NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so besides being a kick ass movie, Dogma is defined as:

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them

Now, I dont want to turn this into a "Religion is teh tr00!" 'No religion is teh li3s!" debate. Here is what Im asking.

We all know that religion has been an insterment and vehical for monsterous atrocities, idiologies of hate, and suffering, but also for a great deal of good and insperation for powerful social movements that were benefial to society. The difference to me is, the people who use religion for good tend to take a less dogmatic approach to religion. They will often say things like "I dont believe everything in *insert holy text here*" or will not interpert their book literally. On the other hand, people who use religion as a vehical to spread death, suffering, and hate often are the ones who can pull word for word scriptural passages verbatum. Bearing this in mind, my question is simple: Is the probelm with religion not necessarily religion itself, but with religious dogma?

I myself am going with a resounding yes on this one. Pagan religions were often not very dogmatic, and killing, persecution, and such in the name of religion was often not very common until post-Rome (yes, it happened during Rome as well, but not often. Christians were targeted because they were seen as a subversive sect that was potentially a threat to the Empire, and were the Jews of the day, ie, a convient scapegoat because they were a foreign cult with different ideas) Before that, military excursions were economically motivated, and were not hidden as anything but just that.

Going back earlier than Rome, the Assyrians actually used religion to justify not sacking a beaten enemy's city, because since each city was the domain of a certian diety, to sack it would be an offense to the divine (all though eventually that mentality did change). In fact, the Greek would often discover other civilizations and bring that civilizations gods into their pantheon and have a big old "God party" so to speak, the Romans often did the same.

So, whats everyone else think about this?

Please, this isnt about the merits or religion, this is strictly about RELIGIOUS DOGMA. All Abrahamic religions are equally violent, and all religions cherry pick, but cherry picking is inhernatly not dogmatic. I dont want this to turn into the discussion I parodied on the other religion thread. Please dont make me even think about summoning the mods...

Oh, and I was going to hold off on posting this until the current religious topics died down, but Neo Bretonnia asked me to post it anyway;)

Hmmm interesting one. Dogma is not really beneficial for anyone. Especially the religious group using it to "back" a claim. Dogma just alienates those within a religion who arent extremist (myself being one) and angers those outside of the religion, leaving them with no chance of faith. Tough question

But just to be pendantic, do you have any citations for your statement about pagan religion not causing violence? :p No really, do you?

To be honost, if you really wish me to I can find something Im sure. My statement mostly comes from my history education regarding wars, their reasons for being faught, and how religions worked within a society (ie, Greeks and Romans not believing their Gods are the only gods...its easy to believe such a thing when you are not monotheistic).

Also, the Greeks did not have dedicated "priests", religious services and worship was sponsered by the aristocrats to improve their public standing. It is difficult to hve dogma without priests and a "church". Romans had a priest class, but usually those appointed to be priests were done so as political favors. Usually a politicians would do so to give his buddies political leverage.

It would take some digging to give evidence worthy of my time. If you wish it however, I will. Otherwise I can telegram you some book titles if you want to read em just for kicks haha.

Alanis Morisette is God. That's all there is to say about Dogma.

But just to be pendantic, do you have any citations for your statement about pagan religion not causing violence? :p No really, do you?

The main problem with dogmatic religion is that it discourages questioning. This is a problem for at least two reasons.

1. People who don't question are easy to control. So when (and I won't say if here, I think it will eventually happen in any power structure) a corrupt person gains control of the faith, they can lead the "faithful" around by their noses to do all sorts of things. And, even without the corruption, a powerful leader who simply has the wrong ideas (no matter how well-meaning) can do the same.

2. There is no faith, but that in human beings. When church leaders ask for unquestioning belief in whatever they have declared, those people are placing their faith in fallible church leaders, not in in any deity. I do not believe faith can be achieved without questioning and coming to religion largely on your own terms.

You cannot completely remove dogma from religion, it is the substance of it after all, what is the problem is an inflexible dogma. A religion without dogma is like a paragraph without words. However going to another extreme, having a dogma too flexible is far too easy to spin and exploit, religion creates many difficulties in a society, to quote Stephen Fry: "shit it".

I want a good definition of religion for this. But assuming your definition is like mine then Dogma is bad.
and quit with the religion already, you'l get plenty of time to consider your damnation into the pearly gates of heavell.

