Why are the Virtues not enough?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Science and religion

Pilgram asks:

I recently re-read one of your earlier posts. What is it you mean when you refer to science in relation to religion?

Maybe you might give me some excerpts from that post?

My position about science and religion generally is that science is concerned with facts as perceived by our senses and can be predictable once we see into their consistent character; religion for me is basically concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature.


Susma Rio Sep

PS I am a guy, and not a sister even in my psychology; but I love all people: guys, gals, and all others belonging to one anatomy but aspiring after the other.

 

[Pilgram]

Pilgram asks:

[/i]

Maybe you might give me some excerpts from that post?

My position about science and religion generally is that science is concerned with facts as perceived by our senses and can be predictable once we see into their consistent character; religion for me is basically concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature.


Susma Rio Sep

PS I am a guy, and not a sister even in my psychology; but I love all people: guys, gals, and all others belonging to one anatomy but aspiring after the other.

Good Brother Susma,

Guy, girl, I didn't think it mattered judging by your language that you love us all. In any case, if you felt offended by my salutation, I apologize for any discomfort it may have caused to your mind or your psychology.

I agree with you about what you say of science but if religion is to be "concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature" what distinguishes it from psychotherapy, psychiatry and psychology which also look into the same concerns?

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Acting before thinking

Good Brother Susma,

Guy, girl, I didn't think it mattered judging by your language that you love us all. In any case, if you felt offended by my salutation, I apologize for any discomfort it may have caused to your mind or your psychology.

I agree with you about what you say of science but if religion is to be "concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature" what distinguishes it from psychotherapy, psychiatry and psychology which also look into the same concerns?

I read that some thinkers do question whether the psycho sciences are really sciences like physics and chemistry.

And I also read that emotions as the word indicates refers to bodily impulsive movements, dating to the time when man like unthinking animals act before thinking, because the thinking faculty was not yet cultivated as it is today, into a systematic skill.

My inclination is also to hold religion as a behavior founded upon emotions, therefore not susceptible to rational thinking without being discovered to be illogical and of no sound solid basis -- except again on emotions, i.e., impulsive acting before thinking.

Yet for me, religion is a luxury like all acting on impulse; and that is why I being religious in a way, make sure that religion does not rule me, but I oversee my religion. I indulge in the luxury but I keep guard that I don't get myself enslaved to the luxury so that it rules me.

Now, the first indication that religion is ruling a person is when he subject himself to another human on religious grounds, or he does not want to face the illogic in his religion but prefers to call it mystery or beyond his understanding.


No offense received about your thinking that I am a sister. The name 'Susma' conventionally might suggest a feminine gender, specially in the Latin languages. But there are guys from the Latin world also with names ending in 'a' but of the male gender, for example, Seneca.


Susma Rio Sep

 

[Pilgram]

I read that some thinkers do question whether the psycho sciences are really sciences like physics and chemistry.

Well, of course psychiatry and psychology are not on an equal playing field with physics, chemistry and more obviously mathmatics. But they are more "scientific" than any religion in that no hypothesis is offered on "faith."

And I also read that emotions as the word indicates refers to bodily impulsive movements, dating to the time when man like unthinking animals act before thinking, because the thinking faculty was not yet cultivated as it is today, into a systematic skill.

My inclination is also to hold religion as a behavior founded upon emotions, therefore not susceptible to rational thinking without being discovered to be illogical and of no sound solid basis -- except again on emotions, i.e., impulsive acting before thinking.

I understand your inclination but I lean more to the belief that human beings noticed that fear and ignorance were qualities that could be easily exploited in those who agreed with a shaman or witch doctor's explanation for things supernatural.

Yet for me, religion is a luxury like all acting on impulse; and that is why I being religious in a way, make sure that religion does not rule me, but I oversee my religion. I indulge in the luxury but I keep guard that I don't get myself enslaved to the luxury so that it rules me.

Now, the first indication that religion is ruling a person is when he subject himself to another human on religious grounds, or he does not want to face the illogic in his religion but prefers to call it mystery or beyond his understanding.

I agree with you somewhat but I more so believe that the first indication of trouble comes when a person hands over responsibility for her/his own thinking and acting to a god, gods, shaman, priest, or guru. From that point it becomes easier to blame one's failings on the devil, demons, etc. And it is much easier to "put one's faith" in the dogma of a ready made religion than to graple with something as pesky as logic which admitedly takes some effort beyond reciting a creed or listening to a cleric talk.

No offense received about your thinking that I am a sister. The name 'Susma' conventionally might suggest a feminine gender, specially in the Latin languages. But there are guys from the Latin world also with names ending in 'a' but of the male gender, for example, Seneca.


Susma Rio Sep

I am glad you were not offended by "sister" brother.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Luxry for you also?

