From: RycheWorld@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 23 2004 - 21:44:33 GMT
In a message dated 2/23/2004 8:20:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
khalilm@netcomuk.co.uk writes:
"I am slightly concerned about the view expressed by Khoo and others that the
only value within religion is its mystical dimension, the rest is some sort
of social/intellectual construct that tends to do more harm than good. The
fact is that a true religion is a source of guidance, understanding and
meaning for man on every level and in every sphere and in every domain of
human interaction and knowledge. It is not given for all men or women to be
saints and mystics, but religion must be able to fulfil the needs of
everyone to find purpose and meaning in their lives from the humblest
illiterate peasant to the most erudite of scholars. It must be both a
personal means of fulfilment and a social framework."
Khalil,
You state the above so let me ask this - isn't your statement
hypocritical? It seems as though religion, IMO, always seems to have a "way out". In
other words, religion subscribes to acts of "do-good" yet, if you fail to meet
everything than you are mere human and can be forgiven with going back to trying
to do well. I feel that it could/should be an all or nothing entity. Having a
way to escape and then return...over and over...really doesn't maintain what
the outcome wants. Furthermore, with today's society, it's almost a given that
we all know AHEAD of time that we will have to make a selfish choice. If this
is not true than why are we not in a communist-type of society? Actually, IMO,
I feel the USA is a more capitalist society than anything. We make money for
US, no one else, right?
NEXT:
You stated,
"Doctrine/dogma is a fixed and static interpretation of scripture but we
should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just
because the interpretation is false or outdated does not mean that the
source is false."
What is your position on this statement and the act of reasoning? If we have
proven that when a message is passed down the line and the next to receive is
hearing something more miscued than the next, (like the kids game of
"Telephone") how can you justify 2,000 years of messages being exact? In addition,
there are already proven (?) contradictions in the Bible. That would automatically
make Rhetoric "truth" ...well, untrue. Right? Or am I talking out of you know
what???
Dan
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 Feb 23 2004 - 21:46:18 GMT