All religions are dangerous?

[_dartagnan]

Marg, it appears you don't understand the meaning of the word.

Plagiarism: the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. (www.dictionary.com)

You were the same person who also didn't know the meaning of the word atheist. I mean really. You don't even know the definition of your own position for crying out loud, so don't pretend to be in a position to teach us about proper definitions. What JAK did was plagiarize and he has done it more than once. It is an academic crime punishable by academic death. He was never a professor of higher education. You have been bamboozled. The guy is a moron who can't even think for himself, let alone for others. He is too busy letting amateur hate-blogs do that for him.

His credibility has been destroyed here. You can go down in flames too is you insist. I guess it all depends on how badly you think you need to defend him.

[_Coggins7]

I haven't posted for around two weeks now, and I don't intend to post as much as in the past. Further, I'm choosing my fights much more judiciously now, and will not be engaging certain people as I've done in the past.

I'm making some substantial changes to my posting behavior and style, which will involve not only avoiding the kind of flaming slash and burn argument I've allowed myself to be sucked into in the past, as well as ignoring a number of posters who who bring out the were in the wolf.

So, I probably won't be here as much, but the time I do spend will be more "quality time", to borrow an old liberal platitude.

Well, I'm happy to see you here. I know we have had some back and forth posts in the past-- most of them in jest. I think that's wise advice to ignore posters that push buttons -- I'm attempting to do that as well. Hope your courses are going well. Take care.

They went quite well, I made the Dean's list this last semester, but couldn't return this one because they dropped a bomb on me a week before class started, to the tune that I needed confirmation of my Mumps, Measles, and Rubella immunization history. I don't have that, and can't get it. I sent for my military records, which I hope will solve the problem. In any case, I won't be able to return until summer, for a couple courses (mini-mesters), and full courses next fall.

[_marg]

I refuted her claim that Shintoism has any gods that must be believed in or that the Japanese are descended from Kami. She NEVER came back to my last points on dogma and she need not 'cause I've quoted HER saying there must be a core figure in a religion that creates dogma -- there are a few quotes of her saying that -- I already posted one that relates to Christ and Christianity.

For every point you make above regarding what I've said could you quote my words to support it and what you said to refute it. You have a habit of misrepresenting, and miscontruing what is actually said.

[_marg]

I think I agree with the secular Shintoist description ---- YET they would not! :) Which is very odd, for me -- as I don't understand it. And I certainly can't translate the Japanese mind. I earlier searched the web to see any reference to Secular Shintoism as this too was on my mind and found NOTHING.

In that web site you gave I believe from the BBC on Shintoism it mentioned most Japanese Shintoist do not look upon Shintoism as a religion.

But in this discussion we do assume it is a religion. And one of the reason I am doing so is that it fits within a def'n I gave previously in which supernatural being by necessity must be part of the beliefs for the communication system to be considered a religion.

In what you say above it appears you think I’m saying all Shintoists are secularists. I’m only saying that those who call themselves Shintoists, who have no religious beliefs, no beliefs in the supernatural beings of religion a religion are secularists.

Shintoism has dogma. It has the belief that Japanese ancestry were Gods or spirits.

Dogma is not just a belief, Marg. Please tell me what dogma is when it comes to religion. Dogma is more than just a belief in the supernatural, isn't it?

What I'm saying Moniker is that if one accepts that all religions without exception must have beliefs in supernatural beings then all religions without exception must have dogma. Whether or not there are people part of the system who do not participate fully in the religion beliefs of supernatural beings. I think you are looking at this from the perspective of Western religions in which because authorities decide what differentiates their beliefs from other religious groups that therefore dogma can only be a function of what the authority dictates it is.

I'm looking at dogma differently. I am looking at dogma as being one of the defining essences of that religious communication system. An essence such that if you stripped it away entirely one could not consider that communication system a religion or be a particular religion it would be a different one. Can Shintoism even be considered a religion if it is devoid of supernatural beliefs? What criteria should we use to determine whether or a not a communication system is religious.? There are all sorts of communication systems which use rituals but are they religious..i.e. Masons? So while no authority dictates in Shintoism, none the less without the belief in supernatural beings, it would not be a religion. And the same would apply to Buddhism. If we include supernatural beings it is. And supernatural beings does not mean a God. It means a living entity,perhaps a person who supernatural mythological stories attached such as supernatural births, in the case of Buddha. If a belief taught of Shintoism is that all Japanese people are descendents of spirits then all Japanese people are supernatural beings. And those who say they are Shintoists but don’t believe this are taking a secular approach, by participating in the rituals but eliminating the religion out of Shintoism.

