All religions are dangerous?

[_Moniker]

Jersey Girl says: blah blah blah -- nothing relevant -- blah blah blah

[_Moniker]

Moniker stated:
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?

Moniker, you clearly fail to understand some fundamental principles here in your questions.

“Religious dogma” or doctrine or teachings did not “originate” any more than the English language originated. It evolved from previous doctrines, dogmas, teachings. You speak as if there was a moment at which some religious dogma, doctrine, or teaching originated. It’s a faulty conclusion just as it would be faulty to conclude that there was a moment at which the English language originated.

Well, I already understand the evolution of language, organisms, political structures, social structures, and religion. :) When I stated "originate" I meant where does it come from? I should have used a different word! I understand how mythology is constructed and how early man created gods to explain nature, etc... and the evolution of gods in pretty much most cultures about the world. I was trying to get at where does the dogma emanate from -- that would have been a better word! Yet, if we want to go to "dogma" as being moral codes then we would look to Christianity and most likely understand that it came from the Bible -- no? That these moral codes were set forth in the Bible for those that are Christians to follow. Although I understand that they did NOT come from there -- rather they were created by humans through social interactions. Yet, a Christian would look to something that these teachings originated. I hope that better explains what I meant. Although I do understand your point.

Evolution applies to more than species. It applies to what is all around us.

Civilizations developed and evolved over time just as did language, just as did cultural practices, just as did superstitions, just as did religions.

Your question above is flawed in it’s assumptions that there was somehow a singular beginning for dogma. There was not.

Hi, JAK. I already understand the evolution of social structures as I've already made comments on this for pages and pages. I've also made plenty of comments on the board about this subject. I do have a degree in a field that studied political evolution, took World Civ, sociology, etc... have read books such as Guns, Germs and Steel, Collapse (by the same author), How Chiefs Came To power...I got it. :)

I asked questions so that we could focus in on what precisely dogma is or is not.

This is from a source which I'll give you at the end:

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.

Rejection of dogma is considered heresy in certain religions, and may lead to expulsion from the religious group.

JAK:Catholics also hold as dogma the decisions of fourteen later councils and two decrees promulgated by popes exercising papal infallibility (see immaculate conception and Assumption of Mary). Protestants to differing degrees affirm portions of these dogmata, and often rely on denomination-specific 'Statements of Faith' which summarize their chosen dogmata (see, e.g., Eucharist).

In Islam, the dogmatic principles are contained in the aqidah.

Within many Christian denominations, "dogma" is instead referred to as "doctrine". source

===

JAK, I already supplied the above link a few times on this thread and copy and pasted the relevant portion on this thread.

I'll do it again:

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. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument.

I've posted this a few times too:

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.

If you want to go by the wiki article that you suggest I look at (which I looked at days ago and already posted repeatedly on this thread) then it clearly shows that Shintoism has no religious dogma according to Wiki. You're comfortable going with that?

I think that's the 3rd time I've posted that.

Your first question to Jersey Girl is simplistic. The answer(s) are complex and even more comprehensive than the single source which I listed and which is a start on the question “what is religious dogma.” Read the full link rather than expecting Jersey Girl to do that kind of research and type it on the screen.

JAK -- I am simply attempting to get a definition of dogma that all can agree on. That's fine if my questions don't fit. Why don't you try to supply some questions? Yet, since you're apparently comfortable with YOUR source (wiki) which is mine too I think we have already come to an understanding of dogma.

I think I've added plenty to this thread and don't know why you would expect that I've asked anyone else to do any research for me. Are you assuming I wanted her to do that? Why?

Here is a further link with multiple links. Try reading through some of these references to dogma as it relates to religions.

To your third question, again there are many purposes contrary to your implication in the question: What is the purpose of religious dogma?

That question of yours, like the others underscores your profound lack of understanding of the term “dogma” as it is historically linked to a multiplicity of religious as well as non-religious claims.

JAK -- I just want a definition of dogma we can all work from. Yet, I accept the one you provided above from wiki.

We have already established that there are more than 1,000 groups which call themselves Christian and which have different beliefs as they have had many divisions over the centuries. (The most significant for us presently may be the Protestant Reformation.) Note the word “may” in the statement. Qualifiers are critical and it seems many people eliminate qualifiers and make up a new statement absent qualifiers.

Yet, there is one thing that a Christian must believe, isn't there? The wiki link (you told me to look at and I've already read multiple times and ALREADY posted on this thread multiple times) says there must be no doubt within the dogma -- it is set forth as authoritative.

Moniker:
Can you be a practitioner of the religion when you dismiss this dogma?