Well, of course psychiatry and psychology are not on an equal playing field with physics, chemistry and more obviously mathmatics. But they are more "scientific" than any religion in that no hypothesis is offered on "faith."



I understand your inclination but I lean more to the belief that human beings noticed that fear and ignorance were qualities that could be easily exploited in those who agreed with a shaman or witch doctor's explanation for things supernatural.



I agree with you somewhat but I more so believe that the first indication of trouble comes when a person hands over responsibility for her/his own thinking and acting to a god, gods, shaman, priest, or guru. From that point it becomes easier to blame one's failings on the devil, demons, etc. And it is much easier to "put one's faith" in the dogma of a ready made religion than to graple with something as pesky as logic which admitedly takes some effort beyond reciting a creed or listening to a cleric talk.

I am glad you were not offended by "sister" brother.

Dear Pilgram, I can see myself in you. If we take those people seriously who talk about soulmates, maybe we are soulmates.

What about the luxry of religion as I understand it, Do you also indulge in this luxury?

I understand that you are very concerned about religious people being manipulated by charlatans to their, i.e., charlatans', own purposes, and also with bringing out the common ingredients and of course harmless and constructive in a way of various religious systems. I commend you most highly for your concern and search and endeavor.

On my concern for religion as a luxury, I particularly like church wedding and religous burials; they are more emotionally satisfying than their non-religous counterparts.

Best regards,

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Pilgram]

Dear Pilgram, I can see myself in you. If we take those people seriously who talk about soulmates, maybe we are soulmates.

What about the luxry of religion as I understand it, Do you also indulge in this luxury?

I think I see what you mean by luxury of religion but I respectfully disagree with it being one. I think too many people mindlessly accept the baggage of religion (usually the one imposed upon them by their parents in childhood) because of the strong emotional content that becomes hard wired at an early age. The Jesuits knew this. One said "give me a child from the time it's born until it is six, and you can have it for the rest of its life. But it remains ours in mind, body and soul." I believe they were correct as it affects most people.

Religion is a luxury most can ill afford in that it does much more damage than it bestows real blessings.

That said, I consider myself very religious. But I vehemently denounce all of the organized religions because of the above mentioned damage that I witness stemming from them. I believe in god/gods but I do not go much further than that. I have few beliefs about its/her/his form, will, beliefs, desires, commands, suggestings, etc. I see god as the creator but not as a perfect, omnipotent, omniscent one. I believe it may be possible that we are all a part of god and thus evolving toward the time when god (we) may become perfect via trial and error, learning from history (finally), and possibly (although I do not say that this is factual) our many reincarnations.

I understand that you are very concerned about religious people being manipulated by charlatans to their, i.e., charlatans', own purposes, and also with bringing out the common ingredients and of course harmless and constructive in a way of various religious systems. I commend you most highly for your concern and search and endeavor.

On my concern for religion as a luxury, I particularly like church wedding and religous burials; they are more emotionally satisfying than their non-religous counterparts.

Best regards,

Susma Rio Sep

If by church weddings/burials you refer to the emotional feelings that can be realized by partaking in any social or cultural ritual, I agree. We do seem to need or at least desire ritual and I do not believe that ritual is a bad thing per se. I do see it being used to manipulate those who are addicted to it and therein lay the problem.

I believe that we do need a series of rites of passage and ceremonies and rituals for children to evolve into healthy adults. But the forms of those rites, and the baggage attached make me look toward establishing a totally different form.

Thus, I have been working on a book the purpose of which is to start a new religion devoid of the many negative dogmas of the extant religions and containing only the agreed upon dogma (those that may also be derived via good sense and honest endeavors) of the world's "great" religions. Want to help?

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

 

[bananabrain]

Are you saying "unpleasantness" tongue in cheek?

hardly. i am just trying - unlike you - not to make emotive generalisations that bear little relation to reality and merely raise the temperature, thereby propagating the simplifications popular in the media, such as:

are you by any chance refering to people being systematically shot by Israeli soldiers trained not to kill but only to maim so that the kill ratio does not get too many countries overly concerned with Israel/Palestinian unpleasantness?

without wishing to get into this particular issue, perhaps you prefer palestinians to be shot dead so that the israelis can be clearly shown to be the monsters you seem to think they are? i know plenty of israeli soldiers (current and ex - and more than you, i expect) and this suggestion is not only tendentious and unhelpful, but suggests that the soldiers in question should instead stand there and wait to be killed. the israelis are not keen on martyrdom - unlike the people that the media sanitises by calling them "radicals".

we'll pass over your thinking i was a buddhist. however, you appear to be implying that judaism is one of the "toxic" religions you dislike.