EDIT: Joke intended, beware.

Anyway, Atheism kinda has its own dogma. The Origin of Species


HAHA!


I wouldnt say that was athiesm's "holy book" because evolution is not inherantly incapatable with religion, and Darwin actually said it made him believe more in God.

Id say that if athiesm has a dogma, its holy book is The God Delusion and its Holy Trinity is Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens;)

And Nietzsche was its profit.

To be honost, if you really wish me to I can find something Im sure. My statement mostly comes from my history education regarding wars, their reasons for being faught, and how religions worked within a society (ie, Greeks and Romans not believing their Gods are the only gods...its easy to believe such a thing when you are not monotheistic).

Also, the Greeks did not have dedicated "priests", religious services and worship was sponsered by the aristocrats to improve their public standing. It is difficult to hve dogma without priests and a "church". Romans had a priest class, but usually those appointed to be priests were done so as political favors. Usually a politicians would do so to give his buddies political leverage.

It would take some digging to give evidence worthy of my time. If you wish it however, I will. Otherwise I can telegram you some book titles if you want to read em just for kicks haha.

Fair do's. I honestly don't mind. Religion doesnt neccessarily mean a book with everyone following, although thats probably the first idea that pops into alot of peoples heads. Religion can simply be several people following certain ethics and living a certain way of live - essentially, with a belief in a God/s. Cant stand people who say atheism is a religion. It has no God so therefore is not theological in any way. It takes the appearance of a religion but has no God. But I digress. Anyway, Atheism kinda has its own dogma. The Origin of Species

Also, the Greeks did not have dedicated "priests", religious services and worship was sponsered by the aristocrats to improve their public standing. It is difficult to hve dogma without priests and a "church". Romans had a priest class, but usually those appointed to be priests were done so as political favors. Usually a politicians would do so to give his buddies political leverage.

Ah, the dangers of mixing church and state. This problem was pretty evident in the Roman Catholic Church as well, for quite some time.

In truth, I think that tends to add to the dogma problem, because the church then dictates law as well.

Ah, the dangers of mixing church and state. This problem was pretty evident in the Roman Catholic Church as well, for quite some time.

In truth, I think that tends to add to the dogma problem, because the church then dictates law as well.

Indeed, religion tends to do more bad than good when the religious leaders are also a political force, especially when theyre one that cant be fucked with (as the Catholic church was, and what Islam has become).

I want a good definition of religion for this. But assuming your definition is like mine then Dogma is bad.
and quit with the religion already, you'l get plenty of time to consider your damnation into the pearly gates of heavell.

But tbh if you just "quit with the religion" you almost send yourself into exactly the same situation dogma produces; a dependent automaton. One has to question everything - it is the only meaning of life

But tbh if you just "quit with the religion" you almost send yourself into exactly the same situation dogma produces; a dependent automaton. One has to question everything - it is the only meaning of life

er it was meant as a semi joke, the "heavell" part of my statement was meant to show that but other than that your point does make sense.

Im quite strong in my faith. I always have been a strong protestant. I dont know what I am now. Probably just the word liberal Christian would suffice. But, even I went out and bought Richard Dawkins' God delusion. It is a very interesting book, I shall admit. But I cannot bring myself to believe it, it does not change all who read it into atheists. But totally getting off the point. All beliefs, not just religions, need some form of text or doctrine so any message can be passed on. How else would any belief survive? I'm guessing your an atheist, please correct me if I am wrong, but even your anti religion beliefs do come from some form of "doctrine" if you will. A belief can find it hard to survive without it. But I think all doctrines can be interpreted differently. As can anything. This is a major major flaw. And even I shall admit, my religion has a huge problem - its being torn apart by extremists, taking the Bible LITERALLLY. Now thats almost suicide. :)



Im actually not an athiest. I guess one could call me "spiritually undecided":p I just read a lot of theological works and try to live my life based on philosophies I pick up here and there.

I just dont like Abrahamic religions. Not my thing. Brought up that way, know em inside and out. Evangellicals are scary. Anyone who gets that excited over the end of the world and billions of deaths is not mentally right.


But we digress. This is actually turning into what I dont want it to me (merits of religion). My fault more than yours.

HAHA!


