[MD] the Value of Think Again

Fri Oct 9 09:08:32 PDT 2009

John,

Buddhism is an atheistic religion.  I dismiss the reality of god. That good
and god came from the same root hardly makes them synonyms today; there is a
long Judeo-Christian history to disprove any similarities.  The MoQ, like
Albert Einstein, is not against religion, but both would transcend a
personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. I am not a member of any
religion because it creates a unnatural division.  

What do I care what one Stephen Asma thinks?  Plu-eeez!  

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:36 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] the Value of Think Again

Well being an atheist doesn't seem to me to jibe with "not this, not that"
actually.  How can you say any concept is either meaningful or not
meaningful, given the relativity of concept?
I have read the Copleston annotations, and found them very helpful.  I also
found them to carry the reader toward an opposite conclusion to the one
quote out of context  that you provide.  To counter them, I'd offer the
quote from ZAMM that says "God and Good come from the same root meaning."
 Do you think Pirsig would advocate dropping "good" from the MoQ?

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion.  It should transcend
a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology.  Covering both natural and
spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the
experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity.
 Buddhism answers this description.  If there is any religion that would
cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."
Einstein

----------------

Perhaps the most famous campaign to spread the dhamma was that of Emperor
Asoka, the Indian king who sent envoys throughout Asia.  But notice the
enlightened attitude of Asoka compared with other missionaries.  In one of
his edicts, which he carved into a rock (it's still readable today), he
says,

One should not honor only one's own religion and condemn the religion of
others, but one should honor other's religions for this or that reason.  So
doing, one helps one's own religion to grow and renders service to the
religions of others too.  In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one's
own religion and also does harm to other religions.  Whosever honors his own
religion and condemns other religions, does so indeed through devotion to
his own religion, thinking, "I will glorify my own religion." But on the
contrary, in so doing he injures his own religion more gravely.  So concord
is good. Let all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed
by others.

Stephen Asma, Gods Drink Whiskey

---------------------------

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> Hello John,
>
> You suggested to think again the 'Judeo-Christian understanding of man',
> and
> I suggested you to think again the Judeo-Christianity's misogynistic
> attitude towards women.  I am not a Buddhist nor a member of any religion,
> I
> am an atheist: Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other
> supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who
> believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
>
>
> "The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term "God" is completely
> dropped
> as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic
> freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It is
> anti-theistic."
>   (Pirsig, Copleston Annotations)
>
> http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 9:35 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] the Value of Think Again
>
> Well I don't intend on taking the role of Christian Apologist, that's for
> sure.
> I will point out to you, that if you think Judeo-Christian culture is
> misogynistic, then you should try living in Buddhist Asia for a while and
> see how it compares.
>
> Really, the whole question of "women's rights" only evolves with enough
> leisure time to nurture such concerns.  Before now, men and women were too
> concerned about survival  to worry about equality.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:58 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi John
> >
> > You did say Judeo-Christian, and the Old Testament also is chocked full
> of
> > misogynistic garbage.  I hope were not going to travel down that theist
> > track again.
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:57 PM
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] the Value of Think Again
> >
> > Marsha,
> > yes, I have considered the J-C understanding of women, most of the
> problem
> > coming from that greeky paul, who is the only guy I know in the whole
> bible
> > who said women should shut up and back off.
> >
> > He's also the guy that didn't advocate having a wife, even tho all the
> > other
> > apostles did.  Then you get the whole patriarchical roman empire
muddying
> > the waters and you have today, a system which is stupid and incomplete.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > I think women are very important.  Where would I get my pie and my
babies
> > if
> > it weren't for women?  So get pregant and back into the kitchen and
> realize
> > your own fundamental value - just kidding - but honestly,  my own
> > particular
> > introduction to the christian indoctrination was very slanted in this
> > regard
> > because the leader and prophet of the whole organization was a woman.
> >
> > So a lot of theological defensiveness was developed over the years and
> > absorbed by me on YOUR side on this question.  The whole raison d'etre
of
> > SDAism is overthrow of Romish ideas like Sunday observance and
> spiritually
> > inherent patriarchy, natural immortality of a "soul" and doctrines of
> > original sin and other such pagan ideas.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:27 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Have you considered the Judeo-Christian understanding of women?
>  There's
> > > where you might think again.
> > >
> > >
> > > Marsha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> > > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:17 PM
> > > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > > Subject: [MD] the Value of Think Again
> > >
> > > >From the point of view of the theory of evolution, mankind is only
one
> > > species among thousands which have their place within the field of
life
> > on
> > > earth. The fact that people took the theory of evolution as an enemy
of
> > > religion shows only how rigidly they understood the idea of God. But
> the
> > > same may be said of scientist and others who now comfortably accept
> that
> > > the
> > > theory of evolution has disproved the Judeo-Christian understanding of
> > man.
> > > As we shall see, this only shows how rigidly they have understood
> nature.
> > >
> > > Jacob Needleman, explicating the need to "think again".
> > > 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/
> > >
> > 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/
> >
> 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/
>
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/