The purpose of Catholic Dogma
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Joe
Nov 21, 2009, 4:43:13 PM11/21/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.
What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogmatic.
Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the Holy
Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics.
Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
buried. He descended into hell.
6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
Father Almighty.
8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
10. The Communion of Saints,
11. The forgiveness of sins,
12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
Amen!
Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
necessary and not optional.
The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
there will be no more sin.
Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is One
God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe God is
Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point.
1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
but heaven and earth can be spoken of.
This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
religion in the world.
There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen into,
and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
rather than inclusion of all perspectives.
By contrast to this, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two seemingly
opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma as,
rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
parallel to that in theology.
More later!
Bridge
Nov 21, 2009, 4:54:36 PM11/21/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
scattered
Nov 21, 2009, 5:03:59 PM11/21/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Dogma per se is nonproblematic - if the source of the dogma is
reliable. The problem is that an institution, such as the Catholic
Church, which has a dogmatic core has a tendency to encompass more and
more of its beliefs and practices under the dogma umbrella, and this
makes the institution hard to reform. The sexual abuse scandal which
exploded in Boston in 2002 got as bad as it did since various bishops
and cardinals elevated their independence from the civil authorities
and desire to avoid scandal into a virtual dogma (something which was
never questioned), so they didn't report or dismiss pedophiles like
Father Geoghan, but instead sent them from parish to parish so they
could prey on fresh crops of boys. This wasn't just poor decisions on
the part of one or two bishops, but was rather something which sprang
from deep dogmatic sources. It was too sytematic to be a coincidence.
reliable. The problem is that an institution, such as the Catholic
Church, which has a dogmatic core has a tendency to encompass more and
more of its beliefs and practices under the dogma umbrella, and this
makes the institution hard to reform. The sexual abuse scandal which
exploded in Boston in 2002 got as bad as it did since various bishops
and cardinals elevated their independence from the civil authorities
and desire to avoid scandal into a virtual dogma (something which was
never questioned), so they didn't report or dismiss pedophiles like
Father Geoghan, but instead sent them from parish to parish so they
could prey on fresh crops of boys. This wasn't just poor decisions on
the part of one or two bishops, but was rather something which sprang
from deep dogmatic sources. It was too sytematic to be a coincidence.
ornamentalmind
Nov 21, 2009, 11:50:44 PM11/21/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.” - TC
Agreed, an examination is in order. And, at the outset, the
recognition that some hold to the tenet that ‘the unexamined life is
not worth living’…said in other words, blindly accepting any dictate,
dogma and or even ‘doctrine’ without question and or examination in
and of itself has its result(s)…which when analyzed by most people
could in fact be found to be ‘a negative thing’. Personally I prefer
to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy.
“…What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is
dogmatic.” - TC
When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
picking, one finds:
▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
believed all the Marxist dogma")
▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
recognition for each of us. In this case though in order to expand the
scope of examination the commonly used additional terms of “beliefs
accepted as authoritative” and “religious doctrine…proclaimed as true
without proof” bring us squarely to the heart of the matter.
TC continues:
“…Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
Apparently you wish to limit the conversation to one theological set.
If so, fine. However, I wish to add that dogma in and of itself is not
so limited. Dogma can be and is applied to other unexamined beliefs.
Somehow this too would be informative and instructive to explore.
“…Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
Fine. And it must be realized that other systems hold their own sets
of doctrines and tenets…often without the use of dogma as such as can
be found in the 4 Noble Truths:
Four Noble Truths
1. Suffering exists
2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold
Path
…and in the Eightfold Path:
Wisdom (panna) - Right View, Right Thought
Morality (sila) - Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood
Meditation (samadhi) - Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right
Contemplation
Here one finds something recognizable by humans…suffering, …along with
a prescription or antidote for same. The first is known, the latter is
suggested to try and is left for the practitioner to determine what
the truth is. Thus, by examination, experimentation and self
observation of the results, a scientific approach is used rather than
pure dogma.
“…Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
Again, since the core issue is not only based on dogma but IS dogma …
unexamined belief, the discussion must end. Such proclamations of
truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
in the title of this conference.
“…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism.
“..Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is
Here one can find room for commentary. When dogma is claimed to be
examined and then by extension attempts at using analogy with entirely
different systems are employed, one is constructing a house of cards
built on sand. Why? The current dogmatic theology being ‘examined’ is
a non sequitur. Dogma, by its very nature is unassailable thus no
examination (with any hope for any change in or addition to or
delition of such beliefs) is possible.
Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best.
“…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
all, the analysis fails on many fronts. First, using your presentation
of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. When one
additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets.
“…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
in the subject of the current topic: dogma.
“…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.
Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra.
So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
…. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue.
Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
such forms of Ingsoc.
thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.” - TC
Agreed, an examination is in order. And, at the outset, the
recognition that some hold to the tenet that ‘the unexamined life is
not worth living’…said in other words, blindly accepting any dictate,
dogma and or even ‘doctrine’ without question and or examination in
and of itself has its result(s)…which when analyzed by most people
could in fact be found to be ‘a negative thing’. Personally I prefer
to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy.
“…What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is
dogmatic.” - TC
When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
picking, one finds:
▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
believed all the Marxist dogma")
▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
recognition for each of us. In this case though in order to expand the
scope of examination the commonly used additional terms of “beliefs
accepted as authoritative” and “religious doctrine…proclaimed as true
without proof” bring us squarely to the heart of the matter.
TC continues:
“…Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the
Holy
Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics. …” – TC
like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the
Holy
Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
Apparently you wish to limit the conversation to one theological set.
If so, fine. However, I wish to add that dogma in and of itself is not
so limited. Dogma can be and is applied to other unexamined beliefs.
Somehow this too would be informative and instructive to explore.
“…Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and
earth,
2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
buried. He descended into hell.
6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
Father Almighty.
8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
10. The Communion of Saints,
11. The forgiveness of sins,
12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
Amen! “ – TC
earth,
2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
buried. He descended into hell.
6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
Father Almighty.
8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
10. The Communion of Saints,
11. The forgiveness of sins,
12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
Fine. And it must be realized that other systems hold their own sets
of doctrines and tenets…often without the use of dogma as such as can
be found in the 4 Noble Truths:
Four Noble Truths
1. Suffering exists
2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold
Path
…and in the Eightfold Path:
Wisdom (panna) - Right View, Right Thought
Morality (sila) - Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood
Meditation (samadhi) - Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right
Contemplation
Here one finds something recognizable by humans…suffering, …along with
a prescription or antidote for same. The first is known, the latter is
suggested to try and is left for the practitioner to determine what
the truth is. Thus, by examination, experimentation and self
observation of the results, a scientific approach is used rather than
pure dogma.
“…Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
necessary and not optional…” – TC
rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
Again, since the core issue is not only based on dogma but IS dogma …
unexamined belief, the discussion must end. Such proclamations of
truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
in the title of this conference.
“…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
there will be no more sin.” – TC
the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism.
“..Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is
One God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe
God is Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point. 1.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
but heaven and earth can be spoken of….” – TC
God is Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point. 1.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
Here one can find room for commentary. When dogma is claimed to be
examined and then by extension attempts at using analogy with entirely
different systems are employed, one is constructing a house of cards
built on sand. Why? The current dogmatic theology being ‘examined’ is
a non sequitur. Dogma, by its very nature is unassailable thus no
examination (with any hope for any change in or addition to or
delition of such beliefs) is possible.
Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best.
“…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
religion in the world….” – TC
point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
all, the analysis fails on many fronts. First, using your presentation
of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. When one
additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets.
“…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
in the subject of the current topic: dogma.
“…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
parallel to that in theology…” - TC
as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.
Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra.
So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
…. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue.
Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
such forms of Ingsoc.
scattered
Nov 22, 2009, 7:27:53 AM11/22/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase). You are
clearly articulate and confident when you are in a discussion in which
Catholic dogma speaks clearly. But as your attempt to blame mental
illness on demons shows, you struggle for plausibility when
confronting something which dogma is silent on (the role of the brain
as a physical organ in mental illness (or is it "mental illness?")).
Dogma is a vast world, but the real world is even vaster.
-scattered
having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase). You are
clearly articulate and confident when you are in a discussion in which
Catholic dogma speaks clearly. But as your attempt to blame mental
illness on demons shows, you struggle for plausibility when
confronting something which dogma is silent on (the role of the brain
as a physical organ in mental illness (or is it "mental illness?")).
Dogma is a vast world, but the real world is even vaster.
-scattered
Bridge
Nov 22, 2009, 11:41:10 AM11/22/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
I'm trying to understand what kinds of dogma/doctrine...bug me a
little and what kinds I don't mind.
Tracey
Nov 22, 2009, 2:15:28 PM11/22/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bridge
Nov 22, 2009, 4:56:24 PM11/22/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 22, 1:15 pm, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> > having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> > which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> > plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> > you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> > opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
>
> The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
Michele Gennette
Nov 22, 2009, 5:07:49 PM11/22/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Sun, 11/22/09, scattered <still.s...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
scattered
Nov 22, 2009, 7:56:50 PM11/22/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 22, 5:07 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
component of mental illness? Is there a recessive gene for demon
possession?
> xnun
Michele Gennette
Nov 22, 2009, 9:47:27 PM11/22/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
--- On Sun, 11/22/09, scattered <still.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scattered
Nov 22, 2009, 11:14:37 PM11/22/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 22, 9:47 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 11/22/09, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Much mental illness IS caused by demonic oppression. xnun
> >And you know this how?
>
> From the Gospels, books accounting exorcisms, personal experience.
The same Gospels that seem to equate deafness and epilpesy with demon
>
> >> Much mental illness IS caused by demonic oppression. xnun
> >And you know this how?
>
> From the Gospels, books accounting exorcisms, personal experience.
possession? Is that a realiable source of medical knowledge?
ornamentalmind
Nov 23, 2009, 12:20:44 AM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it
Yes, I too thought the chess analogy to be apt. And, since it was an
analogy, in fact there is no dogma involved. There is the result of
analysis and experience when it comes to opening moves in chess…and,
even then, on rare occasions some insight arises and someone finds a
‘new’ line to use. The same is true for the more interesting game of
Go. I learned chess in 1948 and when I learned Go, I stopped playing
chess even though as a teen I was all city winner of 1st board.
Both games have a long history of analysis and experience.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
is
against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
Following a dogma is a win win situation.” – T
against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
Yes, I too thought the chess analogy to be apt. And, since it was an
analogy, in fact there is no dogma involved. There is the result of
analysis and experience when it comes to opening moves in chess…and,
even then, on rare occasions some insight arises and someone finds a
‘new’ line to use. The same is true for the more interesting game of
Go. I learned chess in 1948 and when I learned Go, I stopped playing
chess even though as a teen I was all city winner of 1st board.
Both games have a long history of analysis and experience.
scattered
Nov 23, 2009, 6:22:11 AM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 23, 12:20 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it
> is
> against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> Following a dogma is a win win situation.” – T
>
> Yes, I too thought the chess analogy to be apt. And, since it was an
> analogy, in fact there is no dogma involved. There is the result of
> analysis and experience when it comes to opening moves in chess…and,
> even then, on rare occasions
Not even remotely rare. Openning theory seldom extends beyond the
> is
> against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> Following a dogma is a win win situation.” – T
>
> Yes, I too thought the chess analogy to be apt. And, since it was an
> analogy, in fact there is no dogma involved. There is the result of
> analysis and experience when it comes to opening moves in chess…and,
> even then, on rare occasions
first dozen moves or so and even then the knowledgable player is
typically presented at each stage with a range of moves for which
various pros and cons are known without any definitive judgement as to
what "the" correct move is, and a strong player will frequently adopt
an objectively weaker move just to get their opponent outside of known
theory. My analogy was to compare dogma with players who base their
preparation on a rigid repetoire but who don't really know what to do
when the game goes in a direction not covered by the repertoire. For
one thing, books like "An Openning Repertoire for The Attacking
Player" by Levy and Keene tends to concentrate on main lines, saying
nothing or not very much about less common lines. For example, the
book suggests that White shouldn't have much trouble against something
called the Modern Defense (a Black "hypermodern" defense which allows
White to occupy the center of the board in the hope of undermining
White's position later in the game). But when I regularly played
someone at the university chess club who had studied the Modern in
some depth I kept getting blown away when I tried to stick to the
strategy suggested by the repertoire. Even in chess a repetoire
becomes a liability if you treat it as some sort of dogma that you
need to rigidly adhere to.
Tracey
Nov 23, 2009, 10:04:47 AM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 22, 1:56 pm, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 1:15 pm, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> > > having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> > > which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> > > plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> > > you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> > > opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
>
> > The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> > against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> > opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> > possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> > Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
> So you see nothing negative in the whole of dogma?
Dogma are like rules. They are to prevent anarchy and chaos.
> On Nov 22, 1:15 pm, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> > > having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> > > which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> > > plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> > > you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> > > opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
>
> > The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> > against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> > opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> > possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> > Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
> So you see nothing negative in the whole of dogma?
Tracey
Nov 23, 2009, 10:23:50 AM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 22, 9:20 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
changing conditions should be a part of religious life as well.
> The same is true for the more interesting game of
> Go. I learned chess in 1948 and when I learned Go, I stopped playing
> chess even though as a teen I was all city winner of 1st board.
That is nice to hear.
wrote:
> “The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it
> is
> against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> Following a dogma is a win win situation.” – T
>
> Yes, I too thought the chess analogy to be apt. And, since it was an
> analogy, in fact there is no dogma involved. There is the result of
> analysis and experience when it comes to opening moves in chess…and,
> even then, on rare occasions some insight arises and someone finds a
> ‘new’ line to use.
Yes, a new line will be discovered as the game evolves. Adjusting to
> is
> against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> Following a dogma is a win win situation.” – T
>
> Yes, I too thought the chess analogy to be apt. And, since it was an
> analogy, in fact there is no dogma involved. There is the result of
> analysis and experience when it comes to opening moves in chess…and,
> even then, on rare occasions some insight arises and someone finds a
> ‘new’ line to use.
changing conditions should be a part of religious life as well.
> The same is true for the more interesting game of
> Go. I learned chess in 1948 and when I learned Go, I stopped playing
> chess even though as a teen I was all city winner of 1st board.
ornamentalmind
Nov 23, 2009, 12:46:17 PM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“…Even in chess a repetoire becomes a liability if you treat it as
some sort of dogma that you need to rigidly adhere to.” – sca
Agreed…and is one of the reasons I appreciated Go more. With 361
possible first moves alone, dogma itself is almost impossible. Often,
proverbs are applied and normally rightly so. The use of symmetry and
other studies of constellations and also apply.
some sort of dogma that you need to rigidly adhere to.” – sca
Agreed…and is one of the reasons I appreciated Go more. With 361
possible first moves alone, dogma itself is almost impossible. Often,
proverbs are applied and normally rightly so. The use of symmetry and
other studies of constellations and also apply.
ornamentalmind
Nov 23, 2009, 12:49:14 PM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“…Yes, a new line will be discovered as the game evolves. Adjusting
to
changing conditions should be a part of religious life as well…” –
Tracey
I just don’t see how this is applicable. Is not the foundation of most
religions a finding of absolute principles?...thus never changing
ones?
to
changing conditions should be a part of religious life as well…” –
Tracey
I just don’t see how this is applicable. Is not the foundation of most
religions a finding of absolute principles?...thus never changing
ones?
Joe
Nov 23, 2009, 3:34:15 PM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 22, 7:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
more like the rules of chess. Perhaps some of the writings of the
Saints can be seen as a repertoire of opening games, though to make
the analogy more accurate we would have to say they include middle and
end games as well.
> You are
> clearly articulate and confident when you are in a discussion in which
> Catholic dogma speaks clearly.
> But as your attempt to blame mental
> illness on demons shows, you struggle for plausibility when
> confronting something which dogma is silent on (the role of the brain
> as a physical organ in mental illness (or is it "mental illness?")).
for plausibility. It seems you would like to paint the idea of
demonic attack of human beings as implausible. Would that be
accurate?
If so, is it because,
a) you believe demons do not exist,
b) you believe demons, if they exist, do not attack human beings,
c) you believe demonic attacks of human beings, if they occur, do not
manifest as psychiatric conditions, or
d) you believe psychiatric conditions are better explained on a
physicalist model?
or something else?
I recognize that the explanation I hold lacks acceptance among most
people today, not because it lacks plausibility or indeed isn't simply
true, but rather because it goes against the grain of the commonly
accepted paradigm of the age, which is physicalism.
Can you give any support for physicalism beyond the desire that there
be no God?
> Dogma is a vast world, but the real world is even vaster.
>
laws of physics, except that Catholic Dogma would also include
explanations for miracles, so by analogy it would be a more complete
set of laws than we currently have for physics.
Michele Gennette
Nov 23, 2009, 3:42:40 PM11/23/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Sun, 11/22/09, scattered <still.s...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Joe
Nov 23, 2009, 3:54:27 PM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 21, 5:03 pm, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dogma per se is nonproblematic - if the source of the dogma is
> reliable.
liberating. For example, a tennis pro might develop the "definitive"
tennis playing technique, that works for him and all his students, but
it might not exhaust all the possibilities and thus might not be
actually definitive, and one who learned only that technique and
thought it was definitive might miss out on other viable
possibilities, and might lose games because of that.
>The problem is that an institution, such as the Catholic
> Church, which has a dogmatic core has a tendency to encompass more and
> more of its beliefs and practices under the dogma umbrella, and this
> makes the institution hard to reform. The sexual abuse scandal which
> exploded in Boston in 2002 got as bad as it did since various bishops
> and cardinals elevated their independence from the civil authorities
> and desire to avoid scandal into a virtual dogma (something which was
> never questioned), so they didn't report or dismiss pedophiles like
> Father Geoghan, but instead sent them from parish to parish so they
> could prey on fresh crops of boys.
that, not its proper application.
> This wasn't just poor decisions on
> the part of one or two bishops, but was rather something which sprang
> from deep dogmatic sources. It was too sytematic to be a coincidence.
>
corruption. The idea that the clergy is above secular law assumes
that the selfsame clergy is willingly subject to Divine Law, which
supersedes secular law in any case. The fact that they did not so
subject themselves is the source of the evil. They were human beings
who saw an opportunity to exercise power with immunity. They did not
anticipate God removing their immunity, but that is what He did.
Michele Gennette
Nov 23, 2009, 4:09:03 PM11/23/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Mon, 11/23/09, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote: |
>>“…Yes, a new line will be discovered as the game evolves. Adjusting |
|
|
Tracey
Nov 23, 2009, 8:31:43 PM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 23, 9:49 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
There are some science issues that the Church had to make adjustments
like the Galileo issue, evolution, age of the earth, etc.
wrote:
> “…Yes, a new line will be discovered as the game evolves. Adjusting
> to
> changing conditions should be a part of religious life as well…” –
> Tracey
>
> I just don’t see how this is applicable. Is not the foundation of most
> religions a finding of absolute principles?...thus never changing
> ones?
Yes in the sense that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
> to
> changing conditions should be a part of religious life as well…” –
> Tracey
>
> I just don’t see how this is applicable. Is not the foundation of most
> religions a finding of absolute principles?...thus never changing
> ones?
There are some science issues that the Church had to make adjustments
like the Galileo issue, evolution, age of the earth, etc.
Joe
Nov 23, 2009, 11:34:39 PM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 21, 11:50 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> “There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.” - TC
>
> Agreed, an examination is in order.
Very glad that you agree!
>
> Agreed, an examination is in order.
> And, at the outset, the
> recognition that some hold to the tenet that ‘the unexamined life is
> not worth living’…
>said in other words, blindly accepting any dictate,
> dogma and or even ‘doctrine’ without question and or examination in
> and of itself has its result(s)…which when analyzed by most people
> could in fact be found to be ‘a negative thing’.
set. So you are making an analogy rather than a restatement.
I am willing to address anything and everything implied here, but
kindly understand that the issues are a bit complex, and we will have
to get into depth to treat it properly. Dogma is not subject to
dissent, which does not mean it cannot be examined. But part of the
problem with examining it is, how? If examining it means, as it means
to many of the atheists on the other group, demanding objective proof,
then there is no way to do that, and one for whom to examine means
only to demand objective proof will immediately reject dogma out of
hand as "superstitious nonsense." And none of this is to say that
there is no proof of any kind, because there is. There is an old
expression that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof,"
and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
of religion to oneself and one's life. As such, proofs will tend to
be experiential and anecdotal. Anecdotal proofs are first, since we
are greatly encouraged by the success of other people, and that is why
my constant refrain is, "Read the Saints!" Very few will attempt a
difficult technique without first seeing the success of another person
in applying it to themselves. Fortunately for the Church, proofs of
this nature abound. There is a vast library of valuable literature
published by men and women who have been declared by the Church to be
in the Canon of Saints. This is the Church's official word that these
men and women have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their
methods of approaching God definitively work.
Some Saints are doctors of the Church, and thus their writings
actually contribute in major ways to our understanding of the truths
of Faith. A doctor is one who contributes to doctrine.
> Personally I prefer
> to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy.
>
observed as good or bad?
> “…What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is
> dogmatic.” - TC
>
> When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
> picking, one finds:
> ▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
> believed all the Marxist dogma")
> ▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
>
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
>
> This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
> As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
> recognition for each of us.
Is it not the very purpose of words, to convey information
objectively? Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of
dogma is to eliminate personal interpretations and express universal
truth.
>In this case though in order to expand the
> scope of examination the commonly used additional terms of “beliefs
> accepted as authoritative” and “religious doctrine…proclaimed as true
> without proof” bring us squarely to the heart of the matter.
>
> TC continues:
>
> “…Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the
> Holy
> Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics. …” – TC
>
> Apparently you wish to limit the conversation to one theological set.
> If so, fine. However, I wish to add that dogma in and of itself is not
> so limited. Dogma can be and is applied to other unexamined beliefs.
> Here one finds something recognizable by humans…suffering, …along with
> a prescription or antidote for same. The first is known, the latter is
> suggested to try and is left for the practitioner to determine what
> the truth is. Thus, by examination, experimentation and self
> observation of the results, a scientific approach is used rather than
> pure dogma.
>
words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.
> “…Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
> Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
> rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
> necessary and not optional…” – TC
>
> Again, since the core issue is not only based on dogma but IS dogma …
> unexamined belief, the discussion must end.
>Such proclamations of
> truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> in the title of this conference.
>
> “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> there will be no more sin.” – TC
>
> Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism.
>
dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
dogmatistic about that?
Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?
> “..Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is
> One God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe
> God is Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point. 1.
> I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
> The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> but heaven and earth can be spoken of….” – TC
>
> Here one can find room for commentary. When dogma is claimed to be
> examined and then by extension attempts at using analogy with entirely
> different systems are employed, one is constructing a house of cards
> built on sand. Why? The current dogmatic theology being ‘examined’ is
> a non sequitur. Dogma, by its very nature is unassailable thus no
> examination (with any hope for any change in or addition to or
> delition of such beliefs) is possible.
>
reiterated your unsupported assertion of above. You seem quite
mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might simply be an accurate
view of reality.
> Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best.
>
such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
discussion is useless?
> “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> religion in the world….” – TC
>
> Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> all, the analysis fails on many fronts.
> First, using your presentation
> of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology.
another perspective.
>When one
> additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets.
>
cosmology?
> “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
>
> While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> in the subject of the current topic: dogma.
>
these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure!
Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without cause.
> “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
> seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
> as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> parallel to that in theology…” - TC
>
> Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
> proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.
>
I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.
> Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra.
>
There is reality, and reality is what it is. If there are unseen
realities, we cannot know them with certainty by our own observations
and understanding. The mathematical truth that a circumference has
the exact ration pi to a diameter, we cannot replace at will. We can
discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God, we can
discover, but cannot understand without His help.
> So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
> …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue.
is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
laying out objections first and then answering them.
> Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> such forms of Ingsoc.
>
views with militaristic strength. You are invoking hyperbole here, no
doubt, but you are not so much making a mountain of a molehill as you
are inventing a mountain. If you choose not to explore these topics,
by all means bow out of the discussion. But there are several here
who have expressed an interest, and I intend to continue.
ornamentalmind
Nov 23, 2009, 11:40:44 PM11/23/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
So, you are saying that ‘The Church’ (Catholic I will guess) can and
does at once embrace science and religious tenets, consubstantially? …
or, at least at the same time? I ask because I am ignorant about such
things and like to learn what is thought about most things. My
intuition is that my next question will have to do with both what is
seen as divine law and civil law. Are they both embraced at the same
time too? I may be conflating different theological systems, and had
the sense that divine law was seen as taking precedence. IF so, is
there not a similar hierarchy when it comes to religious tenets and
science?
does at once embrace science and religious tenets, consubstantially? …
or, at least at the same time? I ask because I am ignorant about such
things and like to learn what is thought about most things. My
intuition is that my next question will have to do with both what is
seen as divine law and civil law. Are they both embraced at the same
time too? I may be conflating different theological systems, and had
the sense that divine law was seen as taking precedence. IF so, is
there not a similar hierarchy when it comes to religious tenets and
science?
showmethehoney
Nov 24, 2009, 6:18:44 AM11/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
i had heard all the dogma my ears cared to devour by the time i was an
early teenager. i know i'm beating this drum to death, but why get
your 'truth' from the words of others? can we not develop our own
dogma to live by? after all, NOBODY really knows a flippin thing about
'god', and what we use for reference is the multi-translated words of
many men, long dead. ime, you will find everything you need to know by
yourself with eyes closed and mind open, and free of the cobwebs spun
by our predecessors. all of this speculation and debate around what
path to take, whose words to follow. scrap it all and come to your own
conclusions is my suggestion.
early teenager. i know i'm beating this drum to death, but why get
your 'truth' from the words of others? can we not develop our own
dogma to live by? after all, NOBODY really knows a flippin thing about
'god', and what we use for reference is the multi-translated words of
many men, long dead. ime, you will find everything you need to know by
yourself with eyes closed and mind open, and free of the cobwebs spun
by our predecessors. all of this speculation and debate around what
path to take, whose words to follow. scrap it all and come to your own
conclusions is my suggestion.