I wouldnt say that was athiesm's "holy book" because evolution is not inherantly incapatable with religion, and Darwin actually said it made him believe more in God.

Id say that if athiesm has a dogma, its holy book is The God Delusion and its Holy Trinity is Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens;)

And Nietzsche was its profit.

Im quite strong in my faith. I always have been a strong protestant. I dont know what I am now. Probably just the word liberal Christian would suffice. But, even I went out and bought Richard Dawkins' God delusion. It is a very interesting book, I shall admit. But I cannot bring myself to believe it, it does not change all who read it into atheists. But totally getting off the point. All beliefs, not just religions, need some form of text or doctrine so any message can be passed on. How else would any belief survive? I'm guessing your an atheist, please correct me if I am wrong, but even your anti religion beliefs do come from some form of "doctrine" if you will. A belief can find it hard to survive without it. But I think all doctrines can be interpreted differently. As can anything. This is a major major flaw. And even I shall admit, my religion has a huge problem - its being torn apart by extremists, taking the Bible LITERALLLY. Now thats almost suicide. :)

Ill have none of it, I digressed far more than thou! :) Glad we could at least talk like gentleman rather than chavs ^^

Yeah, I agree. Screaming matches get old:D

But tbh if you just "quit with the religion" you almost send yourself into exactly the same situation dogma produces; a dependent automaton. One has to question everything - it is the only meaning of life

Now that i think about it although this does make sense, it is an appeals to consequences fallacy.
It's saying you either question religion or you're doomed.
I suppose i could argue we are all automatons anyway, what real "freedom" do we really have?

Yeah I guessed but I just wanted to be sure :cool:

cool, oh wait i thought of something

Im actually not an athiest. I guess one could call me "spiritually undecided":p I just read a lot of theological works and try to live my life based on philosophies I pick up here and there.

I just dont like Abrahamic religions. Not my thing. Brought up that way, know em inside and out. Evangellicals are scary. Anyone who gets that excited over the end of the world and billions of deaths is not mentally right.


But we digress. This is actually turning into what I dont want it to me (merits of religion). My fault more than yours.

It can still stay on topic, though. Do you think it is truly the Abrahamic religions themselves that bother you, or their generally dogmatic nature? Could it be that portions of those religions, removed from dogma, might appeal to you philosophically?

er it was meant as a semi joke, the "heavell" part of my statement was meant to show that but other than that your point does make sense.

Yeah I guessed but I just wanted to be sure :cool:

Im actually not an athiest. I guess one could call me "spiritually undecided":p I just read a lot of theological works and try to live my life based on philosophies I pick up here and there.

I just dont like Abrahamic religions. Not my thing. Brought up that way, know em inside and out. Evangellicals are scary. Anyone who gets that excited over the end of the world and billions of deaths is not mentally right.


But we digress. This is actually turning into what I dont want it to me (merits of religion). My fault more than yours.

Ill have none of it, I digressed far more than thou! :) Glad we could at least talk like gentleman rather than chavs ^^

Im afraid it bears that interpretation, friend.
But at least we know, that instead of yelling at eachother im sure we could all work together for a better?
Why ask how a problem came about, becoming so pre-occupied with that you ignore the actual problem, and forget why your even arguing?

What is the actual problem then?
I think the idea of freewill Vs Determinism is a key concept to many areas of politics.
(and stop trying to confuse me! i'm meant to be studying you know? oh dear that's my fault, oh well you win some...)

Descartes is good stuff.

Descartes ideas were good, but the way he writes is really annoying to me, and he also tries to come up with a counter-argument in the last part of his meditations to try to prove that you can trust your senses, and tries to get around the sceptical threat he made, but fails badly.

Yeah, I agree. Screaming matches get old:D

Indeed! I am a firm believer, however, in observing all opinion before one bases arguments and so forth. How can you fight any corner with no knowledge of what your arguing against? Thats why I bought the God delusion. But I would definately recommend R.Descartes works, as a little night reading for anyone, Ecclesiastical man or layman; it really makes you think about life...