(unpleasantness = denial of civil and human rights, imprisonment, terrorism, torture, intentional maiming and death)

i notice you apply this only to the israelis and ascribe it to religious values. the problem seems to be that the israelis wish to try and act in a moral fashion, which restricts their options, unlike hamas, hizbollah, islamic jihad and the PA, who are all far worse offenders in each of these respects. at least the israelis are democratic and have a free press - and they admit it when they do things, even if they're not proud of them.

an adherent of the traditional religion of the Jewish people, that having Moses for a lawgiver and [] for a God and circumcision for a very physical telltale mark.

that is really not a very good definition. what is wrong with the word "jew?" what do you mean when you say "'Judaist' is neutral, compared to the term 'Jew'."? i am not particularly concerned with how non-religious jews define being jewish - i am far more concerned about how judaism itself defines it, which is in terms of a religious community, which implies group self-determination.

There isn't one person in a thousand who can tell me all of the dogma of his or her religion. This is not by accident.

not if we can't agree on a definition of "dogma" - or even whether to accept it as a term within our discourse.

I agree that one would get "all confused to discover the contradictions and inconsistencies and uncertainties in its repertory of dogmas." I couldn't agree more. That is precisely why I suggest examination and deletion of such dogma.

that's what the church said when it came up with the inquisition. in fact, it's what all reformers say. i will confine myself to saying that revolutions inevitably throw up worse governments than they replace. it's not an argument for "no change", IMHO - just an argument for understanding the nature of change within context and using the existing mechanisms.

My position about science and religion generally is that science is concerned with facts as perceived by our senses and can be predictable once we see into their consistent character; religion for me is basically concentrated on the emotional concerns of our nature.

are not both science and religion circumscribed by our sense-perceptions? scientists love to argue that they're somehow "objective" - but that's just code for saying that all scientists can agree on their axioms and method. they're not actually objective because not everyone agrees on these.

I read that some thinkers do question whether the psycho sciences are really sciences like physics and chemistry.

i don't see why physics and chemistry should be sacred cows either.

My inclination is also to hold religion as a behavior founded upon emotions, therefore not susceptible to rational thinking without being discovered to be illogical and of no sound solid basis -- except again on emotions, i.e., impulsive acting before thinking.

that is *so* not how judaism or islam work.

Now, the first indication that religion is ruling a person is when he subject himself to another human on religious grounds, or he does not want to face the illogic in his religion but prefers to call it mystery or beyond his understanding.

how about when they "subject" themselves directly to G!D? that is of course "illogical" in your perception, yet the leading physicists seem to be able to find room for the idea of paradox, based upon empirical observation of reality.

they are more "scientific" than any religion in that no hypothesis is offered on "faith."

except for the hypothesis that science is therefore "correct", which is of course axiomatic and objectively unprovable and therefore relative, which effectively makes it somewhat similar to faith.

I agree with you somewhat but I more so believe that the first indication of trouble comes when a person hands over responsibility for her/his own thinking and acting to a god, gods, shaman, priest, or guru. From that point it becomes easier to blame one's failings on the devil, demons, etc. And it is much easier to "put one's faith" in the dogma of a ready made religion than to graple with something as pesky as logic which admitedly takes some effort beyond reciting a creed or listening to a cleric talk.

i absolutely agree with this and it is an integral part of jewish thought and law, albeit one which is sometimes abandoned even by us.

I think too many people mindlessly accept the baggage of religion (usually the one imposed upon them by their parents in childhood) because of the strong emotional content that becomes hard wired at an early age. The Jesuits knew this. One said "give me a child from the time it's born until it is six, and you can have it for the rest of its life. But it remains ours in mind, body and soul." I believe they were correct as it affects most people.

what about people who accept the "baggage of religion" mindfully?

Religion is a luxury most can ill afford in that it does much more damage than it bestows real blessings.

perhaps this is more correct when applied to the sort of religious perspective that involves abandoning one's responsibility for one's actions?

Thus, I have been working on a book the purpose of which is to start a new religion devoid of the many negative dogmas of the extant religions and containing only the agreed upon dogma (those that may also be derived via good sense and honest endeavors) of the world's "great" religions.

so you're not actually a disinterested observer - you've actually already decided what the answer is and now you're justifying it any way you can. fair enough as long as you admit it!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Sincerely

Pilgram writes:

Thus, I have been working on a book the purpose of which is to start a new religion devoid of the many negative dogmas of the extant religions and containing only the agreed upon dogma (those that may also be derived via good sense and honest endeavors) of the world's "great" religions. Want to help?

I think I can give you some suggestions which might be useful to your enterprise. Use the search function of this forum to look up my posts, you might just find materials which you might see fit to use in your book. Don't worry about copyright. You can quote as much and as often, and even without attribution.

