MD quality religion

From: Wim Nusselder (
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 22:32:28 GMT

  • Next message: drose: "Re: MD quality religion"

    Dear Matthew P., Platt, Steve P., Calvin (MBSJ79), Don (drose), Khalil and
    others interested

    I would like to pick up an older discussion:

    Matthew Poot asked Platt 19 Feb 2004 00:46:40 -0500:
    'in your "opinion" which is the best religion?? Which represents the epitome
    of human civilisation?'

    Platt replied 19 Feb 2004 07:24:02 -0500:
    'What makes you think I know which is the best religion? How would the best
    religion be determined? What criteria would you use?'

    Steve P. reacted 19 Feb 2004 9:49:59 -0600:
    'Isn't this the sort of ranking you want to apply to music? Is there a
    reason why it would not work for religion while it does work in the cases of
    music, art, scientists, etc? How is religion different? ... Your project has
    always been to say that some things are better than others. Aren't some
    beliefs better than others?'

    Platt added 20 Feb 2004 07:49:58 -0500:
    'Over the centuries religion shows little in the way of human
    accomplishment. If anything, it has been used to justify low moral
    biological level behavior by inspiring the slaughter of millions.'

    Calvin (MBSJ79) wrote 20 Feb 2004 08:21:48 -0500:
    'i think there's no need/reason to try to determine which religion is best
    ... the only reason i can think of ... is to make sure one didn't get
    gypped. ... it would never work anyways. if the religions were officially
    nominated and the list was publicised, people would go nuts'

    Don (RycheWorld) agreed 25 Feb 2004 00:14:39 -0500:
    'If we continue to "rank" anything then all we are doing is living up to
    simple static patterns....right?'

    Matthew P. replied to Platt 21 Feb 2004 00:03:31 -0500:
    'Concerning whether religion showing little of human accomplishment, I
    disagree. How does religion show human accomplishment? The views represented
    by those religions, are a direct reflection of human populations views on
    life. Thus, if we know how they looked at things, relatively speaking, then
    we can see at what stage of social and intellectual development they are

    Don (drose) wrote 23 Feb 2004 20:48:19 -0500:
    'Depending upon how loosely one defines religion, any philosophy can look
    suspiciously like a religion.
    I think one should be careful to differentiate "religion" which is merely a
    static latch, from the dynamic quality it seeks to embrace - that is, God.
    Or DQ, if you will.
    Of course, you may substitute "philosophy" for "religion" in the preceding

    Don (drose) wrote 23 Feb 2004 21:14:16 -0500:
    'The criteria to determine the "best" religion are the same as the criteria
    to determine the "best" of anything - according to the MoQ, that which
    leaves the adherent the most intellectual freedom.
    I'm biased, of course, but like any metaphysics, which is what religion
    ultimately is, the "best" religion would of necessity be the one that best
    described reality.'

    Matthew P. reacted 24 Feb 2004 00:05:12 -0500 to Don:
    '[Religion']s the "Ministry of Quality"'

    Khalil wrote 24 Feb 2004 15:49:25 -0000:
    'I don't see that the point of religion is to create paradise on earth.
    Religion in its purest form is the guidance for man to find meaning and
    purpose in his life. And having knowledge of good and evil is at the heart
    of being human. For Islam this guidance comes from the Qur'an ... To use the
    analogy of a map: a map that has been altered or has bits missing can be
    misleading although it still provides valuable information and guidance.'

    The idea of an 'Idols'-like competition between religions fascinates me.
    Maybe people would indeed go nuts if it were a TV-show, but what if we would
    set up such a competition in this discussion group? Anybody can present
    his/her favourite religion. (Even as atheist you can either present the
    'least bad' of the religions you know or present your own worldview as
    something that performs the same functions as any religion but better.)
    Anybody can 'vote' on religions presented by others. Or better: be explicit
    about your criteria and explain your vote.

    Should we assess religion in itself, by its 'ministry of Quality', (as
    metaphysics) by its description of reality or negatively by 'leaving the
    adherent freedom'? Or are we really assessing the 'stage of social and
    intellectual development' of a population that is reflected in a religion?

    It seems obvious to me that religion as an unchanging 'map' or 'guide' will
    loose value when the 'terrain' that's being represented or the 'life' in
    which we try 'to find meaning and purpose' is changing. And that 'terrain'
    and that 'life' may also be different for different people (or populations).
    What is the best religion NOW and for ME in my situation?

    If the idea attracts others, I'll gladly present the Religious Society of
    Friends (Quakers) as my 'idol'...

    With friendly greetings,


    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 : Wed Mar 10 2004 - 22:55:30 GMT