Re: MD On Faith

From: Charles Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 19:30:22 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD On Faith"

    Scott:

    I didn't attack faith, I qualified it.

    And God was present here in the MoQ long before I was or I wouldn't
    have brought it up; I was making a point.

    Before I wrote about Faith, I described my disappointment at finding
    God here. If the MoQ were not non-theistic by definition, I would not
    have come here in the first place.

    Quality contains mythology. Mythology contains God.

    And it's you who brings this discussion down with convoluted, esoteric
    pseudo-mystic double-speak to the latter.

    I'm willing to drop it here and now.

    Chuck

    On Oct 19, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Scott Roberts wrote:

    > Chuck,
    >
    > You started this thread, remember? And you started it with a very broad
    > attack on religion. I belong to no religious organization, but know
    > enough
    > about it to defend it from your over-generalized attack. Now you accuse
    > religion's defenders of "pushing their agenda" in this forum. In
    > short, you
    > think it is ok to attack faith, but it is not allowable for faith's
    > defenders to speak in reply. Is this your idea of high quality
    > intellectual
    > discussion?
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >> [Original Message]
    >> From: Chuck Roghair <ctr@pacificpartssales.com>
    >> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    >> Date: 10/19/2004 9:10:09 AM
    >> Subject: RE: MD On Faith
    >>
    >> Sam:
    >>
    >> Sam, you said:
    >>
    >> "Hmm. I once read a description of the creed as being 'mystical
    >> theology
    >> defined dogmatically', which I think sums it up. If you come at the
    >> creed
    >> expecting a list of beliefs then that is what you will find. They
    >> need to
    > be
    >> understood within the context of an ongoing faith tradition, and not
    >> abstracted (again, a SOMish pursuit)."
    >>
    >> And then:
    >>
    >> "It's the same as a zen koan. If you have to ask what is the sound of
    >> one
    >> hand clapping, then you
    >> haven't got it - it strikes you as 'at least a contradictory
    >> description,
    > if
    >> not outright
    >> gibberish'. Quite so."
    >>
    >> <Chuck responds:>
    >>
    >> Are you saying that the following is the Catholic equivalent to "What
    >> is
    > the
    >> sound of one hand clapping?":
    >>
    >> I believe in God, the Father almighty,
    >> creator of heaven and earth.
    >> I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
    >> who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    >> born of the Virgin Mary,
    >> suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    >> was crucified, died, and was buried;
    >> he descended to the dead.
    >> On the third day he rose again;
    >> he ascended into heaven,
    >> he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
    >> and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
    >> I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    >> the holy catholic church,
    >> the communion of saints,
    >> the forgiveness of sins,
    >> the resurrection of the body,
    >> and the life everlasting.
    >>
    >> AMEN
    >>
    >>
    >> Is that your position, Sam? Comparing "What is the sound of one hand
    >> clapping?" to what is essentially a loyalty oath? And you're a
    >> priest?
    >>
    >> I've sat through thousands of masses and heard armies of Catholic
    >> zombies
    >> respond dutifully in mechanical cadence over and over. Even as a
    >> child, I
    >> saw through the a whole charade as empty, meaningless posturing.
    >>
    >> This is how religion at the Social Level is attempting to dominate
    >> individuals at the Intellectual level which is the real immoral act
    >> and a
    >> true sin. Calling the Apostle's creed a Zen Koan is just a lie; Sam,
    >> you
    >> are the sinner!
    >>
    >> That creed is nothing, if not a literal list of beliefs. If you can't
    >> acknowledge that fact, at the very least, I see little point in any
    > further
    >> discussion.
    >>
    >> This is why the MoQ is losing folks like Ian who are genuine
    >> proponents of
    >> Pirsig's original vision.
    >>
    >> Pushing the agenda of institutionalized religion here is a travesty
    >> and
    > I'm
    >> tired of it too. Please take it elsewhere.
    >>
    >> Chuck
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Wed Oct 20 2004 - 05:35:02 BST