All religions are dangerous?

[_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

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?

Moniker,

Your exact words of the question were not out of context, and I responded to your question as it stood.

The question to which I responded as I did is exactly as I quoted you.

Do you deny that you stated:

“Why is lack of education correlated to a danger?”

Do you deny that was the complete question from first word to last word of the question?

That was a full question verbatim from you. I responded to it.

You attempted to dodge the issue by digressing into your own nostalgia “…successful, happy life…” for the Amish. None of that was relevant to the issue of:

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

GoodK identified danger for Amish themselves as they are kept ignorant by being denied education beyond 8th grade. And your own story identified danger on the road for both you and the people in the Amish buggy. That cars are dangerous is irrelevant to the relative danger of slow moving buggies and fast moving cars and trucks. They are in those buggies because of their religious doctrines. They don't educate their children because of their religious ctrines. And they are at risk because of their religious doctrines.

The central issue is that of ignorance vs. information. That people may be “happy” does not refute that they are at risk, they are endangered by absence of information, by ignorance which is ameliorated by evidence and reason.

Your attempt is to muddy the issue with the irrelevant.

Absent reliable information, anyone or any group is at risk. That they do not know they lack reliable information does not reduce the risk of ignorance.

Surely you can recognize that. Religious doctrine and dogma do not rely on evidence and reason.

JAK

[_Moniker]

Here's my favorite quote of JAK's with no other statements surrounding it! He states in response to me talking about the Japanese culture:

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

Weeee......... this is fun!

[_JAK]

Here's my favorite quote of JAK's with no other statements surrounding it! He states in response to me talking about the Japanese culture:

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

Weeee......... this is fun!

Can you reference the post in which this appeared? A link would be courteous.

JAK

[_Moniker]

Here's my favorite quote of JAK's with no other statements surrounding it! He states in response to me talking about the Japanese culture:

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

Weeee......... this is fun!

Can you reference the post in which this appeared? A link would be courteous.

JAK

Sure, no problem. The 7th quote of mine in green relates aspects of the Japanese culture and your reply is directly underneath it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 221#127221

You cut that quote up too: Here was my original quote:

If I could live in their world, I would! I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different. Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!

[Guest]

JAK,

People here can choose to leave school when they are 16 (at GSCE level)
...instead of carrying on to A-levels till they are 18...
...or carry on past that to university etc...

The people who leave education at 16 or 18 may well have fewer options in life perhaps.
But they are NOT inherently more dangerous. You really are straining at gnats.

A less complex life requires a less complex education.

In relation to Moniker, you made this personal before it had any need to be.
You took a question out of context and attempted to scored a cheap debating point. End of.
Take some responsibility for that please.

[_marg]

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

This is false since according to JAK's source (wiki) Shintoism lacks dogma

Let’s look at what wiki says, keeping in mind it is not even an authoritative source.


1st sentence: 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.

Looking at key words:

- is the “Established belief” …Shintoism has a recognized established belief particularly in the Sun Goddess which is claimed to be an ancestor to humans. It has recognized mythological stories.

- “Thought to be authoritative” .. it is not saying the beliefs held by the religion are authoritative. If it was saying that , it would have said “Established beliefs held by religion which are authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted. Instead “Thought to be” implies that for some contexts/use dogma is not necessarily authoritative. And that phrase “thought to be” also applies to what follows “not to be disputed, doubted.

None of this is saying as you have said Moniker ,that dogma is authoritative statements which must be accepted .

Later on in the section below in Religious dogma:

“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.”

This is not an all inclusive statement regarding all religions . And it essentially refers only to Christianity Judaism and Islam, which I grant in those religions which are highly authoritative, dogma will be expected by authority and upheld.

“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.”

I think the Sun Goddess is pretty much an established belief for those who accept the supernatural beings mythology of Shintoism.

So leaving wiki which does not say support the conclusion Shintoism lacks dogma...we can look at a dictionary definition.

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.

Note the word “usually”. So the teachings communicated are not a “must” be accepted.

The problem Moniker is that words evolve and there are often differences in meaning of the same word which can be determined by context used. In JAK’s sentence he was talking about dogma in the sense of a claim absent evidence accepted with faith. Shintoism has that. You have spent a good part of this thread nit picking and trying to pigeon hole JAK into a restrictive definition of dogma. Just because that definition you want to use, is most common and applicable in our culture where the majority of religions are authoritative does not mean that particular definition is an all inclusive one.

All religions if one accepts they must hold beliefs in supernatural beings have dogma, that is a religious belief thought true absent evidence. And that does not mean that all participants must believe but if all participants reject all beliefs in supernatural beings, then there is no religious communication system/religion.

[_Moniker]

Marg, I accept JAK's source -- he told me to understand dogma by viewing it. I did. I'm not looking at a dictionary as the only source JAK and I came to agree on is wiki. He proposed that as his source -- I accept. Not rehashing the term.

I quoted all of your quotes (you asked for them and I took the time to supply -- you're welcome), and that contradictions and doubt is allowable in Shintoism means that it does not have dogma according to the the ONLY source both JAK and I agree on.

by the way, did you ever find a "god" in Shintoism that was the "one original spirit being being the ancestor of all"? I did a CFR on that -- suppose you didn't find one 'cause there isn't one. :)

You wrote this earlier:

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 supplied the quotes. Now I'll repeat my CFR:

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.

Tata........

[_marg]

by the way, did you ever find a "god" in Shintoism that was the "one original spirit being being the ancestor of all"? I did a CFR on that -- suppose you didn't find one 'cause there isn't one. :)

I'm surprised Moniker you didn't say...Marg you are incorrect.

Did a quick search and from the BBC site it says:

This story contains a very clear message that Japan is an old country, whose people are descended from the founding kami, and an Imperial family with an unbroken line of descent from Amaterasu herself. The Imperial family is older than the people of Japan, and descended from a kami of higher rank.

So the myth is the Japanese are descended from the founding Kami, which sounds like one Kami to me. And the imperial family from Kami of higher rank. Somewhere I thought I'd read that the myth was all people are decendants of a Kami, but I'n not sure if I read that or not. I don't think my life will be impacted too much if I don't know the mythological stories of Shintoism.

[_Ren]

Thanks for the new sig line marg.

[_marg]

Thanks for the new sig line marg.

To get a sense of the of the pettiness and game playing Moniker employs which is a main factor for the length of this thread I'm bringing a short excerpt of the discussion from the telestial forum here in which I tried to get an answer for an accusation she made towards John. It took me a while to drag this much out of her but I finally found out why she accused John of making an incorrect statement. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=129238&highlight=#129238


John in this thread wrote: "Shinto was the state religion of Japan prior to the end of WWII."

Here is her reasoning for why she accuses him of making a false, incorrect statement :

"Prior means before -- before the "end of WWII".

Tell me how you read John's words and what they mean. He says prior to the end of WWII it was the "state religion" -- what does that mean? It means before the end of WWII it was the state religion. If there is a time "prior to the end of WWII" that it was NOT the state religion then his statement is incorrect.

A correct statement would have been:
Shinto was the state religion of Japan 'for a period' prior to the end of WWII."