Re: MD Sit on my faith.

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Mon Dec 08 2003 - 14:39:29 GMT

  • Next message: Joe: "Re: MD Sit on my faith."

    Mark,
     
    You say:
    "Christians believe in God do they not?
    Buddhists do not believe in God do they?"
     
    Eckhart said: "I pray to God to rid me of God".
    Then there is the whole tradition of negative theology, the death-of-God
    theologians, or Don Cupitt's book "After God".
    Then there are Buddhists who do nothing but chant "Namu Amida Butsu", or spin
    prayer wheels, etc. etc.
     
    Your characterization above is overly simplistic.
     
    - Scott

    Mark 7-12-03: Hello Scott, You cannot be a Christian without believing in
    God. As far as i know, that is the state of the matter. The Buddha did not
    believe in God, as far as i know, that is the state of the matter.

    Scott (for it is he)
    P.S. I find it ironic that you think better of Buddhism than Christianity
    because a "Buddhist may be more open to the MoQ", but then flame those who
    disagree with you, as you did with Bo and as you are now doing with Matt.

    Mark 7-12-03: I do not know what Bo or Matt think regarding this issue? But i
    am not talking to them, i am talking to you, unless of course you feel it to
    be your responsibility to talk for other people - a trait i find disturbing
    and a bit fascistic.
    But look here, we have wandered way from the issue, which is typical of your
    correspondence.
    The issue is one of faith - does faith flavour rational enquiry? Christians
    hold a faith, Buddhists do not. Therefore, if faith flavours rational enquiry,
    and as Buddhists do not hold such faith, Buddhists may be more open to more
    flavours of rational enquiry. I think in MoQ terms you will find that to be a
    conflict between social and intellectual endeavours?
    Now you are going to ask what, 'Flavouring' rationality means aren't you,
    because you have not been listening? 'Flavour' is a word i believe we may both
    understand to indicate preference. How do we preference our rational enquiry? We
    do that because rationality is an aesthetic intellectual sense and therefore
    creative - if we could not preference our rational enquiry, we would all be
    robots following one rational.
    To sum up, the aesthetic of rational enquiry may be influenced by faith.
    And to add, an antidote to faith may be scepticism, but how far can a
    Christian sceptic push scepticism before faith is called into question? You know,
    it's a matter of static patterning!

    Scott:
    I would think, given the MOQ, that you would have more respect for
    intellectual differences, and not characterize them as conspiracies or psychological
    failings.

    Mark 7-12-03: Humans do have failings and do play games as a matter of life.
    If you don't know this then go back to your ickle wickle bubble and donny
    wonny wowy aboush it.
    Mark

    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 : Mon Dec 08 2003 - 14:40:40 GMT