From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Mar 23 2004 - 07:24:40 GMT
Dear Matt P.,
You wrote 22 Mar 2004 20:22:51 -0500:
'I have not been following this thread too closely. Please explain to me the
purpose of it?'
Underneath you find my original proposal. The idea is to have an
'Idols'-like competition between religions as a practical test of the
validity of the MoQ (Do we really experience Quality or not?) that answers
the question you asked Platt 19 Feb 2004 00:46:40 -0500:
'in your "opinion" which is the best religion?? Which represents the epitome
of human civilisation?'
"Opinion" should be substituted with "experience" of course in a MoQ-based
discussion...
With friendly greetings,
Wim
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
Aan: "MD" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Verzonden: woensdag 10 maart 2004 23:32
Onderwerp: MD quality religion
> Dear Matthew P., Platt, Steve P., Calvin (MBSJ79), Don (drose), Khalil and
> others interested
>
> I would like to pick up an older discussion:
>
> Matthew Poot asked Platt 19 Feb 2004 00:46:40 -0500:
> 'in your "opinion" which is the best religion?? Which represents the
epitome
> of human civilisation?'
>
> Platt replied 19 Feb 2004 07:24:02 -0500:
> 'What makes you think I know which is the best religion? How would the
best
> religion be determined? What criteria would you use?'
>
> Steve P. reacted 19 Feb 2004 9:49:59 -0600:
> 'Isn't this the sort of ranking you want to apply to music? Is there a
> reason why it would not work for religion while it does work in the cases
of
> music, art, scientists, etc? How is religion different? ... Your project
has
> always been to say that some things are better than others. Aren't some
> beliefs better than others?'
>
> Platt added 20 Feb 2004 07:49:58 -0500:
> 'Over the centuries religion shows little in the way of human
> accomplishment. If anything, it has been used to justify low moral
> biological level behavior by inspiring the slaughter of millions.'
>
> Calvin (MBSJ79) wrote 20 Feb 2004 08:21:48 -0500:
> 'i think there's no need/reason to try to determine which religion is best
> ... the only reason i can think of ... is to make sure one didn't get
> gypped. ... it would never work anyways. if the religions were officially
> nominated and the list was publicised, people would go nuts'
>
> Don (RycheWorld) agreed 25 Feb 2004 00:14:39 -0500:
> 'If we continue to "rank" anything then all we are doing is living up to
> simple static patterns....right?'
>
> Matthew P. replied to Platt 21 Feb 2004 00:03:31 -0500:
> 'Concerning whether religion showing little of human accomplishment, I
> disagree. How does religion show human accomplishment? The views
represented
> by those religions, are a direct reflection of human populations views on
> life. Thus, if we know how they looked at things, relatively speaking,
then
> we can see at what stage of social and intellectual development they are
> at.'
>
> Don (drose) wrote 23 Feb 2004 20:48:19 -0500:
> 'Depending upon how loosely one defines religion, any philosophy can look
> suspiciously like a religion.
> I think one should be careful to differentiate "religion" which is merely
a
> static latch, from the dynamic quality it seeks to embrace - that is, God.
> Or DQ, if you will.
> Of course, you may substitute "philosophy" for "religion" in the preceding
> sentence...'
>
> Don (drose) wrote 23 Feb 2004 21:14:16 -0500:
> 'The criteria to determine the "best" religion are the same as the
criteria
> to determine the "best" of anything - according to the MoQ, that which
> leaves the adherent the most intellectual freedom.
> I'm biased, of course, but like any metaphysics, which is what religion
> ultimately is, the "best" religion would of necessity be the one that best
> described reality.'
>
> Matthew P. reacted 24 Feb 2004 00:05:12 -0500 to Don:
> '[Religion']s the "Ministry of Quality"'
>
> Khalil wrote 24 Feb 2004 15:49:25 -0000:
> 'I don't see that the point of religion is to create paradise on earth.
> Religion in its purest form is the guidance for man to find meaning and
> purpose in his life. And having knowledge of good and evil is at the heart
> of being human. For Islam this guidance comes from the Qur'an ... To use
the
> analogy of a map: a map that has been altered or has bits missing can be
> misleading although it still provides valuable information and guidance.'
>
> The idea of an 'Idols'-like competition between religions fascinates me.
> Maybe people would indeed go nuts if it were a TV-show, but what if we
would
> set up such a competition in this discussion group? Anybody can present
> his/her favourite religion. (Even as atheist you can either present the
> 'least bad' of the religions you know or present your own worldview as
> something that performs the same functions as any religion but better.)
> Anybody can 'vote' on religions presented by others. Or better: be
explicit
> about your criteria and explain your vote.
>
> Should we assess religion in itself, by its 'ministry of Quality', (as
> metaphysics) by its description of reality or negatively by 'leaving the
> adherent freedom'? Or are we really assessing the 'stage of social and
> intellectual development' of a population that is reflected in a religion?
>
> It seems obvious to me that religion as an unchanging 'map' or 'guide'
will
> loose value when the 'terrain' that's being represented or the 'life' in
> which we try 'to find meaning and purpose' is changing. And that 'terrain'
> and that 'life' may also be different for different people (or
populations).
> What is the best religion NOW and for ME in my situation?
>
> If the idea attracts others, I'll gladly present the Religious Society of
> Friends (Quakers) as my 'idol'...
>
> 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 : Tue Mar 23 2004 - 07:23:33 GMT