From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2004 - 19:01:12 BST
Hi DMB
Thanks that does clarify what you were saying and
I can see what the substance of it is. Actually I think
some of your take on the churches is more heavy than
I would like to see it because you are thinking US churches
and I am thinking UK churches that do some good work
criticising the politicians, whereas in the US I take it that
they more often align with non-progressive forces.
UK churches tend to be more left leaning and socialist
I suspect.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:21 PM
Subject: RE: MD quality religion (Christianity)
> David M asked:
> Enjoyed the recent post about science, religion and modernism. You also
said
> that you found the below post from Sam had something evil about it. I
don't
> get that comment at all and would like to hear you explain why.
>
> dmb replies:
> You make it difficult to reply, Mr. Morey. The comments you refer to were
> actually posted in the "True in what sense" thread and were not reproduced
> in your post. Further, it would help to know more specifically where the
> question lies. Anyway, to begin, let us look at the actual comments you
ask
> about.
>
> Sam had said: "So, instead of saying 'Jesus died to save you from your
sins'
> it would be a faithful reinterpretation to say 'Jesus shows you how to
sort
> your life out'".
>
> I responded with,...
> "When I read Sam's reinterpretation of the salvation of Christ, I actually
> recoiled in horror. It felt very wrong. Not just logically flawed or
> otherwise incorrect, but dark and evil. It felt a little like one might
feel
> upon seeing some beautiful little thing crushed by some drunken clod."
>
> dmb continues:
> The general thrust of the criticism was that Sam is confusing social level
> moral codes with the Dynamic. I found the idea of Jesus as a personal
> trainer to be deeply offensive. It trivializes profound spiritual truths b
y
> turning them into trite sentiments. That's what I meant by the destructive
> clod. The social level virtues seem like a big clumsy oaf compared to the
> subtle thing that is genuine spirituality. In Pirsigian terms, this is
> double trouble. It doesn't just mistake social for intellectual. Its worse
> than that. It mistakes the social for the dynamic too. Its degenerate to
the
> second power. Does that help?
>
> DM said:
> It may be sadly untrue that the modern Church has done much for developing
> the third level structures that support forth level ones, but to say that
> this is what the true vocation of the church should be is something to be
> supported not condemned I would suggest.
>
> dmb replies:
> Huh? Dave, that sentence is a mess. I guess I have a vague idea what
you're
> asking about, but the question is largely incoherent. I'd only repeat
myself
> and say there is nothing wrong with social values or the instituions that
> foster them. The problem is mistaking that function for a spiritual
funcion.
> Dave M asked:
> Is it a thing against social institutions you have like the church?
>
> dmb says:
> Well, yes. For the most part, the churches have failed to address
genuinely
> spiritual concerns and instead serve a social function. They have joined
> hands with reactionay political movements and inspired a great deal of war
> and murder. I'd say its a bit of a problem. It not our only problem, but
one
> that fills the headlines every day.
>
> Dave M said:
> I have been disappointed by the overall reaction to Sam's ideas, seems to
me
> that we should be promoting the MOQ for all not driving out people who
bring
> in heavy baggage like Christianity or prgamatism or whatever. Although I
> equally think people should not take offense at a bit of heated argument
or
> even abuse, but we aren't all as non-sensitive as I am.
>
> dmb replies:
> Sam and Matt were driven out? I wouldn't characterize it that way. It will
> sound sickeningly boastful, but I think they ran away from specific
> criticism that cut too close to the bone. Both of their departutes were
> preceeded by a flurry of hard-hitting and unanwered posts. Not that I was
> without help, but the timing suggests that I played a part. Its nice not
to
> have the alternative MOQs they were spinning, but I'm sorry they left
> because it left gobbs and gobbs of direct questions unanswered and
> challenges unmet. Felt like they not only dropped out in the middle of the
> game, but also took the ball and went home. T'is poor sportsmanship at
best.
>
>
> 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 : Mon Apr 26 2004 - 20:21:43 BST