Please explain how those that may have a belief in the supernatural that do not focus on the same teachings creates a dogma they MUST believe. I ALREADY explained that you can be a CHRISTIAN (belief that the individual practicing this religion believes they were created by the CHRISTIAN GOD) and STILL be a Shintoist! I don't know how to make that any clearer to you. I'm trying! :)

Polytheistic religions typically can accept other religions with differing Gods or spirits. It is only religions which are monotheistic with a supreme God which did all the creating that would be in direct contradiction to another religion with a differing but Supreme creator/God.

You're right. That there is nothing that they MUST believe in makes it lack dogma.

JAK gave a def'n of dogma: A teaching or set of teachings laid down by a religious group, usually as part of the essential beliefs of the group.

The dictionary continues : Note: The term dogma is often applied to statements put forward by someone who thinks, inappropriately, that they should be accepted without proof.

It is you Moniker who is making it a requirement a “must” that if not all members believe the supernatural being beliefs put forward by the group or the religious group does not stress those beliefs, then there is no dogma. And I think you have that perspective because of your association of what dogma means in authoritative western religions.

I think in all of JAK’s statements in which he used the word dogma the context within those statements was obviously “assertions absent evidence” with no concern for lack of evidence. That has been his focus. Within western religions in which the word “dogma” is most commonly associated it refer to beliefs authoritatively put forward by a church. But that isn’t an essence of the word “dogma”. I think the essence of the word dogma is beliefs put forward to be accepted as true with no concern for lack of evidence or that evidence runs counter to the claims. And within any religion dogma is a teaching put forward absent evidence which is an essence of that religion, by that I mean a defining characteristic of that religious communication system.

That there are Shintoists that believe the Christian God created them shows that there is no unifying core belief. That some believe in a local shrine Kami that is different from others that don't worship at a Shrine does not correlate to uniformity. There are no moral codes, there are no teachings that one MUST follow to be a Shintoist.

Incorrect assumption Moniker. Just because a religion can incorporate many supernatural entity beliefs (even if from different religious systems) which don’t contradict one another is not evidence of no dogma in each belief system. The Christian belief system can incorporate religious beliefs with Gods of lower stature, Gods which are not supreme creators. The shintoist religion can incorporate higher gods which doesn’t contradict their supernatural entities. The uniformity of the Shintoist religion is in the belief that spirit beings exists, and that people are descendant from spirit beings, with one original spirit being being the ancestor of all.

Yes, I saw you explained it. I already replied to it. The Buddhists were persecuted during that time period by the state and religious tolerance was wiped out. Please note that TODAY there is so much religious tolerance in Shintoism (you can practice anything and still be a Shintoist) that this is likely not to happen again until the Emperor is given political power again (I already replied that Japan is a TYPE of Democracy), and that other religions are expelled from the country. Considering that Japan is a part of the world community and actively seeks a role in the world affairs I see this as highly unlikely. That there was politics that acted in unison with religion in the past does not show how this country/religion is a danger today.

JAK’s focus was religion. To the extent that a religious individual accepts with little question religious authority be it leader and/or sacred text, accepts that the thinking is done for them, to the extent that the individual does or can not question objectively their religious beliefs, does not critically think i.e. accepts extraordinary claims absent evidence to justify those claims ..that individual is not likely to reach reliable conclusions where religious authority and and dogma play a critical factor in decision making. In otherwords one is more likely to reach reliable conclusions when one is able to or adopts a critical thinking attitude in reaching conclusions as opposed to reliance on religious authority and faith. The antithesis of critical thinking is acceptance of claims absent evidence. That doesn’t mean that all the time, danger prevails, or the wrong decision or the poorest decision will be made when faith is used in lieu of evidence and reason. It just means that the law of averages will favor greater benefits, more reliable conclusions reached when reason and evidence are applied rather than ignored.

That is the argument Moniker and your misrepretation of that argument, your miscontruuing of what JAK say doesn’t refute the argument.

[_JAK]

JAK provided this in his last post that dealt with dogma. He wanted to educate me on dogma and supplied the below which I've already repeatedly put into the thread.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 784#128784

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

Are you now disagreeing with what you asked me to consider? Are you NOW saying that dogma can be "contradicted", can be "doubted" and there is not a necessary "core principle"? This completely contradicts the source you provided to explain religious dogma, JAK.

If you truly believe that core principles are not necessary, then again, a Christian doesn't have to believe in Christ.

Hi Moniker,

Please see the specific language and references of this post.

In answer to your first question, the answer is no.

