Re: MD MOQ and Islam

Date: Mon Feb 23 2004 - 21:44:33 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD Objectivity, Truth, MOQ and Skyscrapers"

    In a message dated 2/23/2004 8:20:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, 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."

        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?

    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    because the interpretation is false or outdated does not mean that the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


    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 Feb 23 2004 - 21:46:18 GMT