[MD] False Messiah

[david buchanan]

SA:

Sorry, but I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I can see that 
you have lots of questions about something I said, but I don't know what 
that something is. As a result, I don't know how to make sense of your 
questions. Would you mind attaching the questions to the statements in some 
way? Otherwise, I just can't oblige you.

dmb


>From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] False Messiah
>Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hello db,
>
>      I am having a hard time fitting in your literal
>Jesus, that was really a mythology, but somehow became
>a historical person written on numerous documents from
>different cultures in contact with the Middle East
>region.  Why?  For one, this idea that a literal
>historical person messes things up.  Buddha was a
>historical person.  Southern Buddhism (Theravada)
>notes a historical Buddha and concentrates not just on
>what he taught, but on his life.  The northern school
>(Mahayana) of Buddhism does not concentrate on the
>historical life of Buddha, it focuses on the
>philosophy.
>      Why do we not see this older religion behind a
>country having more superpower, or even equal to or
>closer to, kind of power the U.S. has from your
>description?  Time doesn't have to be the factor.  I
>think it is the way people have been interpreting
>Christ and the literal minded way western civilization
>takes on questions of what is correct or incorrect.
>Thames 'all is water' that is thought of as the
>beginning of scientific inquiry.  The literalness of
>science itself.  How a world without a G-d is the
>right world, that is hard core solid literalism.  What
>you see is what you get.  Dirt, clouds, and birds...
>these are seen, and everything else needs to be tested
>to see if it exists.  You can imagine, but don't let
>your imagination take you too far, because you will
>not be in the real world?  Isn't this the current
>'what you see is only what is' - mentally?
>      Puritans put  women on trial and proved with
>observation that they were witches, people saw them,
>too many people as that, saw them as witches so - they
>must have been witches.  Pure observation is a
>downfall too, don't you think?  Lucky we have science
>to show it was a mold on the wheat that gave those
>females this unexplainable (other than saying they
>were witches) condition of frantic behaviors.  So we
>have something wrong with all of these 'things' we use
>and depend upon.  So why do we use and depend upon
>them, because in concert they balance each other out
>and all the loose ends will still have a need to be
>threaded, to tie up, and the MOQ might be the next
>stitch.
>
>
>SA
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>moq_discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/