-------------------

Dear Banana:

Would it be all right with you if I tell you that I think very well of the Israelis, specially among the military, who are working hard to find a solution to the troubles between Israelis and Palestinians, without violence, that is? And I understand also the plight of Israelis who have to live in the kind of disputes existing between the two peoples. All right also?

If not, then I will take my words back; and please consider them to not have been spoken to you.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[IMSassafras]

Thus, I have been working on a book the purpose of which is to start a new religion devoid of the many negative dogmas of the extant religions and containing only the agreed upon dogma (those that may also be derived via good sense and honest endeavors) of the world's "great" religions. Want to help?

Pilgram,

It has been a while since I have conversed with you on your search. Reading your posts has been interesting, and I have at least one question that I would like to ask you.

You have posted many times that you would like to take "agreed on dogma" and incorporate it into your new religion. I am not sure how any "dogma" can be agreed on in all of "the world's 'great' religions". The "dogma" that I feel you are refering to is not always agreed on within one relgion let alone a multitude of religions. If you gave me some examples, it would be greatly appreciated.

I went ahead and looked up the word "dogma" at Dictionary.com for a better understanding of the word. Here in a copied version:

There were 4 entries.

#1

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: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

#2

1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.

The obscure and loose dogmas of early antiquity. -- Whewell.

2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet.

3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.

#3

1: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: belief, tenet]

2: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"

#4

a medical reference


(I tried not to get too crazy with the defintion(s) of "dogma", so I simplified it. If anyone would like to read the actual definition(s), they may do so at Dictionary.com. And if anyone has a better source they would like to refer to, please do so.)

Within the defintions I provided, you will read "dogma" is defined very broadly. Anywhere from "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." to "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof".

So what is "dogma"? Is it Truth? Is it unprovable Truth? Is it False? And how are all of the relgions going to agree on the defintion of "dogma" or the usage of the word to define "a new religion"?

Also, the source of the "dogma" is important. Did it come from God? A Prophet? A church? Did it come from a infallible source or a fallible one? Does it matter? Personally, I would believe a infallible source over a fallible source any day.

Pilgram, I hope I am not being too bold in my request for a better understanding of your word "dogma".

I would like to ask you one more question... What are the religions you consider to be "the world's 'great' religions"?

Unity in Diversity
Sassafras

 

[Pilgram]

All the following quotes come from bananabrain. The comments that follow them are Pilgram's.

not if we can't agree on a definition of "dogma" - or even whether to accept it as a term within our discourse.

dogma: see dictionary.

that's what the church said when it came up with the inquisition. in fact, it's what all reformers say. i will confine myself to saying that revolutions inevitably throw up worse governments than they replace. it's not an argument for "no change", IMHO - just an argument for understanding the nature of change within context and using the existing mechanisms.

The American revolution seems to have escaped your notice unless you have no need for a government that finally separated church and state.

except for the hypothesis that science is therefore "correct", which is of course axiomatic and objectively unprovable and therefore relative, which effectively makes it somewhat similar to faith.

There is no "hypothesis" that science is "correct." There is only evidence of scientific theory that works or doesn't work. Without science you would still be sending smoke signals from behind your mud hut instead of typing out your anti-scientific messages to us around the world on your computer.

what about people who accept the "baggage of religion" mindfully?

Only one without much of a mind would accept any "baggage" mindfully. Baggage is not a good thing. What was implied was terrorism, torture, death. (inquisition was your own term of baggage and I think a good example).

so you're not actually a disinterested observer - you've actually already decided what the answer is and now you're justifying it any way you can. fair enough as long as you admit it!

Of course I am an interested observer as are you. Every observer is interested by definition or he wouldn't be observing; he would be sleeping, masturbating or taking drugs.

What is it you accuse me of "justifying"?

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dogma in the Catholic Church

I am a postgraduate Catholic, IMS. Please remember the emphasis is on post.

In the Catholic Church a dogma is strictly understood as a doctrine of beliefs or of moralilty proclaimed by the Pope as imposed by God and must be accepted on pain of eternal damnation.

Not that I take that definition seriously, though. Not now, anyway.

There was a very naughty classmate, a non-Catholic, in the Catholic univesity where I did my college work. When he learned that for a dogma to be such it must be proclaimed by the Pope ex-cathedra, meaning from the papal throne, he told me, "Susma, now I know when a dogma is proclaimed: When the Pope speaks form his a__."

I asked him where he got that definition, and he told me that's the joke among the professors of theology and the seminarians, all Catholic, in the department of priestly vocation and training of the university.

Otherwise, he was a very good and kind and courteous and civil fellow student, non-Catholic at that, with me in the Catholic university.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Pilgram]

I am a postgraduate Catholic, IMS. Please remember the emphasis is on post.

