Jersey Girl wrote:Moniker wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:marg
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.
Consider this definition of "dogma" from dictionary.com. I don't see that someone else has posted this or perhaps I overlooked it:
dog·ma /ˈdɔgmə, ˈdɒg-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dawg-muh, dog-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -mas, -ma·ta /-mətə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-muh-tuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4.
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle. Are there no guiding principles in Shintoism? No system of ethics? I think there are. It's late, I'll try to find support for that tomorrow. Certainly the belief regarding ancestors becoming gods would fall into the above bolded category?
You only pick the definition of dogma that does not relate to the Church or authority above? Why is that? Does anyone really believe dogma is merely a belief when it comes to religion? Dogma when it comes to religion is something that MUST be believed to be a part of the religion. If we want to say belief in something is all that is required than I can say I'm a Christian if I believe Christ was a historical figure. Why are people creating some wishy washy definition now to define religious dogma?
I wonder if anyone reads my posts? You do NOT have to believe that the Japanese are descendent's of KAMI to be a Shintoist. You may believe that you were created by the Christian God and STILL be a Shintoist.
Why does no one read my posts????
I chose the bolded portion of the list of meanings for "dogma" that eliminated politics, doctrine and established church authority in order to work with a meaning that might apply and be relevant to Shintoism in determining
whether or not Shintoism contains dogma.
Well, there's been no dispute that Shintoism contains beliefs. Yet, if all beliefs in the supernatural prove that there is
religious dogma then again a group of water dowsers are a dogmatic religion. They have a supernatural belief, they get together in little groups, do rituals -- walk about property with sticks. What makes a religion have dogma -- just beliefs in supernatural? That's it?
JAK has already stated that since Shintoism believes they were descended from Gods (this is incorrect by the way -- Kami are not omnipotent beings), that this proves dogma. Yet, to be a Shintoist that is not necessary. So what IS the necessary aspect of being a Shintoist is the point.
My guess is that instead of reading the beginning exchange created by my response to marg, you jumped directly to the definition. In her post, marg attempted to identify "dogma" in Shintoism. I took those comments and attempted to look for other ways that Shintoism contained "dogma".
Well, you guessed wrong since I already replied a few times to Marg saying Shintoism contains no dogma because there is the belief that Japanese are descended from Kami. Can I assume you didn't read the many times I already replied to that? That this belief is there is not the same as other religions where there is a core component that one MUST believe to be considered a part of the religion. The belief that Japanese are descended from Kami is not necessary to be a Shintoist as I've already explained that you can be a Christian and believe that the Christian God created humanity or the two mythologies may mix.
Marg is the first to bring up Christ in these discussions as a core component of Christianity. In light of that I explained how there are no "core components" that one MUST have to be a Shintoist -- there is "cherry picking" as BishopRic (a returned missionary from Japan) explained earlier in the thread.
In your post above, you discuss-challenge- regarding "god belief" in Shintoism.
There is no "god belief" in Shintoism -- there are no omnipotent beings in Shintoism. When you say "god belief" what are you attempting to say?
Look at the bolded portion of my definition and then look at the questions I asked based on that. "god belief" in Shintoism was only one third of the issues that were raised by my questions. Here are my questions again if you'd like to answer them:
1. Are there no guiding principles in Shintoism? 2. No system of ethics? 3. Certainly the belief regarding ancestors becoming gods would fall into the above bolded category?
There are beliefs in Shintoism, there is a belief regarding ancestors -- they do NOT become "gods", there is no "system" of ethics, there are no moral absolutes. I've said all this before. Repeatedly. That some of the rituals are used to teach community does not translate to a "higher authority" passing down rules that must be followed to be "moral".
Most of the "ethics" found in Japan can be traced to Confucianism. If you want to attempt to trace ethics to Shintoism there is merely the idea that one must live in harmony. There are no moral absolutes.
Here from beliefnet since no one believes me and relies on links:
Main Tenets: Shinto (or kami no michi, "way of the kami," or gods) is a prehistoric religious tradition indigenous to Japan, which has been influenced by Buddhism and Chinese religions and provides a worldview that has become central to Japanese culture and national identity. Shinto recognizes no all-powerful deity and is a diverse set of traditional rituals and ceremonies, rather than a system of dogmatic beliefs or ethics.
http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10030.htmlYes, I do read your posts. If this board had a threaded view option you would likely see a subthread that began with your assertion (refutation to JAK's claim in the OP)
that Shintoism does not contain dogma. That is what I am responding to.
I look forward to your answering the 3 questions that I posed.
Are you attempting to define religious dogma as any belief at all in the supernatural? That doesn't appear to be what JAK and Marg were arguing earlier. If we want to back track and saw that any belief in supernatural makes dogma (yet not necessary for the religion) then that is a new understanding of religious dogma. You don't need Christ to be a Christian!!!!
If you read all the posts you would already see that Marg was the first to talk about Christ and attempt to show that there was a core belief that unified those that fell under Christian. I explained that this was not seen in Shintoism and then went further to explain how there is no "core" deity that passes down religious edicts, commandments, or anything else.
I've never disputed that there are supernatural beliefs in Shintoism. You're attempting to muddy the waters. Does JAK really want to say that any belief ,that comes from anywhere, that is not necessarily validated is dangerous? Anything that is believed without evidence is dangerous??? JAK did not specify "supernatural" beliefs. He merely said "dogma" -- do we really want to go down this road?
I look forward to you answering this question:
Jersey Girl, what is religious dogma? Where does religious dogma originate? What is the purpose of religious dogma? Can you be a practitioner of the religion when you dismiss this dogma? For instance can you be a Christian and say that you don't believe in God, you don't believe Christ died for your sins -- yet, you believe in miracles, yet, not that Christ actually did them. Would that make one still a Christian?