If you have read and understood the several references to dogma, you know that there are many dogmas. It’s not a singular. That is, many groups have different dogmas and they do not agree with one another. For example and within Christianity, The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has some very specific dogmas expressed in creeds, catechisms, etc. In part, because of the long history of the RCC, it has had more time to construct its various doctrines.

However, the Southern Baptist Convention (a Protestant group) has different dogma or doctrine than that of the RCC. So, we recognize different doctrines in these two organizations, each of which claim to be Christian.

This is addressing your question:
Are you NOW saying that dogma can be "contradicted", can be "doubted" and there is not a necessary "core principle"?

There may be multiple core principles within any given religious organization. An example I used for you in an earlier post was Christian principle toward marriage. Most Christian denominations regard marriage as a union until death separates one from the other. It’s a shared doctrine by numerous Christian groups. Yet, people are married multiple times in some religious organizations even in the same building (church). So some groups take this “core principle” more seriously than others.

Certainly dogma is doubted and is subject to criticism. The Protestant Reformation beginning in 1517 was clearly the beginning of doubt of dogma. As a result there were all the splits, new groups, and even some uniting of separate groups such as we see in the United Methodist Church today.

I am saying nothing different from what I’ve stated previously. The issue was not differences in doctrine primarily. We know they exist and they are well documented. Christianity is but one religion with many hundreds of groups. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others are different religions with different doctrines/dogmas/teachings/practices/cultures.

You stated:
This completely contradicts the source you provided to explain religious dogma, JAK.

There is no contradiction. If so, what is it? I provided multiple sources and can replicate them and others if that would be beneficial.

Religious Dogma

Dogma in Religion

Religious Dogma Causes Conflicts

Dangers of Evangelical Christian Dogma

As I previously mentioned, the RCC has had a significant time frame to develop it’s particular slant and specific definitions of “dogma.”

Roman Catholic Dogma

This addresses the two questions and statement in your post quoted above.

JAK

[_JAK]

RoP not you Moniker, please quote JAK and tell me what the problem is.

Marg,

If my reply to this was, "That request insults your own intelligence", would that be an overly personal response or not?
Read the post. Properly.

The question is an insult to your own intelligence.

And again - if you want to take this further, then start a new thread.
Otherwise, lets get back on topic.

ROP,

Please review the entire post and the context of the large type you entered here.

Moniker asked this question:
Moniker writes:
“Why is lack of education correlated to a danger?

This came near the end of my post referred to above but not cited. Her question was an insult to her own intelligence in that I think, hope, suspect that she is more intelligent than to be serious that lack of education is irrelevant to danger or that people are at less risk when they are ignorant.

This was quite on topic with regard to “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

JAK

[Guest]

Hi, there's a lot of quotes I need to paste. I'd like for you to quote for me where I misrepresent anyone in regards to relevant portions of this thread. If it deals with telestial material move it telestial, please. JAK accused me of that earlier and already put all the quotes where I showed he had in fact said what he later said he had not.

Anyway, just a few things and I'll be back later for the rest.

Shintoism has dogma. It has the belief that Japanese ancestry were Gods or spirits.

Right, are we just repeating ourselves now? If that is a required belief then it is not dogma according to JAK's earlier source. It can be dismissed in place of the Christian God. I wonder why we have to keep going over this? Seriously.

That there are Shintoists that believe the Christian God created them shows that there is no unifying core belief. That some believe in a local shrine Kami that is different from others that don't worship at a Shrine does not correlate to uniformity. There are no moral codes, there are no teachings that one MUST follow to be a Shintoist.

Incorrect assumption Moniker. Just because a religion can incorporate many supernatural entity beliefs (even if from different religious systems) which don’t contradict one another is not evidence of no dogma in each belief system. The Christian belief system can incorporate religious beliefs with Gods of lower stature, Gods which are not supreme creators. The shintoist religion can incorporate higher gods which doesn’t contradict their supernatural entities. The uniformity of the Shintoist religion is in the belief that spirit beings exists, and that people are descendant from spirit beings, with one original spirit being being the ancestor of all.

Right -- if it DOES contradict then it's not dogma! :) Agreed.

Hi, there is NO ORIGINAL SPIRIT BEING THAT IS THE ANCESTOR OF ALL! There is no omnipotent creator to Shintoism. Why are you saying that there is a belief in some "one original spirit being the ancestor of all"? Why? Please back that up. CFR

JAK already cited HIS source that says no contradictions or "doubt". I accept his source (he told me to read it -- I did:) and it said that there must be no "doubt" and no contradictions. I go with JAK as he's the one with the original statement and he already supplied a link that stated what dogma is -- he told me to familiarize myself with it and I did. That the belief in the Christian God contradicts the belief that Japanese were descendants of Kami that is a contradiction of the VERY THING YOU SAY CREATES THE DOGMA.

