Re: MD Dynamic Quality and God

[Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat]

drose,

Though I find your "briefly-commenting-on-every-sentence" style a little
disconcerting (though I do understand having to work for a living), after
piecing together the drift/message I found I had made another logistical
mistake:

I had snuck in a little "prove God's existence" question without even
knowing it myself.

Having snuck it in sub-consciously, I looked for the reply to it
sub-consciously.  And having not found it, I became confused.  But then I
figured out where I had gone wrong.

In your original message (Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:01:35 -0500 ) you alluded to
the ethical cause quacking like a God-duck.  That's what got me.  From then
on I thought you were offering proof of God's existence.  It kinda' sounded
like it.  But it wasn't.  (I'm guessing; if you were, than I am still not
connecting.)

The point is, God is not in the arena.  He ain't on the playing field.  He
is not a chess piece.  In other words, the proof of God's existence is
through faith, not reason.  Which isn't bad, in case there are any naive
atheists reading this out there.  (I thought I should say that just to be
on the safe side, even though I'm pretty sure anyone who's read Pirsig (and
understood anything he's had to say) understand's the need for faith.)
Your posts presuppose belief in God, or at least the fact that God doesn't
need us to believe Him to exist.  I found the second post confusing 'cuz I
thought (sub-consciously) it was up for discussion.  My bad.

I guess that just leaves a comment on all that was said.  My only comment
(well, not really "only", but for brevity's sake) is that I hope people who
agreed with "Quality = God" or "God is the whole ball of wax" understand
that they are in the minority.  Not as readers of Pirsig or within us
readers of Pirsig.  I didn't received my Census of MoQ.org yet so I
wouldn't care to surmise on that one.  No, I mean minorities within the
world of Christians (or let's just say believers in God).  God = Quality is
just as effective as God = Universe.  It means the same thing.  And that
would make you a pantheist (which, I believe, Spinoza was the first to do
for the Judeo-Christian God).  Spinoza was expelled from his community of
Jews for heresy and branded an atheist for it.  Of course, that was in the
17th Century.  Nowadays, being a pantheist would put you in the minority,
but that's about it.  Probably no shunning.  But exclusive religions (like
Catholicism) might frown upon a Catholic being a pantheist.  I'm not
positive on the Vatican's official stance towards in-house pantheism, but I
doubt it's in the affirmative.

And now I shall shut my mouth before I say anthing more that's stupid.

Matt


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html