In the Catholic Church a dogma is strictly understood as a doctrine of beliefs or of moralilty proclaimed by the Pope as imposed by God and must be accepted on pain of eternal damnation.

Not that I take that definition seriously, though. Not now, anyway.

There was a very naughty classmate, a non-Catholic, in the Catholic univesity where I did my college work. When he learned that for a dogma to be such it must be proclaimed by the Pope ex-cathedra, meaning from the papal throne, he told me, "Susma, now I know when a dogma is proclaimed: When the Pope speaks form his a__."

I asked him where he got that definition, and he told me that's the joke among the professors of theology and the seminarians, all Catholic, in the department of priestly vocation and training of the university.

Otherwise, he was a very good and kind and courteous and civil fellow student, non-Catholic at that, with me in the Catholic university.

Susma Rio Sep

I'm most eager to know why you emphasize "post." And what is IMS? If you don't take Catholicism's definition seriously, does that mean you don't take Catholicism seriously? Or do you call yourself a Catholic while picking and choosing which dogma you believe in?

I was sent to Catholic schools and exposed to much dogma but at some point I realized I did not believe most of it and stopped calling myself a Catholic. Many Catholics literally cannot understand and continue to view me as Catholic since that was the way I was brought up. Strange, huh?

My biggest problem with any religion (Catholicism included) is the rampant hypocrisy. It seems to me a form of insanity to claim to "be" something (Christian, Jew, Moslem, etc.) yet not live up to the most basic teachings of that religion. The most basic teachings are not the ones that split hairs over whether or not Jesus owned his clothes. (This is a reference to a wonderful movie, The Name of the Rose). That is the most insane form of dogma. Who cares? If we continue to walk past each other on the streets fearful of making eye contact, does God really care where we stand on the issues of blah, blah, blah?

Peace and love, Susma Rio Sep,
Pilgram

 

[Pilgram]

Pilgram,

It has been a while since I have conversed with you on your search. Reading your posts has been interesting, and I have at least one question that I would like to ask you.

You have posted many times that you would like to take "agreed on dogma" and incorporate it into your new religion. I am not sure how any "dogma" can be agreed on in all of "the world's 'great' religions". The "dogma" that I feel you are refering to is not always agreed on within one relgion let alone a multitude of religions. If you gave me some examples, it would be greatly appreciated.

I went ahead and looked up the word "dogma" at Dictionary.com for a better understanding of the word. Here in a copied version:

There were 4 entries.

#1

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: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

#2

1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.

The obscure and loose dogmas of early antiquity. -- Whewell.

2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet.

3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.

#3

1: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: belief, tenet]

2: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"

#4

a medical reference


(I tried not to get too crazy with the defintion(s) of "dogma", so I simplified it. If anyone would like to read the actual definition(s), they may do so at Dictionary.com. And if anyone has a better source they would like to refer to, please do so.)

Within the defintions I provided, you will read "dogma" is defined very broadly. Anywhere from "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." to "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof".

So what is "dogma"? Is it Truth? Is it unprovable Truth? Is it False? And how are all of the relgions going to agree on the defintion of "dogma" or the usage of the word to define "a new religion"?

Also, the source of the "dogma" is important. Did it come from God? A Prophet? A church? Did it come from a infallible source or a fallible one? Does it matter? Personally, I would believe a infallible source over a fallible source any day.

Pilgram, I hope I am not being too bold in my request for a better understanding of your word "dogma".

I would like to ask you one more question... What are the religions you consider to be "the world's 'great' religions"?

Unity in Diversity
Sassafras

Greetings Sassafras,

I do not find you too bold but I fear your request will go unanswered. If with all the definitions of "dogma" you cite, you are still unclear as to its meaning, I do not believe I can help in your understanding.

But to move for a moment to a peripheral issue may be of assistance. I do not think it very important to use the exact same words in coming to an understanding of a term. I like examples much more than definitions. I guess this makes me less of an acedemic. So be it.

In philosophy we find the skeptics who claim to believe or know nothing. Okay. But they manage to eat, drink, sleep, work, breed, etc. It is less important what they say they believe or know and more important what they do.

We can dance around words forever. I find it boring after a short time.

A dogma, as I use the word, is simply any belief, any opinion. Period. Whether or not it is written down on golden paper and framed with rubies and pearls, it is still just an opinion when you come down to it. Okay.

Whether the pope or the doper who lives in the alley expresses it, it is still just an opinion. It is dogma.

All dogma is not created equal. Some work and some don't. The key is in defining one's goal. I see love as a dogma that works and hatred as one that fails. However, I am very aware that many people disagree with me. They love to hate and hate to love. So the goal is what counts.

If a person (or nation) seeks superiority,he (it) will do well to follow a course of hatred, suspicion, mistrust, enslavement, segregation, class injustice, censorship, tyranny and much torture and killing.