Tracey
Nov 24, 2009, 10:02:56 AM11/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 23, 8:40 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
beginning. It had some setbacks, but that is what science is all
about, a trial and error concept
And science is science, it should not interfere with religion. They
need to co-exist to promote a well-balanced soul.
Also, the heirarchy of the Church has nothing to do with the hierarchy
of the state. They can influence each, but they are a totally separate
and distinct entity.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
> So, you are saying that ‘The Church’ (Catholic I will guess) can and
> does at once embrace science and religious tenets, consubstantially? …
> or, at least at the same time? I ask because I am ignorant about such
> things and like to learn what is thought about most things. My
> intuition is that my next question will have to do with both what is
> seen as divine law and civil law. Are they both embraced at the same
> time too? I may be conflating different theological systems, and had
> the sense that divine law was seen as taking precedence. IF so, is
> there not a similar hierarchy when it comes to religious tenets and
> science?
The Church (Catholic or Universal) has embraced science from the
> does at once embrace science and religious tenets, consubstantially? …
> or, at least at the same time? I ask because I am ignorant about such
> things and like to learn what is thought about most things. My
> intuition is that my next question will have to do with both what is
> seen as divine law and civil law. Are they both embraced at the same
> time too? I may be conflating different theological systems, and had
> the sense that divine law was seen as taking precedence. IF so, is
> there not a similar hierarchy when it comes to religious tenets and
> science?
beginning. It had some setbacks, but that is what science is all
about, a trial and error concept
And science is science, it should not interfere with religion. They
need to co-exist to promote a well-balanced soul.
Also, the heirarchy of the Church has nothing to do with the hierarchy
of the state. They can influence each, but they are a totally separate
and distinct entity.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
ornamentalmind
Nov 24, 2009, 11:19:07 AM11/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Tracey, this is a reasonable approach...and, many do not embrace it.
Tracey
Nov 24, 2009, 11:25:20 AM11/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 24, 8:19 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> Tracey, this is a reasonable approach...and, many do not embrace it.
Thanks!
showmethehoney
Nov 24, 2009, 3:59:21 PM11/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
religious heirarchy = live in mansion, have massive bank account, look
at michael angelo on the ceiling, make rules for others but do not
follow them, call self 'holy father' while allowing flock to kiss hand
in reverence, wear crown and bling that makes serena williams look
like a cracker jack box reject, protect pedeophile priests, let
converts starve to death and die of aids, etc.
quite a cross to bear, but i guess somebody has to do it ;-)
at michael angelo on the ceiling, make rules for others but do not
follow them, call self 'holy father' while allowing flock to kiss hand
in reverence, wear crown and bling that makes serena williams look
like a cracker jack box reject, protect pedeophile priests, let
converts starve to death and die of aids, etc.
quite a cross to bear, but i guess somebody has to do it ;-)
Michele Gennette
Nov 24, 2009, 4:42:01 PM11/24/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Tue, 11/24/09, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
showmethehoney
Nov 24, 2009, 7:29:11 PM11/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
reading scriptures gives you knowledge of what? the men who wrote an
opinion of 'god' as they saw it? what does this really have to do
with any factual knowledge of 'god'?
On Nov 24, 4:42 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
opinion of 'god' as they saw it? what does this really have to do
with any factual knowledge of 'god'?
On Nov 24, 4:42 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Joe
Nov 24, 2009, 10:47:00 PM11/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
There are rules of Go, like rules of Chess, without which you would
simply be playing a different game.
On Nov 23, 12:46 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
simply be playing a different game.
On Nov 23, 12:46 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> read more »
Joe
Nov 25, 2009, 1:09:19 AM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
I will briefly address each point in the Apostles' Creed below.
On Nov 21, 4:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.
>
> What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogmatic.
> Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the Holy
> Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics.
>
> Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
>
> 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
1a. "I believe. . ."
To believe means to hold true.
To believe also means to place faith in.
Faith implies fidelity and trust. Trust implies reliance, while
fidelity implies reliability. Thus faith is a two-way street. First,
God's fidelity to us and our trust in Him. Second, our fidelity to
God and His trust in us. It may be surprising to consider that God
trusts us, but if faith is a two-way street, then plainly, God's trust
in us is part of faith. But God initiates everything, so it is
necessary first for us to trust Him, and first of all is His
reliability in our regard. God is first of all faithful; that is why
He is justified in asking us to return the same.
1b. ". . .in God, . . ."
The object of our faith is God. We believe, i.e. hold as true, that
God exists. And beyond that, we trust in Him, and believe that He is
faithful to us, and, we seek to be faithful to Him, so that finally,
we ourselves will be trustworthy for Him.
1c. ". . .the Father. . ."
Who God Is to us is a loving Father. Not some remote deity to whom we
can only be either subservient or indifferent. We believe that He
cares deeply for us individually, the way a father ideally cares for
His children.
1d. ". . .Almighty. . ."
God can do anything at all. He is not merely powerful, His power is
actually infinite. This fact justifies our faith in Him, since one
who is omnipotent is worthy of faith. He Himself justifies His faith
in us, since He is powerful enough to change us from unworthy to
worthy.
1e. ". . . Creator of heaven and earth, . . ."
Evidence that God can do anything at all is the vast magnificence we
call the universe, or heaven and earth. We believe that the existence
of heaven and earth is a direct result of the specific intention of
Almighty God. As such, heaven and earth are good, since the good God
created them. We ourselves, also, in our existence, are good, since
God created us. We are existentially good. Our problem is that,
quite often, we are morally bad. But God, in His Omnipotence, has
provided the solution for that.
To wit:
> 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
2a. ". . .And in Jesus Christ,. . ."
This is the Name above every other Name. Jesus, or Y-H-Sh-V-H, also
rendered Yahshuah or Joshua, is the Name given to the Son of Mary by
the angel at His conception. (Annunciation.) It means, literally,
"God saves," or "the salvation from our God." Christ means the
Messiah or the Anointed.
2b. ". . .His only Son,. . ."
In the first Article we called God our Father, and now we are saying
that Jesus Christ is uniquely His Son. Obviously, we mean something
more than that sonship or daughtership that we all have with God by
virtue of His being the Father Almighty. By calling Jesus Christ His
*only* Son, we mean to set Him apart; we do not mean to include
ourselves as His equals in Sonship to God. The Nicene Creed, a more
expanded version of this Apostles' Creed, has the words, "God from
God, Light from Light, true God from true God," and "begotten, not
made, one in Being with the Father." These words point to the
Divinity of the Son, the Divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. God is able
to save us from our sins because He is God. Jesus Christ is His only
begotten Son, truly one in Being with His Father, though distinct as
Person. He is able to be our Savior by the power of God, because He
is God, "God from God."
2c. ". . .Our Lord. . ."
He is Our Lord; we are His unworthy servants. We hope to be made
worthy of such a Lord. The One to sanctify us is the One He promised
to send in His Name, the selfsame who conceived Him in the Virgin's
womb:
> 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
3. The Third Divine Person is the Holy Spirit. He is a Person,
distinct from the Father and the Son, but with the Father and the Son,
One God.
God is Love, and Love is always interpersonal. God the Father is the
Origin of All, including God the Son. God the Son is the Logos, the
Word, God's infinite knowledge of Himself, the only begotten Son of
God. God the Father loves God the Son in the infinity of Divine Love,
and God the Son loves God the Father in the infinity of Divine Love.
This Love that proceeds from the Father and the Son is none other than
God the Holy Spirit, Divine Love Himself, as the Gift of the Father to
the Son and the Son to the Father. God is One Being in Three Persons;
The Origin of All; The One; and Love as Gift. In Love, there is
always the image of the Trinity. There is always, in Love, the Lover,
the Beloved, and the Love between them. Thus Love is manifestly
Triune, since Lover, Beloved, and Love always manifest as Three. God,
then, must be the Trinity, if God is Love.
> 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. She is not the Origin
of God; that is the Father. God's Origin is His Father. God came
among us as a Man. Every man has a father and a mother, and the Man
who is God is no exception; He also has a Father, who is God, and a
Mother, who is Mary. She was a virgin; Jesus was not born from the
desire of a man, but from the Will of God.
> 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> buried. He descended into hell.
This was the Great Work that Jesus carried out in order to save us.
> 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
This was God's acceptance and ratification of that Great Work. Death
could not hold Jesus, since death is not even a creature, much less a
creature powerful enough to hold God. God submitted Himself to death,
and in this way gained the victory over death, which we also hope to
share. The Resurrection is God's Victory over death.
> 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> Father Almighty.
After His work on earth was completed in His Body, He ascended in that
Body to heaven, where He had been before. He descended from heaven in
order to take birth in human form for our salvation; now He ascended
back to whence He came, victorious, now in His resurrected Body, the
Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
> 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
He has been on earth with us and experienced the temptations to which
we are all subject. He earned the right to Victory over death by
willingly submitting Himself to the ignominy of the Cross. God made
him the judge of both the living and the dead. All are subject to His
judgment; death will not spare us that. Death, indeed, has no power
over Him, so how could it have the power to hide us from Him?
> 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
The Holy Spirit was mentioned in 3. Now in 9, is mentioned the ripened
fruit of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church. The Church is
God's People.
> 10. The Communion of Saints,
All the saints in heaven are in communion with God and with each
other; there is but one Will among them, and that Will has the name
Charity, and is God's Will.
> 11. The forgiveness of sins,
The forgiveness of our sins is the reconciliation of ourselves to our
God; the healing of the rift between us caused by sin; the purpose of
the Incarnation insofar as it was a Work.
> 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
The resurrection of the Body and life everlasting is the final purpose
of the Incarnation, insofar as it is a completed work and that work
has its reward. It is the restoration of all things, and the final
end of all suffering. An end means a cessation, and an end is that
toward which a means strives. The end of all suffering as in the
cessation of all suffering is found in the resurrection of the body
and life everlasting, with God, in heaven. The end of all suffering
as in the goal toward which all our suffering ideally tends, is the
same. After all is done, there will be no more suffering at all,
since "God will wipe away every tear."
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and
death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be
any more, for the former things are passed away.
On Nov 21, 4:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.
>
> What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogmatic.
> Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the Holy
> Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics.
>
> Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
>
> 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
To believe means to hold true.
To believe also means to place faith in.
Faith implies fidelity and trust. Trust implies reliance, while
fidelity implies reliability. Thus faith is a two-way street. First,
God's fidelity to us and our trust in Him. Second, our fidelity to
God and His trust in us. It may be surprising to consider that God
trusts us, but if faith is a two-way street, then plainly, God's trust
in us is part of faith. But God initiates everything, so it is
necessary first for us to trust Him, and first of all is His
reliability in our regard. God is first of all faithful; that is why
He is justified in asking us to return the same.
1b. ". . .in God, . . ."
The object of our faith is God. We believe, i.e. hold as true, that
God exists. And beyond that, we trust in Him, and believe that He is
faithful to us, and, we seek to be faithful to Him, so that finally,
we ourselves will be trustworthy for Him.
1c. ". . .the Father. . ."
Who God Is to us is a loving Father. Not some remote deity to whom we
can only be either subservient or indifferent. We believe that He
cares deeply for us individually, the way a father ideally cares for
His children.
1d. ". . .Almighty. . ."
God can do anything at all. He is not merely powerful, His power is
actually infinite. This fact justifies our faith in Him, since one
who is omnipotent is worthy of faith. He Himself justifies His faith
in us, since He is powerful enough to change us from unworthy to
worthy.
1e. ". . . Creator of heaven and earth, . . ."
Evidence that God can do anything at all is the vast magnificence we
call the universe, or heaven and earth. We believe that the existence
of heaven and earth is a direct result of the specific intention of
Almighty God. As such, heaven and earth are good, since the good God
created them. We ourselves, also, in our existence, are good, since
God created us. We are existentially good. Our problem is that,
quite often, we are morally bad. But God, in His Omnipotence, has
provided the solution for that.
To wit:
> 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
This is the Name above every other Name. Jesus, or Y-H-Sh-V-H, also
rendered Yahshuah or Joshua, is the Name given to the Son of Mary by
the angel at His conception. (Annunciation.) It means, literally,
"God saves," or "the salvation from our God." Christ means the
Messiah or the Anointed.
2b. ". . .His only Son,. . ."
In the first Article we called God our Father, and now we are saying
that Jesus Christ is uniquely His Son. Obviously, we mean something
more than that sonship or daughtership that we all have with God by
virtue of His being the Father Almighty. By calling Jesus Christ His
*only* Son, we mean to set Him apart; we do not mean to include
ourselves as His equals in Sonship to God. The Nicene Creed, a more
expanded version of this Apostles' Creed, has the words, "God from
God, Light from Light, true God from true God," and "begotten, not
made, one in Being with the Father." These words point to the
Divinity of the Son, the Divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. God is able
to save us from our sins because He is God. Jesus Christ is His only
begotten Son, truly one in Being with His Father, though distinct as
Person. He is able to be our Savior by the power of God, because He
is God, "God from God."
2c. ". . .Our Lord. . ."
He is Our Lord; we are His unworthy servants. We hope to be made
worthy of such a Lord. The One to sanctify us is the One He promised
to send in His Name, the selfsame who conceived Him in the Virgin's
womb:
> 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
distinct from the Father and the Son, but with the Father and the Son,
One God.
God is Love, and Love is always interpersonal. God the Father is the
Origin of All, including God the Son. God the Son is the Logos, the
Word, God's infinite knowledge of Himself, the only begotten Son of
God. God the Father loves God the Son in the infinity of Divine Love,
and God the Son loves God the Father in the infinity of Divine Love.
This Love that proceeds from the Father and the Son is none other than
God the Holy Spirit, Divine Love Himself, as the Gift of the Father to
the Son and the Son to the Father. God is One Being in Three Persons;
The Origin of All; The One; and Love as Gift. In Love, there is
always the image of the Trinity. There is always, in Love, the Lover,
the Beloved, and the Love between them. Thus Love is manifestly
Triune, since Lover, Beloved, and Love always manifest as Three. God,
then, must be the Trinity, if God is Love.
> 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
of God; that is the Father. God's Origin is His Father. God came
among us as a Man. Every man has a father and a mother, and the Man
who is God is no exception; He also has a Father, who is God, and a
Mother, who is Mary. She was a virgin; Jesus was not born from the
desire of a man, but from the Will of God.
> 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> buried. He descended into hell.
> 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
could not hold Jesus, since death is not even a creature, much less a
creature powerful enough to hold God. God submitted Himself to death,
and in this way gained the victory over death, which we also hope to
share. The Resurrection is God's Victory over death.
> 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> Father Almighty.
Body to heaven, where He had been before. He descended from heaven in
order to take birth in human form for our salvation; now He ascended
back to whence He came, victorious, now in His resurrected Body, the
Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
> 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
we are all subject. He earned the right to Victory over death by
willingly submitting Himself to the ignominy of the Cross. God made
him the judge of both the living and the dead. All are subject to His
judgment; death will not spare us that. Death, indeed, has no power
over Him, so how could it have the power to hide us from Him?
> 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
fruit of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church. The Church is
God's People.
> 10. The Communion of Saints,
other; there is but one Will among them, and that Will has the name
Charity, and is God's Will.
> 11. The forgiveness of sins,
God; the healing of the rift between us caused by sin; the purpose of
the Incarnation insofar as it was a Work.
> 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
of the Incarnation, insofar as it is a completed work and that work
has its reward. It is the restoration of all things, and the final
end of all suffering. An end means a cessation, and an end is that
toward which a means strives. The end of all suffering as in the
cessation of all suffering is found in the resurrection of the body
and life everlasting, with God, in heaven. The end of all suffering
as in the goal toward which all our suffering ideally tends, is the
same. After all is done, there will be no more suffering at all,
since "God will wipe away every tear."
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and
death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be
any more, for the former things are passed away.
ornamentalmind
Nov 25, 2009, 3:05:25 AM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
"There are rules of Go, like rules of Chess, without which you would
simply be playing a different game." - TC
True. Am I missing something here?
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Tracey
Nov 25, 2009, 10:39:19 AM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 24, 12:59 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
Nope, you just have a different understanding and perspective of how
other people live.
wrote:
other people live.
showmethehoney
Nov 25, 2009, 10:46:54 AM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
hows that?
Joe
Nov 25, 2009, 2:35:13 PM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 25, 3:05 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "There are rules of Go, like rules of Chess, without which you would
> "There are rules of Go, like rules of Chess, without which you would
> simply be playing a different game." - TC
>
> True. Am I missing something here?
>
I don't know. Are you catching the analogy between Catholic Dogma and
>
> True. Am I missing something here?
>
the rules of the game?
>
> read more »
Michele Gennette
Nov 25, 2009, 4:55:34 PM11/25/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Wed, 11/25/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Joe
Nov 25, 2009, 5:10:10 PM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 25, 4:55 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dogma. Do you think the Lordship of Jesus Christ is optional, or
essential?
Michele Gennette
Nov 25, 2009, 5:14:13 PM11/25/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Wed, 11/25/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
Joe
Nov 25, 2009, 5:35:50 PM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 25, 5:14 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 11/25/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Catholic dogma makes up the rules as it goes along. As in RC
> >> softball, which essentially says" "play ball by our rules or we'll
> >> shove the bat up you...........never mind." :)
> >But seriously, Michele. You adhere to a truncated set of Catholic
> >Dogma.
>
> You can call it that.
>
Accurately.
>
> >> Catholic dogma makes up the rules as it goes along. As in RC
> >> softball, which essentially says" "play ball by our rules or we'll
> >> shove the bat up you...........never mind." :)
> >But seriously, Michele. You adhere to a truncated set of Catholic
> >Dogma.
>
> You can call it that.
>
> > Do you think the Lordship of Jesus Christ is optional, or
> >essential?
>
> Essential. Optioning out brings misery. "WIthout Me you can do nothing."
>
> That's all I have time for now. Have to prepare for Thanskgiving.
>
> xnun
Bridge
Nov 25, 2009, 7:34:10 PM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 23, 9:04 am, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 1:56 pm, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 1:15 pm, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> > > > having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> > > > which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> > > > plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> > > > you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> > > > opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
>
> > > The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> > > against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> > > opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> > > possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> > > Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
> > So you see nothing negative in the whole of dogma?
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 1:15 pm, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> > > > having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> > > > which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> > > > plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> > > > you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> > > > opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
>
> > > The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> > > against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> > > opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> > > possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> > > Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
>
> Dogma are like rules. They are to prevent anarchy and chaos.
>
It sometimes seems about control and hence power.
Are you Catholic?
> > > > > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > > > > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > > > > rather than inclusion of all perspectives.
>
> > > > > By contrast to this, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the
> > > > > truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
>
> > > > > In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two seemingly
> > > > > opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma as,
> > > > > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > > > > rather than inclusion of all perspectives.
>
> > > > > By contrast to this, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the
> > > > > truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
>
> > > > > In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two seemingly
> > > > > opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma as,
> > > > > rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > > > > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
>
> > > > > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > > > > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > > > > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > > > > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > > > > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > > > > parallel to that in theology.
>
> > > > > More later!- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
>
> > > > > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > > > > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > > > > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > > > > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > > > > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > > > > parallel to that in theology.
>
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ornamentalmind
Nov 25, 2009, 10:42:12 PM11/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“I don't know. Are you catching the analogy between Catholic Dogma
and
the rules of the game?” – TC
I have criticized the attempted analogy. That is about all.
In other words, it fails miserably.
and
the rules of the game?” – TC
I have criticized the attempted analogy. That is about all.
In other words, it fails miserably.
Joe
Nov 26, 2009, 5:21:01 AM11/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 25, 10:42 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “I don't know. Are you catching the analogy between Catholic Dogma
> and
> the rules of the game?” – TC
>
> I have criticized the attempted analogy. That is about all.
> In other words, it fails miserably.
>
So, you disagree.
> and
> the rules of the game?” – TC
>
> I have criticized the attempted analogy. That is about all.
> In other words, it fails miserably.
>
Or, you think the analogy inapt.
Which?
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
Nov 26, 2009, 6:06:25 AM11/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“So, you disagree. Or, you think the analogy inapt. Which?” – TC
If you reread the 4th post to this topic, I fully addressed these
questions and more when I deconstructed and competently and completely
refuted your argument(s).
If you reread the 4th post to this topic, I fully addressed these
questions and more when I deconstructed and competently and completely
refuted your argument(s).
Tracey
Nov 26, 2009, 11:01:08 AM11/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 25, 4:34 pm, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 9:04 am, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 1:56 pm, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 1:15 pm, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> > > > > having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> > > > > which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> > > > > plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> > > > > you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> > > > > opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
>
> > > > The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> > > > against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> > > > opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> > > > possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> > > > Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
> > > So you see nothing negative in the whole of dogma?
>
> > Dogma are like rules. They are to prevent anarchy and chaos.
>
> It sometimes seems about control and hence power.
>
> Are you Catholic?
Yes I am. I belong to the Catholic League and Opus Dei.
> On Nov 23, 9:04 am, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 1:56 pm, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 1:15 pm, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> > > > > having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> > > > > which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> > > > > plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> > > > > you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> > > > > opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
>
> > > > The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> > > > against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> > > > opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> > > > possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> > > > Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
> > > So you see nothing negative in the whole of dogma?
>
> > Dogma are like rules. They are to prevent anarchy and chaos.
>
> It sometimes seems about control and hence power.
>
> Are you Catholic?
Bridge
Nov 26, 2009, 11:26:27 AM11/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 26, 10:01 am, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 4:34 pm, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 9:04 am, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 1:56 pm, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 22, 1:15 pm, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 22, 4:27 am, scattered <still.scatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Having a dogmatic basis to operate from sometimes strikes me like
> > > > > > having a memorized oppening repertoire in the game of chess. Something
> > > > > > which allows you to play a passable game of chess *until your opponent
> > > > > > plays a move which falls outside of your repertoire*. Sooner or later
> > > > > > you find yourself needing to play outside of the book (unless your
> > > > > > opponent is weak and caves in during the openning phase).
>
> > > > > The opening repertoire in chess is a very good nalogy. However, it is
> > > > > against your position in that if you're going to override the chess
> > > > > opening that is known to win, by making up your own moves, then the
> > > > > possibility that you're going to lose is greater than following it.
> > > > > Following a dogma is a win win situation.
>
> > > > So you see nothing negative in the whole of dogma?
>
> > > Dogma are like rules. They are to prevent anarchy and chaos.
>
> > It sometimes seems about control and hence power.
>
> > Are you Catholic?
>
> Yes I am. I belong to the Catholic League and Opus Dei.
>
Tracey
Nov 26, 2009, 11:38:38 AM11/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Opus Dei is a Catholic institution founded by Saint Josemaría Escrivá.
Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities
into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for
improving society.Opus Dei complements the work of local churches by
offering classes, talks, retreats and pastoral care that help people
develop their personal spiritual life and apostolate.
You can read more of us here: http://www.opusdei.us/
Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities
into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for
improving society.Opus Dei complements the work of local churches by
offering classes, talks, retreats and pastoral care that help people
develop their personal spiritual life and apostolate.
You can read more of us here: http://www.opusdei.us/
Joe
Nov 26, 2009, 7:54:03 PM11/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 26, 6:06 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “So, you disagree. Or, you think the analogy inapt. Which?” – TC
>
> If you reread the 4th post to this topic, I fully addressed these
> questions and more when I deconstructed and competently and completely
> refuted your argument(s).
>
So you say.
>
> If you reread the 4th post to this topic, I fully addressed these
> questions and more when I deconstructed and competently and completely
> refuted your argument(s).
>
I am not asking to search through old posts, I was asking you which of
the two alternatives you meant to convey. Or, if neither, then
present a third.
It is easy as pie to say, "I have already refuted your argument, with
sheer brilliance and flawless logic." Or words to that effect. But I
see it as a smoke screen and a lame attempt to pretend to have already
won an argument.
It is ostensibly easy to choose A or B when given a choice, or to
offer C, a third ungiven option. But for some reason you chose not to
do so, and instead to refer me to an unknown post (the fourth post in
this thread is not by you), that supposedly answers my question with
such simplicity.
If it did, I wouldn't ask it. Since I asked it, you can assume that
you have not clearly indicated which of those options you would
assert, or indeed, an alternative to both. Maybe you think you were
crystal clear. But generally, the test of the strength of one's
arguments is the way *others* perceive them, not the way the arguer
perceives himself.
Kindly stop tooting your own horn. It isn't impressing anyone as far
as I know, and if it is impressing anyone, well, they are easily
impressed.
If you don't wish to discuss this, by all means bow out. No parting
shots are necessary.
But if you would care to address my query of you, it is this:
1. Do you simply disagree that Catholic Doctrine is the rules of the
spiritual game? If so, I would follow up with,
2. Is it because you don't understand it? Or
3. Is it because you have already predetermined that that can't be
correct?
And if the latter I would again follow up with,
4. Do you determine that it can't be correct because you have
found an alternative spirituality that actually brings you to
perfection? Or
5. Do you believe perfection to be impossible and possibly
irrelevant to spirituality? Or
6. Do you simply resent someone else telling you what the rules
are?
And if, on the other hand, you do not simply disagree that Catholic
Doctrine constitutes the rules of the spiritual game as opposed to,
e.g., a repertoire of openers; but rather, make the determination that
any analogy to rules of a game is inapt from the start, then can you
just say so?
7. Do you view the analogy itself as inapt? And if so,
8. Why?
And as a bonus,
9. Do you have a better alternative?
I would appreciate it if you would stop being coy, and either answer
my questions or respectfully bow out of the conversation. I would
prefer to hear your answers to these questions.
As it stands now, I strongly disagree that you have "deconstructed and
competently and completely refuted your argument(s)."
The argument that I would like you to address here is this one:
"Catholic Dogma is analogous, not as much to an opening repertoire of
games of chess, as to the actual rules of chess."