Incredibly hard reading though! Need to re-read every paragraph just to actually understand his points! But basis for a serious flaw in what we call "reality". Dont you think that subjective arguments cant actually get someone anywhere? The one thing we can know is that we cant know anything? Thats the impression I tend to get anyway. Dogma just wastes peoples time

you're saying that "there is no absolute truth"?
I know some good counters to that. (well now that i think about it more like about 2 but there you go)

Now that i think about it although this does make sense, it is an appeals to consequences fallacy.
It's saying you either question religion or you're doomed.
I suppose i could argue we are all automatons anyway, what real "freedom" do we really have?



cool, oh wait i thought of something

Im afraid it bears that interpretation, friend. But at least we know, that instead of yelling at eachother im sure we could all work together for a better? Why ask how a problem came about, becoming so pre-occupied with that you ignore the actual problem, and forget why your even arguing?

Indeed! I am a firm believer, however, in observing all opinion before one bases arguments and so forth. How can you fight any corner with no knowledge of what your arguing against? Thats why I bought the God delusion. But I would definately recommend R.Descartes works, as a little night reading for anyone, Ecclesiastical man or layman; it really makes you think about life...

Descartes is good stuff.

Incredibly hard reading though! Need to re-read every paragraph just to actually understand his points! But basis for a serious flaw in what we call "reality". Dont you think that subjective arguments cant actually get someone anywhere? The one thing we can know is that we cant know anything? Thats the impression I tend to get anyway. Dogma just wastes peoples time

It can still stay on topic, though. Do you think it is truly the Abrahamic religions themselves that bother you, or their generally dogmatic nature? Could it be that portions of those religions, removed from dogma, might appeal to you philosophically?

Well, Christianity and Islam both have ideals that appeal to me philosophically. My problem with Abrahamic religions tend to stem more from them being nothing original. They are a mismash of various philosophies, laws, stories, and beliefs that were from the region and various pagan mythes that are far older than they are. In fact, most of what they added is the bad stuff.

Incredibly hard reading though! Need to re-read every paragraph just to actually understand his points! But basis for a serious flaw in what we call "reality". Dont you think that subjective arguments cant actually get someone anywhere? The one thing we can know is that we cant know anything? Thats the impression I tend to get anyway. Dogma just wastes peoples time

Read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you want to spend years reading one book

What is the actual problem then?
I think the idea of freewill Vs Determinism is a key concept to many areas of politics.
(and stop trying to confuse me! i'm meant to be studying you know? oh dear that's my fault, oh well you win some...)

lol, I was reading up on freewill today, do we really have it? Lets not get into it :rolleyes: but the problem could be, oh idk, people starving in Africa? Everyones so worried about how it happened people seem to forget that people are actually starving!

you're saying that "there is no absolute truth"?
I know some good counters to that. (well now that i think about it more like about 2 but there you go)

hmmm, but how do religions know that their religious texts are right? They cant really. Same applies for everything. We cant really know anything. which = its pointless trying to convert people, people will always be subjective on a personal level and no amount of preaching will change that

lol, I was reading up on freewill today, do we really have it? Lets not get into it :rolleyes: but the problem could be, oh idk, people starving in Africa? Everyones so worried about how it happened people seem to forget that people are actually starving!
Hmm i know it's probably to do with the cost of actually saving all those people. The blame culture is also very much alive in society, sadly.

hmmm, but how do religions know that their religious texts are right? They cant really. Same applies for everything. We cant really know anything. which = its pointless trying to convert people, people will always be subjective on a personal level and no amount of preaching will change that

But if you can't know anything doesn't that mean that you can know something?
For that statement to be true "we can't really know anything" then there is one thing which is true, that statement, if the statement is false then things are back to normal.
I think religions can base their idea of knowing thier knowledge in the same way they know you exist, as it takes a leap of faith to know you exist, it also takes a leap of faith to know God (or whatever obscure belief they hold) also exists. There are better arguments, but i know of only a few of them.

I agree that people should not simply be converted, but subconsciously we are converted all the time, maybe not to a main religion but to many other things.
Such as adverts in Radios, TVs, Internet (hell there's even one on this page) so telling religions they can't convert people yet try to get them to buy the latest TV set seems a hypocracy to me.

I myself am going with a resounding yes on this one. Pagan religions were often not very dogmatic,

They still aren't for the most part. I prefer Catma to Dogma anyway.

1. catma
11 up, 1 down


Entomology: the antithesis of dogma. Catma is to dogma, as a fickel cat is to a loyal dog.

