All religions are dangerous?

[_Jersey Girl]

I will bold and underline where you requested help. When you state that JAK claimed you personally attacked him when what he made was a simple statement regarding commenting on personal attack, you do fail to comprehend JAK.

Really? Your bolded parts show that I asked for help? That's funny, I don't read it that way. At all.

WHY DO YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND THAT JAK HAS SAID REPEATEDLY IN THIS THREAD THAT I ATTACK HIM?

I did not carefully read that post of his -- you're correct. Yet, it doesn't change the fact that from page 5 on up to THIS page he accuses me of attacking him.

WTF do you keep replying to me? Seriously?

I asked if I WAS GOING NUTS!

Dart, did JAK drive you nuts? Is it just ME??? WTF?????????????????

Because you first asked if anyone was following the thread. You asked if you had taken a "crazy pill". See the question marks at the end of your sentences that I bolded? Little squiggly things, look for them. You posted as seemingly frustrated as you appear to be right now in the post that I'm replying to. And I attempted to help you by showing you where you weren't thinking clearly.

OF COURSE, JAK drives you nuts! You aren't focusing on what he says while he continues to drag you back on point. I told you previously that I've been down this road many times and THAT'S why I spent time on trying to get you clarity. You're doing no bloody good on your own, I can tell you that much!

I will show you now how to put up a decent freaking coherent post to JAK in order to get your hop-skip-and a jump questions answered because you don't seem to understand how to do it methodically. You pack a zillion things into a post that jump every which way to the point where your posts are chaotic to read and respond to. You are mixing up too many issues in one post.


WTF do I continue to respond to you here? Because I'm trying to help your sorry @ss.

Jersey Girl

(And let me point out to you again, Moniker that you're asking a question of another poster in your post TO ME. )

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl, since you're concerned with me saying JAK says I attacked him let me focus your direction to this post of his:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 102#128102

The things he stated are incorrect. I did refute the information in his source. I never attacked the "source", I never attacked the "the person with information".

Please notice this:

You denied making personal attack. That was false.

You attempted to shift the topic to attack a person with information.

Please show me where I made a personal attack on this oh so esteemed professor of logic that calls me "ignorant" in that post. Please?

No, not yet. This thread is already a trainwreck to hell and I'm not going to hop around issues. I'll deal with this when you think you understand the remark where you thought JAK stated that you attacked him. I'm willing to try to help resolve one thing at a time, Moniker.

No personal attacks were made Jersey. Stop with this nazi s*** and pull your jackboots out of the mud you have been slinging at Moniker.

I'd like to rephrase my original reply to Mercury.

Shut up, Mercury.

Okay, I feel better now.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

The following comment made by you was contained in a post to Moniker in the link supplied below.

JAK

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=127326#127326

JAK, can you tell me why you made that statement in your post to Moniker? Are you claiming there that she personally attacked you prior to her "tsk tsk" post?

Clarify?

Jersey Girl

[_Moniker]

I will bold and underline where you requested help. When you state that JAK claimed you personally attacked him when what he made was a simple statement regarding commenting on personal attack, you do fail to comprehend JAK.

Really? Your bolded parts show that I asked for help? That's funny, I don't read it that way. At all.

WHY DO YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND THAT JAK HAS SAID REPEATEDLY IN THIS THREAD THAT I ATTACK HIM?

I did not carefully read that post of his -- you're correct. Yet, it doesn't change the fact that from page 5 on up to THIS page he accuses me of attacking him.

WTF do you keep replying to me? Seriously?

I asked if I WAS GOING NUTS!

Dart, did JAK drive you nuts? Is it just ME??? WTF?????????????????

Because you first asked if anyone was following the thread. You asked if you had taken a "crazy pill". See the question marks at the end of your sentences that I bolded? Little squiggly things, look for them. You posted as seemingly frustrated as you appear to be right now in the post that I'm replying to. And I attempted to help you by showing you where you weren't thinking clearly.