The answer is clearly affirmative. Many in various religious groups dismiss some of the dogma and are still “a practitioner” of other aspects of that religious group.

Can you dismiss Christ and be a Christian? The link at wiki (that you told me to look at -- that I've already looked at) says that dogma is set as "authoritative" and can not be doubted to still be a practitioner in the religion. Did you read that link that you are using to explain to ME what dogma is? I did, a few times already.

They likely don’t advertise that they “dismiss” some or much of the dogma in their religious group. But they can participate and be “a practitioner” of part of the doctrine which is inherent in their particular religious group.

Christians generally say they believe the commitment at a wedding “Untill death do us part.” The fact is that 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce. So they come not to believe or practice that particular doctrine or teaching of the group.

No time for further address. But recognize that your questions fail to comprehend the scope of the ideas and inherent detail. If I had more time, I’d offer more websites to demonstrate your misunderstanding implicit in your questions to Jersey Girl.

She can respond as she wishes.

JAK

JAK -- I don't know why you say I don't understand this. I am trying to get clarity as to what religious dogma is and a working definition we can all work from. That Ren has attempted to do this multiple times is to his credit. If you want to propose one then let's go from there. You did earlier with a link to a website that listed about 20 different definitions. Marg already said dogma in Christianity is a belief in Christ.

Yet, I'm comfortable going with YOUR source of wiki. I agree that this is the definition of religious dogma. :)

[_marg]

Marg already said dogma in Christianity is a belief in Christ.

Just a quick note. What I said was according to Prof. Oden an accepted def'n of religion is that all religions must have supernatural beings as part of the mythology or communication system. Shintoism fits within that definition. If all religions have supernatural being mythology then at a minimum all religions communicate dogma of supernatural being mythology. I don't think the word "dogma" entails that all who participate in that communication system/religious group believe all the stories relating to the supernatural beings. Dogma in religion is not restricted to only the supernatural. I don't think the word "dogma" relating to religion entails all participants of a system must believe it all. I don't think that is an essence in the meaning of the word "dogma".

[_Ren]

I don't think the word "dogma" relating to religion entails all participants of a system must believe it all.

Lets compare two religions. Religion A and religion B.

Religion A:
Has modern prophets that speak directly for God.
They place emphasise that the 'truths' they teach shouldn't be questioned.
They have regular interviews with members to make sure they 'really' believe the basic 'dogma' to access certain aspects of the religion.
If individual members speak too publically in a contrary manner to church leaders / teachings, they might easily be excommunicated or dis-fellowshipped.


Religion B:
No leaders claim direct communication with God. (If they did, they'd be laughed at by their own membership)
The leaders actually place specific emphasis on critical thinking, and not swallowing anything without analysis - whether from the Bible (or whatever appropriate holy book), or anywhere else.
They have no concept of regular interviews to try and make sure their members 'really' believe.
Nothing will happen to individual members if they speak contrary to church teachings / leadership.


Right - now, if we are going to stretch for some definition of dogma that means that Religion B does in fact teach 'dogma' - then - lol - fine. I'm not interested in playing word games.
...but can we agree that there is SOME clear difference between Religion A and religion B that relates to dogma?
Can we please - pretty please with sugar on top - agree on that? :D

Exactly how we describe that difference - well, lets talk it over. But there is CLEARLY a big difference. And it has SOMETHING to do with the word dogma, or dogmatism, or dogmatic. Right? Wrong?

[_marg]

I don't think the word "dogma" relating to religion entails all participants of a system must believe it all.

Lets compare two religions. Religion A and religion B.

Religion A:
Has modern prophets that speak directly for God.
They place emphasise that the 'truths' they teach shouldn't be questioned.
They have regular interviews with members to make sure they 'really' believe the basic 'dogma' to access certain aspects of the religion.
If individual members speak too publically in a contrary manner to church leaders / teachings, they might easily be excommunicated or dis-fellowshipped.


Religion B:
No leaders claim direct communication with God. (If they did, they'd be laughed at by their own membership)
The leaders actually place specific emphasis on critical thinking, and not swallowing anything without analysis - whether from the Bible (or whatever appropriate holy book), or anywhere else.
They have no concept of regular interviews to try and make sure their members 'really' believe.
Nothing will happen to individual members if they speak contrary to church teachings / leadership.


