Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 19:28:00 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil"

    Chuck,

    This has gotten me thinking, as if I need encouragement
    in that particular vice, and both suggestions seem to have
    mostly upside.

    Regardless of the specific book and the specific arts,
    attempting to frame discussion from within MoQ may
    give us an opportunity to develop a better sense of
    post-SOM fluency.

     Appreciating creativity and an understanding of the
    interplay of SQ/DQ with the human actions toward
    creativity would seem to me to have high value.

    thanks--mel

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Charles Roghair" < >
    To: < >
    Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 6:26 PM
    Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

    > Just a thought:
    >
    > Would any or all be willing to agree to read THE RIVER OF GOD or some
    > other pertinent tome and discuss it in MoQ terms along the way?
    >
    > I hate to reduce the MoQ to a glorified book club, but, then again,
    > that's what it is de facto. Right?
    >
    > Again, just a thought.
    >
    > Another thought:
    >
    > Artistic Creativity. Also, discussed in light of the MoQ. Origin of,
    > critique of end-result, muse, block, etc.
    >
    > I get a sense there are a few artists lurking around; I could be
    > wrong...wouldn't be the first time.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Chuck
    >
    > On Aug 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, ml wrote:
    >
    > > An interesting reference that traces
    > > the evolution of the concept of God
    > > is a book "The River of God" by Reilly
    > >
    > > It is not an argument for or against, but
    > > simply a good history of who believed
    > > what, when, and where the qualities
    > > attributed to a deity came from, culturally
    > > and geographically.
    > >
    > > It is a dynamic concept...who knows, this
    > > may be where a DQ concept enters the
    > > language of religious thought.
    > >
    > > David, what happened to your arm?
    > >
    > > thanks--mel
    > >
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "David Morey" < >
    > > To: < >
    > > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 11:49 AM
    > > Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
    > >
    > >
    > >> Quality puts together being and becoming
    > >> lets say giving be(com)ing or sq & dq
    > >> q is what is common to sq and dq.
    > >> For me, you just ain't getting it.
    > >> Here's hoping you keep trying it could
    > >> unlock your own ideas in new ways.
    > >> little post, broken arm at moment.
    > >>
    > >> regards
    > >> DM
    > >> ----- Original Message -----
    > >> From: < >
    > >> To: < >
    > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 5:28 AM
    > >> Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>> From Ham Priday to Mark Steven Heyman
    > >>> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:25 AM
    > >>> Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Hello again, Mark
    > >>> You'll be surprised, and undoubtedly pleased,.to learn that I agree
    > >>> with
    > >>> everything stated in this posting.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 23 Aug 2004 at 11:05, Scott Roberts wrote:
    > >>>> Chuck said:
    > >>>>> Evil exists, which should be impossible if God exists, because:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> 1.If God is unaware of Evil in the world, he is not omniscient.
    > >>>>> 2.If God is aware of Evil, but can do nothing to prevent it, he is
    > > not
    > >>>>> omnipotent.
    > >>>>> 3.If God is aware of Evil, is able to prevent it and
    > >>>>> chooses not to, he is not omni-benevolent.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Where's the flaw?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> scott said:
    > >>>> The flaw is to think that words like omniscient and omnibenevolent,
    > >>>> and of course God and Evil, have clear meaning, and thus can be used
    > >>>> in logical formulas. Whatever God might be, He is not a He, a being
    > >>>> who does things the way people do but perfectly.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> ...The argument here should tell the theist that he or she is
    > >>>> working
    > >>>> with idols, not God. Idols are concepts (or percepts) that one
    > >>>> worships as God in place of God, but God cannot be conceived (or
    > >>>> perceived). As I said to Mark SH, most Christians are idolators or
    > >>>> heretics of some sort or other. They think that they understand what
    > >>>> is meant by "God is omniscient" and so fall into error, the most
    > >>>> egregious of which is to think that God is the sort of being that
    > >>>> can
    > >>>> be thought to be on our side.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> msh says:
    > >>>> Here's the quibble. Saying that people are wrong in their
    > >>>> conceptions of God implies that you know what's right. If it's
    > >>>> "egregious error" to think that God is omniscient, for example, or
    > >>>> if
    > >>>> it's true that "God cannot be conceived (or perceived)" then it's
    > >>>> fair for us to ask you to elaborate. Why should anyone believe that
    > >>>> something imperceptible AND inconceivable exists? I respectfully
    > >>>> suggest that the answer can only be that they really, really WANT to
    > >>>> believe it.
    > >>>
    > >>> You're absolutely right, Mark! And the intensity of their desire
    > >>> demonstrates the Value of this inconceivable Essence to man.
    > >>> With belief comes a meaning to existence to which the non-believer
    > >>> is oblivious. But even atheists and agnostics can understand
    > >>> that individual freedom would be impossible if man had access to
    > >>> absolute knowledge. Logic alone tells you that if you knew what
    > >>> must happen, you would have no choice in the matter. You'd
    > >>> be a human robot running along a prescribed course, unable to
    > >>> feel surprise or awe, set goals, achieve personal success, or learn
    > >>> through experience. Since you would not desire what you knew
    > >>> you couldn't have, your life would have no value and there would
    > >>> be no reason to live. If there's a "scheme" to man's innocence,
    > >>> this is it. Does that give you pause? Or is it mere platitudes and
    > >>> dribble? Only you can make that choice. But at least you're
    > >>> free to choose!
    > >>>
    > >>> By the way, on August 16, I closed with this question:
    > >>>> Does Mr. Pirsig regard Quality as a form of beingness,
    > >>>> as being itself, as a Being, or as
    > >>>> something else entirely? If Quality is not "being", then why
    > >>>> haven't
    > >> you
    > >>>> raised the same question about Quality that you ask about Essence?
    > >>>
    > >>> I'd still like an answer.
    > >>>
    > >>> Best regards,
    > >>> Ham
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>> 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 -
    > >>>>
    > >>>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > >>>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> 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 -
    > >>>
    > >>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > >>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> 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 -
    > >>
    > >> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > >> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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 -
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 -
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    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 -

    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 : Wed Aug 25 2004 - 21:42:40 BST