From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 - 05:40:17 BST
[Scott:] Why should I do your homework for you? I don't have a bunch of
quotes handy. These are complex topics, and it would take hours, if not
days, to find quotes that make sense taken out of context. You have been
attacking Christianity, and I've been saying that you are out of date. If
you don't want to take the time to bring yourself up to date, then you
shouldn't be making these attacks. It's like someone attacking the MOQ
without having read Lila, and then when challenged, demanding that the MOQ
and all its argumentative support be given in an email.
dmb:
First of all, I'm not asking you to do my homework, I'm asking you to defend
your claims rather than simply assert them. You've no yet given me a good
reason to believe it, and neither has anyone else whose made similar claims.
And yes, I have been making a case against theism, but I was only trying to
persuade you, and others, that Pirsig's explicitly rejects faith and theism
for damn good reasons. I didn't start the thread, you know, and it is an
important issue. And why do you assume that I'm ignorant when it comes to
christianity? Have you considered the possibility that I too have spent some
time reading and thinking about it? Anyway, if you can't really back up what
you're saying, out of laziness or whatever, then its hardly fair to expect
to be taken seriously on the matter.
[Scott:] I wasn't trying to make that case. I only said that there is no
conflict between modern, non-fundamentalist theistic faith and science, and
I haven't heard anything that contradicts that, such as some actual point
of conflict as there has been in the past.
dmb:
No conflict between WHAT and science? It seems to me that you've avoided one
of the most monumental conflicts of our age, the conflict between science
and religion, by simply defining religion so narrowly that we are no longer
talking about the same thing. I mean, if these so called theist believe only
that which is based on experience, empirical evidence and otherwise accept
intellectual standards, then what "christian" things do they believe in? You
don't have to write a book, just give a clue as to what you mean. I mean,
the whole idea strikes me as quite preposterous and the lack of explanations
and supporting material gives one the distinct impression that you're making
this shit up.
[Scott:] Do you think I've been making all this up? Since I do not have
faith in theism, what possible motivation would I have for doing so? A long
time ago, my opinion of Christianity was much like yours is now. Since then
I studied it, and changed my opinion.
dmb:
I honestly don't know what motivates you, but whenever we see lots of
crazyness and tortured logic, you can bet your ass something personal is at
stake. Well, I studied it and changed my opinion too. So what?
[DMB had said:] I think you have to be using all those key words (faith,
theism and mysticism) in ways that are used inside the church and make no
sense to those of us who speak english.
Scott replied:
How else am I to use them? "Inside the church" is their natural
context. They will make sense if you study the topic, just like any other
vocabulary. If you want to know how a Christian uses the words, read them.
I recommend Kathleen Norris' "Amazing Grace". She is not a theologian, and
in fact doesn't think much of theology, but she's an intelligent ex-atheist
Christian, It won't convince you that faith is good, but it should at least
make you aware that not all Christians are mindless believers, and that
people like her are better considered friends than enemies.
dmb says:
Ah ha! I knew I smelled a rat. You haven't studied christianity so much as
indoctrinated yourself, hypnotized yourself. Why should a person have to
become familiar with an entire branch of human knowledge just to understand
the meaning of a word? That is SUCH ridiculous posturing! What prevents you
from simply telling me what you mean when you use the word? I know, "faith
in divine guidence" was your LAME answer. What does that mean? CAn you
really define faith using the word faith. And if divinity guides you, then
you have posited the existence of a supreme being which is hardly different
than the one imagined by the fundamnetalists, it just sounds fancier. What
am I saying? Faith is the mother of all weasel words and no one who believe
in it has ever been able to explain it to my satisfaction. Not even close. I
almost always get a big pile of condescending nonsense, your reply here
being an average example.
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 : Tue Oct 26 2004 - 06:20:51 BST