1. A catma is a belief espoused by a relgion which must be understood by all members of that religion. Although it must be understood, it does not have to be accepted as truth because proof of the catma may not yet exist or be accepted, or that proof requires postulates that the adherant to the religion may not presently accept.

Karma is a catma to Hinduism.

A'la's perfection and omnicence is a catma to Islam. (It is not a dogma becuase Islam has no central hierarchal structure to enforce any dogmas.)


<Definition taken from Urbandictionary.com >
That all religions are one is a catma to Baha'i.

So your saying the trap of solopsism? fair enough

So your saying the trap of solopsism? fair enough

well that's one area to counter that but, it doesn't really take out the principle of what you're saying.
I've been thinking a better way to get around the idea that "there is no truth", is to say that a similar thing is we live in the Matrix.
So what? we still exist in an illusion in another world, hell we often can't tell if we're being lied to or we're imagining things. (this relies on the premise that we exist, i know it takes things a bit far but i'm working on that).
We still exist somewhere so there's no harm in passing around dogma if we don't exist here.

Dogma = Bad

the movie wasn't that great either, it had it's moments though.

Is the probelm with religion not necessarily religion itself, but with religious dogma?

Yes. With every religion (Including atheism as a religion) dogma is a problem. Just less so in certain sects.

Ok, so besides being a kick ass movie,

Pfft. The book, Good Omens is clearly better.

Alanis Morisette is God. That's all there is to say about Dogma.
God is love
Love is blind
Therefore, God is blind

God is blind
Ray Charles is blind
Therefore, Ray Charles is God

Ray Charles is God
Ray Charles is dead
Therefore, God is dead

Dogma is great. It allows for people to unify around certain ideas or beliefs.

Bearing this in mind, my question is simple: Is the probelm with religion not necessarily religion itself, but with religious dogma?

I'm gonna go with not necisarily. People the problem is people. Two men can read the same dogmatic passages and act on them in very differant ways.

People that's the problem. *nods*

Oh, and I was going to hold off on posting this until the current religious topics died down, but Neo Bretonnia asked me to post it anyway;)

Aw sure, blame me why don't you.... ;)

I was thinking about this topic and I think dogma is a bad thing when it becomes rigid and unable to cope with a changing world. For example, the oft-cited Biblical passages in which God instructed the Israelites to conquer and anhilate whole cities. If that were held to be current dogma, the world would be a much more violent place indeed. Old Testament times had all sorts of things listed in the bible about killing witches, repaying a rape with cattle, etc.

Modern Biblical religions don't interpret those parts of the Bible as being apropriate ways of dealing with things in this day and age. Churches have moved on.

At the same time, an excess of change would result in a religion dwindling down to little more than an unofficial philosophy shared loosely by a group of people.

So, to be positive, dogma must be something that symbolizes and reflects the core tenets of a belief system without becoming an inflexible and overriding hijack of the very message it was originally meant to convey.

So, to be positive, dogma must be something that symbolizes and reflects the core tenets of a belief system without becoming an inflexible and overriding hijack of the very message it was originally meant to convey.

On the other hand, if the original "message" was filled with hate, violence, death, murders, stonings, hellfire and brimstone at what point does taking those away effectively become diluting those very core tenants?

There are many who have argued that historically, the institution of religions, especially christianity was for a large purpose, about control, violence, forced conversions, and a great deal of manipulation.

Some might argue that trying to cut out the "bad" parts creates a very large problem, when those bad parts are some of the principles upon which the religion is formed.

It's nice to believe that ones particular belief system is at its core about being nice and charitable and loving and kind, and all this extranious violent, mysogynistic, homophobic, hostile and intolerant crap got added on over time. But what about the other side of the argument, that this "crap" has been there, and historically all the violent, mysogynitic, homophobic, hostile and intollerant parts ARE the core?

There are many who say the message of many religions has been that from the beginning.

I had a dogma, but it got ran over by a karma.

Sorry.

I had a dogma, but it got ran over by a karma.

Sorry.

:p

I had a dogma, but it got ran over by a karma.
One of my old roommates came up with that one (in the form "My karma ran over my dogma"). He was a great (or terrible, depending on your viewpoint) punster; two of his others that I liked were "Herpe, the Love Bug" and "Oldtimers' Disease".

Four dogmas good, two dogmas baaaaaad. :p