All religions are dangerous?

[_marg]

Dogma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

A dogma isn't just a belief. Dogma has to be believed... 'or else'.
Not all religions emphasise such strictness in what is believed. They may propose a certain reality, but at the very same time completely down-play the importance in believing in 'that one version only'. In fact, they don't have to consider it important at all!

Ok so according to anwers.com in shintoism.." (the kami-body is an object in which the spirit of a deity was thought to reside). "

Isn't that dogma? The fact that followers of shintoism believe spirits of deities reside in objects?

[_Ren]

Isn't that dogma? The fact that followers of shintoism believe spirits of deities reside in objects?

Proposing the existence of some supernatural entities isn't the same as pushing 'dogma'.
Read my last post again.

[_marg]

Isn't that dogma? The fact that followers of shintoism believe spirits of deities reside in objects?

Proposing the existence of some supernatural entities isn't the same as pushing 'dogma'.
Read my last post again.

Ok so you wrote: A dogma isn't just a belief. Dogma has to be believed... 'or else'.

My question to you then is , can a Shintoist be a shintoist without believing that spirits of deities do reside in physical objects? Isn't that a required belief to hold, if it isn't dogma then why not?

[_Moniker]

Dogma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

A dogma isn't just a belief. Dogma has to be believed... 'or else'.
Not all religions emphasise such strictness in what is believed. They may propose a certain reality, but at the very same time completely down-play the importance in believing in 'that one version only'. In fact, they don't have to consider it important at all!

Ok so according to anwers.com in shintoism.." (the kami-body is an object in which the spirit of a deity was thought to reside). "

Isn't that dogma? The fact that followers of shintoism believe spirits of deities reside in objects?

More from Wiki:

Dogmata are found in many religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. Dogmata may be clarified and elaborated but not contradicted in novel teachings (e.g., Galatians 1:8-9). Rejection of dogma is considered heresy in certain religions, and may lead to expulsion from the religious group.

They believe that Kami are found in nature, animals, ancestors shrines, etc... You can call yourself a Shintoist and just pick and choose what works for you. I think where there is a breakdown here is that Shintoism is NOT black and white -- it's just a cherry picking. MOST Shintoists accept aspects of Buddhism as well they can incorporate Christianity into their religious beliefs.

Dogma is NOT only a belief -- it must be accepted and there is no variation. There is usually an authority that asserts the "truth" of the belief. This is not done and Shintoist have absolutely no problem incorporating other religions into their belief system. Shintoism does not believe in an afterlife, so what do they do?? They use Buddhism for death! :)

Are you seriously saying that any belief in supernatural is a dogma, Marg? Are water dowsers a dogmatic religion?

[_Moniker]

Isn't that dogma? The fact that followers of shintoism believe spirits of deities reside in objects?

Proposing the existence of some supernatural entities isn't the same as pushing 'dogma'.
Read my last post again.

Ok so you wrote: A dogma isn't just a belief. Dogma has to be believed... 'or else'.

My question to you then is , can a Shintoist be a shintoist without believing that spirits of deities do reside in physical objects? Isn't that a required belief to hold, if it isn't dogma then why not?

Since you went to answers.com to understand Shintoism let me quote them:

It could be argued that all Japanese are practitioners of Shinto, even if they happen to be Buddhist or Christian.

It's because it is a part of the very culture of Japan.

[_Ren]

marg,

Moniker has explained it. And she'll explain it better than I will, because she knows the religion very well.
...I'll leave it to her. I can't see why her answer shouldn't be clear...

I think a few of us are just too used to the kind of religion where somebody stands up and says "This is how it is. Full stop".
...it's like no other attitudes exist within religion at all...

[_Ren]

Also marg, just to highlight another point on the word 'Dogma':

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization

...Religion is not the only thing that can be dogmatic in nature. Any ideology, or any organisation can be approached in a dogmatic manner. No supernatural beliefs have to be involved whatsoever.

So why are we continually trying to pin religion against the wall, when it should be ANY kind of fundamentalism and dogmatism that should be in the dock?

