RE: MD On Faith

From: Chuck Roghair (
Date: Mon Nov 01 2004 - 18:12:42 GMT

  • Next message: Joseph Maurer: "Re: MD On Faith"

    Good Morning Scott, All.

    <Scott said:>

    "So when we reached the age of beginning to reason
    (adolescence) many of us turned it all off. But there is a good side to it,
    and it is not hard to find it in your local library. Theologians are aware
    of all the criticisms that people such as you or Chuck or DMB have levelled
    at theism and faith, and have answers to them -- and are aware that many of
    those criticisms were not unjustified."

    <Chuck responds:>

    "...many of us turned it all off..."

    I don't think so Scott, not nearly enough of us, judging by the state of
    current global affairs.

    Clearly, you believe present theoligical thinking to be far advanced past
    the point of the an omnipotent father-figure watching over us from on-high,
    which I don't dispute, but I do maintain that the general, God-fearing
    population, is not of that opinion and that observation alone has scarey,
    violent ramifications for the rest of us.

    Did President Bush ever "turn it all off?"

    Dubya is an excellent example of the popularity the old-style theology still
    enjoys--a self-proclaimed Evangelistic Christian who, clumsily homilizes
    from the Oval Office, professes a God that takes a side in the US led
    occupation of Iraq (I suppose I should take some solace that God is on "our
    side," I don't though. Weird.) and admits that his policy is guided by his
    faith (seperation of church and state gasps for breath); in those rare,
    scrutable moments of coherence, his speech is peppered liberally with
    evangelistic diction such as "God-fearing" and "faith-in-God" and
    "the-triumph-of-good-over-evil." Bush uses "God" like a comma.

    There were enough voters in the US to whom none of this was as horrifying
    and unconstitutional as it was to me four years ago. There may very well be
    enough voters to re-elect God-boy tomorrow (shudder).

    As a result, the world is more dangerous, bloody, contentious than I can
    remember in my lifetime..

    To whomever believes that religious fundamentalism is a US problem, let's
    not forget, Tony Blair is George Bush's little bitch.

    So, Scott, assuming your proposal that enlightened theology rules the day,
    why hasn't the church made any effort to communicate the new theology to the

    Thus far, you haven't addressed that point, which is the seed from which my
    entire problem with the church has grown. So I'll take a stab at it.

    Could it be...


    Fear of losing control, perhaps? Or political clout? Or possibly the fear
    of a mass exodus of parishioners?

    In essence, the church suffers from a lower level (social) institutional
    phobia of losing ground to a higher level (intellectual) evolution of
    individual consciousness.

    The church's fears the proliferation of 'Scott's actually--intelligent,
    thoughtful individuals who take from Christianity what's of value and move
    on to Gnosticism or Buddhism or Kabbbalah the MoQ or booze or sex or
    whatever as a part of a natural progression, in search of more value via
    holistic intellectual self-education and diversified experience.

    The church doesn't want 'Scott's. The church wants pea-brained Bush deer
    easily mesmerized by its high-beam Faith headlights. The Church prefers a
    good soldier who will do as he's told and never question the tenets of
    Christian dogma, especially if he happens to lead the free world.

    As a member of the free world, I object!

    Faith? Phooey!

    Best regards,


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 18:17:41 GMT