It was a rhetorical question, Jersey Girl. :) Surely I didn't want expect anyone to say, "Yes, Moniker you took a crazy pill." :) I am incredibly frustrated and am about to walk out the door.

OF COURSE, JAK drives you nuts! You aren't focusing on what he says while he continues to drag you back on point. I told you previously that I've been down this road many times and THAT'S why I spent time on trying to get you clarity. You're doing no bloody good on your own, I can tell you that much!

What? I WAS the one that refuted his statements on the Amish and then HE starts asking me questions about my life!! I make refutations to his points by talking about Shintoism and he just continues to not reply to my refutations.

Ah.. so THIS is supposed to bring us back to the topic at hand, Jersey Girl? Please explain how YOU have attempted to bring this back to "dogma" and "religion". K?

I will show you now how to put up a decent freaking coherent post to JAK in order to get your hop-skip-and a jump questions answered because you don't seem to understand how to do it methodically. You pack a zillion things into a post that jump every which way to the point where your posts are chaotic to read and respond to. You are mixing up too many issues in one post.

I did do PLENTY of coherent posts to his! Even the reply to his "source" was a coherent post and he chose to ignore it! I mentioned on one of the first few pages of this thread "shintoism" and have made PLENTY of remarks about the beliefs, culture, and rituals of that religion as it IS relevant!

WTF do I continue to respond to you here? Because I'm trying to help your sorry @ass.

Jersey Girl

My sorry ass? I really want to be ugly to you right now. :)

But, I'll ask this instead: Jersey Girl -- do you have something relevant to add to this conversation?

You're a theist, no? You're a Christian, no? Do you agree with JAK's original statement that dart posted at the beginning of this thread with? Are all religions dangerous?

[_Moniker]

Jak, it seems according to some the thesis you presented turns on the definition of "dogma."

You had written: "All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence."

So if one can find a religion with no dogma then one can not say "all religions are applicable in your thesis. In what sense did you mean dogma? Could you please elaborate and if possible connect it to Shintoism for which Moniker claims has no dogma, or perhaps more accurately no written formal dogma.

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
dogma

A teaching or set of teachings laid down by a religious group, usually as part of the essential beliefs of the group.

JAK

Well, then Shinto doesn't fit into that as there are no essential beliefs or set of teachings as I've attempted to show on this thread a few times.

What are the essential beliefs of the group? Kami -- no! You can do the rituals and be a Shintoist and still the belief is not necessary! What are the "teachings"? What is the religious group that laid down these teachings and beliefs in Shinto?

The ritual is what is important. There are no preachers teaching anything.

You like links so here you go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... gion.shtml

Is Shinto a religion?

The nature of Shinto as a faith should not be misunderstood.

Shinto is often called the 'Japanese religion', and has been a big influence on Japanese culture and values for over 2000 years. But some writers think that Shinto is more than just a religion - it's no more or less than the Japanese way of looking at the world.

Because ritual rather than belief is at the heart of Shinto, Japanese people don't usually think of Shinto specifically as a religion - it's simply an aspect of Japanese life. This has enabled Shinto to coexist happily with Buddhism for centuries.

Shinto is involved in every aspect of Japanese culture: It touches ethics, politics, family life and social structures, artistic life (particularly drama and poetry) and sporting life (Sumo wrestling), as well as spiritual life.

Many events that would be secular in the West involve a brief Shinto ritual in Japan - for example, the construction of a new building would involve a Shinto ceremony.

Although most Japanese follow many Shinto traditions throughout life, they actually regard themselves as being devoted to their community's local shrine and kami, rather than to a countrywide religion.

So many Japanese don't think that they are practising Shinto nor are followers of the Shinto religion, even though what they do is what constitutes actual Shinto, rather than official or academic Shinto.

[_Jersey Girl]

I will bold and underline where you requested help. When you state that JAK claimed you personally attacked him when what he made was a simple statement regarding commenting on personal attack, you do fail to comprehend JAK.

Really? Your bolded parts show that I asked for help? That's funny, I don't read it that way. At all.