You can agree if you agree. If you disagree, you might think the
analogy is apt but that Catholic Dogma is actually more analogous to
an opening repertoire than to the rules of the game; or, you might
think the analogy inapt from the start. I don't think you agree, I
think you disagree. I'd like to know why. If there is some third
alternative explanation of your disagreement, I'd like to know what it
is. Finally, if you'd rather not discuss this, then just say so. But
stop pretending you've answered me, when I haven't seen your answer.
Thanks in advance.
Joe
Nov 26, 2009, 7:57:02 PM11/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Just a reminder, o.m. I answered this. Still awaiting your reply.
If you meant to simply dismiss me, it would have been done in less
words. As it is, you've brought up some points, and I've addressed
them. So whenever you get around to it, it is your move.
On Nov 21, 11:50 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.” - TC
>
> Agreed, an examination is in order. And, at the outset, the
> recognition that some hold to the tenet that ‘the unexamined life is
> not worth living’…said in other words, blindly accepting any dictate,
> dogma and or even ‘doctrine’ without question and or examination in
> and of itself has its result(s)…which when analyzed by most people
> could in fact be found to be ‘a negative thing’. Personally I prefer
> to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy.
>
> “…What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is
> dogmatic.” - TC
>
> When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
> picking, one finds:
> ▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
> believed all the Marxist dogma")
> ▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
>
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
>
> This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
> As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
> recognition for each of us. In this case though in order to expand the
> scope of examination the commonly used additional terms of “beliefs
> accepted as authoritative” and “religious doctrine…proclaimed as true
> without proof” bring us squarely to the heart of the matter.
>
> TC continues:
>
> “…Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
>
> Apparently you wish to limit the conversation to one theological set.
> If so, fine. However, I wish to add that dogma in and of itself is not
> so limited. Dogma can be and is applied to other unexamined beliefs.
> Somehow this too would be informative and instructive to explore.
>
> “…Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
>
> Fine. And it must be realized that other systems hold their own sets
> of doctrines and tenets…often without the use of dogma as such as can
> be found in the 4 Noble Truths:
>
> Four Noble Truths
> 1. Suffering exists
> 2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
> 3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
> 4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold
> Path
>
> …and in the Eightfold Path:
>
> Wisdom (panna) - Right View, Right Thought
> Morality (sila) - Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood
> Meditation (samadhi) - Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right
> Contemplation
>
> Here one finds something recognizable by humans…suffering, …along with
> a prescription or antidote for same. The first is known, the latter is
> suggested to try and is left for the practitioner to determine what
> the truth is. Thus, by examination, experimentation and self
> observation of the results, a scientific approach is used rather than
> pure dogma.
>
> “…Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
>
> Again, since the core issue is not only based on dogma but IS dogma …
> unexamined belief, the discussion must end. Such proclamations of
> truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> in the title of this conference.
>
> “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
>
> Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism.
>
> “..Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is
>
> Here one can find room for commentary. When dogma is claimed to be
> examined and then by extension attempts at using analogy with entirely
> different systems are employed, one is constructing a house of cards
> built on sand. Why? The current dogmatic theology being ‘examined’ is
> a non sequitur. Dogma, by its very nature is unassailable thus no
> examination (with any hope for any change in or addition to or
> delition of such beliefs) is possible.
>
> Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best.
>
> “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
>
> Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> all, the analysis fails on many fronts. First, using your presentation
> of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. When one
> additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets.
>
> “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
>
> While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> in the subject of the current topic: dogma.
>
> “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
>
> Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a ...
>
> read more »
If you meant to simply dismiss me, it would have been done in less
words. As it is, you've brought up some points, and I've addressed
them. So whenever you get around to it, it is your move.
On Nov 21, 11:50 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.” - TC
>
> Agreed, an examination is in order. And, at the outset, the
> recognition that some hold to the tenet that ‘the unexamined life is
> not worth living’…said in other words, blindly accepting any dictate,
> dogma and or even ‘doctrine’ without question and or examination in
> and of itself has its result(s)…which when analyzed by most people
> could in fact be found to be ‘a negative thing’. Personally I prefer
> to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy.
>
> “…What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is
> dogmatic.” - TC
>
> When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
> picking, one finds:
> ▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
> believed all the Marxist dogma")
> ▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
>
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
>
> This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
> As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
> recognition for each of us. In this case though in order to expand the
> scope of examination the commonly used additional terms of “beliefs
> accepted as authoritative” and “religious doctrine…proclaimed as true
> without proof” bring us squarely to the heart of the matter.
>
> TC continues:
>
> “…Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the
> Holy
> Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics. …” – TC
> like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the
> Holy
> Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
>
> Apparently you wish to limit the conversation to one theological set.
> If so, fine. However, I wish to add that dogma in and of itself is not
> so limited. Dogma can be and is applied to other unexamined beliefs.
> Somehow this too would be informative and instructive to explore.
>
> “…Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
> 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and
> earth,
> 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
> 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
> 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
> 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> buried. He descended into hell.
> 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
> 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> Father Almighty.
> 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
> 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
> 10. The Communion of Saints,
> 11. The forgiveness of sins,
> 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
> Amen! “ – TC
> earth,
> 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
> 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
> 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
> 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> buried. He descended into hell.
> 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
> 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> Father Almighty.
> 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
> 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
> 10. The Communion of Saints,
> 11. The forgiveness of sins,
> 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
>
> Fine. And it must be realized that other systems hold their own sets
> of doctrines and tenets…often without the use of dogma as such as can
> be found in the 4 Noble Truths:
>
> Four Noble Truths
> 1. Suffering exists
> 2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
> 3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
> 4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold
> Path
>
> …and in the Eightfold Path:
>
> Wisdom (panna) - Right View, Right Thought
> Morality (sila) - Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood
> Meditation (samadhi) - Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right
> Contemplation
>
> Here one finds something recognizable by humans…suffering, …along with
> a prescription or antidote for same. The first is known, the latter is
> suggested to try and is left for the practitioner to determine what
> the truth is. Thus, by examination, experimentation and self
> observation of the results, a scientific approach is used rather than
> pure dogma.
>
> “…Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
> Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
> rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
> necessary and not optional…” – TC
> rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
>
> Again, since the core issue is not only based on dogma but IS dogma …
> unexamined belief, the discussion must end. Such proclamations of
> truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> in the title of this conference.
>
> “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> there will be no more sin.” – TC
> the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
>
> Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism.
>
> “..Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is
> One God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe
> God is Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point. 1.
> I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
> The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> God is Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point. 1.
> I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
> The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> but heaven and earth can be spoken of….” – TC
> existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
>
> Here one can find room for commentary. When dogma is claimed to be
> examined and then by extension attempts at using analogy with entirely
> different systems are employed, one is constructing a house of cards
> built on sand. Why? The current dogmatic theology being ‘examined’ is
> a non sequitur. Dogma, by its very nature is unassailable thus no
> examination (with any hope for any change in or addition to or
> delition of such beliefs) is possible.
>
> Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best.
>
> “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> religion in the world….” – TC
> point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
>
> Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> all, the analysis fails on many fronts. First, using your presentation
> of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. When one
> additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets.
>
> “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
> parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
>
> While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> in the subject of the current topic: dogma.
>
> “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
> seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
> as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> parallel to that in theology…” - TC
> as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
>
> Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a ...
>
> read more »
Joe
Nov 26, 2009, 9:13:08 PM11/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 22, 11:41 am, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 3:54 pm, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> > > thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> > > thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.
>
> > > What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogmatic.
> > > Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> > > of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> > > like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> > > questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> > > own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> > > theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the Holy
> > > Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> > > pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics.
>
> > > of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> > > like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> > > questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> > > own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> > > theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the Holy
> > > Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> > > pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics.
>
> > > Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
>
> > > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
> > > 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
> > > 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
> > > 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
> > > 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> > > buried. He descended into hell.
> > > 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
> > > 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> > > Father Almighty.
> > > 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
> > > 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
> > > 10. The Communion of Saints,
> > > 11. The forgiveness of sins,
> > > 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
>
> > > Amen!
>
>
> > > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
> > > 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
> > > 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
> > > 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
> > > 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> > > buried. He descended into hell.
> > > 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
> > > 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> > > Father Almighty.
> > > 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
> > > 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
> > > 10. The Communion of Saints,
> > > 11. The forgiveness of sins,
> > > 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
>
> > > Amen!
>
> > > Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
> > > Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
> > > rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> > > twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> > > summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
> > > necessary and not optional.
> > > Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
> > > rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> > > twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> > > summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
>
> > > The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > > there will be no more sin.
>
> > > The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > > there will be no more sin.
>
> > > Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is One
> > > God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe God is
> > > Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point.
>
> > > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
>
> > > The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> > > that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> > > unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> > > accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> > > Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> > > existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> > > implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> > > both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> > > but heaven and earth can be spoken of.
> > > God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe God is
> > > Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point.
>
> > > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
>
> > > The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> > > that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> > > unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> > > accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> > > Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> > > existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> > > implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> > > both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
>
> > > This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > > religion in the world.
> > > This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
>
> > > There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen into,
> > > and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > > rather than inclusion of all perspectives.
>
> > > By contrast to this, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the
> > > truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
>
> > > There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen into,
> > > and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > > rather than inclusion of all perspectives.
>
> > > By contrast to this, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the
> > > truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
>
> > > In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two seemingly
> > > opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma as,
> > > rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
>
> > > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > > parallel to that in theology.
> > > opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma as,
> > > rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
>
> > > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
>
> > > More later!
>
> > Interesting so far!
>
> Please keep going...
>
> I'm trying to understand what kinds of dogma/doctrine...bug me a
> little and what kinds I don't mind.
This is turning into a monologue :(
Bridge
Nov 27, 2009, 12:38:07 AM11/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
you! ;-)
ornamentalmind
Nov 27, 2009, 3:07:17 AM11/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
examined. …” - TC
TC, I reject considering embracing a dogma which, as you so clearly
say is not subject to dissent. So, at the outset, your thinking is
different when examining the particular. In other words, I reject your
given tenet(s) and have said so. What you call examination overall is
only supporting the given tenet(s). In this sense, you use tautology.
I am not entirely against tautology, however I see no need to embrace
this type of dogma. None. Most of what follows only turns into a red
herring in this context. Having read it, you have in no way convinced
me that there is anything at all attractive when it comes to dogma.
Nothing. And, my intention has been all along to point out how some of
your non-Catholic dogma (assumptions, leaps in ‘logic’, assumptions,
misinformation etc.) is just that…unfounded belief voiced with a flair
and an attempt at so influencing the reader.
You later say:“…There is an old expression that "the proof of the
pudding is in the eating thereof,"
and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
of religion to oneself and one's life.” – TC
While argument by slogan is a common debate technique, we know it is a
fallacy. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and one accepts that
“… As such, proofs will tend to be experiential and anecdotal….”, I
still do not see a need to embrace the basic tenets nor other
trappings of a specific theology. You wish to…fine. I do not and see
absolutely no reason to do so. Even if one looks at your following:
“…There is a vast library of valuable literature published by men and
women who have been declared by the Church to be in the Canon of
Saints. This is the Church's official word that these men and women
have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their methods of
approaching God definitively work….”
Here what one finds is an attempt at conflation of a specific dogma
with other contemplative practices, even some found within
Christianity. Personally I agree that there are methods for
transcendence and some that work. However, the very foundation of
Catholicism, the specific dogma you have presented, precludes the
possibility of other systems that use similar and perhaps even
preferable methodologies. One look at your screen name points towards
some of your apparent motivation here. Yet, at the very foundation of
this entire topic is the unassailable fact that a specific theology,
founded upon specific dogma, and when such dogma precludes other
possibilities, any attempts at appropriating the attributes of systems
rejected by the one you present cannot, and will not work no matter
how you couch the issue.
> Personally I prefer
> to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy. - OM
“I don't see the distinction here. Wouldn't you be judging what you
observed as good or bad?” – TC
No.
“…Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of dogma is to
eliminate personal interpretations and express universal truth….” – TC
The former I agree is the case. I do not agree that the latter occurs.
In fact, I find that ‘universal truth’ does not reside within any
dogmatic framework. Even if one changes the term ‘dogma’ to one of
‘tenet’, which more closely matches your description, even here one
does not find universal truth…at least not in the context of your
description above. Again, it appears to be a simple case of
appropriation.
“I neither stated nor implied such.” – TC [limiting the conversation
to one theology]
Just because you throw a pinch of this system and a pinch of that
system into a stew mix, your screen name along with the constant
recurring theme of Catholicism belies your above statement. The core
of your set of tenets is not associated with Egyptian religions,
Chinese religions, nor Indian religions.
“These beliefs are dogmatic, i.e. non-optional, for Buddhism.” – TC
Many Buddhists do not accept these tenets. So, in that sense they are
optional. Of course, many Christians do not accept your Dogma/Creed
either. As such, they could not be accepted as Catholics (nor would/
could they call themselves Catholic) according to you. Correct?
“I submit that, on the one hand, some Buddhists tend to cling to the
words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.” – TC
Here, if one assumes that you are correct, it becomes obvious that
there is no need for a specific theology called Catholicism with its
associated dogmas. The practice of examination, experimentation and
self-observation of results of tenets (not mere dogmas) can be
completed by any human being whether associated to a specific theology
or not.
“That is not what dogma is.” – TC [unexamined belief]
OK, it is according to the definitions I have found, but for now,
let’s assume, using some of your words:
“…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
examined. …” - TC
Since you have your meanings associated with words, I will ‘define my
terms’ by using the reference:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=dissent&ls=a
Since I do not assent to Catholic Dogma at all, there is dissent which
you say cannot be done. So, within the parameters of your very own
dogma, our discussion is over. I do not and have not nor will I accept
your premise. Using your own ‘rules of the game’, the discussion is
over because any examination you make will make no difference for me
when it comes to any attempt at persuading me to accept your basic
dogma.
>Such proclamations of
> truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> in the title of this conference. - OM
“If you choose not to discuss these things with me, that is your
right.” – TC
There is no function in doing so, your protestations to the contrary
aside. You embrace a specific dogma, I do not. I do not wish to be
evangelical in getting you to further examine your beliefs to a point
where you might reject your dogma. I accept your right to hold fast to
your belief system.
Again, using your own words:
“Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
It
is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth.” – TC
This is followed by:
“Debate is appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the
"real value of pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be,
it is no more debatable than the value of pi.” – TC
You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you proclaim
unassailable ‘truth’ in the form of dogma. Then, when I recognize your
dogma and say it is unassailable, you accuse me of not wanting to
discuss this!!! Why in the world would I want to? (rhetorical) There
would be absolutely no function in doing so at all. I hope you grasp
this.
> Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism. - OM
“You are free to call it dogmatism, but it isn't. If you are using
dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
dogmatistic about that?” – TC
Just saying that your earlier presentation is not dogmatism doesn’t
make it otherwise. Your words were based upon total dogma/belief(s)
associated with a specific theology, Catholicism. Period. Here look at
your own words and I will deconstruct them pointing out each point of
dogma since you don’t appear to be able to see it
> “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
You start out with a declaration of purpose. And, this professed
purpose presupposes a dogma of sin. I do not nor wish to nor will
accept that concept. It is dogma. You continue with some nebulous
commentary about “the People of God”. Clearly you have your beliefs/
assumptions about what this includes and clearly it does not include
people who are not Catholic, correct? Or IF you include all people as
people of god, there is no need for a specific dogmatic theology. You
continue with comments about eternity and “the Communion of Saints”.
Eternity is a notion embraced by many different systems and, as such
holds no special place nor use in this context. However, the term “the
Communion of Saints” is filled with assumptions that may not be
questioned, correct? One must accept that there are saints, correct?
One must accept that there is ‘communion’, whatever that is in this
context, with saints. In any case, one must first accept the notion of
‘sin’, the notion of ‘the catholic church’, the idea of one being
saved from their ‘sins’, people being associated with the church as
being people of god, god itself, that there will come a time when no
more work is to do, the notion of heaven, and finally, after all of
the previous is accepted (as a matter of faith or dogma…at least not
rejected), then one is to believe there is no more sin.
The entire paragraph is not only peppered with dogma but primarily IS
dogma. I can only guess that one who has accepted said dogma might not
see this, but for me, who accepts none of the dogma it shines quite
clearly as such.
“Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?” – TC
You wanted a discussion. I do not accept your primary tenets/dogma/
etc. The group is about ‘Debate’. When something is not accepted, one
would naturally reject it. In the act of rejecting, my words would be
attacking your belief(s) and dogma. I see no function in doing so
UNLESS you tell me you are ready to reject your dogma and your
specific theology and be at least open to accepting a different way.
So far, you do not appear to be looking to do that.
So, as to your question about ‘assimilation’, I long ago did in the
sense that I know there are those who embrace blind belief(s) (dogma).
In this case, something that one is not allowed to reject (according
to you). So, I know there are those who hold these beliefs and do not
wish to change their beliefs. I feel I have assimilated this reality
quite well into my world/cosmology. One could also see this acceptance
of said believers and their beliefs as being a synthesis too. So,
unless you are asking me to limit myself (rather than the combining to
form something more complex implied by the term ‘synthesize’)…and in
the act of limiting myself to take on your small set of dogmatic
beliefs as being all that is acceptable, something that is common when
it comes to evangelism, I do not understand your question. If in fact
it is this latter, I have and continue to reject such a small world
view founded upon nothing.
“…You seem quite mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might
simply be an accurate
view of reality.” - TC
I accept it is your view of reality. It is not mine.
> Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best. - OM
“Are you accusing me of intentional deception? If so, can you support
such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
discussion is useless?” – TC
Whether you intend to deceive or are merely overzealous about your
belief system I do not know. Only you know this. You have attempted to
show that Taoism is dogma based. I say it is not. You have your
belief, I mine. And, even though it is a fallacy to use in
argumentation, my best guess is that the vast majority of people who
are well versed in Taoism would lean in my direction rather than
yours. Now, I do admit to only having looked at Taoism for about 40-45
years, so you may have more experience with it than I do. So far, your
arguments have not been supported by anything but opinion about
Taoism. And, I did address your attempt at comparing a theology with
an anthropomorphic deity with a ‘way’ which has none. Herein lies the
distortion.
When you say:
“Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is implied by
…says nothing to support Catholicism. If anything, it shows Taoism as
the more expansive system. Well, you do make some attempts at
correlating terms such a heaven and earth, such attempts appearing to
be based upon nothing…other than pure fiat. What follows these
declarations made by you is but more conjecture, supposition and
guesswork. Your language even confirms this!
> “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
Your use of qualifiers throughout the paragraph is the message, not
some aborted attempt at appropriating other systems into a smaller
one.
I even gave you credit for your search for unity!
> Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> all, the analysis fails on many fronts. – OM
To which you ask about how your analysis fails:
“Such as. . .?” - TC
You did this even though I had immediately followed my charge with
examples.
> First, using your presentation
> of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. - OM
You counter with:
“Or a different perspective on reality, which might not contradict
another perspective.” – TC
Here, you in fact offer no argument against my assertions. You attempt
to drag a pink fish across the road and hope someone will follow. It
smells fishy, sorry. One simply cannot take a dogma based religion
such as Catholicism and at once assign attributes from other systems
to it while at the same time demanding that one cannot deny its
primary dogmatic set of ‘rules’. This is because the other systems,
Taoism in this case, are not at all analogous to Catholicism as much
as you would like to make it so in your argument. I say this knowing
that it is possible to hold “a different perspective on reality, which
might not contradict another perspective”. And, knowing this all too
well, this is not the case as you have presented it. Yes, you weave
other systems in using a clever thread but like the above, you offer
no support other than a patchwork of suppositions, possibilities and
guesswork. Most analogies, as I’ve shown above and below, just are not
accurate. I will add an analogy, I see your attempt here as attempting
to place a square peg in a round hole. Your words such as ‘properly
apprehended’, a phrase I use often, in this case is not supported in
any way at all. You merely claim by fiat that “…This concept of Tao,
“No it is not.” One can respond this way because you have in no way
supported you claim in any meaningful way unless one already has
accepted your initial dogma! Again, I can understand how one can come
to this way of seeing. The difficulty is seeing alternatives.
I had clarified all of this further with:
>When one
> additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets. – OM
To which, you entirely ignored my points with a red herring question.
“What is the value of a cosmology, or of an attachment to a particular
cosmology?” – TC
And, even recognizing your debate tactic, I will answer your question.
NONE!
> “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
“And yet, I have examined many, many different ways of approaching
these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure! “ – TC
Not exactly a cogent rebuttal is it TC? Even IF one accepted your
supposition about ‘faiths of the world’ and truths, your enormous jump
from pointing to what may be close to the truth of the matter that IF
one looks at the core of many systems (I have doubts about ‘faiths’)
one finds a commonality, to an attempt at a negation of the meaning of
the term dogma by pointing to a few words claimed by faith to be from
a claimed Son of god etc. is so absurd as to be called a complete non-
sequitur as presented.
“Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without
cause.” – TC
Your disagreement is noted as is your suspicion. Also, your
supposition that I take the time to enter into a discussion with you,
employing a lot of time and energy, presenting clear rebuttal to your
claims while recognizing your dogmas, and then having specific
conclusions of my own, all is ‘without cause’ apparently because my
view differs from yours, is noted too.
> “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
“That is a comparison one might make, who did not understand the
dogmas
I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.” - TC
You have delineated a long list of dogma. I understand those dogmas.
If you are ready to add more dogmas to the list, fine. However, to
merely claim I do not understand your dogmas says nothing. It is a
hollow claim. And, when taken in the context that I presented it, the
1984 analogy is about as apt as one can be…and, of course, your
opinion is again noted.
> Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra. - OM
“But the principles of logic, one cannot so easily replace at will.” -
TC
The topic was not nor is it ‘logic’. IF you wish to present what logic
(s) you wish to employ here, by all means do so. Logic is not a
monolith. Most people consider ‘logic’ to be the way they think.
Unless you clarify your tenets for logic, anything that follows is
nonsensical.
“There is reality, and reality is what it is.” – TC
Tautology. And..???
“If there are unseen realities, we cannot know them with certainty by
our own observations and understanding.” – TC
Again, you make a ‘truth by fiat’. First, as well as I can ascertain
your intended meaning here, I fully disagree. But, since you have not
laid the foundation for your belief, it is difficult to tell. Is this
dogma? Is it supposition as the “If” implies? We don’t know.
“The mathematical truth that a circumference has the exact ration pi
to a diameter, we cannot replace at will.” – TC
Of course we can! This can be done much in the same way we introduce
different geometries when we change Euclid’s 5th postulate! In both
cases, even on the mundane physical plane, as long as one retains a
provincial vantage point, using ‘common sense’ because it ‘works’ in
our house, yes, both the 3rd and 5th postulates are unassailable.
However, since reality is not such a small and closed system, one
merely has to change any or all of the 5 or even add more to them, and
a different reality arises.
“We can discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God,
we can discover, but cannot understand without His help.” – TC
Again, this is truth by fiat. It is unassailable. You say it is true
as a premise, so anything I say would have to be within the same tenet
system, thus accepting your ‘truth’. I do not. You have not made any
attempt at supporting your belief. You are not at all persuasive.
Again, no response is possible when these tactics are used.
> So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
> …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue. - OM
“…Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
It is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
laying out objections first and then answering them….” - TC
Here is the core of your ‘debate’. You present dogma, which is not a
matter of debate. Then you invite debate, using an analogy of a
‘saint’ who first laid out objections and then answered them! Are you
really asking us to debate those things you say are beyond debate only
to tell us that we can’t debate them!???
>
> Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> such forms of Ingsoc. - OM
“I have asked no one to believe anything.” – TC
TC, by default, when any tenet system, based on dogma is presented, to
discuss it, one is REQUIRED to believe the dogma.
“Let alone enforce particular views with militaristic strength.” – TC
While not rare in dogmatic systems, the following supports your
militant position wishing to dispatch all apparent enemies and forge
ahead.
“You are invoking hyperbole here, no doubt, but you are not so much
making a mountain of a molehill as you are inventing a mountain. If
you choose not to explore these topics, by all means bow out of the
discussion. But there are several here who have expressed an
interest, and I intend to continue.” – TC
For those with eyes to see, accusing me of ‘not exploring these
topics’ when I in fact have explored almost every *word* of your
topics that is not dogma is disingenuous at best again. And, if you do
not wish me to continue to deconstruct your proclamations, this is
fine with me. And, I am sure you have several here who are quite
willing to follow you wherever you take the topic. So, if that is your
wish, this too is fine with me. All along, my goal has been to point
out basic inconsistencies, flaws in reasoning and use of words in your
presentation. So far, you either reject or ignore almost all of my
criticisms. This too is fine with me.
As to the mountain analogy, there is no invention. My analogy as to
how you use words and assign your own meaning to them arbitrarily and
reject all dictionary meanings in specific cases with an obvious
intention of influencing thinking is again spot on. . . your simple
wave of the hand saying it is invention is just that….an attitude with
no substance…at least with no demonstrated substance.
On Nov 23, 8:34 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 11:50 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
> set. So you are making an analogy rather than a restatement.
>
> I am willing to address anything and everything implied here, but
> kindly understand that the issues are a bit complex, and we will have
> to get into depth to treat it properly. Dogma is not subject to
> dissent, which does not mean it cannot be examined. But part of the
> problem with examining it is, how? If examining it means, as it means
> to many of the atheists on the other group, demanding objective proof,
> then there is no way to do that, and one for whom to examine means
> only to demand objective proof will immediately reject dogma out of
> hand as "superstitious nonsense." And none of this is to say that
> there is no proof of any kind, because there is. There is an old
> expression that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof,"
> and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
> purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
> of religion to oneself and one's life. As such, proofs will tend to
> be experiential and anecdotal. Anecdotal proofs are first, since we
> are greatly encouraged by the success of other people, and that is why
> my constant refrain is, "Read the Saints!" Very few will attempt a
> difficult technique without first seeing the success of another person
> in applying it to themselves. Fortunately for the Church, proofs of
> this nature abound. There is a vast library of valuable literature
> published by men and women who have been declared by the Church to be
> in the Canon of Saints. This is the Church's official word that these
> men and women have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their
> methods of approaching God definitively work.
