
> to be important that are smaller than we are capable of or that are
> defined by social convention. [lots more possible]
>
> At least it works for me.I'll have another beer, it's Friday
>
> thanks--mel
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 07 2004 - 03:37:03 BST