However, if a person (or nation) seeks peace and equality, she (it) will follow a much harder course. That course is love.

But love is not weak and defenseless. That which is weak and defenseless is weakness and defenselessnes.

When I referred to the world's "great" religions, I am speaking for the theologians who use the term. I think none of them are even good let alone great. Great is simply a term of art among theologians. It means those with a great many followers. Numbers!

"Agreed upon dogma of all religions." This is an easy one really. It boils down to the Golden Rule no matter what you want to call it. Spike Lee's movie, Do the Right Thing, hit the nail squarely. You don't have to be told by the pope, the dalai lama, Jerry Falwell, rabbi, amam, witch doctor, shaman or the easter bunny what the right thing is. You really don't.

The problem is that many people want others to act toward them in a fashion different from how they act toward others. Bill wants a stranger to lend a hand when Bill needs a hand. But when Bill is asked by a stranger to lend the stanger a hand, Bill walks by pretending not to even notice the stranger's existence.

This doesn't work. I don't need a dogma to tell me that this doesn't work. To say it works for Bill is still mistake. It hurts Bill in a way he is as yet too ignorant to understand.

Dogma.

A black man on drugs who got his head beat in by LA police had enough sense to ask the billion dollar question. "Why can't we all just get along?"

Do the right thing. We all know what it is. When we pretend not to, when we hide behind "definitions," we don't stop knowing. The skeptic who claims not to know anything, knows enough to eat when hungry, sleep when tired and copulate when horney.

I want to write a new bible. It's easy work really. But it's only for adults. No stories about snakes that talk or angels who hand us golden plates with god's words. Just a few dogmas such as Do the Right Thing. Don't steal. Don't initiate violence. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't sell defective products. A few more perhaps, but not very many.

I won't write about God very much. I don't know the woman. I don't know what she thinks about abortion so I'll keep my mouth shut and let every woman decide the issue for herself.

I won't write about which foods are clean and which are unclean. I wash all food with water before I eat it. That's good enough for me.

I won't write about heaven or hell. I've never been to either.

I'll write about teaching children how to think rather than what to think.

I'll write about why people are ashamed of their nakedness and how this is a metaphor for their shame of existence.

Dogma. Easy stuff, really. You already know all you need to know. Do the Right Thing, Sas, Do the Right Thing.

Love and Peace,
Pilgram

 

[IMSassafras]

You Wrote:
I do not find you too bold but I fear your request will go unanswered. If with all the definitions of "dogma" you cite, you are still unclear as to its meaning, I do not believe I can help in your understanding.



I understand dogma and am very clear on how I define it. I was just wondering how you would define it. You use the word plenty of times. I don't believe a new religion can be defined by dogma. I was just wondering how you olan to define your religion by using dogma. Wouldn't TRUTH be much better of a source?

Talk more later...
Sass

 

[Pilgram]

IMSassagras says:

You (Pilgram) Wrote:
I do not find you too bold but I fear your request will go unanswered. If with all the definitions of "dogma" you cite, you are still unclear as to its meaning, I do not believe I can help in your understanding.

Sass comments:
I understand dogma and am very clear on how I define it. I was just wondering how you would define it. You use the word plenty of times. I don't believe a new religion can be defined by dogma. I was just wondering how you olan to define your religion by using dogma. Wouldn't TRUTH be much better of a source?

Talk more later...
Sass

Greetings Sass,

I agree with you that a new religion cannot be defined by dogma. It can only be described. I look at dogma in many ways. As you said in an earlier post (and demonstrated) dogma has many definitions.

Dogma, for me, is of two basic types. Dogma that is based in "common sense" and dogma that is completely "arbitrary."

An example of the first type is: do not initiate violence against another. Logic dictates that unless you want discord and problems you should not poke someone with a stick just for fun. Common sense. (Actually, common sense is a misnomer since it usually refers to "good sense" and therefore is not very common. Perhaps we should refer to good sense as Uncommon sense?)

The second type, arbitrary dogma is: all red haired people are an abomination before the lord and must be killed. There is no logic involved in the construction of this dogma. Dark haired, blond and bald people simply fear, suspect or envy the red haired demon seed.

In establishing a new religion I would gather all dogma that is based in "Uncommon sense" and offer it as the basis for the new bible. The dogma that would be omitted would be, for instance, you may eat all vegatables except for carrots since carrots are orange in color and an abomination before the lord. Only red haired devils eat carrots.

[Aside: Pythagoras forbade the eating of beans to those who wished to join his little club! Perhaps he had a weak stomach and was repulsed by flatulence?]

In any case, Sass, dogma is not the problem. It's what KIND of dogma are we going to include in our religion or our philosophy.