>
> Some Saints are doctors of the Church, and thus their writings
> actually contribute in major ways to our understanding of the truths
> of Faith. A doctor is one who contributes to doctrine.
> observed as good or bad?
>
> Is it not the very purpose of words, to convey information
> objectively? Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of
> dogma is to eliminate personal interpretations and express universal
> truth.
> words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
> experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
> their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
> subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
> of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.
>
> > “…Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
>
> > “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
> positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
> dogmatistic about that?
>
> Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?
>
> > “..Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is
> reiterated your unsupported assertion of above. You seem quite
> mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might simply be an accurate
> view of reality.
> such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
> discussion is useless?
>
> > “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> another perspective.
> cosmology?
>
> > “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure!
>
> Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
> trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without cause.
>
> > “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
>
> That is a comparison one might make, who did not understand the dogmas
> I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.
>
> > Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> > mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> > founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> > is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> > make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> > assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> > Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra.
>
> But the principles of logic, one cannot so easily replace at will.
> There is reality, and reality is what it is. If there are unseen
> realities, we cannot know them with certainty by our own observations
> and understanding. The mathematical truth that a circumference has
> the exact ration pi to a diameter, we cannot replace at will. We can
> discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God, we can
> discover, but cannot understand without His help.
>
> > So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
> > …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> > permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue.
>
> Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed. It
> is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
> appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
> pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
> debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
> reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
> understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
> Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
> that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
> Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
> laying out objections first and then answering them.
>
> > Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> > Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> > such forms of Ingsoc.
>
> I have asked no one to believe anything. Let alone enforce particular
> views with militaristic strength. You are invoking hyperbole here, no
> doubt, but you are not so much making a mountain of a molehill as you
> are inventing a mountain. If you choose not to explore these topics,
> by all means bow out of the discussion. But there are several here
> who have expressed an interest, and I intend to continue.> On Nov 21, 1:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
examined. …” - TC
TC, I reject considering embracing a dogma which, as you so clearly
say is not subject to dissent. So, at the outset, your thinking is
different when examining the particular. In other words, I reject your
given tenet(s) and have said so. What you call examination overall is
only supporting the given tenet(s). In this sense, you use tautology.
I am not entirely against tautology, however I see no need to embrace
this type of dogma. None. Most of what follows only turns into a red
herring in this context. Having read it, you have in no way convinced
me that there is anything at all attractive when it comes to dogma.
Nothing. And, my intention has been all along to point out how some of
your non-Catholic dogma (assumptions, leaps in ‘logic’, assumptions,
misinformation etc.) is just that…unfounded belief voiced with a flair
and an attempt at so influencing the reader.
You later say:“…There is an old expression that "the proof of the
pudding is in the eating thereof,"
and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
of religion to oneself and one's life.” – TC
While argument by slogan is a common debate technique, we know it is a
fallacy. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and one accepts that
“… As such, proofs will tend to be experiential and anecdotal….”, I
still do not see a need to embrace the basic tenets nor other
trappings of a specific theology. You wish to…fine. I do not and see
absolutely no reason to do so. Even if one looks at your following:
“…There is a vast library of valuable literature published by men and
women who have been declared by the Church to be in the Canon of
Saints. This is the Church's official word that these men and women
have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their methods of
approaching God definitively work….”
Here what one finds is an attempt at conflation of a specific dogma
with other contemplative practices, even some found within
Christianity. Personally I agree that there are methods for
transcendence and some that work. However, the very foundation of
Catholicism, the specific dogma you have presented, precludes the
possibility of other systems that use similar and perhaps even
preferable methodologies. One look at your screen name points towards
some of your apparent motivation here. Yet, at the very foundation of
this entire topic is the unassailable fact that a specific theology,
founded upon specific dogma, and when such dogma precludes other
possibilities, any attempts at appropriating the attributes of systems
rejected by the one you present cannot, and will not work no matter
how you couch the issue.
> Personally I prefer
> to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
“I don't see the distinction here. Wouldn't you be judging what you
observed as good or bad?” – TC
No.
“…Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of dogma is to
eliminate personal interpretations and express universal truth….” – TC
The former I agree is the case. I do not agree that the latter occurs.
In fact, I find that ‘universal truth’ does not reside within any
dogmatic framework. Even if one changes the term ‘dogma’ to one of
‘tenet’, which more closely matches your description, even here one
does not find universal truth…at least not in the context of your
description above. Again, it appears to be a simple case of
appropriation.
“I neither stated nor implied such.” – TC [limiting the conversation
to one theology]
Just because you throw a pinch of this system and a pinch of that
system into a stew mix, your screen name along with the constant
recurring theme of Catholicism belies your above statement. The core
of your set of tenets is not associated with Egyptian religions,
Chinese religions, nor Indian religions.
“These beliefs are dogmatic, i.e. non-optional, for Buddhism.” – TC
Many Buddhists do not accept these tenets. So, in that sense they are
optional. Of course, many Christians do not accept your Dogma/Creed
either. As such, they could not be accepted as Catholics (nor would/
could they call themselves Catholic) according to you. Correct?
“I submit that, on the one hand, some Buddhists tend to cling to the
words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.” – TC
Here, if one assumes that you are correct, it becomes obvious that
there is no need for a specific theology called Catholicism with its
associated dogmas. The practice of examination, experimentation and
self-observation of results of tenets (not mere dogmas) can be
completed by any human being whether associated to a specific theology
or not.
“That is not what dogma is.” – TC [unexamined belief]
OK, it is according to the definitions I have found, but for now,
let’s assume, using some of your words:
“…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
examined. …” - TC
Since you have your meanings associated with words, I will ‘define my
terms’ by using the reference:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=dissent&ls=a
Since I do not assent to Catholic Dogma at all, there is dissent which
you say cannot be done. So, within the parameters of your very own
dogma, our discussion is over. I do not and have not nor will I accept
your premise. Using your own ‘rules of the game’, the discussion is
over because any examination you make will make no difference for me
when it comes to any attempt at persuading me to accept your basic
dogma.
>Such proclamations of
> truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
“If you choose not to discuss these things with me, that is your
right.” – TC
There is no function in doing so, your protestations to the contrary
aside. You embrace a specific dogma, I do not. I do not wish to be
evangelical in getting you to further examine your beliefs to a point
where you might reject your dogma. I accept your right to hold fast to
your belief system.
Again, using your own words:
“Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
It
is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth.” – TC
This is followed by:
“Debate is appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the
"real value of pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be,
it is no more debatable than the value of pi.” – TC
You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you proclaim
unassailable ‘truth’ in the form of dogma. Then, when I recognize your
dogma and say it is unassailable, you accuse me of not wanting to
discuss this!!! Why in the world would I want to? (rhetorical) There
would be absolutely no function in doing so at all. I hope you grasp
this.
> Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism. - OM
“You are free to call it dogmatism, but it isn't. If you are using
dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
dogmatistic about that?” – TC
Just saying that your earlier presentation is not dogmatism doesn’t
make it otherwise. Your words were based upon total dogma/belief(s)
associated with a specific theology, Catholicism. Period. Here look at
your own words and I will deconstruct them pointing out each point of
dogma since you don’t appear to be able to see it
> “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> there will be no more sin.” – TC
> the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
You start out with a declaration of purpose. And, this professed
purpose presupposes a dogma of sin. I do not nor wish to nor will
accept that concept. It is dogma. You continue with some nebulous
commentary about “the People of God”. Clearly you have your beliefs/
assumptions about what this includes and clearly it does not include
people who are not Catholic, correct? Or IF you include all people as
people of god, there is no need for a specific dogmatic theology. You
continue with comments about eternity and “the Communion of Saints”.
Eternity is a notion embraced by many different systems and, as such
holds no special place nor use in this context. However, the term “the
Communion of Saints” is filled with assumptions that may not be
questioned, correct? One must accept that there are saints, correct?
One must accept that there is ‘communion’, whatever that is in this
context, with saints. In any case, one must first accept the notion of
‘sin’, the notion of ‘the catholic church’, the idea of one being
saved from their ‘sins’, people being associated with the church as
being people of god, god itself, that there will come a time when no
more work is to do, the notion of heaven, and finally, after all of
the previous is accepted (as a matter of faith or dogma…at least not
rejected), then one is to believe there is no more sin.
The entire paragraph is not only peppered with dogma but primarily IS
dogma. I can only guess that one who has accepted said dogma might not
see this, but for me, who accepts none of the dogma it shines quite
clearly as such.
“Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?” – TC
You wanted a discussion. I do not accept your primary tenets/dogma/
etc. The group is about ‘Debate’. When something is not accepted, one
would naturally reject it. In the act of rejecting, my words would be
attacking your belief(s) and dogma. I see no function in doing so
UNLESS you tell me you are ready to reject your dogma and your
specific theology and be at least open to accepting a different way.
So far, you do not appear to be looking to do that.
So, as to your question about ‘assimilation’, I long ago did in the
sense that I know there are those who embrace blind belief(s) (dogma).
In this case, something that one is not allowed to reject (according
to you). So, I know there are those who hold these beliefs and do not
wish to change their beliefs. I feel I have assimilated this reality
quite well into my world/cosmology. One could also see this acceptance
of said believers and their beliefs as being a synthesis too. So,
unless you are asking me to limit myself (rather than the combining to
form something more complex implied by the term ‘synthesize’)…and in
the act of limiting myself to take on your small set of dogmatic
beliefs as being all that is acceptable, something that is common when
it comes to evangelism, I do not understand your question. If in fact
it is this latter, I have and continue to reject such a small world
view founded upon nothing.
“…You seem quite mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might
simply be an accurate
view of reality.” - TC
I accept it is your view of reality. It is not mine.
> Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
“Are you accusing me of intentional deception? If so, can you support
such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
discussion is useless?” – TC
Whether you intend to deceive or are merely overzealous about your
belief system I do not know. Only you know this. You have attempted to
show that Taoism is dogma based. I say it is not. You have your
belief, I mine. And, even though it is a fallacy to use in
argumentation, my best guess is that the vast majority of people who
are well versed in Taoism would lean in my direction rather than
yours. Now, I do admit to only having looked at Taoism for about 40-45
years, so you may have more experience with it than I do. So far, your
arguments have not been supported by anything but opinion about
Taoism. And, I did address your attempt at comparing a theology with
an anthropomorphic deity with a ‘way’ which has none. Herein lies the
distortion.
When you say:
“Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is implied by
them, and included in them, though more accurately they both are
included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
but heaven and earth can be spoken of.” – TC
included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
…says nothing to support Catholicism. If anything, it shows Taoism as
the more expansive system. Well, you do make some attempts at
correlating terms such a heaven and earth, such attempts appearing to
be based upon nothing…other than pure fiat. What follows these
declarations made by you is but more conjecture, supposition and
guesswork. Your language even confirms this!
> “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> religion in the world….” – TC
> point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
Your use of qualifiers throughout the paragraph is the message, not
some aborted attempt at appropriating other systems into a smaller
one.
I even gave you credit for your search for unity!
> Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
To which you ask about how your analysis fails:
“Such as. . .?” - TC
You did this even though I had immediately followed my charge with
examples.
> First, using your presentation
> of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
You counter with:
“Or a different perspective on reality, which might not contradict
another perspective.” – TC
Here, you in fact offer no argument against my assertions. You attempt
to drag a pink fish across the road and hope someone will follow. It
smells fishy, sorry. One simply cannot take a dogma based religion
such as Catholicism and at once assign attributes from other systems
to it while at the same time demanding that one cannot deny its
primary dogmatic set of ‘rules’. This is because the other systems,
Taoism in this case, are not at all analogous to Catholicism as much
as you would like to make it so in your argument. I say this knowing
that it is possible to hold “a different perspective on reality, which
might not contradict another perspective”. And, knowing this all too
well, this is not the case as you have presented it. Yes, you weave
other systems in using a clever thread but like the above, you offer
no support other than a patchwork of suppositions, possibilities and
guesswork. Most analogies, as I’ve shown above and below, just are not
accurate. I will add an analogy, I see your attempt here as attempting
to place a square peg in a round hole. Your words such as ‘properly
apprehended’, a phrase I use often, in this case is not supported in
any way at all. You merely claim by fiat that “…This concept of Tao,
I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent with the concept of God
as known in Catholicism…” To which the only refutation necessary is
“No it is not.” One can respond this way because you have in no way
supported you claim in any meaningful way unless one already has
accepted your initial dogma! Again, I can understand how one can come
to this way of seeing. The difficulty is seeing alternatives.
I had clarified all of this further with:
>When one
> additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
To which, you entirely ignored my points with a red herring question.
“What is the value of a cosmology, or of an attachment to a particular
cosmology?” – TC
And, even recognizing your debate tactic, I will answer your question.
NONE!
> “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
> While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> in the subject of the current topic: dogma. - OM
> While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
“And yet, I have examined many, many different ways of approaching
these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure! “ – TC
Not exactly a cogent rebuttal is it TC? Even IF one accepted your
supposition about ‘faiths of the world’ and truths, your enormous jump
from pointing to what may be close to the truth of the matter that IF
one looks at the core of many systems (I have doubts about ‘faiths’)
one finds a commonality, to an attempt at a negation of the meaning of
the term dogma by pointing to a few words claimed by faith to be from
a claimed Son of god etc. is so absurd as to be called a complete non-
sequitur as presented.
“Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without
cause.” – TC
Your disagreement is noted as is your suspicion. Also, your
supposition that I take the time to enter into a discussion with you,
employing a lot of time and energy, presenting clear rebuttal to your
claims while recognizing your dogmas, and then having specific
conclusions of my own, all is ‘without cause’ apparently because my
view differs from yours, is noted too.
> “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
> seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
> as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> parallel to that in theology…” - TC
> Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
> proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. - OM
> Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
“That is a comparison one might make, who did not understand the
dogmas
I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.” - TC
You have delineated a long list of dogma. I understand those dogmas.
If you are ready to add more dogmas to the list, fine. However, to
merely claim I do not understand your dogmas says nothing. It is a
hollow claim. And, when taken in the context that I presented it, the
1984 analogy is about as apt as one can be…and, of course, your
opinion is again noted.
> Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra. - OM
“But the principles of logic, one cannot so easily replace at will.” -
TC
The topic was not nor is it ‘logic’. IF you wish to present what logic
(s) you wish to employ here, by all means do so. Logic is not a
monolith. Most people consider ‘logic’ to be the way they think.
Unless you clarify your tenets for logic, anything that follows is
nonsensical.
“There is reality, and reality is what it is.” – TC
Tautology. And..???
“If there are unseen realities, we cannot know them with certainty by
our own observations and understanding.” – TC
Again, you make a ‘truth by fiat’. First, as well as I can ascertain
your intended meaning here, I fully disagree. But, since you have not
laid the foundation for your belief, it is difficult to tell. Is this
dogma? Is it supposition as the “If” implies? We don’t know.
“The mathematical truth that a circumference has the exact ration pi
to a diameter, we cannot replace at will.” – TC
Of course we can! This can be done much in the same way we introduce
different geometries when we change Euclid’s 5th postulate! In both
cases, even on the mundane physical plane, as long as one retains a
provincial vantage point, using ‘common sense’ because it ‘works’ in
our house, yes, both the 3rd and 5th postulates are unassailable.
However, since reality is not such a small and closed system, one
merely has to change any or all of the 5 or even add more to them, and
a different reality arises.
“We can discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God,
we can discover, but cannot understand without His help.” – TC
Again, this is truth by fiat. It is unassailable. You say it is true
as a premise, so anything I say would have to be within the same tenet
system, thus accepting your ‘truth’. I do not. You have not made any
attempt at supporting your belief. You are not at all persuasive.
Again, no response is possible when these tactics are used.
> So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
> …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue. - OM
“…Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
It is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
laying out objections first and then answering them….” - TC
Here is the core of your ‘debate’. You present dogma, which is not a
matter of debate. Then you invite debate, using an analogy of a
‘saint’ who first laid out objections and then answered them! Are you
really asking us to debate those things you say are beyond debate only
to tell us that we can’t debate them!???
>
> Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> such forms of Ingsoc. - OM
“I have asked no one to believe anything.” – TC
TC, by default, when any tenet system, based on dogma is presented, to
discuss it, one is REQUIRED to believe the dogma.
“Let alone enforce particular views with militaristic strength.” – TC
While not rare in dogmatic systems, the following supports your
militant position wishing to dispatch all apparent enemies and forge
ahead.
“You are invoking hyperbole here, no doubt, but you are not so much
making a mountain of a molehill as you are inventing a mountain. If
you choose not to explore these topics, by all means bow out of the
discussion. But there are several here who have expressed an
interest, and I intend to continue.” – TC
For those with eyes to see, accusing me of ‘not exploring these
topics’ when I in fact have explored almost every *word* of your
topics that is not dogma is disingenuous at best again. And, if you do
not wish me to continue to deconstruct your proclamations, this is
fine with me. And, I am sure you have several here who are quite
willing to follow you wherever you take the topic. So, if that is your
wish, this too is fine with me. All along, my goal has been to point
out basic inconsistencies, flaws in reasoning and use of words in your
presentation. So far, you either reject or ignore almost all of my
criticisms. This too is fine with me.
As to the mountain analogy, there is no invention. My analogy as to
how you use words and assign your own meaning to them arbitrarily and
reject all dictionary meanings in specific cases with an obvious
intention of influencing thinking is again spot on. . . your simple
wave of the hand saying it is invention is just that….an attitude with
no substance…at least with no demonstrated substance.
On Nov 23, 8:34 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 11:50 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > “There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
>
> > “There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> > thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.” - TC
>
> > Agreed, an examination is in order.
>
> Very glad that you agree!
>
> > Agreed, an examination is in order.
>
>
> > And, at the outset, the
> > recognition that some hold to the tenet that ‘the unexamined life is
> > not worth living’…
>
> I am in full agreement with this tenet.
> > And, at the outset, the
> > recognition that some hold to the tenet that ‘the unexamined life is
> > not worth living’…
>
>
> >said in other words, blindly accepting any dictate,
> > dogma and or even ‘doctrine’ without question and or examination in
> > and of itself has its result(s)…which when analyzed by most people
> > could in fact be found to be ‘a negative thing’.
>
> That would be applying the tenet, not to oneself, but to the dogma
> >said in other words, blindly accepting any dictate,
> > dogma and or even ‘doctrine’ without question and or examination in
> > and of itself has its result(s)…which when analyzed by most people
> > could in fact be found to be ‘a negative thing’.
>
> set. So you are making an analogy rather than a restatement.
>
> I am willing to address anything and everything implied here, but
> kindly understand that the issues are a bit complex, and we will have
> to get into depth to treat it properly. Dogma is not subject to
> dissent, which does not mean it cannot be examined. But part of the
> problem with examining it is, how? If examining it means, as it means
> to many of the atheists on the other group, demanding objective proof,
> then there is no way to do that, and one for whom to examine means
> only to demand objective proof will immediately reject dogma out of
> hand as "superstitious nonsense." And none of this is to say that
> there is no proof of any kind, because there is. There is an old
> expression that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof,"
> and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
> purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
> of religion to oneself and one's life. As such, proofs will tend to
> be experiential and anecdotal. Anecdotal proofs are first, since we
> are greatly encouraged by the success of other people, and that is why
> my constant refrain is, "Read the Saints!" Very few will attempt a
> difficult technique without first seeing the success of another person
> in applying it to themselves. Fortunately for the Church, proofs of
> this nature abound. There is a vast library of valuable literature
> published by men and women who have been declared by the Church to be
> in the Canon of Saints. This is the Church's official word that these
> men and women have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their
> methods of approaching God definitively work.
>
> Some Saints are doctors of the Church, and thus their writings
> actually contribute in major ways to our understanding of the truths
> of Faith. A doctor is one who contributes to doctrine.
>
> > Personally I prefer
> > to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> > the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy.
>
> I don't see the distinction here. Wouldn't you be judging what you
> > Personally I prefer
> > to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> > the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy.
>
> observed as good or bad?
>
> > “…What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is
> > dogmatic.” - TC
>
> > When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
> > picking, one finds:
> > ▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
> > believed all the Marxist dogma")
> > ▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
>
> >http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
>
> > This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
> > As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
> > recognition for each of us.
>
> Ah, post-structuralism, again!
> > “…What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is
> > dogmatic.” - TC
>
> > When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
> > picking, one finds:
> > ▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
> > believed all the Marxist dogma")
> > ▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
>
> >http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
>
> > This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
> > As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
> > recognition for each of us.
>
>
> Is it not the very purpose of words, to convey information
> objectively? Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of
> dogma is to eliminate personal interpretations and express universal
> truth.
>
> >In this case though in order to expand the
> > scope of examination the commonly used additional terms of “beliefs
> > accepted as authoritative” and “religious doctrine…proclaimed as true
> > without proof” bring us squarely to the heart of the matter.
>
> > TC continues:
>
> > “…Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> >In this case though in order to expand the
> > scope of examination the commonly used additional terms of “beliefs
> > accepted as authoritative” and “religious doctrine…proclaimed as true
> > without proof” bring us squarely to the heart of the matter.
>
> > TC continues:
>
> > of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> > like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> > questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> > own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> > theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the
> > Holy
> > Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> > like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> > questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> > own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> > theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the
> > Holy
> > Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> > pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics. …” – TC
>
> > Apparently you wish to limit the conversation to one theological set.
>
> I neither stated nor implied such.
>
> > Apparently you wish to limit the conversation to one theological set.
>
>
> > If so, fine. However, I wish to add that dogma in and of itself is not
> > so limited. Dogma can be and is applied to other unexamined beliefs.
>
> I would not recommend holding *any* unexamined beliefs.
> > If so, fine. However, I wish to add that dogma in and of itself is not
> > so limited. Dogma can be and is applied to other unexamined beliefs.
>
>
> > Somehow this too would be informative and instructive to explore.
>
> > “…Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
> > Somehow this too would be informative and instructive to explore.
>
> > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and
> > earth,
> > 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
> > 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
> > 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
> > 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> > buried. He descended into hell.
> > 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
> > 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> > Father Almighty.
> > 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
> > 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
> > 10. The Communion of Saints,
> > 11. The forgiveness of sins,
> > 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
> > earth,
> > 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
> > 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
> > 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
> > 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> > buried. He descended into hell.
> > 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
> > 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> > Father Almighty.
> > 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
> > 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
> > 10. The Communion of Saints,
> > 11. The forgiveness of sins,
> > 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
> > Amen! “ – TC
>
> > Fine. And it must be realized that other systems hold their own sets
> > of doctrines and tenets…often without the use of dogma as such as can
> > be found in the 4 Noble Truths:
>
> > Four Noble Truths
> > 1. Suffering exists
> > 2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
> > 3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
> > 4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold
> > Path
>
> > …and in the Eightfold Path:
>
> > Wisdom (panna) - Right View, Right Thought
> > Morality (sila) - Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood
> > Meditation (samadhi) - Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right
> > Contemplation
>
> These beliefs are dogmatic, i.e. non-optional, for Buddhism.
>
> > Fine. And it must be realized that other systems hold their own sets
> > of doctrines and tenets…often without the use of dogma as such as can
> > be found in the 4 Noble Truths:
>
> > Four Noble Truths
> > 1. Suffering exists
> > 2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
> > 3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
> > 4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold
> > Path
>
> > …and in the Eightfold Path:
>
> > Wisdom (panna) - Right View, Right Thought
> > Morality (sila) - Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood
> > Meditation (samadhi) - Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right
> > Contemplation
>
>
> > Here one finds something recognizable by humans…suffering, …along with
> > a prescription or antidote for same. The first is known, the latter is
> > suggested to try and is left for the practitioner to determine what
> > the truth is. Thus, by examination, experimentation and self
> > observation of the results, a scientific approach is used rather than
> > pure dogma.
>
> I submit that, on the one hand, some Buddhists tend to cling to the
> > Here one finds something recognizable by humans…suffering, …along with
> > a prescription or antidote for same. The first is known, the latter is
> > suggested to try and is left for the practitioner to determine what
> > the truth is. Thus, by examination, experimentation and self
> > observation of the results, a scientific approach is used rather than
> > pure dogma.
>
> words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
> experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
> their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
> subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
> of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.
>
> > “…Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
> > Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
> > rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> > twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> > summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
> > rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> > twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> > summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
> > necessary and not optional…” – TC
>
> > Again, since the core issue is not only based on dogma but IS dogma …
> > unexamined belief, the discussion must end.
>
> That is not what dogma is.
>
> > Again, since the core issue is not only based on dogma but IS dogma …
> > unexamined belief, the discussion must end.
>
>
> >Such proclamations of
> > truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> > in the title of this conference.
>
> If you choose not to discuss these things with me, that is your right.
> >Such proclamations of
> > truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> > in the title of this conference.
>
>
> > “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > there will be no more sin.” – TC
>
> > Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism.
>
> You are free to call it dogmatism, but it isn't. If you are using
>
> > Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism.
>
> dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
> positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
> dogmatistic about that?
>
> Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?
>
> > “..Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is
> > One God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe
> > God is Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point. 1.
> > I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
> > The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> > that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> > unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> > accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> > Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> > existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> > implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> > both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> > God is Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point. 1.
> > I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
> > The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> > that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> > unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> > accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> > Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> > existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> > implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> > both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> > but heaven and earth can be spoken of….” – TC
>
> > Here one can find room for commentary. When dogma is claimed to be
> > examined and then by extension attempts at using analogy with entirely
> > different systems are employed, one is constructing a house of cards
> > built on sand. Why? The current dogmatic theology being ‘examined’ is
> > a non sequitur. Dogma, by its very nature is unassailable thus no
> > examination (with any hope for any change in or addition to or
> > delition of such beliefs) is possible.
>
> Now you are begging the question. You did not comment, you merely
>
> > Here one can find room for commentary. When dogma is claimed to be
> > examined and then by extension attempts at using analogy with entirely
> > different systems are employed, one is constructing a house of cards
> > built on sand. Why? The current dogmatic theology being ‘examined’ is
> > a non sequitur. Dogma, by its very nature is unassailable thus no
> > examination (with any hope for any change in or addition to or
> > delition of such beliefs) is possible.