[Anonymous]

Moniker,

Don't worry about JAK's inability to recognize humor, comedy, or any form of point making beyond italicizing and bolding words. Rumor has it that his funny bone was surgically removed during a routine appendectomy.


And let me save JAK the trouble of responding:

channeling JAK:



Bond previously wrote:

Moniker,

Don't worry about JAK's inability to recognize humor, comedy, or any form of point making beyond italicizing and bolding words. Rumor has it that his funny bone was surgically removed during a routine appendectomy.


JAK responds:

Bond,

You have yet to provide any evidence that I've had my appendix taken out. Furthermore, the "funny bone" doesn't even exist! Evidence is required proving the existence of the "funny bone" before you can even make an argument concerning the surgical removal of my "funny bone".

*Several links to wikipedia articles concerning the appendix, comedy, evidence, surgery, rumors, italics, the Crusades, logical facacies, and the history of tacos*

JAK

[_marg]

They believe that Kami are found in nature, animals, ancestors shrines, etc... You can call yourself a Shintoist and just pick and choose what works for you.

So a Shintoist picks what objects to worship, with the belief that a God/spirit resides in that ojbect and stays within that object? How many spirits are allowed to exist, as many as an individual chooses? Are those spirits worshipped only, what do shintoists believe the spirits do?

Dogma is NOT only a belief -- it must be accepted and there is no variation. There is usually an authority that asserts the "truth" of the belief. This is not done and Shintoist have absolutely no problem incorporating other religions into their belief system. Shintoism does not believe in an afterlife, so what do they do?? They use Buddhism for death! :)

The fact that shintoists add to their religion other religions doesn't preclude them from having dogma. It seems to me that a religion to be a religion must have a core belief or beliefs which helps to define that religion and explain why it is considered a religion. I've mentioned previously that I consider a religion must have supernatural beliefs. I picked that up from a course on religion I listened to. So I didn't personally make that definition up. And I have that course on tape and could if necessary transcribe the exact words.

What do you think are the requirements which make a religion a religion? What makes Shintoism a religion?

Are you seriously saying that any belief in supernatural is a dogma, Marg? Are water dowsers a dogmatic religion?

Water dousing to my knowledge is not considered a religion, if it is please explain.

So if we look at what is considered a religion, any belief system accepted as a religion must have beliefs. Whie Shintoism is not extensive, perhaps it is personal and evolving, it none the less has beliefs which a follower must accept or they wouldn't be a Shintoist. So it seems to me all Shintoists believe spirits exists, I don't know what they believe about those spirits other than I think they believe spirits reside in objects of their choosing. It's not a very structured religion but none the less I don't think it is completely devoid of dogma. If one must believe in spirits and one must believe spirits reside in objects otherwise one isn't a Shitoist them that's it's dogma..or the belief at a fundamental level that all Shitoists must necessarily hold. I'm not arguing I know this for certain or I'm right, I'm brainstorming on concepts and word meanings. Dogma is not a physical object it is a word representing a concept. And I'm attempting to get a handle on that concept.

[_JAK]

For those who remain skeptical of that, the following websites offer further evidence in support of that position.

Branch Davidians

Waco Davidians

Jim Jones The People’s Temple

Religious War

The Crusades

The Wars of Religion

Without the Right Faith

Age of Religious Wars

Books on Religious Wars

Iraq War as Religious War, Feb. 21, 2008

Religious Wars in the United States, April 29,2004

It’s Religion, American Thinker, Feb. 21, 2008

If a link will not work from this bb, I apologize. I did not get to these sources through the bb, and understand that sometimes links do not work from within the bb.

There has been no refutation of the basic position:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

In addition:
“Truth by assertion” is unreliable. Religions rely on “truth by assertion.”

While there are numerous books and other publications which also demonstrate “Dangers of Religion,” it is not possible to offer them well in this format.

For those who would argue that dogma and claim absent evidence as a principle is superior to evidence and reason, I would invite you to post sources which support that position.

JAK