So, which is it, Marg? Is the belief that Japanese descendants from Kami a part of dogma, or not? If it IS dogma (as you stated repeatedly in the thread) then this CAN be contradicted by a belief in a Christian God and that he created humanity and the Kami descendancy can be rejected -- that is a contradiction Doesn't hold. That there ARE and CAN be contradictions to the very thing you say is dogma means it is not dogma in the religious sense or in the sense JAK used earlier (in his source) to show me HIS definition of dogma.

I just scanned but those things stood out to me. I'll bbl as time permits.

[_Moniker]

RoP not you Moniker, please quote JAK and tell me what the problem is.

Marg,

If my reply to this was, "That request insults your own intelligence", would that be an overly personal response or not?
Read the post. Properly.

The question is an insult to your own intelligence.

And again - if you want to take this further, then start a new thread.
Otherwise, lets get back on topic.

ROP,

Please review the entire post and the context of the large type you entered here.

Moniker asked this question:
Moniker writes:
“Why is lack of education correlated to a danger?

This came near the end of my post referred to above but not cited. Her question was an insult to her own intelligence in that I think, hope, suspect that she is more intelligent than to be serious that lack of education is irrelevant to danger or that people are at less risk when they are ignorant.

This was quite on topic with regard to “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

JAK

You took my quote OUT of context! I mentioned OTHER cultures and said that in OUR culture it IS important for education. Please supply my full quote.

Or I will. Here:

Why is lack of education correlated to a danger? I agree that education is incredibly important in our culture. Yet, in other cultures where it is not deemed necessary for a successful, happy life why do our dictates supersede their own? If you are making a positive correlation between Amish lack of education and danger then you must prove how this actually is a danger. Don't you?

by the way, would that be a MISREPRESENTATION when you quote me out of context?

by the way, you called me ignorant and am I dangerous?

[Guest]

I refuted her claim that Shintoism has any gods that must be believed in or that the Japanese are descended from Kami. She NEVER came back to my last points on dogma and she need not 'cause I've quoted HER saying there must be a core figure in a religion that creates dogma -- there are a few quotes of her saying that -- I already posted one that relates to Christ and Christianity.

For every point you make above regarding what I've said could you quote my words to support it and what you said to refute it. You have a habit of misrepresenting, and miscontruing what is actually said.

I'm not going to do all my refutations. I've repeatedly said (and I'm sure you know this) that I've explained that you can cherry pick. BishopRic (a returned missionary) from Japan used the "cherry pick" term to explain it. So, it seems that you must decide. Is there a core belief that MUST be had to be dogma? You say so in the quotes below. You mention Christ being necessary to be a Christian -- that's the way wiki (and JAK since that's his source) thinks of it as well. That you can practice SOME aspects of Shintoism and reject or contradict other parts means it lacks a core. If you are going to say that I haven't repeatedly stated that in this thread then I think you may need to just review the thread.

Here's some of your quotes in regards to beliefs.

But I've read somewhere that Shintoism communicates/teaches that the Japanese are descendants of Gods. That would be religious dogma.

My reply:

The mythology of Japan does say the Japanese are descendents of KAMI, yet, to be a Shintoist you may accept this or not – it’s not essential.

Please look here and notice your words "fundamental doctrine"

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 413#128413

In this thread it’s been discussed whether or not Shintoism has dogma. At this link http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm it says: “Around 1700 Shinto experienced a revival when the study of archaic Japanese texts was reinstituted. One of the most learned Shinto scholars of the period was Hirata, who wrote:

The two fundamental doctrines are: that Japan is the country of the Gods, and her inhabitants are the descendants of the Gods.”

Without this fundamental belief in personal Gods over Japan, Shintu could never have been used and turned into a state religion which claimed an emperor descended from a God. "

Can fundamental be interpreted as essential? I've already replied repeatedly -- if I must find the quotes I will -- that this is not a necessary belief for Shintoism as you may contradict this belief with beliefs in another deity.

Here you say something that appears to contradict your other statements, and that is NO essential (or fundamental).
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 476#128476

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.

And here's the first one that you made before you realized that it may not work for JAK. :)

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 101#128101

I.e. if the core feature of Christian is Christ and that Christ is divine then is someone doesn't believe Christ existed and/or they don't believe that Christ was divine could they possible be considered Christian even if they claimed to be Christian and liked what they viewed as a mythical character in the N.T.

This is a good one too!

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 036#128036

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.