WHY DO YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND THAT JAK HAS SAID REPEATEDLY IN THIS THREAD THAT I ATTACK HIM?

I did not carefully read that post of his -- you're correct. Yet, it doesn't change the fact that from page 5 on up to THIS page he accuses me of attacking him.

WTF do you keep replying to me? Seriously?

I asked if I WAS GOING NUTS!

Dart, did JAK drive you nuts? Is it just ME??? WTF?????????????????

Because you first asked if anyone was following the thread. You asked if you had taken a "crazy pill". See the question marks at the end of your sentences that I bolded? Little squiggly things, look for them. You posted as seemingly frustrated as you appear to be right now in the post that I'm replying to. And I attempted to help you by showing you where you weren't thinking clearly.

It was a rhetorical question, Jersey Girl. :) Surely I didn't want expect anyone to say, "Yes, Moniker you took a crazy pill." :) I am incredibly frustrated and am about to walk out the door.

OF COURSE, JAK drives you nuts! You aren't focusing on what he says while he continues to drag you back on point. I told you previously that I've been down this road many times and THAT'S why I spent time on trying to get you clarity. You're doing no bloody good on your own, I can tell you that much!

What? I WAS the one that refuted his statements on the Amish and then HE starts asking me questions about my life!! I make refutations to his points by talking about Shintoism and he just continues to not reply to my refutations.

Ah.. so THIS is supposed to bring us back to the topic at hand, Jersey Girl? Please explain how YOU have attempted to bring this back to "dogma" and "religion". K?

I will show you now how to put up a decent freaking coherent post to JAK in order to get your hop-skip-and a jump questions answered because you don't seem to understand how to do it methodically. You pack a zillion things into a post that jump every which way to the point where your posts are chaotic to read and respond to. You are mixing up too many issues in one post.

I did do PLENTY of coherent posts to his! Even the reply to his "source" was a coherent post and he chose to ignore it! I mentioned on one of the first few pages of this thread "shintoism" and have made PLENTY of remarks about the beliefs, culture, and rituals of that religion as it IS relevant!

WTF do I continue to respond to you here? Because I'm trying to help your sorry @ass.

Jersey Girl

My sorry ass? I really want to be ugly to you right now. :)

But, I'll ask this instead: Jersey Girl -- do you have something relevant to add to this conversation?

You're a theist, no? You're a Christian, no? Do you agree with JAK's original statement that dart posted at the beginning of this thread with? Are all religions dangerous?

You're hopping again. Rather than invest more time in responding to your chaos, I'll look here again tomorrow to see if JAK has replied to my questions.

[_Moniker]

You're hopping again. Rather than invest more time in responding to your chaos, I'll look here again tomorrow to see if JAK has replied to my questions.

Umhum. I'm hopping? Do you have anything relevant to add?

Jersey Girl, the original topic is on page one. Can you give your thoughts on it or anything else stated in this thread other than my conversations with JAK?

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh no. I'm seriously going to kill myself and not a moment too soon. I looked at your post again, Moniker. Just look at this one part:

Jersey Girl: OF COURSE, JAK drives you nuts! You aren't focusing on what he says while he continues to drag you back on point. I told you previously that I've been down this road many times and THAT'S why I spent time on trying to get you clarity. You're doing no bloody good on your own, I can tell you that much!

Mon: What? I WAS the one that refuted his statements on the Amish and then HE starts asking me questions about my life!! I make refutations to his points by talking about Shintoism and he just continues to not reply to my refutations.

Ah.. so THIS is supposed to bring us back to the topic at hand, Jersey Girl? Please explain how YOU have attempted to bring this back to "dogma" and "religion". K?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at the part of my post that I bolded and then look at the portion of your post that I bolded that appears to be a response to it.

What are you talking about, Moniker? I said not a darn thing about returning "us" to the topic at hand. My comments had to do with your inability to respond "on point". You demonstrated it again right here!

"On point" has not a darn thing to do with returning this thread back to the topic.

I keep showing you and you keep ignoring it.

That's why I repeatedly have asked you "do you see it?"