Right - now, if we are going to stretch for some definition of dogma that means that Religion B does in fact teach 'dogma' - then - lol - fine. I'm not interested in playing word games.
...but can we agree that there is SOME clear difference between Religion A and religion B in relation to dogma?
Can we please - pretty please with sugar on top - agree on that? :D

Exactly how we describe that difference - well, lets talk it over. But there is CLEARLY a big difference. And it has SOMETHING to do with the word dogma, or dogmatism, or dogmatic. Right? Wrong?

You haven't established why B is a religion? In addition I gave a definition of religion previously, a definition which fits eastern religions. In otherwords beliefs in a god are not necessary, only beliefs in supernatural beings. So for example if Shintoists communicate in their system that all Japanese, perhaps all mankind are descendants of a God, not a God with the powers of a Christian God, a lesser type God then all mankind are thought to be supernatural beings. Within Buddhism, Buddha is a supernatural being because of a supernatural birth.

So by what criteria is B a religion. by the way I was thinking after I posted whether or not dogma could be something not relating to supernatural. If you could give me an example of a religious dogma which isn't I'd appreciate it.

[_Ren]

You haven't established why B is a religion?

You just said this very recently marg:

I don't think the word "dogma" relating to religion entails all participants of a system must believe it all.

You just said that religions allow 'breathing room'. So why are you now disputing the legitimacy of religion B as a religion just because they DO allow breathing room?

Why wouldn't religion B be a religion? They can teach a version of reality (that a certain type of God exists, with certain attributes etc.), and yet each one of the points that I made for religion B can still be perfectly true. (i.e. they can teach a version of reality, but make it clear to it's members that that reality is NOT to be swallowed uncritically, and that they are free to question that reality all they like without putting their membership in jeopardy. And that the religions leaders are not to be believed just because they have spoken etc.)

Here is the full set of definitions of religion from dictionary.com:

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

From the above definitions, please attempt to deny Religion B the status of 'religion'.

by the way I was thinking after I posted whether or not dogma could be something not relating to supernatural.

Of course it can - because 'dogma' doesn't even have to relate to religion at all. It can relate to any ideology.

If you could give me an example of a religious dogma which isn't I'd appreciate it.

If you are trying to describe 'supernatural beliefs', then just say 'supernatural beliefs'. The word 'dogma' relates to all kinds of other things - as its many definitions clearly demonstrate. It's not tied to the supernatural. It's not tied to religion. At all.

I don't understand this need to stick with the word dogma, when it looks to me like you should just use different words that would be more accurate to the direct concept you are trying to convey.

[_marg]

Which definition that you gave, do you want to use to apply to version B? I haven't rejected B yet, I'm asking you by what critieria is it a religion.

by the way I was thinking after I posted whether or not dogma could be something not relating to supernatural.

Of course it can - because 'dogma' doesn't even have to relate to religion at all. It can relate to any ideology.

Sorry for not clarifying I'm specifically talking about religious dogma.

[Guest]

I'm asking you by what critieria is it a religion.

Religion B is a religion because it: "teaches a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".
The fact that it doesn't shove those truths down it's members throats is irrelevant to it's validity as a 'religion'.

Sorry for not clarifying I'm specifically talking about religious dogma.

Since most religions deal in some way with the supernatural, then of course 'religious dogma' is pretty strongly tied with the supernatural.
But that's because you've included the word religion - NOT dogma.

If you want to talk about supernatural beliefs, then just say supernatural beliefs. Trying to equate supernatural beliefs with 'dogma' as if they are the same thing - clearly muddies the waters in my opinion.

[_marg]

I'm asking you by what critieria is it a religion.

Religion B is a religion because it: "teaches a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".
The fact that it doesn't shove those truths down it's members throats is irrelevant to it's definition of 'religion'.

Can you tell me any religion currently today which teaches cause, nature and purpose of the universe which doesn't employ any references to supernatural beings whatsoever? Is there general consensus that this (whatever it is) is a religion?

[_Ren]

Can you tell me any religion currently today which teaches cause, nature and purpose of the universe which doesn't employ any references to supernatural beings whatsoever? Is there general consensus that this (whatever it is) is a religion?

I'll answer the question. But again - let me reiterate - if you want to talk about supernatural beliefs, then just say 'supernatural beliefs'. If that's what you are really interested in talking about, then just say that. Trying to replace the word 'beliefs' with 'dogma' is confusing, because dogma implies more than just a set of beliefs, and the 'extra' that dogma adds doesn't have to have anything to do with the supernatural.
'Dogma' can be marxist dogma, for example...

As far as religions that don't emphasise the supernatural, certain forms of Buddhism come to mind. But of course - in general - religion is associated with the supernatural. I'm not denying that and as far as I can see, no-one else is.

What are you trying to get at?