[MD] to dmb

[118]

Hi Marsha,

Religious Zealot?  Here is the self test.  If you answer yes to two
questions, you are slightly insecure; 4, you need help; 6, you are a
religious zealot; 8, you are living in a box; All of them, you are a
politician.

1)Have you been throwing books at people lately to show that you are
"oh so right" and everybody else is damn wrong?

2) Do you besmirch everybody who doesn't have your view?

3) Do you keep presenting the same quotes time and time again, rigorously?

4) Do you respond by telling others that they are idiots?

5) Are you unable to deal with other people's opinions?

6) Do you say it is true because the preacher said it was?

7) Are you praying or trying to find favor with your maker?

8) Are you concerned with others blaspheming your maker?

9) Do you claim to be a favored child?

10) Are you stuck in Dogma?

:-)
Mark

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:18 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> HI Mark,
>
> Am I sounding like a religious zealot?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:02 PM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:32 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>  There is a relationship between the MoQ and Buddhism, and I do not
>> think my pursuing it poses any threat to the MoQ.  As RMP has clearly
>> stated, the MoQ is not confined within any one philosophic tradition.
>> The last paragraph in your post seems to be unreasonable and
>> exaggerated name-calling because I will not follow your lead.  Please
>> do not take it personally.  It may be that there is a good
>> relationship between Contemporary Pragmatism/Radical Empiricism and
>> the MoQ, and between Buddhist philosophy and the MoQ, with something
>> to be gained from both approaches.
>>>
>> [Mark]
>> In the first book about Quality, Buddhism was in the title.  You have
>> every reason to consider Buddhism in terms of MOQ, that was the intent
>> of the first book.  I did not realize there was any dispute about
>> whether Buddhism was related.  Who would even suggest such a thing?
>>
>> There are some who place quotes down instead of explanations.  However
>> quotes must be viewed in the context of the entire book, and do not
>> stand on their own.  It is quite possible that the context provides
>> the exact opposite of what is attempted to be supported.  I can find a
>> sentence in ZMM to support any contention I want.  This does not
>> provide any support whatsoever, it is bordering on Dogmatic.  Throwing
>> bibles is not a philosophical approach, it is a religious one.  If it
>> wasn't for philosophy, I am sure a lot of those posting would be
>> staunch religious Zealots.  You can find any quote you want in the
>> bible also.  Does this mean that the approach is right?  Just because
>> Moses said something does not prove anything.  I don't know why some
>> just march in step, it is somewhat disappointing.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>