Nope, you don't.

[_Moniker]

Please do tell me what would be "on point" to our conversation. Would that be all the times you say you don't see JAK saying I'm attacking him even when I show the posts where he says that? Would that be my attempt to explain what happened as you continue to insert yourself in this thread to "help" me. I didn't ask for your help. I'd prefer if you wouldn't reply to me at all unless you have something relevant to add.

I do know that I'd prefer to discuss the topic of this thread. I sort of think that you have been nothing but a distraction in this thread.

You think my "sorry ass" needs help in this thread? I wonder why that is. I took the OP and replied in full. I then refuted JAK's original statement and showed how it was incorrect. I think I did "okay". :)

But if you would like to refute my actual contribution to the thread, please do.

[_marg]

I wasn't able to devote anytime this evening other than at this point and it is likely tomorrow I won't have much time, actually nor sunday, but I will try to respond to JAK and Moniker's responses as soon as possible.

Just a quick note as I skimmed some posts.

Jak writes one definition of dogma:

from American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
dogma

"A teaching or set of teachings laid down by a religious group, usually as part of the essential beliefs of the group."

Moniker replies:

"Well, then Shinto doesn't fit into that as there are no essential beliefs or set of teachings as I've attempted to show on this thread a few times.

What are the essential beliefs of the group? Kami -- no! You can do the rituals and be a Shintoist and still the belief is not necessary! What are the "teachings"? What is the religious group that laid down these teachings and beliefs in Shinto?

The ritual is what is important. There are no preachers teaching anything."

If Shintoism was simply about ritual I don't think it would be considered a religion. And the fact that some people do the rituals but don't believe in the claims to supernatural beings does not mean they are religious Shintoists, they really are not following a religion if their involvement is limited to activity rituals only. When I use the word "religion" as I mentioned previously in this thread Im referring to a belief system which incorporates supernatural beings. I didn't make that necessary inclusion up. It is what I learned in a course by R. Oden with The Teaching Co. I'll give the note lesson format from the lesson from the lesson notebook they supply.

"Religion is a communication system that is constituted by supernatural beings and is related to specific patterns of behavior" (H.H. Penner)

1) This definition imparts a definite structure and complexity to religion that is systemic.

2) A communication system indicates to those within and outside our religion who and what we are, as well as what we do and do not believe in.

3) This definition does not limit religion to verbal communication, ritual is a crucial aspect

4) One or more supernatural being must be part of the system

5) This definition imparts specific patterns of behavior. As discuss above, all religions are ritualistic by nature. Even those that appear to be aritualistic are ritualistically aritualistic.

Now there is no mention of written sacred texts, necessary, or preachers in this definition. It is a communication system among fellow believers. Shintoism is not devoid of supernatural beings, but if some Shintoists are solely performing rituals, have no beliefs in the supernatural and if those rituals have nothing to do with spirits, then those Shintoists are not really following Shintoism at least not the religion Shintoism which communicates to fellow Shintoists mythical stories of supernatural entities.

Shintoism as a religious communication system seeks to teach the belief in spirits, and Gods, that some people don't believe fully what it seeks to communicate calls into question to what extent are these skeptics, believers in the system. As you notice in the definition JAK gave of (religious) dogma, it says it is teachings of a religious group usually as part of the essential beliefs.
You responded to JAK with Shinto doesn't fit there are no essential beliefs. Read the def'n more carefully Moniker it doesn't say dogma is essential.

Now I know you think shintoism has no dogma and I'm sorry I haven't yet read your previous response to me which might possibly elaborate more on this. But I've read somewhere that Shintoism communicates/teaches that the Japanese are descendants of Gods. That would be religious dogma.

Post note: I just did a search on H.H. Penner and it brought me to this link http://www.mtfreethinkers.org/religion/buddhism/americanbuddha/Buddhism_is.html in which the individual is pointing the same concept I have above. That one could call themselves a Buddha but not be a religious Buddha but rather a secular one if they reject all supernatural aspects of the religion. l