From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 11:38:01 GMT
Dear David B. and Sam,
David reminded me 13 Mar 2004 15:21:31 -0700 that I should still reply to
Sam's question of 12 Mar 2004 10:17:46 -0000:
'I still think we need _some_ sort of container in which to hold the debate,
and I think the SQ/DQ language is the most appropriate. What do you think?'
I think it is irrelevant whether it is the most appropriate in general, but
it IS the vocabulary we share on this list.
David, after your praise of mysticism (using a quote that refers to 'the
mystical element to be found in [all religions]'...) you end with:
'If the task of religion is to guide a soul toward the point where he or she
can hear the music for themselves, (and I think that IS the primary purpose
of religion.) then surely the quality of each religion should be ranked and
measured by how well it achieves that task. By that standard, Western
religions have failed. If there is one that can be said to function at all,
I would very much like to know about it.
...So, the nominees for best religion of the year are... Zip. Zero and Nada!
(Wild applause)
...And without further ado, the winner is... Nobody!'
I agree with your criterium for good religion. In my presentation of
Quakerism I hope to show that not all Western religions have failed. If you
disagree: what keeps you from nominating a non-Western religion?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Sun Mar 14 2004 - 11:50:37 GMT