From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 01:44:46 BST
PART. 2.
Sam:
5. All you've done here, Mark, is reassert your original point, rather than
offer an argument which engages with my criticism. The point at issue is
whether in fact it is true that Christians can be identified with the social
pattern
of value that they accept, in other words, whether it is true that to be a
Christian means that you cannot function intellectually.
Mark 13-4-04: Wait a moment? A true Christian? But you are not a true
Christian are you Sam? You are merely pretending to be one, Sam, because, Sa
m, to be
appear as one is to enjoy a good life whether you believe it or not Sam isn'
t
it Sam?
In fact, all we have to do is search for the best life whether we believe it
or not and adopt it as our value system; that is why your Christian garb is
contingent - until something better comes along. This is like a man or woman
who
marries for money, it provides them with a good life until something better
comes along. Ok, there may be some unpleasant sex and a bit of nausea, but
generally speaking, it makes for a good life.
Sam:
Hence my point about vacuity, for you are assuming the truth of your positio
n
when you make your assertion, and I am contesting that assumption. To simply
repeat your point doesn't make it any stronger. Once again, the reason why I
ignored this point was because I didn't see anything there worth engaging wi
th.
Mark 13-4-04: But i did not understand you are not a Christian. I thought yo
u
were a Christian. As one who only pretends to be a Christian until something
better comes along, don't have to believe anything at all, you just have to
pay lip service.
Of course you are free to Intellectually roam free! But if you work in the
Church, and if your little secret gets out, you will be dropped like a stone
Sam
Norton.
6. Once again, the reason why I ignored this point was because I didn't see
anything there worth engaging with.
Mark 13-4-04: Quite. You are only pretending to be a Christian.
7. I didn't find your answer particularly clear; in so far as I understood i
t
I didn't
object to it, except that I would identify God with Quality, not Dynamic
Quality.
Mark 13-4-04: As a non Christian you are free to think what you like. You se
e
Sam, i thought you were a Christian, in which case you would have been
disallowed from committing blasphemy. But feel free to blaspheme away!!!
8. I found this a non sequitur. Your last sentence didn't seem to follow on
from the earlier elements, which seemed uncontentious (and certainly highly
compatible with eudaimonia). So I didn't know what to say.
Mark 13-4-04: Don't worry about it. In your situation, it is better for you
to pretend to be a Christian. That will provide you with a good life.
I do not wish to lie and pretend as you do. That is not for me. I could not
walk about the place letting it be known that i regard myself as a Christian
on
purely the pragmatic grounds of providing myself with a good life.
> PART 2.
9. Your initial comment showed an incomprehension of my eudaimonic argument,
which is built around the
idea that there is a stable pattern of fourth level values which is
independent of static social
conventions, and which can criticique them in order to improve them (just
like the 'standard'
intellectual level, but - I would say - with greater coherence). Your
secondary argument simply
displayed your prejudice again, viz that accepting those elements
disqualifies a person from
intellectual debate. Once again, the reason why I ignored this point was
because I didn't see
anything there worth engaging with.
Mark 13-4-04: Look Sam, this is getting a bit long in the tooth? You pretend
to be a Christian because it provides you with a good life. Why not get on
with it? What more do you want, a good life provided by the church AND to ta
lk
out your arse on a weekly basis in front of dozens of people?
You have already made it absolutely clear that you are not a Christian. If i
had known you only pretended to be one, i would not have spoken to you as on
e.
OK?
10. There are embedded assumptions in your question about the nature of
faith, viz that it is a
cognitive endeavour analagous to scientific enterprise, through which the
Truth about the world is
discerned and given propositional form. I don't share those assumptions, so
I
see no contradiction
in asserting that Christianity is built around a mythology and that
Christianity is true.
Mark 13-4-04: Myths are stories used to justify practices. Stories are human
inventions. Christ is not actually the son of God - he is only the son of Go
d
in a story.
The difference between the story of Jesus and the story of the electron is
that electrons can be verified via direct experience. Jesus may just as well
have been called Brian Cohen and joined the Popular Judaean peoples front.
11. Not having read your essay when I made my point, I was unclear as to wha
t
'DQ/SQ coherence was
referring to'. Now that I have understood it, I see it as agreeing entirely
with my approach to the
MoQ. As for the point about the good, the language is framed in essentialist
terms, which I don't
see as adequate. Standard theological point, as it happens, so feel free to
run it by any Christians
you like.
Mark 13-4-04: I fully intend to run by the person i have in mind whether it
is OK for those working in the Church to not believe what they preach but
merely pretend to do so for the A3A3A3 and the social status.
Our respective approaches to the MoQ are not the same at all. You state your
approach is separate from Christianity. My approach explains Christianity.
13. This was just bluster - and the point about Heaven etc was answered in
point 1 above. I repeat "by
saying 'I do not find these changes minor' you're confusing the conceptual
point about 'good food at
the social level' - which is a point about the MoQ - with the substantive
point that Christianity is
good food - which is independent of the MoQ, as I see it."
Mark 13-4-04: Nothing is independent of the MoQ. This is a killer argument.
The MoQ provides a fundamental description of everything.
> GROUP: Please note point 13 anticipates Sam's actual response.
I find it interesting that you are appealing to the 'crowd'. Sure sign of
philosophology rather than
genuine philosophical enquiry. Especially as the point you make is untrue.
Mark 13-4-04: I am aware this post is being read. You would not have
responded to me had i not shamed you into doing it by appealing to the crowd
. It is
thanks to the crowd that you wish not to appear the person you would rather
they
did not see.
When they see me, they see me. I do not pretend to be a Christian, for
example, simply via a convoluted and insincere intellectual argument devoid
of
authentic Christian value.
Oh, and by the way, i did in fact correctly predict that you would ignore me
.
Thanks crowd!!
> 14. Mark 11-4-04: The problem is that you have no... Ignored.
Full quotation Mark 11-4-04: The problem is that you have no aesthetic and
moral sense of the damage
you could be doing.
This was an ad hominem attack with no relevance to the debate at hand, and s
o
not meriting a
considered response.
Mark 13-4-04: I run rings around you don't i? You see Sam, the thing is, you
ARE a very clever individual. But an imbecile like me can make you sound
stupid because of two key reasons:
1. I have sincere insight into what the MoQ is about, and i care about it a
great deal.
2. You MUST bound your conclusions in accordance with avoiding blasphemy -
and that would make the most clever of individuals sound bleedin' stupid! Yo
u do
the work for us! But apart from that, you deny yourself insight into the MoQ
.
Only a damn fool would do that? Surely?
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 Apr 14 2004 - 02:45:48 BST