[MD] Theism/epistemology

[X Acto]

Michael,
I wanted to add, that given this statement below, ephasizes the importance
of which cultural concepts and how they are chosen to allow how they influence
and color that said experience. Ones that hold practicle consequence in expereince
having the most value.

The idea of intent becomes a pivotal topic in this discussion and one I would
like to pursue with you if you are willing.

-Ron




________________________________
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:39:05 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Theism/epistemology

 Michael,
You mentioned transcendence, transcendence from cultural definitions, assumptions
and prejudices. Once this is done, the word God becomes meaningless in a sense for
how we know this word is defined by culture. Which is the problem and paradox of
your idea. Even the asterek version brings culture back into the fray which leads
me to think that God is a cultural word for a culturally transcedent expereince.
This is why in Hebrew, Gods' name may not be spoken, in Islam the image of Mohammad
or God may not be depicted, no graven images be made for it brings cultural prejudice
into it. Both theism and atheism are culturally stigmatized words relaying the same
cultural prejudices making both terms sort of a non issue in relation to the MoQ
where belief is formed from practical experience.
 
-Ron
 


________________________________
From: Michael Poloukhine <moq at poloukhine.com>
To: moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 10:13:16 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Theism/epistemology

> [Arlo]
> I honestly don't know what the argument is here, expect over your wanting to
> redefine theism for whatever purposes you have.. Other than that, we seem to
> agree on most of this. As I've been saying, I have no trouble with a view that
> considers theism (in all its world colors) as paintings on the mural of human
> experience, metaphors that people across the globe and throughout history have
> used to describe the indescribable. More than this, I don't know what I can
> say. 
MP: LoL. And *I'm* the one seeking to redefine theism?? 

If you could just manage to say that as "considers theism as the belief in a god 
or gods" we'd be all set. ;-)  It really is that simple. Anything else, is *you* 
redefining theism to suit whatever purposes *you* have, not the other way 
around. 

Why is it so hard to say "theism" is the *idea* that one *can* believe in a g*d, 
and "religion" *is that belief* defined?  If one accepts "atheism" in exactly this 
way, one is obliged to do so with "theism."  Period. Anything else is 
disingenuous.



> [Arlo]
> I would say you won't fully understand the MOQ until you understand Zen. 
MP:  I don't doubt you. And I would say MoQ won't fully realize Zen until 
understands theism.
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/



      
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/