>
> reiterated your unsupported assertion of above. You seem quite
> mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might simply be an accurate
> view of reality.
>
> > Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> > asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> > deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> > when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> > even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best.
>
> Are you accusing me of intentional deception? If so, can you support
> > Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> > asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> > deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> > when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> > even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best.
>
> such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
> discussion is useless?
>
> > “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > religion in the world….” – TC
>
> > Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> > all, the analysis fails on many fronts.
>
> Such as. . .?
>
> > Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> > all, the analysis fails on many fronts.
>
>
> > First, using your presentation
> > of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> > accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> > fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> > apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology.
>
> Or a different perspective on reality, which might not contradict
> > First, using your presentation
> > of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> > accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> > fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> > apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology.
>
> another perspective.
>
> >When one
> > additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> > such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> > of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> > historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> > other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> > cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets.
>
> What is the value of a cosmology, or of an attachment to a particular
> >When one
> > additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> > such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> > of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> > historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> > other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> > cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets.
>
> cosmology?
>
> > “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> > into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> > said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> > said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> > free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
>
> > While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> > merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> > of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> > systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> > in the subject of the current topic: dogma.
>
> And yet, I have examined many, many different ways of approaching
>
> > While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> > merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> > of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> > systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> > in the subject of the current topic: dogma.
>
> these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure!
>
> Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
> trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without cause.
>
> > “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
> > seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
> > as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > parallel to that in theology…” - TC
>
> > Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> > start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> > that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
> > proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.
>
> > Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> > start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> > that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
>
> That is a comparison one might make, who did not understand the dogmas
> I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.
>
> > Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> > mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> > founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> > is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> > make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> > assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> > Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra.
>
> But the principles of logic, one cannot so easily replace at will.
> There is reality, and reality is what it is. If there are unseen
> realities, we cannot know them with certainty by our own observations
> and understanding. The mathematical truth that a circumference has
> the exact ration pi to a diameter, we cannot replace at will. We can
> discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God, we can
> discover, but cannot understand without His help.
>
> > So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
> > …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> > permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue.
>
> Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed. It
> is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
> appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
> pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
> debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
> reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
> understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
> Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
> that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
> Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
> laying out objections first and then answering them.
>
> > Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> > Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> > such forms of Ingsoc.
>
> I have asked no one to believe anything. Let alone enforce particular
> views with militaristic strength. You are invoking hyperbole here, no
> doubt, but you are not so much making a mountain of a molehill as you
> are inventing a mountain. If you choose not to explore these topics,
> by all means bow out of the discussion. But there are several here
> who have expressed an interest, and I intend to continue.> On Nov 21, 1:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
Tracey
Nov 27, 2009, 11:05:45 AM11/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 25, 7:46 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> hows that?
It's according to your own subjective decisions.
> hows that?
It's according to your own subjective decisions.
showmethehoney
Nov 27, 2009, 11:31:43 AM11/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
ummm .... you are the one that made the statement. if you dont want to
clarify it, thats okay with me ;-)
> > > other people live.- Hide quoted text -
clarify it, thats okay with me ;-)
Tracey
Nov 27, 2009, 11:53:33 AM11/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 27, 8:31 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ummm .... you are the one that made the statement. if you dont want to
> clarify it, thats okay with me ;-)
I guess you're not paying attention. I responded to your statement,
> ummm .... you are the one that made the statement. if you dont want to
> clarify it, thats okay with me ;-)
remember?
showmethehoney
Nov 27, 2009, 12:22:53 PM11/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
i said you didnt clarify, not that you didnt respond, remember?
Tracey
Nov 27, 2009, 1:27:46 PM11/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 27, 9:22 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i said you didnt clarify, not that you didnt respond, remember?
Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. It's as clear as crystal on
> i said you didnt clarify, not that you didnt respond, remember?
hwat I wrote. There's nothing else to elaborate.
> On Nov 27, 11:53 am, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 8:31 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ummm .... you are the one that made the statement. if you dont want to
> > > clarify it, thats okay with me ;-)
>
> > I guess you're not paying attention. I responded to your statement,
showmethehoney
Nov 27, 2009, 2:30:48 PM11/27/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
yawn
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Michele Gennette
Nov 27, 2009, 11:57:29 PM11/27/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Fri, 11/27/09, Tracey <Tracey.M...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
|
ornamentalmind
Nov 28, 2009, 12:05:04 AM11/28/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“All companions are given both eyes and ears, But each man differs in
his quickness of mind. There are some who are like deep refreshing
lakes, and yet others like shallow pools of water.” Rig-Veda
On Nov 27, 8:57 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
his quickness of mind. There are some who are like deep refreshing
lakes, and yet others like shallow pools of water.” Rig-Veda
On Nov 27, 8:57 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Michele Gennette
Nov 28, 2009, 12:23:30 AM11/28/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Sat, 11/28/09, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote: |
>“All companions are given both eyes and ears, But each man differs in |
|
|
ornamentalmind
Nov 28, 2009, 1:58:45 AM11/28/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Michele Gennette
Nov 28, 2009, 12:05:13 PM11/28/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
--- On Sat, 11/28/09, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:>...stir your shallow pool... |
Joe
Nov 28, 2009, 4:26:09 PM11/28/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Just a comment in the spirit of a civil religious discussion: The
Hindus have a concept called Karma Yoga, which I believe is key to any
spiritual life. It means the yoga of daily work, simply doing
whatever you are here to do, but without attachment to the fruits of
labor, but offering those to God. The name "Opus Dei" means God's
Work, and my understanding of it is just as you say. I see it as
Karma Yoga within Catholicism, which I believe is essential to
Catholicism in its authenticity. We are not supposed to be pursuing a
deeper relationship with God only for an hour on Sundays, we are
called to pursue holiness 24/7.
Good stuff Tracey, I am glad you belong to Opus Dei!
Hindus have a concept called Karma Yoga, which I believe is key to any
spiritual life. It means the yoga of daily work, simply doing
whatever you are here to do, but without attachment to the fruits of
labor, but offering those to God. The name "Opus Dei" means God's
Work, and my understanding of it is just as you say. I see it as
Karma Yoga within Catholicism, which I believe is essential to
Catholicism in its authenticity. We are not supposed to be pursuing a
deeper relationship with God only for an hour on Sundays, we are
called to pursue holiness 24/7.
Good stuff Tracey, I am glad you belong to Opus Dei!
Michele Gennette
Nov 28, 2009, 5:02:33 PM11/28/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Sat, 11/28/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Joe
Nov 28, 2009, 10:39:30 PM11/28/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
I appreciate your input to this discussion.
On Nov 27, 3:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Meaning, simply, that the act of dissent removes one from the category
of "faithful Catholic."
Since you do not call yourself a faithful Catholic, naturally, you do
dissent from some Catholic Dogmas. If you did not dissent, you would
be a faithful Catholic, since Catholicism consists entirely in
believing the Catholic Faith and putting it into practice, and, one of
the tenets of the Catholic Faith is the necessity of putting it into
practice. Again, "necessity" means, to remain a faithful Catholic.
One cannot, in other words, fail to practice Catholicism and
simultaneously be a faithful Catholic.
So in light of all the above, it should be obvious that, so far from
proclaiming truth by fiat, I fully expect you to dissent from some of
these dogmas. "Not subject to dissent" means, for me, and for those
who believe as I do. So far from closing the door on any debate, your
expected dissent *opens* that door. If we were already in agreement,
there would be nothing for us to debate.
>So, at the outset, your thinking is
> different when examining the particular.
Of course. If our thoughts already matched up, again, there would be
no debate.
> In other words, I reject your
> given tenet(s) and have said so.
I already understand that. To move on would mean to examine your
reasons for rejecting particular dogmas.
If you reject them out of hand, *because* they are dogmas, the it
seems that an examination of your reasons for that would be in order.
Do you believe that it is impossible for anyone to know the truth?
Do you resent being told what the truth is?
Do you reject the concept of truth as something that is independent of
anyone's belief?
Do you, after examining specific dogmas, reject them on the grounds
that you know for certain they are not true?
If the last, can you be specific and elucidate exactly why?
> What you call examination overall is
> only supporting the given tenet(s). In this sense, you use tautology.
> I am not entirely against tautology,
It would be ludicrous to reject *any* tautology. Tautologies must be
true by definition.
>however I see no need to embrace
> this type of dogma. None.
When you repeat your negative, it seems you are giving it more
emphasis. So it seems that this point holds special significance for
you.
Setting aside the question of dogma, do you find it necessary or even
useful to embrace truth?
>Most of what follows only turns into a red
> herring in this context. Having read it, you have in no way convinced
> me that there is anything at all attractive when it comes to dogma.
> Nothing.
Again, you have emphasized this point, which seems to indicate that it
is especially significant for you.
So again, setting aside for the moment the question of dogma, do you
find truth attractive, simply because it is truth? Or not?
I ask because for some, it seems, truth is in their view a mutable
concept. In my view, reality is what it is, independently of anyone's
belief about it, and there is but one reality, identical for everyone,
and truth is the correlation of any concept to that sole reality. I
call this position realism. Would you consider yourself a realist?
>And, my intention has been all along to point out how some of
> your non-Catholic dogma (assumptions, leaps in ‘logic’, assumptions,
> misinformation etc.) is just that…unfounded belief voiced with a flair
> and an attempt at so influencing the reader.
>
I think you are wrong about me. But I definitely appreciate it if you
can point out specifically where, for example, I have taken logical
leaps. And surely, where I have asserted misinformation. It is the
exact opposite of my intent, to present any misinformation about
anything. Of course, you have only my word about that. But if you
can point out where I have misinformed, I would definitely appreciate
that. I give you my word that I would never intentionally do that, so
it disturbs me quite a bit to see you accusing me of it. As I stated,
I think you are wrong about me, in that regard.
> You later say:“…There is an old expression that "the proof of the
> pudding is in the eating thereof,"
> and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
> purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
> of religion to oneself and one's life.” – TC
>
> While argument by slogan is a common debate technique, we know it is a
> fallacy.
Necessarily? Why? A slogan is just an expression in words. Is it
impossible that those words might apply to the situation?
>Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and one accepts that
> “… As such, proofs will tend to be experiential and anecdotal….”, I
> still do not see a need to embrace the basic tenets nor other
> trappings of a specific theology. You wish to…fine. I do not and see
> absolutely no reason to do so. Even if one looks at your following:
> “…There is a vast library of valuable literature published by men and
> women who have been declared by the Church to be in the Canon of
> Saints. This is the Church's official word that these men and women
> have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their methods of
> approaching God definitively work….”
>
> Here what one finds is an attempt at conflation of a specific dogma
> with other contemplative practices, even some found within
> Christianity. Personally I agree that there are methods for
> transcendence and some that work. However, the very foundation of
> Catholicism, the specific dogma you have presented, precludes the
> possibility of other systems that use similar and perhaps even
> preferable methodologies. One look at your screen name points towards
> some of your apparent motivation here. Yet, at the very foundation of
> this entire topic is the unassailable fact that a specific theology,
> founded upon specific dogma, and when such dogma precludes other
> possibilities, any attempts at appropriating the attributes of systems
> rejected by the one you present cannot, and will not work no matter
> how you couch the issue.
>
Is there truth? Or not?
> > Personally I prefer
> > to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> > the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy. - OM
>
> “I don't see the distinction here. Wouldn't you be judging what you
> observed as good or bad?” – TC
>
> No.
>
What would you hope to discern by looking at them? It seems unlikely
you would just look and say, "hey, look at that." It seems more
likely you would be looking for a reason other than just to look. So
what would that reason be?
> “…Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of dogma is to
> eliminate personal interpretations and express universal truth….” – TC
>
> The former I agree is the case. I do not agree that the latter occurs.
Do you think it is impossible in principle, or simply not done in
fact?
> In fact, I find that ‘universal truth’ does not reside within any
> dogmatic framework.
You say, "in fact, I find. . .," implying that you know and would
recognize universal truth, and have examined all dogmatic frameworks
and found it lacking therein. Or, you do not believe there is any
such thing as universal truth, and see your belief as a matter of
fact.
>Even if one changes the term ‘dogma’ to one of
> ‘tenet’, which more closely matches your description, even here one
> does not find universal truth…at least not in the context of your
> description above. Again, it appears to be a simple case of
> appropriation.
>
It seems you are implying that the Church has simply adopted certain
ideas, rather arbitrarily, and assigned to them the label of universal
truth, without any justification. Is that what you believe has taken
place?
> “I neither stated nor implied such.” – TC [limiting the conversation
> to one theology]
>
> Just because you throw a pinch of this system and a pinch of that
> system into a stew mix, your screen name along with the constant
> recurring theme of Catholicism belies your above statement.
I am a faithful Roman Catholic. I make no bones about that. I am
attempting to elucidate why. And obviously, I think I have good
reasons why, and, additionally, I believe there are good reasons for
anyone to embrace the same.
I believe Catholicism is the universal religion, and as such, it would
be very surprising indeed to find that there were truths in other
religions not at all found in Catholicism. I expect, rather, to find
that any truth that has value, from anywhere, has its parallel in
Catholicism. Otherwise, it could not legitimately claim to be
universal.
So to say I wish to limit the conversation to "one theology" is, I
think, a bit misleading. In my view, there is only one theology, just
as there is only one reality. If there is truth in every religion, as
I believe there is, then one would expect to find the selfsame
theology in all of them. Insofar as one does, I think that points to
the universality of religious truth. Insofar as one does not, I think
it is possible that it is a matter of misunderstanding, and
perspective, and language. If there are direct contradictions, then
the law of non-contradiction tells us that at most one of the two
contradictory ideas can be true. As a faithful Catholic, in such
situations, I adhere to the teaching of the Church. But in every case
where this is so, I believe definite reasons can be advanced for
preferring the Catholic position, apart from the mere fact that the
Church teaches it. I understand that you would not accept "because
the Church says so" as a reason. That is why we are having this
discussion: because invariably, that is not the only reason. And it
seems likely that the additional reasons there are have not yet been
considered by you. Possibly, because you are prejudiced against the
dogmatic teachings of the Church, or dogmatic teachings of any kind.
But your prejudice need not blind you to the truth, and it is possible
that I could find good arguments to address any and all of your
objections. To find our whether what I have said foregoing is true,
would be a good reason for us to pursue this discussion.
>The core
> of your set of tenets is not associated with Egyptian religions,
> Chinese religions, nor Indian religions.
>
The core of my belief system is truth, insofar as it is knowable by
us. I believe the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of truth.
Apparently, that belief of mine puts you off. But it is not necessary
for you to be affected that way by it. You can let go of your
attachment to the idea that if it is dogma, it must therefore be
wrong. Can't you?
In any case, I neither assume nor require that you share that belief
of mine. I think I can support it, and that support, that
justification, is what I seek to share with you, if you can possibly
open your mind to it. To reject it out of hand is not open-minded.
To give definite reasons why you reject specific principles, is much
better.
> “These beliefs are dogmatic, i.e. non-optional, for Buddhism.” – TC
>
> Many Buddhists do not accept these tenets.
Are we talking about the same things here? What Buddhist rejects the
Four Noble Truths?
> So, in that sense they are
> optional. Of course, many Christians do not accept your Dogma/Creed
> either. As such, they could not be accepted as Catholics (nor would/
> could they call themselves Catholic) according to you. Correct?
>
A faithful Catholic believes what the Church teaches. Period.
This is tautological.
> “I submit that, on the one hand, some Buddhists tend to cling to the
> words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
> experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
> their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
> subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
> of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.” – TC
>
> Here, if one assumes that you are correct, it becomes obvious that
> there is no need for a specific theology called Catholicism with its
> associated dogmas. The practice of examination, experimentation and
> self-observation of results of tenets (not mere dogmas) can be
> completed by any human being whether associated to a specific theology
> or not.
>
True, but the results will not necessarily be the same. Tenets, as
you might prefer to call them, are specific or else they are nothing.
And particular techniques based on those tenets will have relatively
different levels of utility.
We can examine the results of applying Catholic Dogma, treating it as
a set of tenets that can be applied just like any other. Any
prejudice we might hold against dogma per se need not blind us to the
results of any such examination.
> “That is not what dogma is.” – TC [unexamined belief]
>
> OK, it is according to the definitions I have found, but for now,
> let’s assume, using some of your words:
> “…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
> examined. …” - TC
>
> Since you have your meanings associated with words, I will ‘define my
> terms’ by using the reference:http://www.onelook.com/?w=dissent&ls=a
>
> Since I do not assent to Catholic Dogma at all, there is dissent which
> you say cannot be done.
It cannot be done by a faithful Catholic, since he would ipso facto
fall away from fidelity by the act of dissent.
Obviously, it can be done, since you do it, though I believe you do so
unexaminedly.
> So, within the parameters of your very own
> dogma, our discussion is over.
Again: should you wish to bow out, simply do so, but kindly don't
blame it on me. I'm not the cause of your behavior.
> I do not and have not nor will I accept
> your premise.
Even if it can be demonstrated? That wouldn't make any sense. Your
statement above comes across as the epitome of closed-mindedness.
>Using your own ‘rules of the game’,
The rule of no dissent applies to faithful Catholics, by definition.
And clearly, you are not one of those. So if you wish to bow out, it
will not be because I have disallowed your dissent. I hope this is
clear by now.
> the discussion is
> over because any examination you make will make no difference for me
> when it comes to any attempt at persuading me to accept your basic
> dogma.
>
Stubbornness or obstinacy is a personality you are free to choose for
yourself, should you so desire. I will only ask that you acknowledge
that it is in you, and not because of something I've presented, nor
because of what dogma is.
> >Such proclamations of
> > truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
function in it for you, that is your choice, to disallow any function.
>You embrace a specific dogma, I do not. I do not wish to be
> evangelical in getting you to further examine your beliefs to a point
> where you might reject your dogma.
Why not?
>I accept your right to hold fast to
> your belief system.
>
Even if to do so is irrational? Why? Do you believe I am closed to
reason, or do you simply not think to talk me out of my dogmatic
stance worth the effort? Or is it something else?
> Again, using your own words:
> “Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
> It
> is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth.” – TC
>
> This is followed by:
> “Debate is appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the
> "real value of pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be,
> it is no more debatable than the value of pi.” – TC
>
> You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you proclaim
> unassailable ‘truth’ in the form of dogma. Then, when I recognize your
> dogma and say it is unassailable, you accuse me of not wanting to
> discuss this!!! Why in the world would I want to? (rhetorical) There
> would be absolutely no function in doing so at all. I hope you grasp
> this.
>
If what I say is true, you should want to discuss it in order to find
the truth.
If what I say is false, you should want to discuss it in order to
expose its falsehood.
I made an analogy between Catholic Dogma and a mathematical constant.
If you find this analogy inapt, you should be able to say why. So
far, it appears that you treat dogmas as exalted opinions rather than
simple facts. If my analysis is accurate, then is that because you do
not believe there to be any such thing as truth per se, or simply that
the Doctors of the Church have mistakenly apprehended what truth there
may be?
> > Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism. - OM
>
> “You are free to call it dogmatism, but it isn't. If you are using
> dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
> positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
> dogmatistic about that?” – TC
>
> Just saying that your earlier presentation is not dogmatism doesn’t
> make it otherwise. Your words were based upon total dogma/belief(s)
> associated with a specific theology, Catholicism. Period. Here look at
> your own words and I will deconstruct them pointing out each point of
> dogma since you don’t appear to be able to see it
>
> > “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > there will be no more sin.” – TC
>
> You start out with a declaration of purpose. And, this professed
> purpose presupposes a dogma of sin. I do not nor wish to nor will
> accept that concept.
Why?
> It is dogma.
Is that why? If so, then I would ask, why do you reject dogma out of
hand, without examining it, based only on the fact that it *is*
dogma? Do you think truth is a matter of opinion, and each should be
free to form his own ideas of truth?
> You continue with some nebulous
> commentary about “the People of God”.
How were my comments nebulous?
>Clearly you have your beliefs/
> assumptions about what this includes and clearly it does not include
> people who are not Catholic, correct?
That seems like a prejudicial assumption you have made about me. I
will not confirm it for you. Things are not as simple as you paint
them here.
The People of God are all those are now or who will be in heaven. As
such, it includes many who are currently not Catholic. I hope, even
you.
> Or IF you include all people as
> people of god, there is no need for a specific dogmatic theology.
Some people will condemn themselves to hell, so they would not be
included in the People of God. So no, it does not include "all
people." It includes all *good* people. And there is a specific
relationship of all good people to the Catholic Church, and that
relationship is ultimately one of identity, despite present
appearances. Our perspective is in time, but God's perspective
transcends time.
>You
> continue with comments about eternity and “the Communion of Saints”.
> Eternity is a notion embraced by many different systems and, as such
> holds no special place nor use in this context.
Why not? Is it because it is a notion embraced by many different
systems? Are you assuming that I must be parochial in my view? That
would be your assumption, not mine, and not something you legitimately
assign to me.
> However, the term “the
> Communion of Saints” is filled with assumptions that may not be
> questioned, correct?
Was that a question? Are we in a discussion, here? To reiterate:
Faithful Catholics do not dissent from the teachings of Holy Mother
Church. Anything beyond that statement will likely be your spin, not
attributable to me.
>One must accept that there are saints, correct?
The Buddha did. He called it the Sangha, part of the triple refuge.
What about you? Are all human beings equally holy, or enlightened, or
adept? Or are some more advanced than others? Is there any such
state as perfection? Has anyone ever reached such a state?
> One must accept that there is ‘communion’, whatever that is in this
> context,
Unity of Will.
Is such a thing possible? Is a universal harmony desirable? Is it
attainable?
>with saints. In any case, one must first accept the notion of
> ‘sin’,
Are there any undesirable human behaviors? Does religion, after all,
serve any purpose whatsoever, or does it just keep priests in
business? If there is no purpose at all to religion, yet priests are
still in business, are they charlatans? And if they are charlatans,
is that wrong? If it is wrong, wouldn't it be a sin?
Sin implies moral responsibility, which implies freedom of will. Is
there free will? Is there moral culpability? If not, then why do we
prosecute criminals?
> the notion of ‘the catholic church’, the idea of one being
> saved from their ‘sins’, people being associated with the church as
> being people of god, god itself, that there will come a time when no
> more work is to do, the notion of heaven, and finally, after all of
> the previous is accepted (as a matter of faith or dogma…at least not
> rejected), then one is to believe there is no more sin.
>
> The entire paragraph is not only peppered with dogma but primarily IS
> dogma. I can only guess that one who has accepted said dogma might not
> see this, but for me, who accepts none of the dogma it shines quite
> clearly as such.
>
Is the problem that there are just too many dogmas, and you could
never get to the end of understanding all of them, or is it simply
that you object to any one view of reality as correct?
If the first, I maintain that the number of dogmas is less than
infinite, and all of them can be explained and understood. Are you
pressed for time?
If the second, I would ask how you justify the view that no particular
view of reality is correct, as correct? Or are reality, and truth,
both mutable for you?
> “Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?” – TC
>
> You wanted a discussion.
Whenever you're ready.
> I do not accept your primary tenets/dogma/
> etc.
Then kindly justify your non-acceptance of them. That would be a
discussion.
>The group is about ‘Debate’. When something is not accepted, one
> would naturally reject it.
But in a debate, one would expect to, and be expected to justify one's
rejection of any assertion.
>In the act of rejecting, my words would be
> attacking your belief(s) and dogma.
Not if you just say, "I reject that." That would be a non-
conversation.
If you say, "I reject that BECAUSE. . .," and insert your rationale
for the ellipses, that would be a conversation, discussion, debate,
whatever you'd like to call it.
So far, I get from you that you reject all dogma because it is dogma.
But you have not yet justified that stance. Personally, I'd like to
get beyond that and into specific objections that I could address,
but, we're kind of stuck here for as long as you'd like.
>I see no function in doing so
> UNLESS you tell me you are ready to reject your dogma and your
> specific theology and be at least open to accepting a different way.
If you can show me why I should, I will.
> So far, you do not appear to be looking to do that.
>
I'm not looking to do that, and I doubt very much you'll be able to
say why you even think I should. But I am open to surprises.
I already have definite reasons why I do accept these dogmas, and
further, why you should as well. I am ready and willing to elucidate.
But initially, you have introduced an obstacle that must be dealt
with. You seem closed to the possibility that Catholic Dogma may
simply be the truth, and the only reason you seem to be able to give
for that is, because it claims to be just that. If there is any such
thing as truth, and if a body knows it, and knows it to be the truth,
why would that body hide that knowledge, especially since that
knowledge would be part of that truth?
> So, as to your question about ‘assimilation’, I long ago did in the
> sense that I know there are those who embrace blind belief(s) (dogma).
My own particular embracing of dogma is not blind. So while there may
be those, you are not conversing with one of them.
> In this case, something that one is not allowed to reject (according
> to you).
In the same sense that 3 is not allowed to be other than 1 + 1 + 1.
It is that, by definition. A faithful Catholic is not allowed to
dissent from Church teaching, by definition of faithful Catholic. A
bachelor is not allowed to marry. He can marry, but by doing so he
gives up his status as a bachelor.
>So, I know there are those who hold these beliefs and do not
> wish to change their beliefs.
I have no wish to change my beliefs, which should not be an obstacle
to discussing them. If I wished to change me beliefs, I think I would
simply do so. Don't you?
>I feel I have assimilated this reality
> quite well into my world/cosmology. One could also see this acceptance
> of said believers and their beliefs as being a synthesis too. So,
> unless you are asking me to limit myself (rather than the combining to
> form something more complex implied by the term ‘synthesize’)…and in
> the act of limiting myself to take on your small set of dogmatic
> beliefs as being all that is acceptable, something that is common when
> it comes to evangelism, I do not understand your question.
Plainly, you do not understand my question. Just as plainly, you do
not understand my beliefs. I say so because of your use of words
referring to limitation, which is the opposite of the effect my
beliefs actually have on me.
