All religions are dangerous?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Mercury wrote:
betty page wrote:Uh, quote me asking you for help!


Booya jersey. Get off it.


In case you hadn't noticed, this is a serious topical discussion with several on-going sub topics that are being addressed. It contains content rich and informational posts. Most all of the replies on this 400+ post thread are relevant to addressing something that a poster has put on the screen whether it be topical or an effort to gain clarity of thought.

None of them belong to you.

Whatever it is that you wish me to "get off" of, you'd be sorely mistaken in thinking that your comments here have any impact or influence on me at all.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker,

I'll try this again, one piece at a time.

Are there guiding principles in Shintoism? If so, what are they?
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

What is a "guiding principle" in Christianity? I have no idea what you're referring to. Turn the other cheek? I have an idea of what a few "guiding principles" are of Shintoism -- but I'm not certain what your definition is of the word. :)

Yet, I'll ask you to look at the definition of PRINCIPLE (since you like to go to online dictionaries)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle

1 a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct (2): habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle> c: the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device

2: a primary source : origin

3 a: an underlying faculty or endowment <such principles of human nature as greed and curiosity> b: an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality

4 capitalized Christian Science : a divine principle : god


It looks to me that it would be something akin to human nature -- which is touched on in Shintoism. If you're talking about something different such as a doctrine or a fundamental law that is not in Shintoism. Can you please clarify?

Which of the above are we discussing and can you tell me a few Christian "guiding principles" so I'll have an example. Thanks.

When you reply to me would you also reply to a few of my questions as it pertains to dogma? If you choose not to do so I will then assume you don't wish to have a conversation (a back and forth of information) and will no longer reply to you. :)
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Mercury wrote:
betty page wrote:Uh, quote me asking you for help!


Booya jersey. Get off it.


In case you hadn't noticed, this is a serious topical discussion with several on-going sub topics that are being addressed. It contains content rich and informational posts. Most all of the replies on this 400+ post thread are relevant to addressing something that a poster has put on the screen whether it be topical or an effort to gain clarity of thought.

None of them belong to you.

Whatever it is that you wish me to "get off" of, you'd be sorely mistaken in thinking that your comments here have any impact or influence on me at all.


I think Mercury wanted you to get off of me as you interjected yourself into the thread to speak on behalf of JAK, added nothing of "content rich informational posts", called me a "sorry ass", and attempted to "help" me by going pages with me before (I suppose) you understood that JAK said I attacked him. That didn't seem to be very relevant at all.

Mercury is just more succinct than I am. :)
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Mercury wrote:
betty page wrote:Uh, quote me asking you for help!


Booya jersey. Get off it.


In case you hadn't noticed, this is a serious topical discussion with several on-going sub topics that are being addressed. It contains content rich and informational posts. Most all of the replies on this 400+ post thread are relevant to addressing something that a poster has put on the screen whether it be topical or an effort to gain clarity of thought.

None of them belong to you.

Whatever it is that you wish me to "get off" of, you'd be sorely mistaken in thinking that your comments here have any impact or influence on me at all.


I think Mercury wanted you to get off of me as you interjected yourself into the thread to speak on behalf of JAK, added nothing of "content rich informational posts", called me a "sorry ass", and attempted to "help" me by going pages with me before (I suppose) you understood that JAK said I attacked him. That didn't seem to be very relevant at all.

Mercury is just more succinct than I am. :)


Holy hell.

1. I made no claim to adding "content rich informational posts".

2. JAK did NOT say that you attacked him in the first comment of his that you reposted in the exchanges, the one made prior to your "tsk tsk" post. He made a statement and not a claim.

3. I did not call you a sorry ass. I referred to "your sorry ass".
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:Holy hell.

1. I made no claim to adding "content rich informational posts".


Did I say you did? I was merely stating that you did not add any to the thread. You pointed out what the thread was about to Mercury and informed him that none of those posts belonged to him. Perhaps, you needed a reminder as well? :)

2. JAK did NOT say that you attacked him in the first comment of his that you reposted in the exchanges, the one made prior to your "tsk tsk" post. He made a statement and not a claim.


Right..............It was not your concern and you interjected yourself into the conversation as I repeatedly asked you to add some relevant materal. I just got the giggles that you chided Mercury for his contributions as yours are more distracting than his.

3. I did not call you a sorry ass. I referred to "your sorry ass".


Ah! Right. "I'm trying to help your sorry ass" -- what is a "sorry ass". Can you please provide a definition that we could all agree on of that? Thanks! ;)

I think I got one right -- you did interject repeatedly into the thread, when not asked for "help", and posted nothing of any relevance.

I just figured since you told Mercury what a "serious topical discussion" with "content rich and informational posts" this thread was that he would like to know how you added nothing to it! :)
_marg

Post by _marg »

previously I wrote: Yet typically those who have received early indoctrination, despite intelligence., and being able to critically evalute well other issues outside their religion are not able to objectively be critical about their religious beliefs. If religions teach a group think mentality of subservience to religious authority, an attitude of unquestioning obedience, followers are easily manipulated and controlled by the authority. That can be a bad thing. So religions as a teaching system communicates to followers to an extent poor critical thinking which may carry over into area outside religion.