When people blindly follow (or hypocritically say they follow but lie) dogma that has been handed down through thousands of hands simply because the dogmas handlers CLAIM that GOD gave it to them, we have a form of insanity that we are looking at. I have no problem with "believers" who are tolerant and understand metaphor. But those flashing eyed zealots who come running with stakes in one hand and matches in the other make me more than a little uncomfortable.

Back in the sixties I made the mistake of believing that radical religionists were dying off. Today more than ever rational men and women had better think about establishing a rational religion based on dogma that is anything but arbitrary. We are at war whether we realize it or not.

America may have been the first country in history to recognize separation of church and state but it is now on shakey ground. If more people who truly are tolerant embraced a new religion that was dogma neutral (no arbitrary dogma) perhaps "atheists" and "agnostics" might feel inclined to take part. If not it's just a matter of time before the religion with the most guns "wins."

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

 

[IMSassafras]

Pilgram,

I see your perspective on dogma. I don't see how dogma is the source you want to look at for proof of your book. I think TRUTH would be a much better source. Also, you seem to take anything anyone has ever said and lived by and gived a mystic feeling which I don't really agree with either.

The dogma that you are refering to in one of your examples I would refer to it as "doing what is right". This, to me, has nothing to do with religion.

The "mystic feeling" I refered to earlier is maybe a combination of "doing what is right" and religion. Just a thought. It would also be the shortest book in history, unless you give examples, that is.

On a personal note, did you state that you don't believe God to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, the Powerful, the Most Exalted, the All-Bountiful? I am sure that is how you worded it, but I can't find the exact quote either, so if it is not correct, please clarify.

And in a previous post, I asked you to list the "world's 'great' religions". If you would like to list just the religions that you think are "great" that would be fine too.

Unity in Diversity
Sassafras

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Used to be angry

I'm most eager to know why you emphasize "post." And what is IMS? If you don't take Catholicism's definition seriously, does that mean you don't take Catholicism seriously? Or do you call yourself a Catholic while picking and choosing which dogma you believe in?

I was sent to Catholic schools and exposed to much dogma but at some point I realized I did not believe most of it and stopped calling myself a Catholic. Many Catholics literally cannot understand and continue to view me as Catholic since that was the way I was brought up. Strange, huh?

My biggest problem with any religion (Catholicism included) is the rampant hypocrisy. It seems to me a form of insanity to claim to "be" something (Christian, Jew, Moslem, etc.) yet not live up to the most basic teachings of that religion. The most basic teachings are not the ones that split hairs over whether or not Jesus owned his clothes. (This is a reference to a wonderful movie, The Name of the Rose). That is the most insane form of dogma. Who cares? If we continue to walk past each other on the streets fearful of making eye contact, does God really care where we stand on the issues of blah, blah, blah?

Peace and love, Susma Rio Sep,
Pilgram

'IMS' refers to safras. Post means for my purpose 'no longer attached.'

I think we have the same kind of history, but I have passed from the anger phase.

There are many good things in the Catholic Church: look around when you are in Europe with a medieval town in the midst of a modern city. And look up 'Catholic' in any good library collections.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Pilgram]

IMSassafras says:

Pilgram,

I see your perspective on dogma. I don't see how dogma is the source you want to look at for proof of your book. I think TRUTH would be a much better source. Also, you seem to take anything anyone has ever said and lived by and gived a mystic feeling which I don't really agree with either.

Sass, I am not looking for "proof of my book." The religion that I propose must be based on some "dogma" since all religions, corporations and govenment are. TRUTH, for me, is an ideal that can only be realized on a day to day basis with small truths that, if one is careful and deligent, may lead ultimately (after another million years?) to TRUTH. One can only use his best efforts in an honest fashion in establishing a new religion with a new bible. Religion cannot be "proven" by any number of opinions. Therefore, I do not seek to prove it with "dogma" or "TRUTH."

The dogma that you are refering to in one of your examples I would refer to it as "doing what is right". This, to me, has nothing to do with religion.

I am sorry to hear that. I believe doing the right thing has EVERYTHING to do with religion. All the other myths, rules, commandments, prohibitions, etc. are secondary or tertiary at best. If we embrace a "religion" that does not make us more loving, kind, patient, tolerant, etc., if it does not help us to "do the right thing", of what good is it? Doing the right thing is another way of saying, love god and love each other.

The "mystic feeling" I refered to earlier is maybe a combination of "doing what is right" and religion. Just a thought. It would also be the shortest book in history, unless you give examples, that is.

The length of a book is not indicative of its value.

On a personal note, did you state that you don't believe God to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, the Powerful, the Most Exalted, the All-Bountiful? I am sure that is how you worded it, but I can't find the exact quote either, so if it is not correct, please clarify.