>If in fact
> it is this latter, I have and continue to reject such a small world
> view founded upon nothing.
>
Continuing to tell yourself that my view limits me only limits you.
My experience is to the contrary.
> “…You seem quite mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might
> simply be an accurate
> view of reality.” - TC
>
> I accept it is your view of reality. It is not mine.
>
I didn't say yours or mine, I said "accurate."
So once again we are at the question of whether you believe any
accurate view of reality is even possible?
I am not in a mentality of "yours vs mine." I find it liberating to
concern myself with whatever truth there may be, wherever I may find
it, and to get out of the mindset of competitiveness. Does that
appeal to you at all?
> > Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> > asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> > deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> > when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> > even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best. - OM
>
> “Are you accusing me of intentional deception? If so, can you support
> such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
> discussion is useless?” – TC
>
> Whether you intend to deceive or are merely overzealous about your
> belief system I do not know. Only you know this. You have attempted to
> show that Taoism is dogma based.
Not in the least. I can't find any reason you might even think so,
other than your prejudice, which shows itself here, I think.
> I say it is not. You have your
> belief, I mine.
I believe there is truth.
What do you think?
>And, even though it is a fallacy to use in
> argumentation, my best guess is that the vast majority of people who
> are well versed in Taoism would lean in my direction rather than
> yours.
You mean your straw man of mine.
>Now, I do admit to only having looked at Taoism for about 40-45
> years, so you may have more experience with it than I do.
Maybe, but not chronologically, since I have only been able to read
for 40 years or so and didn't read the Tao Te Ching until years after
that.
But, I do embrace the philosophy. I've done more than looked at it, I
think. I think I've lived it.
What about you?
>So far, your
> arguments have not been supported by anything but opinion about
> Taoism. And, I did address your attempt at comparing a theology with
> an anthropomorphic deity with a ‘way’ which has none. Herein lies the
> distortion.
>
Calling God "anthropomorphic" is a pretty common atheist slant. It
implies that we created God in our image, rather than the reverse,
which I hold as the truth.
But to compare God with Tao is like comparing water to dihydrogen
monoxide.
Tao is the source of all that is. God is the source of all that is.
I don't care so much about Tao-"ism," per se --- just about Tao.
Taoism, insofar as it is a simple philosophy based on Tao, I embrace.
Taoism insofar as it is a system of beliefs formed around writings or
opinions about what Tao might be, I do not so much embrace. I like to
get to the root of things. But here we are, multiplying words. We
are never going to appear to get to the root of things by our words.
But we can get to the root of things, perhaps. Anyway, that is how I
think and operate, despite appearances, which after all are based on
my words, which can't touch that root.
No doubt, if you attach yourself to my words, you will completely miss
my point. And if that is all you can do, then I will have to agree
with you that our discussion is useless.
But if you can look beyond words into the heart of the matter, then
perhaps we can both learn from each other.
> When you say:
>
> “Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is implied by
> them, and included in them, though more accurately they both are
> included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> but heaven and earth can be spoken of.” – TC
>
> …says nothing to support Catholicism.
Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and are: . . .
Revelation 19:12 . . . And he had a name written, which no man knoweth
but himself. 13 . . . And his name is called: THE WORD OF GOD.
>If anything, it shows Taoism as
> the more expansive system.
Or, it illustrates a parallel between Taoism and Catholicism.
>Well, you do make some attempts at
> correlating terms such a heaven and earth, such attempts appearing to
> be based upon nothing…other than pure fiat.
Or existing correlations.
>What follows these
> declarations made by you is but more conjecture, supposition and
> guesswork.
So you conjecture, suppose, and guess! But you are incorrect in your
assessment. I am not an academic, and I am not talking about what
I've read and assimilated, but rather what I've experienced and
confirmed by reading of others' similar experiences.
>Your language even confirms this!
>
> > “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > religion in the world….” – TC
>
> Your use of qualifiers throughout the paragraph is the message, not
> some aborted attempt at appropriating other systems into a smaller
> one.
>
All your insults aside, Catholicism is the most expansive system
possible, seeing that it embraces universal truth.
My use of qualifiers is not intended to convey any uncertainty on my
part, but only to get the reader to think for himself about these
things.
Give it a try! What have you got to lose?
> I even gave you credit for your search for unity!
>
Not enough, since I have not only sought, but found. You don't seem
to get it, but, that would be why we're discussing it in the first
place. If we could move past your dismissiveness, and on to a real
discussion, that would be refreshing!
> > Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> > all, the analysis fails on many fronts. – OM
>
> To which you ask about how your analysis fails:
>
> “Such as. . .?” - TC
>
> You did this even though I had immediately followed my charge with
> examples.
>
Yeah, I saw that. The flow came out nicely, almost as if you answered
my question directly. What is your specific objection to my putting
in the question for your answer? Feeling nitpicky today?
> > First, using your presentation
> > of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> > accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> > fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> > apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. - OM
>
> You counter with:
>
> “Or a different perspective on reality, which might not contradict
> another perspective.” – TC
>
> Here, you in fact offer no argument against my assertions.
I offered an alternative.
>You attempt
> to drag a pink fish across the road and hope someone will follow. It
> smells fishy, sorry. One simply cannot take a dogma based religion
> such as Catholicism and at once assign attributes from other systems
> to it while at the same time demanding that one cannot deny its
> primary dogmatic set of ‘rules’. This is because the other systems,
> Taoism in this case, are not at all analogous to Catholicism as much
> as you would like to make it so in your argument. I say this knowing
> that it is possible to hold “a different perspective on reality, which
> might not contradict another perspective”. And, knowing this all too
> well, this is not the case as you have presented it. Yes, you weave
> other systems in using a clever thread but like the above, you offer
> no support other than a patchwork of suppositions, possibilities and
> guesswork. Most analogies, as I’ve shown above and below, just are not
> accurate. I will add an analogy, I see your attempt here as attempting
> to place a square peg in a round hole. Your words such as ‘properly
> apprehended’, a phrase I use often, in this case is not supported in
> any way at all. You merely claim by fiat that “…This concept of Tao,
> I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent with the concept of God
> as known in Catholicism…” To which the only refutation necessary is
> “No it is not.” One can respond this way because you have in no way
> supported you claim in any meaningful way unless one already has
> accepted your initial dogma! Again, I can understand how one can come
> to this way of seeing. The difficulty is seeing alternatives.
>
As an alternative to all that writing you did above, you could have
simply asked me to elucidate, and I would have obliged.
Even though you didn't bother to ask, I will still bother to oblige:
Commonalities between Tao as known to the Chinese and Yahweh as known
to the Hebrews:
Eternity
Creativity
Pervasiveness
Power
Invisibility
Ineffability
Fundamentality
Accessibility
> I had clarified all of this further with:
>
> >When one
> > additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> > such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> > of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> > historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> > other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> > cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets. – OM
>
> To which, you entirely ignored my points with a red herring question.
>
> “What is the value of a cosmology, or of an attachment to a particular
> cosmology?” – TC
>
Socratic Method. Not a red herring.
> And, even recognizing your debate tactic, I will answer your question.
> NONE!
>
Then why bother to argue one against another?
But I will follow up with a reiteration of the question that seems to
be a theme in this reply of mine: Is there any such thing as a fact?
Someone said once (some Zen Master I think,) "Do not give up the
search for truth. Only cease to cherish opinions."
> > “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> > into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> > said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> > free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
> > While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> > merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> > of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> > systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> > in the subject of the current topic: dogma. - OM
>
> “And yet, I have examined many, many different ways of approaching
> these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure! “ – TC
>
> Not exactly a cogent rebuttal is it TC?
I thought it was pretty succinct. Sorry it went over your head.
>Even IF one accepted your
> supposition about ‘faiths of the world’ and truths, your enormous jump
> from pointing to what may be close to the truth of the matter that IF
> one looks at the core of many systems (I have doubts about ‘faiths’)
> one finds a commonality, to an attempt at a negation of the meaning of
> the term dogma by pointing to a few words claimed by faith to be from
> a claimed Son of god etc. is so absurd as to be called a complete non-
> sequitur as presented.
>
I do make jumps sometimes. It is because the topic at hand is so
vast. But we can start as small as you like. I will strive to keep
my assumptions as few as possible. But kindly hear me at least, that
when I make a leap, it is not because I don't have anything filling in
where I've leaped over, but really more in the interest of time,
bandwidth, readership, etc. Sometimes, I assume that what I see so
plainly is actually obvious, when maybe it actually isn't. That is my
bad. Thanks for calling me on it. But don't assume it is for
ulterior motives, as I really don't think I have any of those.
> “Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
> trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without
> cause.” – TC
>
> Your disagreement is noted as is your suspicion. Also, your
> supposition that I take the time to enter into a discussion with you,
> employing a lot of time and energy, presenting clear rebuttal to your
> claims while recognizing your dogmas, and then having specific
> conclusions of my own, all is ‘without cause’ apparently because my
> view differs from yours, is noted too.
>
What I mean is that you have no cause to dismiss, rather than to
discuss. Perhaps this is your way of doing what I alluded to above,
i.e. to save time, bandwidth, etc.
You also have no cause to assume that my reason for saying this is
"apparently because my view differs from yours." That isn't why. To
make that assumption is, in fact, dismissive.
> > “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
> > seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
> > as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > parallel to that in theology…” - TC
> > Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> > start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> > that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
> > proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. - OM
>
> “That is a comparison one might make, who did not understand the
> dogmas
> I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.” - TC
>
> You have delineated a long list of dogma. I understand those dogmas.
Respectfully, no you do not. You no doubt have an impression of them,
and you probably understand your impression, but I see it as very
unlikely that you truly understand the dogmas themselves.
> If you are ready to add more dogmas to the list, fine. However, to
> merely claim I do not understand your dogmas says nothing. It is a
> hollow claim. And, when taken in the context that I presented it, the
> 1984 analogy is about as apt as one can be…and, of course, your
> opinion is again noted.
>
Well, you are of course free to disagree with my assessment, but
nonetheless I stand by it. One would not normally claim to understand
2 + 2 = 4 but simply disagree. Yet, you claim to understand Catholic
Dogma and simply disagree. I don't see that as possible. But in
another part of this thread, I am elucidating further on what I've
already presented, so maybe you can address this there, should you
choose to.
> > Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> > mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> > founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> > is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> > make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> > assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> > Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra. - OM
>
> “But the principles of logic, one cannot so easily replace at will.” -
> TC
>
> The topic was not nor is it ‘logic’.
Actually, it is. Not logic merely, but a particular logic that is the
logic of God's interaction with humanity.
>IF you wish to present what logic
> (s) you wish to employ here, by all means do so. Logic is not a
> monolith. Most people consider ‘logic’ to be the way they think.
> Unless you clarify your tenets for logic, anything that follows is
> nonsensical.
For one thing, the law of non-contradiction applies to any truths that
can be expressed in words. Do you agree that this is a tenet we
should hold?
>
> “There is reality, and reality is what it is.” – TC
>
> Tautology. And..???
>
> “If there are unseen realities, we cannot know them with certainty by
> our own observations and understanding.” – TC
>
> Again, you make a ‘truth by fiat’. First, as well as I can ascertain
> your intended meaning here, I fully disagree. But, since you have not
> laid the foundation for your belief, it is difficult to tell. Is this
> dogma? Is it supposition as the “If” implies? We don’t know.
>
It seems like a tautology to me. If a reality could be observed, it
would not, by that token, be unseen.
> “The mathematical truth that a circumference has the exact ration pi
> to a diameter, we cannot replace at will.” – TC
>
> Of course we can! This can be done much in the same way we introduce
> different geometries when we change Euclid’s 5th postulate! In both
> cases, even on the mundane physical plane, as long as one retains a
> provincial vantage point, using ‘common sense’ because it ‘works’ in
> our house, yes, both the 3rd and 5th postulates are unassailable.
> However, since reality is not such a small and closed system, one
> merely has to change any or all of the 5 or even add more to them, and
> a different reality arises.
>
Playing fast and loose with the term 'reality' here, I think.
But it is not yet clear that we even agree on the signification of
that term.
In any case, pi is a mathematical constant. It is facile for you to
claim that it can be changed at will. It might be a lot more
difficult for you to demonstrate the same. If it were arbitrary, I
would agree that it could be changed at will. But it does not appear
to be arbitrary.
Same for, for example, e. Same for the Mandelbrot Set. There are
many facts of reality that are simply not arbitrary. We can invent
alternatives, but they will necessarily be limited in scope.
You seem to view Catholic Doctrine as limited in scope, rather than
simply reality. I see Catholic Doctrine as a clear statement of the
truth of reality, upon which any number of true understandings can be
built. Evidence for this is the diversity of spiritual paths that the
Saints have walked.
> “We can discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God,
> we can discover, but cannot understand without His help.” – TC
>
> Again, this is truth by fiat. It is unassailable. You say it is true
> as a premise, so anything I say would have to be within the same tenet
> system, thus accepting your ‘truth’. I do not.
Why not?
>You have not made any
> attempt at supporting your belief. You are not at all persuasive.
> Again, no response is possible when these tactics are used.
>
There are plenty of arguments for the existence of God. Would you
like to examine some of them?
If God is infinite, then plainly, we cannot understand Him without His
help, since we are finite.
Please note that my use of the conditional, 'if,' here, is not meant
to imply doubt on my part, but simply the hypothetical nature of the
statement itself. It is an "if/then" statement, not a confession of
uncertainty.
> > So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
> > …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> > permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue. - OM
>
> “…Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
> It is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
> appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
> pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
> debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
> reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
> understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
> Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
> that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
> Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
> laying out objections first and then answering them….” - TC
>
> Here is the core of your ‘debate’. You present dogma, which is not a
> matter of debate. Then you invite debate, using an analogy of a
> ‘saint’ who first laid out objections and then answered them! Are you
> really asking us to debate those things you say are beyond debate only
> to tell us that we can’t debate them!???
>
Nope.
>
>
> > Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> > Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> > such forms of Ingsoc. - OM
>
> “I have asked no one to believe anything.” – TC
>
> TC, by default, when any tenet system, based on dogma is presented, to
> discuss it, one is REQUIRED to believe the dogma.
>
Except that you don't, and here we are. But true, we haven't yet got
to actually debating the items in question, only so far as debating
whether we can debate!
I think that it is possible to consider hypotheticals. If you agree,
then we can discuss anything at all, without exception, since our
discussion won't require our acceptance of truths, only of conditional
hypotheses.
> “Let alone enforce particular views with militaristic strength.” – TC
>
> While not rare in dogmatic systems, the following supports your
> militant position wishing to dispatch all apparent enemies and forge
> ahead.
>
> “You are invoking hyperbole here, no doubt, but you are not so much
> making a mountain of a molehill as you are inventing a mountain. If
> you choose not to explore these topics, by all means bow out of the
> discussion. But there are several here who have expressed an
> interest, and I intend to continue.” – TC
>
> For those with eyes to see, accusing me of ‘not exploring these
> topics’ when I in fact have explored almost every *word* of your
> topics that is not dogma is disingenuous at best again.
But so far you haven't touched on substance, only reiterated your view
that we can't discuss. Can we get past this, and discuss? Or not?
>And, if you do
> not wish me to continue to deconstruct your proclamations, this is
> fine with me. And, I am sure you have several here who are quite
> willing to follow you wherever you take the topic. So, if that is your
> wish, this too is fine with me. All along, my goal has been to point
> out basic inconsistencies, flaws in reasoning and use of words in your
> presentation. So far, you either reject or ignore almost all of my
> criticisms. This too is fine with me.
I haven't yet seen you touch the substance of my ideas.
For example, why do you think there is no God? Does the universe make
more sense without God? Show me how.
Why do you think there is no such thing as sin? It does not seem
possible that you think there is no such thing as inappropriate human
behavior. But that's what sin is. So do you just object to the use
of the word? Is it *because* it is dogma that you object to it? Or
do you think (which seems absurd on the face of it) that all human
behavior is exactly as it should be? It seems pretty plain that if
that were the case, the Buddha never would have elucidated the First
Noble Truth.
> As to the mountain analogy, there is no invention. My analogy as to
> how you use words and assign your own meaning to them arbitrarily and
> reject all dictionary meanings in specific cases with an obvious
> intention of influencing thinking is again spot on. . .
Prove it.
>your simple
> wave of the hand saying it is invention is just that….an attitude with
> no substance…at least with no demonstrated substance.
>
I use theological terms according to their standard meanings in
theology. They are not inaccessible to you by any stretch. So why
would you accuse me of assigning my own meaning arbitrarily? There is
nothing arbitrary about anything I do. Why would you assume so? If
you do not understand, the standard practice would be to ask me to
explain. Instead, it seems you would rather accuse me of foul
motives. I don't appreciate it.
On Nov 27, 3:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
> examined. …” - TC
>
> TC, I reject considering embracing a dogma which, as you so clearly
> say is not subject to dissent.
*For faithful Catholics.*
> examined. …” - TC
>
> TC, I reject considering embracing a dogma which, as you so clearly
> say is not subject to dissent.
Meaning, simply, that the act of dissent removes one from the category
of "faithful Catholic."
Since you do not call yourself a faithful Catholic, naturally, you do
dissent from some Catholic Dogmas. If you did not dissent, you would
be a faithful Catholic, since Catholicism consists entirely in
believing the Catholic Faith and putting it into practice, and, one of
the tenets of the Catholic Faith is the necessity of putting it into
practice. Again, "necessity" means, to remain a faithful Catholic.
One cannot, in other words, fail to practice Catholicism and
simultaneously be a faithful Catholic.
So in light of all the above, it should be obvious that, so far from
proclaiming truth by fiat, I fully expect you to dissent from some of
these dogmas. "Not subject to dissent" means, for me, and for those
who believe as I do. So far from closing the door on any debate, your
expected dissent *opens* that door. If we were already in agreement,
there would be nothing for us to debate.
>So, at the outset, your thinking is
> different when examining the particular.
no debate.
> In other words, I reject your
> given tenet(s) and have said so.
reasons for rejecting particular dogmas.
If you reject them out of hand, *because* they are dogmas, the it
seems that an examination of your reasons for that would be in order.
Do you believe that it is impossible for anyone to know the truth?
Do you resent being told what the truth is?
Do you reject the concept of truth as something that is independent of
anyone's belief?
Do you, after examining specific dogmas, reject them on the grounds
that you know for certain they are not true?
If the last, can you be specific and elucidate exactly why?
> What you call examination overall is
> only supporting the given tenet(s). In this sense, you use tautology.
> I am not entirely against tautology,
true by definition.
>however I see no need to embrace
> this type of dogma. None.
emphasis. So it seems that this point holds special significance for
you.
Setting aside the question of dogma, do you find it necessary or even
useful to embrace truth?
>Most of what follows only turns into a red
> herring in this context. Having read it, you have in no way convinced
> me that there is anything at all attractive when it comes to dogma.
> Nothing.
is especially significant for you.
So again, setting aside for the moment the question of dogma, do you
find truth attractive, simply because it is truth? Or not?
I ask because for some, it seems, truth is in their view a mutable
concept. In my view, reality is what it is, independently of anyone's
belief about it, and there is but one reality, identical for everyone,
and truth is the correlation of any concept to that sole reality. I
call this position realism. Would you consider yourself a realist?
>And, my intention has been all along to point out how some of
> your non-Catholic dogma (assumptions, leaps in ‘logic’, assumptions,
> misinformation etc.) is just that…unfounded belief voiced with a flair
> and an attempt at so influencing the reader.
>
can point out specifically where, for example, I have taken logical
leaps. And surely, where I have asserted misinformation. It is the
exact opposite of my intent, to present any misinformation about
anything. Of course, you have only my word about that. But if you
can point out where I have misinformed, I would definitely appreciate
that. I give you my word that I would never intentionally do that, so
it disturbs me quite a bit to see you accusing me of it. As I stated,
I think you are wrong about me, in that regard.
> You later say:“…There is an old expression that "the proof of the
> pudding is in the eating thereof,"
> and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
> purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
> of religion to oneself and one's life.” – TC
>
> While argument by slogan is a common debate technique, we know it is a
> fallacy.
impossible that those words might apply to the situation?
>Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and one accepts that
> “… As such, proofs will tend to be experiential and anecdotal….”, I
> still do not see a need to embrace the basic tenets nor other
> trappings of a specific theology. You wish to…fine. I do not and see
> absolutely no reason to do so. Even if one looks at your following:
> “…There is a vast library of valuable literature published by men and
> women who have been declared by the Church to be in the Canon of
> Saints. This is the Church's official word that these men and women
> have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their methods of
> approaching God definitively work….”
>
> Here what one finds is an attempt at conflation of a specific dogma
> with other contemplative practices, even some found within
> Christianity. Personally I agree that there are methods for
> transcendence and some that work. However, the very foundation of
> Catholicism, the specific dogma you have presented, precludes the
> possibility of other systems that use similar and perhaps even
> preferable methodologies. One look at your screen name points towards
> some of your apparent motivation here. Yet, at the very foundation of
> this entire topic is the unassailable fact that a specific theology,
> founded upon specific dogma, and when such dogma precludes other
> possibilities, any attempts at appropriating the attributes of systems
> rejected by the one you present cannot, and will not work no matter
> how you couch the issue.
>
> > Personally I prefer
> > to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> > the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy. - OM
>
> “I don't see the distinction here. Wouldn't you be judging what you
> observed as good or bad?” – TC
>
> No.
>
you would just look and say, "hey, look at that." It seems more
likely you would be looking for a reason other than just to look. So
what would that reason be?
> “…Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of dogma is to
> eliminate personal interpretations and express universal truth….” – TC
>
> The former I agree is the case. I do not agree that the latter occurs.
fact?
> In fact, I find that ‘universal truth’ does not reside within any
> dogmatic framework.
recognize universal truth, and have examined all dogmatic frameworks
and found it lacking therein. Or, you do not believe there is any
such thing as universal truth, and see your belief as a matter of
fact.
>Even if one changes the term ‘dogma’ to one of
> ‘tenet’, which more closely matches your description, even here one
> does not find universal truth…at least not in the context of your
> description above. Again, it appears to be a simple case of
> appropriation.
>
ideas, rather arbitrarily, and assigned to them the label of universal
truth, without any justification. Is that what you believe has taken
place?
> “I neither stated nor implied such.” – TC [limiting the conversation
> to one theology]
>
> Just because you throw a pinch of this system and a pinch of that
> system into a stew mix, your screen name along with the constant
> recurring theme of Catholicism belies your above statement.
attempting to elucidate why. And obviously, I think I have good
reasons why, and, additionally, I believe there are good reasons for
anyone to embrace the same.
I believe Catholicism is the universal religion, and as such, it would
be very surprising indeed to find that there were truths in other
religions not at all found in Catholicism. I expect, rather, to find
that any truth that has value, from anywhere, has its parallel in
Catholicism. Otherwise, it could not legitimately claim to be
universal.
So to say I wish to limit the conversation to "one theology" is, I
think, a bit misleading. In my view, there is only one theology, just
as there is only one reality. If there is truth in every religion, as
I believe there is, then one would expect to find the selfsame
theology in all of them. Insofar as one does, I think that points to
the universality of religious truth. Insofar as one does not, I think
it is possible that it is a matter of misunderstanding, and
perspective, and language. If there are direct contradictions, then
the law of non-contradiction tells us that at most one of the two
contradictory ideas can be true. As a faithful Catholic, in such
situations, I adhere to the teaching of the Church. But in every case
where this is so, I believe definite reasons can be advanced for
preferring the Catholic position, apart from the mere fact that the
Church teaches it. I understand that you would not accept "because
the Church says so" as a reason. That is why we are having this
discussion: because invariably, that is not the only reason. And it
seems likely that the additional reasons there are have not yet been
considered by you. Possibly, because you are prejudiced against the
dogmatic teachings of the Church, or dogmatic teachings of any kind.
But your prejudice need not blind you to the truth, and it is possible
that I could find good arguments to address any and all of your
objections. To find our whether what I have said foregoing is true,
would be a good reason for us to pursue this discussion.
>The core
> of your set of tenets is not associated with Egyptian religions,
> Chinese religions, nor Indian religions.
>
us. I believe the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of truth.
Apparently, that belief of mine puts you off. But it is not necessary
for you to be affected that way by it. You can let go of your
attachment to the idea that if it is dogma, it must therefore be
wrong. Can't you?
In any case, I neither assume nor require that you share that belief
of mine. I think I can support it, and that support, that
justification, is what I seek to share with you, if you can possibly
open your mind to it. To reject it out of hand is not open-minded.
To give definite reasons why you reject specific principles, is much
better.
> “These beliefs are dogmatic, i.e. non-optional, for Buddhism.” – TC
>
> Many Buddhists do not accept these tenets.
Four Noble Truths?
> So, in that sense they are
> optional. Of course, many Christians do not accept your Dogma/Creed
> either. As such, they could not be accepted as Catholics (nor would/
> could they call themselves Catholic) according to you. Correct?
>
This is tautological.
> “I submit that, on the one hand, some Buddhists tend to cling to the
> words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
> experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
> their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
> subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
> of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.” – TC
>
> Here, if one assumes that you are correct, it becomes obvious that
> there is no need for a specific theology called Catholicism with its
> associated dogmas. The practice of examination, experimentation and
> self-observation of results of tenets (not mere dogmas) can be
> completed by any human being whether associated to a specific theology
> or not.
>
you might prefer to call them, are specific or else they are nothing.
And particular techniques based on those tenets will have relatively
different levels of utility.
We can examine the results of applying Catholic Dogma, treating it as
a set of tenets that can be applied just like any other. Any
prejudice we might hold against dogma per se need not blind us to the
results of any such examination.
> “That is not what dogma is.” – TC [unexamined belief]
>
> OK, it is according to the definitions I have found, but for now,
> let’s assume, using some of your words:
> “…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
> examined. …” - TC
>
> Since you have your meanings associated with words, I will ‘define my
> terms’ by using the reference:http://www.onelook.com/?w=dissent&ls=a
>
> Since I do not assent to Catholic Dogma at all, there is dissent which
> you say cannot be done.
fall away from fidelity by the act of dissent.