Moniker:
That it might do so does not then follow that it does to all. Of course their religious beliefs may counter the "real world", yet I just am not comfortable with the assertion that intelligent, thoughtful men and women would forgo reason when the beliefs come into conflict.


We see it all the time on these message boards. Otherwise intelligent individuals not able to see that the Book of Mormon is an obvious 20th century work of fiction. The belief that theirs is the only true religion and the world needs to be converted. Spending time justifing polygamy because they believe it was a directive by the Mormon God. I've read the most ridiculous beliefs on these boards and they come from obviously very intelligent individuals who at the core of it all, are unable to objectively look at their beliefs. But they have no problem being objective about other religious beliefs outside their own religion. I also see many Mormons who are extremely obedient to the church and wouldn't question it.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Holy hell.

1. I made no claim to adding "content rich informational posts".


Did I say you did? I was merely stating that you did not add any to the thread. You pointed out what the thread was about to Mercury and informed him that none of those posts belonged to him. Perhaps, you needed a reminder as well? :)

2. JAK did NOT say that you attacked him in the first comment of his that you reposted in the exchanges, the one made prior to your "tsk tsk" post. He made a statement and not a claim.


Right..............It was not your concern and you interjected yourself into the conversation as I repeatedly asked you to add some relevant materal. I just got the giggles that you chided Mercury for his contributions as yours are more distracting than his.

3. I did not call you a sorry ass. I referred to "your sorry ass".


Ah! Right. "I'm trying to help your sorry ass" -- what is a "sorry ass". Can you please provide a definition that we could all agree on of that? Thanks! ;)

I think I got one right -- you did interject repeatedly into the thread, when not asked for "help", and posted nothing of any relevance.

I just figured since you told Mercury what a "serious topical discussion" with "content rich and informational posts" this thread was that he would like to know how you added nothing to it! :)


So far as I can tell, Moniker, you've got little or nothing "right" in these exchanges. You misread what is placed on the screen, misrepresent it and then go on to address the misrepresentation.

I get the feeling that if somehow a military weapons system were able to take control of your key board, put it in the lock/load position and aim it directly at the mark you would still somehow manage miss the target.

Let me show you:

1. I made no claim to adding "content rich informational posts".


Moniker: Did I say you did? I was merely stating that you did not add any to the thread. You pointed out what the thread was about to Mercury and informed him that none of those posts belonged to him. Perhaps, you needed a reminder as well? :)

Jersey Girl: I didn't point out what the thread "was about" to Mercury. I made statements describing the nature of the thread. You cherry picked one sentence out of context "content rich informational posts" without including the very next sentence that mentioned 400+ posts and the nature of those posts.

2. JAK did NOT say that you attacked him in the first comment of his that you reposted in the exchanges, the one made prior to your "tsk tsk" post. He made a statement and not a claim.


Moniker: Right..............It was not your concern and you interjected yourself into the conversation as I repeatedly asked you to add some relevant materal. I just got the giggles that you chided Mercury for his contributions as yours are more distracting than his.

Jersey Girl: Do you see in the above exchanges where you failed to acknowledge that JAK did NOT say that you attacked him in the first comment of his that you reposted in the exchanges, the one made prior to your "tsk tsk" post and that he made a statement and not a claim? You made another claim, I refuted it and you still fail to acknowledge your misrepresentation. This is why people like JAK describe you as "disingenous". You begin with the word "Right...", perhaps that is your attempt at acknowlegement however it would be unclear to most any reader whether or not that is the case. You're correct that responding to your questions was not my concern. It was your concern due to your expressed frustration with JAK. I responded to your concern long before you made the claim that JAK said that you personally attacked him. When you did issue that claim, I showed you that it was not a claim. Wherein you jumped down some other of "rabbit hole" and avoided acknowledging that you misread a statement, misrepresented it and continued to claim that he said you personally attacked him when he did no such thing. You did the very same thing in the post prior to this that I responded to above. You appear to have no concern that you are misrepresenting the words of another poster with whom you seek discussion.

Further, you posed questions to me and when I responded to them over a fairly long period of time, when you didn't like what you were "hearing", you made an offhand remark to the effect that next time you want my help you'd ask for it when you clearly engaged my help in response to your questions as well as denying that the questions were posted for response.

Yes, you did ask me to post relevant material. I later posted a definition of "dogma". In a post not far above this one, you state "since you like going to online dictionaries". What I "like" has nothing to do with the need to define "dogma" on a thread where "dogma" and determining whether or not Shintoism contains "dogma" in response to your original claim.

It is near impossible to communicate with someone on a board like this who resists staying focused or who appears to have no interest in resolving one issue before methodically going on to the next. You don't appear to see the need for that in this type of communication.