Above quote you state "core beliefs". Yet, you mention adding on to the religion -- I think we're not in dispute with that. Yet, you mention "core" and JAK, and you later, mention contradictions. If these "core" beliefs can be contradicted or doubted then that's not dogma according to JAK's source (wiki) -- which is the only definition JAK and I agree on.

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.

Please look above to see that you stating there must be "beliefs which a follower must accept".

And here's your last one on this page:

Just because a religion can incorporate many supernatural entity beliefs (even if from different religious systems) which don’t contradict one another is not evidence of no dogma in each belief system. The Christian belief system can incorporate religious beliefs with Gods of lower stature, Gods which are not supreme creators. The shintoist religion can incorporate higher gods which doesn’t contradict their supernatural entities. The uniformity of the Shintoist religion is in the belief that spirit beings exists, and that people are descendant from spirit beings, with one original spirit being being the ancestor of all.

I explained that there are no "higher gods". So in seeing that you've stated that a fundamental (see above quote in this post) belief in Shintoism is that they are descended from Kami IS contradicted by the belief in the Christian God this IS a contradiction! That Shintoism ALLOWS contradictions shows how there is not "dogma" in the way you are now defining it (you mention contradictions) and the way JAK previously defined it by his wiki source.

[_Moniker]

I think I agree with the secular Shintoist description ---- YET they would not! :) Which is very odd, for me -- as I don't understand it. And I certainly can't translate the Japanese mind. I earlier searched the web to see any reference to Secular Shintoism as this too was on my mind and found NOTHING.

In that web site you gave I believe from the BBC on Shintoism it mentioned most Japanese Shintoist do not look upon Shintoism as a religion.

Right, they also don't consider other religions a religion either. If you ask a Japanese what religion they practice they won't know how to answer you most likely. They view it as part of their culture -- it IS their culture!

But in this discussion we do assume it is a religion. And one of the reason I am doing so is that it fits within a def'n I gave previously in which supernatural being by necessity must be part of the beliefs for the communication system to be considered a religion.

Ah! Well, I KNEW it was a religion before your definition -- but glad we agree that it's a religion. :)

In what you say above it appears you think I’m saying all Shintoists are secularists. I’m only saying that those who call themselves Shintoists, who have no religious beliefs, no beliefs in the supernatural beings of religion a religion are secularists.

No, I don't think you said they are all securalists -- this is the way I viewed your earlier comments: That one that merely practices the rituals without the beliefs is a secularist. I think that sort of works for me.......... but the rituals are themselves part of the beliefs and transmitting them -- for instance you learn community, you learn patience, etc...

Shintoism has dogma. It has the belief that Japanese ancestry were Gods or spirits.

Dogma is not just a belief, Marg. Please tell me what dogma is when it comes to religion. Dogma is more than just a belief in the supernatural, isn't it?

What I'm saying Moniker is that if one accepts that all religions without exception must have beliefs in supernatural beings then all religions without exception must have dogma. Whether or not there are people part of the system who do not participate fully in the religion beliefs of supernatural beings. I think you are looking at this from the perspective of Western religions in which because authorities decide what differentiates their beliefs from other religious groups that therefore dogma can only be a function of what the authority dictates it is.

JAK already defined dogma from the wiki link and I accept it. There can be no contradictions or doubts. I'm sort of exhausted with this thread! :)

I'm looking at dogma differently. I am looking at dogma as being one of the defining essences of that religious communication system. An essence such that if you stripped it away entirely one could not consider that communication system a religion or be a particular religion it would be a different one. Can Shintoism even be considered a religion if it is devoid of supernatural beliefs? What criteria should we use to determine whether or a not a communication system is religious.? There are all sorts of communication systems which use rituals but are they religious..I.e. Masons? So while no authority dictates in Shintoism, none the less without the belief in supernatural beings, it would not be a religion. And the same would apply to Buddhism. If we include supernatural beings it is. And supernatural beings does not mean a God. It means a living entity,perhaps a person who supernatural mythological stories attached such as supernatural births, in the case of Buddha. If a belief taught of Shintoism is that all Japanese people are descendents of spirits then all Japanese people are supernatural beings. And those who say they are Shintoists but don’t believe this are taking a secular approach, by participating in the rituals but eliminating the religion out of Shintoism.

I'm skimming now....... I'm so tired of this thread. Shintoism is not devoid of supernatural beliefs, but if it were I would not call it a religion either.

I'm so tired. I may be back to the rest later. I just want to state that I don't believe I've misconstrued what JAK wrote to me. He told me to look at wiki to understand dogma. I did. Wiki says there can be no contradictions or doubts when it comes to religious dogma. This is the only definition that we've agreed on --- he supplied it and I accepted it so why should I go back to rehashing the term?