I do not believe god/goddess/gods to be perfect in any sense. The evidence that I have examined leads me to believe that GOD is evolving toward perfection through us. LOGICALLY an omnipotent AND "all loving" god is not probable given the existence of evil and imperfection. I will not reinvent the wheel here. See others who have written on this sufficiently. The key word is "logically." If one avoids sound reasoning one may embrace a square circle or a unicorn. Anything is possible in the realm of non-logical belief.

And in a previous post, I asked you to list the "world's 'great' religions". If you would like to list just the religions that you think are "great" that would be fine too.

As I said, "great" is a term of art used by theologians and acedemics. It usually refers to those religions that have attracted more than a few thousand followers. I see nothing "great" about any of them in terms of goodnesss and human welfare. Look at all of the religions defined/explained in this very website. I didn't count them but there are probably about 10 or 12. These are called the "great" religions. Again, "great" only refers to large or having many members.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

 

[Pilgram]

Susma Rio Sep writes:

'IMS' refers to safras. Post means for my purpose 'no longer attached.'

I think we have the same kind of history, but I have passed from the anger phase.

There are many good things in the Catholic Church: look around when you are in Europe with a medieval town in the midst of a modern city. And look up 'Catholic' in any good library collections.

Susma Rio Sep

IMS "refers to" safras. Okay. What does safras mean? Please do not say IMS.

Post is, of course, understood to mean its latin denotation. I was asking if you were a priest or cleric and now are not, or whether you were a Catholic and now are not. Me thinks thou dost quibble.

I do not remember discussing anger or an "anger phase" but since you bring it up I will be glad to discuss it with you. You seem most eager to speak of it. What is it you were angry about but are no longer?

And once again, friend Susma, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. (Like baseball, three strikes and ... ) Are you too noble to have been condescending when you say, "I think we have the same kind of history, but I have passed from the anger phase." Or have you condescendingly concluded that I have not "passed from the anger phase"? If so, this implies a maturity and wisdom on your part and at least an arrested development on mine. In other places I've noticed that you choose your words carefully and you have a fine vocabulary. I am hard pressed to understand your words here in a fashion that could be called loving and friendly. Help me out, friend. Show me that you were not being condescending.

I agree with you about there being many good things in the Catholic Church. I love its architecture,stained glass windows, Gregorian chant, and all of the good things that its clergy inadvertently does for people in need while spreading its propaganda.

Why do you suggest I look up "catholic?" Did I give you the impression that I don't know what it is?

Finally, I noticed that you decided not to answer several of my questions put to you in my last post. I hope that my questions did not seem disrespectful because I do respect you. I simply asked because you had previously demonstrated what I took to be a willingness to discuss all things. You mentioned that you thought we might be soulmates. To me that means friends who are totally known to one another. If there are taboo areas where you are uncomfortable walking, I am sorry.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

 

[achnai]

Pilgram wrote:

Does anyone have suggestions or thoughts about this:
Why are GOODNESS, TRUTH AND BEAUTY not enough
By this I mean that many people seem to need and/or desire a complex theology that goes far beyond "love God and love each other."
Perhaps I am being naive or perhaps I'm missing something very important. Does anyone have any idea why the mythology, rituals, etc. seem to be more important to people than simply doing what all of the religions tell their followers to DO?

Jesus told us that the greatest commandment above all is love thy God with all thy heart and soul. the second most important commandment is love thy neighbour.
I dare assume this stands in the heart of the christian concept of religion.
In my opinion complex theologies were created to satisfy an intellectual need. The myth of christianity is Christ's Life in this world. A christian must try to imitate Christ's way in the world as presented in the Gospels. this is the essence of the life of a Christian. theology is for theologists not every one is supposed to understand it.

In Judaism the ritual is all that religion is based on. since the Judaism is centered around the observance of the law, first the simple laws in the book of Law and then the law given in the Talmud and Halacha which was handed over from generetaion unto generation. The myth of Judaism is the handing over of the written law in mount Sinai. this, according to tradition was a real empirical event.

Among these two great religions there is no place for virtues to stand by themselves. Virtues that stand by themselves are (I'm afraid) an evolution of the conept of religion as it should be, it is a new concept which is independant of religion.

When the world grew more modern, other values introduced themselves ito men's morality, and since religion is a way by which man can attribute morality to God and thereby endow moral rules with sanctity and render them unbreakable, the need for a new religion or a complemenatry one which combines all good thing from existing religions arises.

In my opinion, when we are discussing Judaism and Christianity there is nothing "How we want religion to be". Religion is simple as it is. it's existence as it is is factual. we either accept it as it is or deny it as it is.

The seeming solution to the problem from a secular point of view, is establishing a firm foundation to the concept of morality seperate from religion,and not trying to ajust or modify religion so as to adopt it to our needs, neither to invent a new one.