3. I did not call you a sorry ass. I referred to "your sorry ass".


Moniker: Ah! Right. "I'm trying to help your sorry ass" -- what is a "sorry ass". Can you please provide a definition that we could all agree on of that? Thanks! ;)

Jersey Girl: Again, you misrepresented (now) what I stated and fail to acknowledge it. Unless "Ah! right" is meant to serve as acknowledgement. How is it that you intend to engage in serious discussion when you aren't able to accurately represent the words of another or when you fail to recognize the relevancy of definitions in order to define terms and instead attempt to mock those who provide them?

Moniker: I think I got one right -- you did interject repeatedly into the thread, when not asked for "help", and posted nothing of any relevance.

Jersey Girl: Wrong on all counts. I "interjected" myself into the thread beginning on page one. Later, I responded to your questions. Unless you disingenously posted questions without desiring them to be answered, then you claim of "when not asked for "help" is incorrect. The earlier posts that I posted on this thread were relevant to the topic. The definition (that you appear to mock) was relevant.


Moniker: I just figured since you told Mercury what a "serious topical discussion" with "content rich and informational posts" this thread was that he would like to know how you added nothing to it!

Jersey Girl: Try reading the remainder of my description of the thread and it's postings.

I would consider continuing on with you however in order to do so I would need to continue to attempt to drag you back on point over and over and over again as I have done so repeatedly. Were I being paid an hourly rate for responding to your posts perhaps I would.

It is not that I'm unwilling to "converse" with you. The point is that you are not fully "conversant" and I can't post for myself and for you at the same time.

Now, I'll take a step back in these exchanges and watch you repeat the same process with others in the hopes that you will eventually figure out where the disconnect lies.

Jersey Girl
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Fundamental Misunderstanding, Moniker

Post by _JAK »

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.

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.

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.

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

===

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

marg wrote:previously I wrote: Yet typically those who have received early indoctrination, despite intelligence., and being able to critically evalute well other issues outside their religion are not able to objectively be critical about their religious beliefs. If religions teach a group think mentality of subservience to religious authority, an attitude of unquestioning obedience, followers are easily manipulated and controlled by the authority. That can be a bad thing. So religions as a teaching system communicates to followers to an extent poor critical thinking which may carry over into area outside religion.


Moniker:
That it might do so does not then follow that it does to all. Of course their religious beliefs may counter the "real world", yet I just am not comfortable with the assertion that intelligent, thoughtful men and women would forgo reason when the beliefs come into conflict.


We see it all the time on these message boards. Otherwise intelligent individuals not able to see that the Book of Mormon is an obvious 20th century work of fiction. The belief that theirs is the only true religion and the world needs to be converted. Spending time justifing polygamy because they believe it was a directive by the Mormon God. I've read the most ridiculous beliefs on these boards and they come from obviously very intelligent individuals who at the core of it all, are unable to objectively look at their beliefs. But they have no problem being objective about other religious beliefs outside their own religion. I also see many Mormons who are extremely obedient to the church and wouldn't question it.


Marg, I don't disagree with anything you state above! I am stunned (and I mean STUNNED) at some of the remarks I see on this board and MAD. I think that Mormonism forces the "truth" to such a degree that it creates very black and white thinking. I'm an agnostic atheist (just can't state with certainty) and have never been a practicing Christian (I was baptized as a very young child into the Methodist Church and pretty much never went again:) and am flabbergasted that people believe in Noah's Ark, Adam & Eve, and a lot of the other mythology found in Biblical texts. I think that growing up around a bunch of religious diversity (with people that were fairly well educated -- that they already dismissed the Bible as a literal word of God) that I was not aware that so much dogmatic beliefs were really found in so much of Christianity.

I understand your concern (and other concerns of Dawkins, et al) that the extreme is the danger but the moderates allow them to operate as they do. I don't know that I truly disagree with that! I think there can be a good case made for that! Yet, I still can't get past the notion that it just appears *wrong* to label all people that are religious with such a broad brush. I started a thread about the same time this one started and I asked about the psychological crutch people may need filled through belief in a deity. I don't know that I'd be willing to strip it from them. I just am acutely uncomfortable telling people that they are not good "thinkers" -- as I'm no better than they just 'cause I don't have a belief in a deity. :) I think dart started this thread because he is well educated, is very aware with the problems of the LDS faith, is a very intelligent man and he feels that the atheists on this website are bigots -- I don't disagree that some of the atheists on this website do say bigoted things quite often. Pretty vile things -- I understand his frustration. I wish this thread would have been a little more tempered in terms of emotions -- I include myself in lacking that in this thread!

Before I visited MAD a year ago (someone in my family was a member) I had no idea much of the religious tenets of LDS -- there are some things that startle me and I see a lot of it flow into policy, and social issues. That concerns me! No doubt about it! I don't really know what else to say to you about this. Again, I know religion can be harmful, I know religion can and does indoctrinate people with some things that are not historically accurate. I understand your points, and I don't disagree with them.

To tell you the truth, I could have argued this thread from either side. ;)
Post Reply