Obviously, it can be done, since you do it, though I believe you do so
unexaminedly.
> So, within the parameters of your very own
> dogma, our discussion is over.
blame it on me. I'm not the cause of your behavior.
> I do not and have not nor will I accept
> your premise.
statement above comes across as the epitome of closed-mindedness.
>Using your own ‘rules of the game’,
And clearly, you are not one of those. So if you wish to bow out, it
will not be because I have disallowed your dissent. I hope this is
clear by now.
> the discussion is
> over because any examination you make will make no difference for me
> when it comes to any attempt at persuading me to accept your basic
> dogma.
>
yourself, should you so desire. I will only ask that you acknowledge
that it is in you, and not because of something I've presented, nor
because of what dogma is.
> >Such proclamations of
> > truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> > in the title of this conference. - OM
>
> “If you choose not to discuss these things with me, that is your
> right.” – TC
>
> There is no function in doing so, your protestations to the contrary
> aside.
So you say. Others appear to disagree, so again, if there is no
>
> “If you choose not to discuss these things with me, that is your
> right.” – TC
>
> There is no function in doing so, your protestations to the contrary
> aside.
function in it for you, that is your choice, to disallow any function.
>You embrace a specific dogma, I do not. I do not wish to be
> evangelical in getting you to further examine your beliefs to a point
> where you might reject your dogma.
>I accept your right to hold fast to
> your belief system.
>
reason, or do you simply not think to talk me out of my dogmatic
stance worth the effort? Or is it something else?
> Again, using your own words:
> “Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
> It
> is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth.” – TC
>
> This is followed by:
> “Debate is appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the
> "real value of pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be,
> it is no more debatable than the value of pi.” – TC
>
> You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you proclaim
> unassailable ‘truth’ in the form of dogma. Then, when I recognize your
> dogma and say it is unassailable, you accuse me of not wanting to
> discuss this!!! Why in the world would I want to? (rhetorical) There
> would be absolutely no function in doing so at all. I hope you grasp
> this.
>
the truth.
If what I say is false, you should want to discuss it in order to
expose its falsehood.
I made an analogy between Catholic Dogma and a mathematical constant.
If you find this analogy inapt, you should be able to say why. So
far, it appears that you treat dogmas as exalted opinions rather than
simple facts. If my analysis is accurate, then is that because you do
not believe there to be any such thing as truth per se, or simply that
the Doctors of the Church have mistakenly apprehended what truth there
may be?
> > Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism. - OM
>
> “You are free to call it dogmatism, but it isn't. If you are using
> dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
> positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
> dogmatistic about that?” – TC
>
> Just saying that your earlier presentation is not dogmatism doesn’t
> make it otherwise. Your words were based upon total dogma/belief(s)
> associated with a specific theology, Catholicism. Period. Here look at
> your own words and I will deconstruct them pointing out each point of
> dogma since you don’t appear to be able to see it
>
> > “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > there will be no more sin.” – TC
>
> You start out with a declaration of purpose. And, this professed
> purpose presupposes a dogma of sin. I do not nor wish to nor will
> accept that concept.
> It is dogma.
Is that why? If so, then I would ask, why do you reject dogma out of
hand, without examining it, based only on the fact that it *is*
dogma? Do you think truth is a matter of opinion, and each should be
free to form his own ideas of truth?
> You continue with some nebulous
> commentary about “the People of God”.
>Clearly you have your beliefs/
> assumptions about what this includes and clearly it does not include
> people who are not Catholic, correct?
will not confirm it for you. Things are not as simple as you paint
them here.
The People of God are all those are now or who will be in heaven. As
such, it includes many who are currently not Catholic. I hope, even
you.
> Or IF you include all people as
> people of god, there is no need for a specific dogmatic theology.
included in the People of God. So no, it does not include "all
people." It includes all *good* people. And there is a specific
relationship of all good people to the Catholic Church, and that
relationship is ultimately one of identity, despite present
appearances. Our perspective is in time, but God's perspective
transcends time.
>You
> continue with comments about eternity and “the Communion of Saints”.
> Eternity is a notion embraced by many different systems and, as such
> holds no special place nor use in this context.
systems? Are you assuming that I must be parochial in my view? That
would be your assumption, not mine, and not something you legitimately
assign to me.
> However, the term “the
> Communion of Saints” is filled with assumptions that may not be
> questioned, correct?
Faithful Catholics do not dissent from the teachings of Holy Mother
Church. Anything beyond that statement will likely be your spin, not
attributable to me.
>One must accept that there are saints, correct?
What about you? Are all human beings equally holy, or enlightened, or
adept? Or are some more advanced than others? Is there any such
state as perfection? Has anyone ever reached such a state?
> One must accept that there is ‘communion’, whatever that is in this
> context,
Is such a thing possible? Is a universal harmony desirable? Is it
attainable?
>with saints. In any case, one must first accept the notion of
> ‘sin’,
serve any purpose whatsoever, or does it just keep priests in
business? If there is no purpose at all to religion, yet priests are
still in business, are they charlatans? And if they are charlatans,
is that wrong? If it is wrong, wouldn't it be a sin?
Sin implies moral responsibility, which implies freedom of will. Is
there free will? Is there moral culpability? If not, then why do we
prosecute criminals?
> the notion of ‘the catholic church’, the idea of one being
> saved from their ‘sins’, people being associated with the church as
> being people of god, god itself, that there will come a time when no
> more work is to do, the notion of heaven, and finally, after all of
> the previous is accepted (as a matter of faith or dogma…at least not
> rejected), then one is to believe there is no more sin.
>
> The entire paragraph is not only peppered with dogma but primarily IS
> dogma. I can only guess that one who has accepted said dogma might not
> see this, but for me, who accepts none of the dogma it shines quite
> clearly as such.
>
never get to the end of understanding all of them, or is it simply
that you object to any one view of reality as correct?
If the first, I maintain that the number of dogmas is less than
infinite, and all of them can be explained and understood. Are you
pressed for time?
If the second, I would ask how you justify the view that no particular
view of reality is correct, as correct? Or are reality, and truth,
both mutable for you?
> “Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?” – TC
>
> You wanted a discussion.
> I do not accept your primary tenets/dogma/
> etc.
discussion.
>The group is about ‘Debate’. When something is not accepted, one
> would naturally reject it.
rejection of any assertion.
>In the act of rejecting, my words would be
> attacking your belief(s) and dogma.
conversation.
If you say, "I reject that BECAUSE. . .," and insert your rationale
for the ellipses, that would be a conversation, discussion, debate,
whatever you'd like to call it.
So far, I get from you that you reject all dogma because it is dogma.
But you have not yet justified that stance. Personally, I'd like to
get beyond that and into specific objections that I could address,
but, we're kind of stuck here for as long as you'd like.
>I see no function in doing so
> UNLESS you tell me you are ready to reject your dogma and your
> specific theology and be at least open to accepting a different way.
> So far, you do not appear to be looking to do that.
>
say why you even think I should. But I am open to surprises.
I already have definite reasons why I do accept these dogmas, and
further, why you should as well. I am ready and willing to elucidate.
But initially, you have introduced an obstacle that must be dealt
with. You seem closed to the possibility that Catholic Dogma may
simply be the truth, and the only reason you seem to be able to give
for that is, because it claims to be just that. If there is any such
thing as truth, and if a body knows it, and knows it to be the truth,
why would that body hide that knowledge, especially since that
knowledge would be part of that truth?
> So, as to your question about ‘assimilation’, I long ago did in the
> sense that I know there are those who embrace blind belief(s) (dogma).
be those, you are not conversing with one of them.
> In this case, something that one is not allowed to reject (according
> to you).
It is that, by definition. A faithful Catholic is not allowed to
dissent from Church teaching, by definition of faithful Catholic. A
bachelor is not allowed to marry. He can marry, but by doing so he
gives up his status as a bachelor.
>So, I know there are those who hold these beliefs and do not
> wish to change their beliefs.
to discussing them. If I wished to change me beliefs, I think I would
simply do so. Don't you?
>I feel I have assimilated this reality
> quite well into my world/cosmology. One could also see this acceptance
> of said believers and their beliefs as being a synthesis too. So,
> unless you are asking me to limit myself (rather than the combining to
> form something more complex implied by the term ‘synthesize’)…and in
> the act of limiting myself to take on your small set of dogmatic
> beliefs as being all that is acceptable, something that is common when
> it comes to evangelism, I do not understand your question.
not understand my beliefs. I say so because of your use of words
referring to limitation, which is the opposite of the effect my
beliefs actually have on me.
>If in fact
> it is this latter, I have and continue to reject such a small world
> view founded upon nothing.
>
My experience is to the contrary.
> “…You seem quite mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might
> simply be an accurate
> view of reality.” - TC
>
> I accept it is your view of reality. It is not mine.
>
So once again we are at the question of whether you believe any
accurate view of reality is even possible?
I am not in a mentality of "yours vs mine." I find it liberating to
concern myself with whatever truth there may be, wherever I may find
it, and to get out of the mindset of competitiveness. Does that
appeal to you at all?
> > Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> > asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> > deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> > when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> > even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best. - OM
>
> “Are you accusing me of intentional deception? If so, can you support
> such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
> discussion is useless?” – TC
>
> Whether you intend to deceive or are merely overzealous about your
> belief system I do not know. Only you know this. You have attempted to
> show that Taoism is dogma based.
other than your prejudice, which shows itself here, I think.
> I say it is not. You have your
> belief, I mine.
What do you think?
>And, even though it is a fallacy to use in
> argumentation, my best guess is that the vast majority of people who
> are well versed in Taoism would lean in my direction rather than
> yours.
>Now, I do admit to only having looked at Taoism for about 40-45
> years, so you may have more experience with it than I do.
for 40 years or so and didn't read the Tao Te Ching until years after
that.
But, I do embrace the philosophy. I've done more than looked at it, I
think. I think I've lived it.
What about you?
>So far, your
> arguments have not been supported by anything but opinion about
> Taoism. And, I did address your attempt at comparing a theology with
> an anthropomorphic deity with a ‘way’ which has none. Herein lies the
> distortion.
>
implies that we created God in our image, rather than the reverse,
which I hold as the truth.
But to compare God with Tao is like comparing water to dihydrogen
monoxide.
Tao is the source of all that is. God is the source of all that is.
I don't care so much about Tao-"ism," per se --- just about Tao.
Taoism, insofar as it is a simple philosophy based on Tao, I embrace.
Taoism insofar as it is a system of beliefs formed around writings or
opinions about what Tao might be, I do not so much embrace. I like to
get to the root of things. But here we are, multiplying words. We
are never going to appear to get to the root of things by our words.
But we can get to the root of things, perhaps. Anyway, that is how I
think and operate, despite appearances, which after all are based on
my words, which can't touch that root.
No doubt, if you attach yourself to my words, you will completely miss
my point. And if that is all you can do, then I will have to agree
with you that our discussion is useless.
But if you can look beyond words into the heart of the matter, then
perhaps we can both learn from each other.
> When you say:
>
> “Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is implied by
> them, and included in them, though more accurately they both are
> included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> but heaven and earth can be spoken of.” – TC
>
> …says nothing to support Catholicism.
Revelation 19:12 . . . And he had a name written, which no man knoweth
but himself. 13 . . . And his name is called: THE WORD OF GOD.
>If anything, it shows Taoism as
> the more expansive system.
>Well, you do make some attempts at
> correlating terms such a heaven and earth, such attempts appearing to
> be based upon nothing…other than pure fiat.
>What follows these
> declarations made by you is but more conjecture, supposition and
> guesswork.
assessment. I am not an academic, and I am not talking about what
I've read and assimilated, but rather what I've experienced and
confirmed by reading of others' similar experiences.
>Your language even confirms this!
>
> > “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > religion in the world….” – TC
>
> Your use of qualifiers throughout the paragraph is the message, not
> some aborted attempt at appropriating other systems into a smaller
> one.
>
possible, seeing that it embraces universal truth.
My use of qualifiers is not intended to convey any uncertainty on my
part, but only to get the reader to think for himself about these
things.
Give it a try! What have you got to lose?
> I even gave you credit for your search for unity!
>
to get it, but, that would be why we're discussing it in the first
place. If we could move past your dismissiveness, and on to a real
discussion, that would be refreshing!
> > Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> > all, the analysis fails on many fronts. – OM
>
> To which you ask about how your analysis fails:
>
> “Such as. . .?” - TC
>
> You did this even though I had immediately followed my charge with
> examples.
>
my question directly. What is your specific objection to my putting
in the question for your answer? Feeling nitpicky today?
> > First, using your presentation
> > of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> > accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> > fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> > apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. - OM
>
> You counter with:
>
> “Or a different perspective on reality, which might not contradict
> another perspective.” – TC
>
> Here, you in fact offer no argument against my assertions.
>You attempt
> to drag a pink fish across the road and hope someone will follow. It
> smells fishy, sorry. One simply cannot take a dogma based religion
> such as Catholicism and at once assign attributes from other systems
> to it while at the same time demanding that one cannot deny its
> primary dogmatic set of ‘rules’. This is because the other systems,
> Taoism in this case, are not at all analogous to Catholicism as much
> as you would like to make it so in your argument. I say this knowing
> that it is possible to hold “a different perspective on reality, which
> might not contradict another perspective”. And, knowing this all too
> well, this is not the case as you have presented it. Yes, you weave
> other systems in using a clever thread but like the above, you offer
> no support other than a patchwork of suppositions, possibilities and
> guesswork. Most analogies, as I’ve shown above and below, just are not
> accurate. I will add an analogy, I see your attempt here as attempting
> to place a square peg in a round hole. Your words such as ‘properly
> apprehended’, a phrase I use often, in this case is not supported in
> any way at all. You merely claim by fiat that “…This concept of Tao,
> I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent with the concept of God
> as known in Catholicism…” To which the only refutation necessary is
> “No it is not.” One can respond this way because you have in no way
> supported you claim in any meaningful way unless one already has
> accepted your initial dogma! Again, I can understand how one can come
> to this way of seeing. The difficulty is seeing alternatives.
>
simply asked me to elucidate, and I would have obliged.
Even though you didn't bother to ask, I will still bother to oblige:
Commonalities between Tao as known to the Chinese and Yahweh as known
to the Hebrews:
Eternity
Creativity
Pervasiveness
Power
Invisibility
Ineffability
Fundamentality
Accessibility
> I had clarified all of this further with:
>
> >When one
> > additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> > such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> > of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> > historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> > other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> > cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets. – OM
>
> To which, you entirely ignored my points with a red herring question.
>
> “What is the value of a cosmology, or of an attachment to a particular
> cosmology?” – TC
>
> And, even recognizing your debate tactic, I will answer your question.
> NONE!
>
But I will follow up with a reiteration of the question that seems to
be a theme in this reply of mine: Is there any such thing as a fact?
Someone said once (some Zen Master I think,) "Do not give up the
search for truth. Only cease to cherish opinions."
> > “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> > into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> > said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> > free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
> > While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> > merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> > of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> > systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> > in the subject of the current topic: dogma. - OM
>
> “And yet, I have examined many, many different ways of approaching
> these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure! “ – TC
>
> Not exactly a cogent rebuttal is it TC?
>Even IF one accepted your
> supposition about ‘faiths of the world’ and truths, your enormous jump
> from pointing to what may be close to the truth of the matter that IF
> one looks at the core of many systems (I have doubts about ‘faiths’)
> one finds a commonality, to an attempt at a negation of the meaning of
> the term dogma by pointing to a few words claimed by faith to be from
> a claimed Son of god etc. is so absurd as to be called a complete non-
> sequitur as presented.
>
vast. But we can start as small as you like. I will strive to keep
my assumptions as few as possible. But kindly hear me at least, that
when I make a leap, it is not because I don't have anything filling in
where I've leaped over, but really more in the interest of time,
bandwidth, readership, etc. Sometimes, I assume that what I see so
plainly is actually obvious, when maybe it actually isn't. That is my
bad. Thanks for calling me on it. But don't assume it is for
ulterior motives, as I really don't think I have any of those.
> “Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
> trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without
> cause.” – TC
>
> Your disagreement is noted as is your suspicion. Also, your
> supposition that I take the time to enter into a discussion with you,
> employing a lot of time and energy, presenting clear rebuttal to your
> claims while recognizing your dogmas, and then having specific
> conclusions of my own, all is ‘without cause’ apparently because my
> view differs from yours, is noted too.
>
discuss. Perhaps this is your way of doing what I alluded to above,
i.e. to save time, bandwidth, etc.
You also have no cause to assume that my reason for saying this is
"apparently because my view differs from yours." That isn't why. To
make that assumption is, in fact, dismissive.
> > “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
> > seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
> > as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > parallel to that in theology…” - TC
> > Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> > start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> > that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
> > proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. - OM
>
> “That is a comparison one might make, who did not understand the
> dogmas
> I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.” - TC
>
> You have delineated a long list of dogma. I understand those dogmas.
and you probably understand your impression, but I see it as very
unlikely that you truly understand the dogmas themselves.
> If you are ready to add more dogmas to the list, fine. However, to
> merely claim I do not understand your dogmas says nothing. It is a
> hollow claim. And, when taken in the context that I presented it, the
> 1984 analogy is about as apt as one can be…and, of course, your
> opinion is again noted.
>
nonetheless I stand by it. One would not normally claim to understand
2 + 2 = 4 but simply disagree. Yet, you claim to understand Catholic
Dogma and simply disagree. I don't see that as possible. But in
another part of this thread, I am elucidating further on what I've
already presented, so maybe you can address this there, should you
choose to.
> > Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> > mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> > founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> > is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> > make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> > assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> > Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra. - OM
>
> “But the principles of logic, one cannot so easily replace at will.” -
> TC
>
> The topic was not nor is it ‘logic’.
logic of God's interaction with humanity.
>IF you wish to present what logic
> (s) you wish to employ here, by all means do so. Logic is not a
> monolith. Most people consider ‘logic’ to be the way they think.
> Unless you clarify your tenets for logic, anything that follows is
> nonsensical.
can be expressed in words. Do you agree that this is a tenet we
should hold?
>
> “There is reality, and reality is what it is.” – TC
>
> Tautology. And..???
>
> “If there are unseen realities, we cannot know them with certainty by
> our own observations and understanding.” – TC
>
> Again, you make a ‘truth by fiat’. First, as well as I can ascertain
> your intended meaning here, I fully disagree. But, since you have not
> laid the foundation for your belief, it is difficult to tell. Is this
> dogma? Is it supposition as the “If” implies? We don’t know.
>
would not, by that token, be unseen.
> “The mathematical truth that a circumference has the exact ration pi
> to a diameter, we cannot replace at will.” – TC
>
> Of course we can! This can be done much in the same way we introduce
> different geometries when we change Euclid’s 5th postulate! In both
> cases, even on the mundane physical plane, as long as one retains a
> provincial vantage point, using ‘common sense’ because it ‘works’ in
> our house, yes, both the 3rd and 5th postulates are unassailable.
> However, since reality is not such a small and closed system, one
> merely has to change any or all of the 5 or even add more to them, and
> a different reality arises.
>
But it is not yet clear that we even agree on the signification of
that term.
In any case, pi is a mathematical constant. It is facile for you to
claim that it can be changed at will. It might be a lot more
difficult for you to demonstrate the same. If it were arbitrary, I
would agree that it could be changed at will. But it does not appear
to be arbitrary.
Same for, for example, e. Same for the Mandelbrot Set. There are
many facts of reality that are simply not arbitrary. We can invent
alternatives, but they will necessarily be limited in scope.
You seem to view Catholic Doctrine as limited in scope, rather than
simply reality. I see Catholic Doctrine as a clear statement of the
truth of reality, upon which any number of true understandings can be
built. Evidence for this is the diversity of spiritual paths that the
Saints have walked.
> “We can discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God,
> we can discover, but cannot understand without His help.” – TC
>
> Again, this is truth by fiat. It is unassailable. You say it is true
> as a premise, so anything I say would have to be within the same tenet
> system, thus accepting your ‘truth’. I do not.
>You have not made any
> attempt at supporting your belief. You are not at all persuasive.
> Again, no response is possible when these tactics are used.
>
like to examine some of them?
If God is infinite, then plainly, we cannot understand Him without His
help, since we are finite.
Please note that my use of the conditional, 'if,' here, is not meant
to imply doubt on my part, but simply the hypothetical nature of the
statement itself. It is an "if/then" statement, not a confession of
uncertainty.
> > So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’ above
> > …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> > permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue. - OM
>
> “…Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
> It is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
> appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
> pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
> debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
> reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
> understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
> Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
> that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
> Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
> laying out objections first and then answering them….” - TC
>
> Here is the core of your ‘debate’. You present dogma, which is not a
> matter of debate. Then you invite debate, using an analogy of a
> ‘saint’ who first laid out objections and then answered them! Are you
> really asking us to debate those things you say are beyond debate only
> to tell us that we can’t debate them!???
>
>
>
> > Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> > Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> > such forms of Ingsoc. - OM
>
> “I have asked no one to believe anything.” – TC
>
> TC, by default, when any tenet system, based on dogma is presented, to
> discuss it, one is REQUIRED to believe the dogma.
>
to actually debating the items in question, only so far as debating
whether we can debate!
I think that it is possible to consider hypotheticals. If you agree,
then we can discuss anything at all, without exception, since our
discussion won't require our acceptance of truths, only of conditional
hypotheses.
> “Let alone enforce particular views with militaristic strength.” – TC
>
> While not rare in dogmatic systems, the following supports your
> militant position wishing to dispatch all apparent enemies and forge
> ahead.
>
> “You are invoking hyperbole here, no doubt, but you are not so much
> making a mountain of a molehill as you are inventing a mountain. If
> you choose not to explore these topics, by all means bow out of the
> discussion. But there are several here who have expressed an
> interest, and I intend to continue.” – TC
>
> For those with eyes to see, accusing me of ‘not exploring these
> topics’ when I in fact have explored almost every *word* of your
> topics that is not dogma is disingenuous at best again.
that we can't discuss. Can we get past this, and discuss? Or not?
>And, if you do
> not wish me to continue to deconstruct your proclamations, this is
> fine with me. And, I am sure you have several here who are quite
> willing to follow you wherever you take the topic. So, if that is your
> wish, this too is fine with me. All along, my goal has been to point
> out basic inconsistencies, flaws in reasoning and use of words in your
> presentation. So far, you either reject or ignore almost all of my
> criticisms. This too is fine with me.
For example, why do you think there is no God? Does the universe make
more sense without God? Show me how.
Why do you think there is no such thing as sin? It does not seem
possible that you think there is no such thing as inappropriate human
behavior. But that's what sin is. So do you just object to the use
of the word? Is it *because* it is dogma that you object to it? Or
do you think (which seems absurd on the face of it) that all human
behavior is exactly as it should be? It seems pretty plain that if
that were the case, the Buddha never would have elucidated the First
Noble Truth.
> As to the mountain analogy, there is no invention. My analogy as to
> how you use words and assign your own meaning to them arbitrarily and
> reject all dictionary meanings in specific cases with an obvious
> intention of influencing thinking is again spot on. . .
>your simple
> wave of the hand saying it is invention is just that….an attitude with
> no substance…at least with no demonstrated substance.
>
theology. They are not inaccessible to you by any stretch. So why
would you accuse me of assigning my own meaning arbitrarily? There is
nothing arbitrary about anything I do. Why would you assume so? If
you do not understand, the standard practice would be to ask me to
explain. Instead, it seems you would rather accuse me of foul
motives. I don't appreciate it.
Tracey
Nov 29, 2009, 1:00:49 PM11/29/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 28, 1:26 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a comment in the spirit of a civil religious discussion: The
> Hindus have a concept called Karma Yoga, which I believe is key to any
> spiritual life. It means the yoga of daily work, simply doing
> whatever you are here to do, but without attachment to the fruits of
> labor, but offering those to God. The name "Opus Dei" means God's
> Work, and my understanding of it is just as you say. I see it as
> Karma Yoga within Catholicism, which I believe is essential to
> Catholicism in its authenticity. We are not supposed to be pursuing a
> deeper relationship with God only for an hour on Sundays, we are
> called to pursue holiness 24/7.
>
> Good stuff Tracey, I am glad you belong to Opus Dei!
Thanks Joe. You made of lot of sense in your post above. Good stuff as
> Just a comment in the spirit of a civil religious discussion: The
> Hindus have a concept called Karma Yoga, which I believe is key to any
> spiritual life. It means the yoga of daily work, simply doing
> whatever you are here to do, but without attachment to the fruits of
> labor, but offering those to God. The name "Opus Dei" means God's
> Work, and my understanding of it is just as you say. I see it as
> Karma Yoga within Catholicism, which I believe is essential to
> Catholicism in its authenticity. We are not supposed to be pursuing a
> deeper relationship with God only for an hour on Sundays, we are
> called to pursue holiness 24/7.
>
> Good stuff Tracey, I am glad you belong to Opus Dei!
well.
> On Nov 26, 11:38 am, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 8:26 am, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What's Opus Dei like?
>
> > Opus Dei is a Catholic institution founded by Saint Josemaría Escrivá.
> > Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities
> > into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for
> > improving society.Opus Dei complements the work of local churches by
> > offering classes, talks, retreats and pastoral care that help people
> > develop their personal spiritual life and apostolate.
