33
   

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

 
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 07:35 am
OK, so would you agree that a religion without dogma could not qualify as 'true'?
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 09:27 am
not immediately or necessarily.

you've done a very good job of phrasing that question, i'll hand that to you, but here's what i suspect:

i think you might be confusing the idea of things you must accept as true with whether they are true or not.

i can tell you all kinds of things that are true, and not demand you accept them. would i call that dogma? no.

but you could have a religion that didn't force any truths, and yet contained nothing but truths. would that be dogma? i think not, and i think i can't agree with you. if you tell me your complete and *personal* definition of dogma, i'll answer your question again.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 09:34 am
tinyg, Your perception is 20/20; good on ya.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:12 am
it's amazing what squinting and turning your head to one side will show you...
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 08:51 am
tinygiraffe wrote:

i can tell you all kinds of things that are true, and not demand you accept them. would i call that dogma? no.



You might not call it that. But it is.

tinygiraffe wrote:
but you could have a religion that didn't force any truths, and yet contained nothing but truths. would that be dogma? i think not.


Yes it would be.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 09:50 am
Quote:
You might not call it that. But it is.


Quote:
Yes it would be.


well, thanks for (kind of) answering, but i have to say i'm really impressed with your reiteration of what we already know is your stand in the matter.

that's it?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:14 am
Well, you didn't give me much to work with. Laughing

Just calling something nondogmatic doesn't make it so.

If you state something as a 'truth', then the issue of compelling belief (or not) doesn't affect the nature of the statement itself.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:40 am
Since "truth" is in the eye of the beholder, what one might call dogma may be objective truth to another. Tough call.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:46 am
Quote:
Just calling something nondogmatic doesn't make it so.


just calling something nondogmatic isn't what i said.

if i had a church where i said that up is the opposite of down, and the sun is yellowish, and 2+2=4, none of that is dogma. if i had a church where i explained that jews believe in a monotheistic creator, that's not dogma. if i said that despite these facts, you should consider yourself free to reject them, that's key.

dogma demands acceptance. you think religion requires that. i'm very sorry for you.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:52 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Since "truth" is in the eye of the beholder, what one might call dogma may be objective truth to another. Tough call.


Actually it's not.

The statement 'There is a God who created the universe' is either true , or it's not.

It is not dependent on whether you or I think it's true or not.

It's not 'in the eye of the beholder' at all.

That's the problem with moral relativism.

It treats everything as mere opinion , while setting itself up as fact.

Treating everything as opinion makes it inaccurate.

Setting itself up as fact makes it self contradictory.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:55 am
real: The statement 'There is a God who created the universe' is either true , or it's not.


You have contradicted your own argument by this statement.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:55 am
Can any one define dogma?

Without saying 'arf', that is .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:56 am
The word "god" makes it a dogma.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 11:06 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
real: The statement 'There is a God who created the universe' is either true , or it's not.


You have contradicted your own argument by this statement.


Elaborate please.

(This should be good.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 11:49 am
real, You're a little slow on the uptake.

dogma n. beliefs and principles. "My own religious dogma is not unlike others. SYN. beliefs, principles, doctrine, conviction....
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:54 pm
the ducks come out
dogma n. the word used to replace "thermodynamics" in september on a2k:

today's secret word is: "dogma!" now remember, when anyone says the secret word, say it over and over and over and over again. let's try it!

wiktionary wrote:
1. A doctrine or a set 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 opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.


if you look back at every single post i made on the subject, i've been making this distinction (of authority) each time, while you've ignored it- each time.

but nevermind that. i've clarified it, you're wrong, so now you're going to un-clarify it.

does that mean i can expect to read the word "dogma" a hundred more times this week?

YES, I CAN!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 01:39 pm
Re: the ducks come out
tinygiraffe wrote:
dogma n. the word used to replace "thermodynamics" in september on a2k:

today's secret word is: "dogma!" now remember, when anyone says the secret word, say it over and over and over and over again. let's try it!

wiktionary wrote:
1. A doctrine or a set 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 opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.


if you look back at every single post i made on the subject, i've been making this distinction (of authority) each time, while you've ignored it- each time.

but nevermind that. i've clarified it, you're wrong, so now you're going to un-clarify it.

does that mean i can expect to read the word "dogma" a hundred more times this week?

YES, I CAN!


And nowhere does it make reference to forcing others to believe it. And that was your point.

The person/group giving a dogmatic statement proclaims it as established truth or fact.

It has no reference to compelling others to believe it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 01:54 pm
It's not fact when you can't produce any evidence for it.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 11:46 pm
maybe it's a stretch that i think "set forth in an authoritative manner" is related to "compelling others to believe it."

but to get back to your original question, YES, i do think it's possible to present religion in a non-authoritative manner. i suggest you not try to tell me what my point is, since you ignore them completely, 99% of the time or more.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 02:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's not fact when you can't produce any evidence for it.


What nonsense.

Until recent times , the existence of some far off galaxies was unknown to man.

Was it therefore 'not a fact' that they existed?

Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 03:17:37