From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Wed Dec 10 2003 - 03:29:03 GMT
Mark,
> [Scott prev:]You are concerned with how people may or may not be "open to
the
> MOQ". Since the only people likely to be are intellectuals, then if you
> wonder whether or not a Christian might be open, you need to restrict
> your attention to intellectual Christians -- and of course the same with
> Buddhists. For an intellectual Christian the word "God" is a minefield,
> so much so, that the statement "God exists" does not have a simple
> answer. For example, the pseudo-Dionysius said that God was "beyond
> being". Is something that is "beyond being" all that different from
> "emptiness"? That is why one cannot simply say of an intellectual
> Christian that he or she "believes in God". Most likely they would say
> "yes", but most likely -- always excepting the fundamentalists -- they
> would not thereby find Pirsig's concept of Quality in conflict.
>
> Mark 9-12-03: Hello Scott, You have introduced a distinction, now we have
at
> least two types of Christian: Intellectual Christians, and, presumably,
Social
> Christians?
[Scott] There are many kinds of Christians, some more intellectual than
others:
[Mark:]But soft, don't Christian believe Jesus to be the son of God?
[Scott:] Not all of them.
> And do not Christians believe in Virgin birth and the resurrection?
[Scott:] Not all of them.
> Are you telling us all that It's now officially OK to be a Christian and:
1.
> Not believe in God. 2. Not believe in Jesus. 3. Not believe in the virgin
> birth.
> If so, i may be going to church this Christmas!
There hasn't been an "official" Christian since the East/West split in 1024
(and plenty of disagreement before then, of course.)
> Scott [prev]:
> But I had something to say to you. I find posts in which you tell people
> to "piss off", or to accuse people of racism or psychological failings
> (as you have posted to me) to not only be a case of lowering the tone of
> the discussion group, which is of concern to all of us, but also to be
> immoral in MOQian terms, as Pirsig put it (LC #140)"
>
> "To say that a comment is "stupid" is to imply that the person who makes
> it is stupid. This is the ad hominem argument: meaning, "to the person".
> Logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining and you argue
> that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does this
> tell us of the condition of the sun?
> "That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic
> texts say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what
> may be an original contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is a
> form of evil."
>
> Mark 9-12-03: I am not perfect. I like a laugh and i like to satirise -
even
> the Buddha satirised a number of cosmological theories presented in the
Vedic
> tradition. And the Brits have a long tradition of satire perhaps born of
being
> dictated to by a low Quality Aristocracy. Plus, i do not take myself
> seriously, like Christians do.
[Scott:] The problem here is that you use "Christian" as if it were
something monolithic. Some take themselves seriously and some do not.
> If a Buddhist picks up a piece of shit and throws it at a statue of the
> Buddha, it can be argued he/she is making an important statement
regarding
> nothingness. If a Christian did the same to a statue of Jesus, you can
imagine the
> difference in reaction?
I bet if you did that in Bangkok you'd be lucky not to be lynched. You would
certainly be arrested, possibly jailed, at a minimum be thrown out of the
country.
> [Scott prev] It takes faith to keep one's butt on the meditation cushion
for
> hours a day. One does so because one has faith that doing so leads to
> Nirvana.I have never heard of a Buddhist who questioned the Buddha's
> four Noble Truths.
>
> Mark 9-12-03: You can have release in this life if you are a Buddhist, but
> you are merely promised one if you are a nice little boy and do as you are
told
> like a good little Christian.
Many Christians do not believe in a literalheaven/hell. Some not even in a
metaphorical one. You need to read some modern Christian theologians and
commentators, for example, Peter Berger's "The Heretical Imperative". You're
about two centuries out of date.
> Mark 9-12-03: I know of no Christian who is just going through the
motions.
> Christians are active in the community making sure people have the fear of
God
> in them, and his Love if they do as they are told. As far as Catholics are
> concerned, well, you continue to delight us all with your, 'Anything goes'
> religious tolerance: So, it's OK for a catholic to challenge the word of
the Pope
> now is it?
Many do. Especially in the US and Europe, there is a major split between
liberal and conservative Catholics.
> It's OK for a catholic to reason for the use of contraception and
> abortion. Excellent!
The governor of Michigan is a pro-choice Catholic.
> [Mark prev] 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 prev] Quite far. Again, look at Cupitt. Or consider how much ink is
> spent by Christian theologians on asking "what is faith?".
>
> Mark 9-12-03: Then maybe those theologians are on their way to becoming
> radical renounces? Or something like that?
Yes. Consider the Catholic theologian Robert Magliola, who's book "Derrida
on the Mend" is a discussion of how Derrida's deconstruction was prefigured
by the Buddhist Nagarjuna 2000 years ago, and how it can be used to shine
light on the doctrine of the Trinity.
>
> Scott [prev]:
> 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 [Prev] 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.
>
> [Scott prev] Yes, we all have failings, but I think the Pirsig quote above
> indicates pretty clearly that we should make an effort to keep personal
> attacks out of intellectual discussions, as a matter of morality.
> Mark 9-12-03: I am not attacking you, i am trying to be funny. Lighten up
> Scott, let's not get too worked up? I am not suggesting you are stupid or
> anything.
[Scott:] "To see ourselves as others see us" is, to be sure, difficult. Your
"trying to be funny" in the baby talk above comes across as "If you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". And, of course, your "trying to be
funny" has all too often descended into outright insult. I would prefer that
you would spread light rather than heat.
[Mark]> We must remember that Quality is found in immediate experience.
Christians
> may say that God is with them? So, a Christian automatically snaps
experience of
> Quality into a static repertoire of patterns. It is the static repertoire
> that theologians grapple with, and it is the static repertoire that can be
> problematic for rational enquiry?
[Scott:] Again, you need to disabuse yourself of this notion of the
automatic Christian. They come in all shapes and sizes, just like Buddhists
and MOQists.
- Scott
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 : Wed Dec 10 2003 - 03:31:15 GMT