>
ornamentalmind
Nov 29, 2009, 2:46:14 PM11/29/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Joe View profile
More options Nov 28, 7:39 pm
“…far from
In the current context, I am equating the two, dogma and truth by
fiat. You do both and somehow expect the reader to believe that you
are open to debate when at the foundation of your presentation there
is no room for you to change your view. This is why I am not attracted
to “debating” what you present as dogma. There is nothing to discuss…
at least not with any hope of observable change. An albeit poor
analogy would be having a “debate” with someone on whether the sky is
blue or not and being asked to “debate” this. In this hypothetical,
when one points out the subjective aspect of color to the person
presenting the debate and the presenter responds with ‘truth’ based
upon their own vision and nothing else being possible truth, there can
be no function. When dogmatic belief is at the foundation of a topic
of ‘debate’, by the very nature of dogma itself, one merely blindly
accepts said dogma or rejects it. Dogma, by its nature is not open to
options and any suggestion otherwise is either ill-informed or
deceptive at best. I have pointed out at least once that IF you said
you were open to other options besides a list of assumed ‘truths’,
similar to formal logic which relies upon a set of axioms, a ‘debate’
would be interesting. So far (again) I do not see this as the case. I
have looked at this set of axioms and find no reason to accept them.
You accept them yet do not say why outside of tautology …staying
within that set of axioms. Most sects of Christianity are founded upon
an accept/not-accept set of tenets. This is the foundation of your
presentation. It is the foundation of all belief based systems. One
blindly says “I believe” or they do not. So, since in any final
analysis, there can be no comparisons nor actual arguments given
countering dogma (other than rejecting dogma), a discussion or
‘debate’ other than addressing this fact, primarily about the way the
“debate” is framed, can only lead to a yes/no vote on accepting a
blind belief or not. I have voted. You have voted.
“Of course. If our thoughts already matched up, again, there would
be
no debate.” – TC
See above RE: “debate”
> In other words, I reject your
> given tenet(s) and have said so.
“I already understand that. To move on would mean to examine your
– TC
Uhhh, I already did and have continued to address why I am not
attracted to dogma nor faith based systems…being the same thing. And
being asked to do so again does not change my view that I see no
reason to accept the dogma you present. In debate, like god beliefs, I
remain atheistic or at least agnostic in that no cogent reason to
embrace dogma has been forthcoming yet. You have the affirmative. I
see no ‘reason’ given for the affirmative so there is nothing to
debate…well, other than “I believe/I don’t believe”.
“Do you believe that it is impossible for anyone to know the truth? “
– TC
Until you present ‘truth’ as anything other than unsupported beliefs
or being more gracious, I’ll call them tenets for now, your question
is a false choice. You hold the ‘truth’ about what ‘truth’ is and then
ask if I “believe” it is impossible to know “the truth” (*your
truth*)!!!
(Your next set of questions are mostly if not entirely argument by
question thus fallacies by definition. Note that I still respond even
though by the nature of the questions, it is impossible to do so
adequately.)
“Do you resent being told what the truth is?” – TC
I resent being talked down to from a faux pious point of view…little
else.
“Do you reject the concept of truth as something that is independent
of anyone's belief?” – TC
Belief is belief and has nothing to do with truth.
“Do you, after examining specific dogmas, reject them on the grounds
that you know for certain they are not true?” – TC
No dogma founded upon belief/faith (Catholic faith) says anything
about truth, at least not in any ultimate sense. It may about relative
truth.
“If the last, can you be specific and elucidate exactly why?” – TC
The nature of such a supposition, that a subjective belief, based upon
nothing other than belief, is not an ultimate truth which is what I’m
guessing you mean when you say ‘truth’. I will continue with this
assumption until corrected. (see: tautology)
> What you call examination overall is
> only supporting the given tenet(s). In this sense, you use tautology.
> I am not entirely against tautology, - OM
“It would be ludicrous to reject *any* tautology. Tautologies must be
true by definition.” – TC
EXACTLY! This is the point I’ve been making all along. You present a
tautology and by definition allow no alternative! Thus, any debate,
whether you invite one or not, can have no function. You have already
defined the ‘truth’ and outcome of the debate *by definition*!!! This
in fact goes beyond simple argument by question but approaches the
fallacy of pious fraud.
>however I see no need to embrace
> this type of dogma. None. - TC
“When you repeat your negative, it seems you are giving it more
First, for the sake of this argument, I have found nothing attractive
about the specific dogma you present so my vote remains ‘no’ when it
comes to your dogma. I have not been persuaded at all. A set of
‘rules’ has been presented and I merely say ‘no’. The apparent fact
that my stance is not appreciated here is why I reiterate … having a
little hope for some understanding and/or empathy.
Leaving aside the only argument you present (dogma), I neither address
necessity nor usefulness when it comes to embracing truth. These
qualities might apply to relative truth. Absolute truth does not
involve itself with these adjectives.
>Most of what follows only turns into a red
> herring in this context. Having read it, you have in no way convinced
> me that there is anything at all attractive when it comes to dogma.
> Nothing.
“Again, you have emphasized this point, which seems to indicate that
To equate dogma with truth is what I find unattractive. Period. Since
dogma is what your argument is firmly planted on, one cannot ignore
the structure of your “debate”.
So, until you present truth, the discussion is moot.
“I ask because for some, it seems, truth is in their view a mutable
TC
The term ‘truth’, being a word, in the context of your first sentence
here is, by definition a concept and subjective. Your second sentence
reposits the dogmatic view that you hold and know truth and anyone who
disagrees with your dogma does not know truth. And, again the format
used here is argument by question. It looks like a simple yes/no
question when in fact it is not. First terms you use in your second
sentence can mean a myriad of things. Yet again, and here I make a
blind guess, we are in some agreement about the ultimate unity of all.
And, of course, there remains processes and subjectivity too,
consubstantially. Other than this, as much as I appreciate your
attempt at presenting definitions, I have no idea what you are asking.
>And, my intention has been all along to point out how some of
> your non-Catholic dogma (assumptions, leaps in ‘logic’, assumptions,
> misinformation etc.) is just that…unfounded belief voiced with a flair
> and an attempt at so influencing the reader. – OM
“I think you are wrong about me.” – TC
Thought noted. In what way am I wrong?
“But I definitely appreciate it if you
I understand your concern. And, I have on occasion where possible
pointed toward some of these illogical and inaccurate aspects of your
presentation. Since I clearly have not been successful to date with my
criticism, I hold little hope at doing so in the future. And, while I
might have suggested knowing your intention(s), of course, I do not. I
can only project upon your words here when it comes to your
motivations. And, I seldom do that. So far, most of my lack of
attraction to your presentation has been based upon what again I can
only guess are core tenets/beliefs that you hold and incorporate into
your words, manipulating and forming your painting of your inner world
as accurately as possible, with the goal of using ‘logic’ to support
that which is not logical. I may not be right about your motivation,
other than your tenacious hold on a single belief system and
presenting it as ultimate (or at least universal) truth. And, of
course, this directly associates itself to any use of ‘logic’ and
analogy and poor analysis to support a telos.
> You later say:“…There is an old expression that "the proof of the
> pudding is in the eating thereof,"
> and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
> purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
> of religion to oneself and one's life.” – TC
> While argument by slogan is a common debate technique, we know it is a
> fallacy. - OM
“Necessarily? Why? A slogan is just an expression in words. Is it
impossible that those words might apply to the situation?” – TC
Yes, necessarily…because, “by definition” this is the case. See? Such
“logic” is impossible to refute. I only do this now with the goal of
communicating my main criticism better.
>Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and one accepts that
> “… As such, proofs will tend to be experiential and anecdotal….”, I
> still do not see a need to embrace the basic tenets nor other
> trappings of a specific theology. You wish to…fine. I do not and see
> absolutely no reason to do so. Even if one looks at your following:
> “…There is a vast library of valuable literature published by men and
> women who have been declared by the Church to be in the Canon of
> Saints. This is the Church's official word that these men and women
> have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their methods of
> approaching God definitively work….” - OM
“Is there truth? Or not?” – TC
You don’t wish to address any of my criticism at all? You would rather
move to argument by question again? Since I have answered this
question elsewhere here, I won’t again…other than to reiterate that
what you present as dogma is not truth.
> > Personally I prefer
> > to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> > the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy. - OM
> “I don't see the distinction here. Wouldn't you be judging what you
> observed as good or bad?” – TC
> No. - OM
“What would you hope to discern by looking at them?” – TC
Reality as such.
“It seems unlikely
You beg the question here yet again Thelemic… so, again, only you can
answer your question to yourself, not me.
> “…Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of dogma is to
> eliminate personal interpretations and express universal truth….” – TC
> The former I agree is the case. I do not agree that the latter occurs. - OM
“Do you think it is impossible in principle, or simply not done in
fact?” – TC
Neither… again, the fallacy of a false dilemma.
> In fact, I find that ‘universal truth’ does not reside within any
> dogmatic framework. – OM
“You say, "in fact, I find. . .," implying that you know and would
And again, an example of bifurcation! So, in a word, neither.
Continuing to engage nonetheless, this is another good opportunity to
point out that all dogma is of the same quality…the same stuff…the
same class…and, as such, each iteration of the same thing requires no
new examination precisely because once the nature of dogma is known,
one need not repeat the same recognition process again and again and
again, infinitum. And, as a result, it quickly follows that it has
nothing to do with actual ‘universal truth’.
Here I do understand that you are positing something different and
almost the opposite.
>Even if one changes the term ‘dogma’ to one of
> ‘tenet’, which more closely matches your description, even here one
> does not find universal truth…at least not in the context of your
> description above. Again, it appears to be a simple case of
> appropriation. – OM
“It seems you are implying that the Church has simply adopted certain
Well, when you use the weasel term of “any justification”, I’m at a
loss at giving a yes/no response. It is obvious that there has been
thousands of years of and continues to be “justification” for
different Catholic dogmas. Here I interpret the term ‘justification’
in the sense of attempting to support a belief that is not self
evident.
> “I neither stated nor implied such.” – TC - [limiting the conversation
“I am a faithful Roman Catholic. I make no bones about that. I am
Your belief(s) is/are noted. Your argument so far is far from
convincing though.
“I believe Catholicism is the universal religion, and as such, it
Your faith is exemplary…unfortunately, many do not embrace dogma nor
equate it with truth. So, since you in this sense are begging the
question, I cannot and do not accept it when it comes to being a
reason to be attracted to your argument.
Now, on the other hand, truth is everywhere, and, since I have already
assumed that ultimate truth is being implied here by you, any notion
of value or equating truth with dogma of any type or even dogma with
universality is a non sequitur.
Also, again, your faith is laudable if it is your goal to use faith,
however, merely expecting to find parallels of truth in a system based
on dogma does not truth nor an argument make…at least not a successful
argument that is. So, again it appears that you are assuming the
answer. Knowing your beliefs as presented here, it is not at all
surprising to see you do this.
“So to say I wish to limit the conversation to "one theology" is, I
think, a bit misleading.” – TC
You started this topic with a presentation of a specific set of dogma
which only resides within one theological set of tenets. So, there is
no ‘misleading’ on my part here.
“In my view, there is only one theology, just
as there is only one reality.” – TC
Fine, then reject dogmatically based theologies. Just because you hold
the above belief does not make it truth or even anything near to
truth. IF one accepted your premise here, then all belief systems are
equal and there would be no unique set of tenets or dogma. I apologize
if I seem to keep harping on this point, but it seems to be
continually missed. And, it is at the core of the topic.
I will skip a lot of what followed because I can only guess that there
is an issue of semantics here. I find the term theology to mean:
▸ noun: a particular system or school of religious beliefs and
teachings
You seem to be using the term in a different and not as obvious a way.
“… If there are direct contradictions, then
There are 3 axioms found in Aristotle’s formal logic. And, while I
embrace bivalence (excluded middle) when it comes to that which does
not change, I do not when it comes to “ideas” as you appear to do.
“ As a faithful Catholic, in such
Yes, you accept things based on faith and revelation. I do not.
“ I understand that you would not accept "because
I’m guessing that you hold to the infallibility of the church…if so,
then there is little to discuss here. Such a belief is again funded
upon nothing but blind belief. If you do not, I just do not see how
you can suggest the ultimate truth of a specific associated dogmatic
set.
“ And it
– TC
The term prejudice implies a lack of objectivity. In one sense this is
the case. I at once recognize that words and concepts are all
subjective/relative. And, given that, I am prejudice against any set
of words including dogma of any type, but not limited to it when one
is addressing truth. Otherwise, I doubt that prejudice enters into it
for me. Oh, wait, yes, I do not ‘consider’ *any* form of dogma when it
comes to truth…even though I’m merely restating the same thing, it may
appear to be a different issue.
“But your prejudice need not blind you to the truth, and it is
I sense a condescending pious attitude arising again founded upon
speculation and conjecture. When it comes to ‘good arguments’, based
upon all of my clarification and restating of views above, do you
still hold to such a tenacious evangelical stance?
>The core
> of your set of tenets is not associated with Egyptian religions,
> Chinese religions, nor Indian religions. – TC
“The core of my belief system is truth, insofar as it is knowable by
us.” – TC
Perhaps you would like to discuss this without bring a unique set of
dogmatic beliefs into the discussion then?
“ I believe the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of truth.” – TC
I have heard that slogan used, yes. And, your belief is clear. And,
your belief does not match using the given, by you, dogmatic criteria
when it comes to truth.
“Apparently, that belief of mine puts you off. But it is not
necessary
for you to be affected that way by it.” – TC
You may hold any set of beliefs you wish. And, your beliefs do not
affect my psyche in the way you imply here.
“ You can let go of your
Again, to see a discriminating mind finding relative truths within
subjectivity as being attachment misses the point. This does not
address truth at all.
“In any case, I neither assume nor require that you share that belief
of mine.” – TC
Yet, you do assume the universality of your view, right? So, at the
start, I am judged ‘wrong’ if I disagree. This again is at the
foundation of the lack of function when it comes to finding ‘truth’ in
such a dialectic.
“ I think I can support it, and that support, that
I feel I have been quite clear and open to your words Thelemic. To
disagree is not being closed minded regardless of your implication
otherwise.
“To reject it out of hand is not open-minded.” – TC
Perhaps you can now see why these words appear to be ironic to me?
“To give definite reasons why you reject specific principles, is much
better.” – TC
IF by ‘specific principles’ you mean the initial dogma presented here
by you, since they are presented as axioms, one need not give a reason
against an axiom. If anything, you could make a better argument
supporting your basic assumption(s).
…
“A faithful Catholic believes what the Church teaches. Period.
This is tautological.” – TC
So, you are not making an attractive argument here Thelema…not that I
expect nor require you to do so. I merely point to the actualities
that for some are not attractive.
> “I submit that, on the one hand, some Buddhists tend to cling to the
> words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
> experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
> their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
> subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
> of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.” – TC
> Here, if one assumes that you are correct, it becomes obvious that
> there is no need for a specific theology called Catholicism with its
> associated dogmas. The practice of examination, experimentation and
> self-observation of results of tenets (not mere dogmas) can be
> completed by any human being whether associated to a specific theology
> or not. – OM
“True, but the results will not necessarily be the same.” – TC
IF you hold this belief, I can only wonder how you embrace some of
your earlier views about universality. Regardless, I appreciate your
agreement that “there is no need for a specific theology called
Catholicism with its associated dogmas.” QED
“”Tenets, as
Currently, when it comes to this discussion, if you wish to equate
tenets with dogma, you have already laid out a specific list. Are you
now suggesting that an examination of them will “have relatively
different levels of utility.”??
“We can examine the results of applying Catholic Dogma, treating it
Are you suggesting that Catholic authority would agree with your words
here? If so, I would like to learn more about them.
> “That is not what dogma is.” – TC [unexamined belief]
> OK, it is according to the definitions I have found, but for now,
> let’s assume, using some of your words:
> “…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
> examined. …” - TC
> Since you have your meanings associated with words, I will ‘define my
> terms’ by using the reference:http://www.onelook.com/?w=dissent&ls=a
> Since I do not assent to Catholic Dogma at all, there is dissent which
> you say cannot be done. – OM
“It cannot be done by a faithful Catholic, since he would ipso facto
fall away from fidelity by the act of dissent.” – OM
So, where is the room for discussion and argumentation in that? Again,
it is a binary system…either right or wrong, good or bad etc.
Something you earlier both said directly and have implied, using
analogies to other systems, does not apply.
“Obviously, it can be done, since you do it, though I believe you do
so unexaminedly.” – TC
Belief noted.
> So, within the parameters of your very own
> dogma, our discussion is over. – OM
“Again: should you wish to bow out, simply do so, but kindly don't
blame it on me. I'm not the cause of your behavior.” – TC
Of course you do not cause anything about my behavior. You do though
set up the rules of engagement and ‘victory’ by the application of
dogma and then inviting discussion about that which is not
questionable!
> I do not and have not nor will I accept
> your premise. – OM
“Even if it can be demonstrated?” – TC
Based on everything you have said so far, we are working with
tautology, so demonstration is out of the point and not an acceptable
methodology of argumentation.
“ That wouldn't make any sense. Your
statement above comes across as the epitome of closed-mindedness.” –
TC
Only when apprehended from within the confines of a given set of dogma…
otherwise, it is seen as discrimination.
>Using your own ‘rules of the game’, - OM
“The rule of no dissent applies to faithful Catholics, by definition.
Thelemic…by definition, this ‘rule’ is applied to everything from
within your original dogmatic set. By definition, then you do not
allow dissent when it comes to said dogma. So, it directly follows
that your invitation to discuss such things does not include any other
option than your original assumption/dogma. Again, I will ask you if
you are looking for a way to escape from your dogmatic and closed
subjective system? If so, we can change the direction of the
discussion. If not, please clarify for me what the function of
continuing would be?...other than, perhaps the goal of all evangelical
endeavors. I too hope this is clear by now.
> the discussion is
> over because any examination you make will make no difference for me
> when it comes to any attempt at persuading me to accept your basic
> dogma. – TC
“Stubbornness or obstinacy is a personality you are free to choose
Assigning traits to an analysis misses the point. If you wish to
address the topic of free will, that too could be interesting and
informative. And, I will lightly suggest that what you ask of me here
is projection and see no reason yet presented to change the English
language and how it approaches the term ‘dogma’.
“So you say. Others appear to disagree, so again, if there is no
Are you suggesting that there is a function other than those I’ve
already pointed to? If so, please elucidate!
>You embrace a specific dogma, I do not. I do not wish to be
> evangelical in getting you to further examine your beliefs to a point
> where you might reject your dogma. – OM
“Why not?” – TC
Because you have not yet asked me to do so. And, in this sense, I
embrace the principle of universality.
>I accept your right to hold fast to
> your belief system. – OM
“Even if to do so is irrational?” – TC
First, I haven’t used the term nor implied the term ‘irrational’. Red
herring. Secondly, Yes, I extend to you the respect to believe as thou
wilt…even if it might be the whole of the law for you! And, in any
case, my tenet system does not address any damnation nor hell for such
thinking.
“ Why? Do you believe I am closed to
Yes, not yet, and yes.
> Again, using your own words:
> “Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
> It
> is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth.” – TC
> This is followed by:
> “Debate is appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the
> "real value of pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be,
> it is no more debatable than the value of pi.” – TC
> You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you proclaim
> unassailable ‘truth’ in the form of dogma. Then, when I recognize your
> dogma and say it is unassailable, you accuse me of not wanting to
> discuss this!!! Why in the world would I want to? (rhetorical) There
> would be absolutely no function in doing so at all. I hope you grasp
> this. – TC
“If what I say is true, you should want to discuss it in order to
find
the truth.” – TC
Not at all.
“If what I say is false, you should want to discuss it in order to
expose its falsehood.” – TC
Not at all.
“I made an analogy between Catholic Dogma and a mathematical
*sigh* - False choice…and, you are welcome to your belief.
> > Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism. - OM
> “You are free to call it dogmatism, but it isn't. If you are using
> dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
> positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
> dogmatistic about that?” – TC
> Just saying that your earlier presentation is not dogmatism doesn’t
> make it otherwise. Your words were based upon total dogma/belief(s)
> associated with a specific theology, Catholicism. Period. Here look at
> your own words and I will deconstruct them pointing out each point of
> dogma since you don’t appear to be able to see it – OM
> > “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > there will be no more sin.” – TC
> You start out with a declaration of purpose. And, this professed
> purpose presupposes a dogma of sin. I do not nor wish to nor will
> accept that concept. – OM
“Why?” – TC
See what follows:
> It is dogma. – OM
“Is that why? If so, then I would ask, why do you reject dogma out
I have addressed this issue at length already in this post so won’t do
so again.
> You continue with some nebulous
> commentary about “the People of God”. – OM
“How were my comments nebulous?” – TC
Because, using the meaning of the term, they didn’t communicate an
idea.
>Clearly you have your beliefs/
> assumptions about what this includes and clearly it does not include
> people who are not Catholic, correct? – OM
“That seems like a prejudicial assumption you have made about me. I
Fair enough. Are you willing to go to greater lengths to answer my
question above?
“The People of God are all those are now or who will be in heaven.
Ahhh, but of course! And, this view does not support your earlier
attempt at showing that Catholic dogma is either universal nor
applicable and found within all other systems.
> Or IF you include all people as
> people of god, there is no need for a specific dogmatic theology. – OM
“Some people will condemn themselves to hell, so they would not be
So thelemic, are you suggesting now that the Catholic Church has
returned to embracing the notion of reincarnation? Oh, wait, it more
appears that even at the ‘end of eternity’ there will be countless
souls left out, correct?
>You
> continue with comments about eternity and “the Communion of Saints”.
> Eternity is a notion embraced by many different systems and, as such
> holds no special place nor use in this context. – OM
“Why not?” – TC
Because by definition IF other systems besides Catholicism embrace the
notion of eternity, which they do, then the unique and confined use of
the term and associating it with other notions NOT embraced by
countless other systems, while appearing to be ‘special’ due to the
associated trappings, in fact, the core notion of eternity can be seen
as being universal and not needing the special associated beliefs
found within the Catholic dogma
“ Is it because it is a notion embraced by many different
systems?” – TC
That were my words, correct
“Are you assuming that I must be parochial in my view?” – TC
By appropriating a notion in existence far longer than the Catholic
Church and attempting to twist it to a specific and dedicated use and
meaning, rather than accepting the larger universal meaning, yes, that
is parochial…by definition.
“ That
It is an “assumption” only in the same way that using language can and
does hold some meaning is an assumption. And, it is not legitimate if
one does not accept common use of words and concepts, true.
> However, the term “the
> Communion of Saints” is filled with assumptions that may not be
> questioned, correct? - OM
“Was that a question?” – TC
Yes.
“ Are we in a discussion, here?” – TC
Apparently only when you deem it to be so…thus my constant questioning
of function.
“ To reiterate:
Thus my question that so far you have not addressed and continue to
avoid.
>One must accept that there are saints, correct? - OM
“The Buddha did. He called it the Sangha, part of the triple refuge.
“ – TC
This is non-responsive…do I need to bring up the specific fallacy
again? (rhetorical) I hope not.
And, clearly the topic is not Buddhism. Or do you now wish to
appropriate Buddhist tenets for the Catholic Church too???
“What about you? Are all human beings equally holy, or enlightened,
Me. Yes and no. Yes and no. Yes and no. Yes.
Of course, we could open an entire topic on any one of these questions
so there is no way I can give short and pithy responses…remember the
fallacy?
> One must accept that there is ‘communion’, whatever that is in this
> context, - OM
“Unity of Will.” – TC
I’ll assume this is your definition of ‘communion’ until corrected.
“Is such a thing possible? Is a universal harmony desirable? Is it
attainable?” – TC
Here I will assume you are using rhetorical questions as your
argument.
>with saints. In any case, one must first accept the notion of
> ‘sin’, - OM
“Are there any undesirable human behaviors? Does religion, after
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question
“Sin implies moral responsibility, which implies freedom of will. Is
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question
> the notion of ‘the catholic church’, the idea of one being
> saved from their ‘sins’, people being associated with the church as
> being people of god, god itself, that there will come a time when no
> more work is to do, the notion of heaven, and finally, after all of
> the previous is accepted (as a matter of faith or dogma…at least not
> rejected), then one is to believe there is no more sin. - OM
“Is the problem that there are just too many dogmas, and you could
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#reductive
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question
“If the first, I maintain that the number of dogmas is less than
I have all eternity.
“If the second, I would ask how you justify the view that no
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#begging
> “Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?” – TC
> You wanted a discussion. – OM
“Whenever you're ready.” – TC
Perhaps you are suggesting that I haven’t been discussing stuff with
you. Perhaps not. It looks like it though.
> I do not accept your primary tenets/dogma/
> etc. – OM
“Then kindly justify your non-acceptance of them. That would be a
discussion.” – TC
I have addressed this. I am willing to discuss non-dogmatic beliefs
you hold though.
>The group is about ‘Debate’. When something is not accepted, one
> would naturally reject it. - OM
“But in a debate, one would expect to, and be expected to justify
one's
rejection of any assertion.” – TC
In any sort of normal debate perhaps. However, your assertion, by
definition, cannot be questioned.
In this way, I reject your entire assertion.
>In the act of rejecting, my words would be
> attacking your belief(s) and dogma. – OM
“Not if you just say, "I reject that." That would be a non-
conversation.” - TC
See below
“If you say, "I reject that BECAUSE. . .," and insert your rationale
I have taken full responsibility for my own views. Not wishing to
justify dogma other than as tautology is where I perceive ‘stuckness’
here. Do you have any other reason for dogma other than a blind
acceptance of dogma?
>I see no function in doing so
> UNLESS you tell me you are ready to reject your dogma and your
> specific theology and be at least open to accepting a different way. – OM
“If you can show me why I should, I will.” – TC
Ok, now we ARE getting somewhere. So I don’t waste a lot of energy
trying to show ‘reasons’ why that you do not accept as being evidence
or some such thing, could/would you at least point me in the direction
of what criteria OTHER THAN DOGMA ITSELF that you will accept as being
a valid ‘why’ you should change? Thanks.
> So far, you do not appear to be looking to do that. - OM
“I'm not looking to do that, and I doubt very much you'll be able to
say why you even think I should. But I am open to surprises.” – TC
This is what I thought, even though you just said you were open to it.
And, I too have serious doubts about being able to influence any sort
of fundamentalism. Apparently you find fundamentalism as being
attractive, correct?
“I already have definite reasons why I do accept these dogmas, and
I have been waiting.
“But initially, you have introduced an obstacle that must be dealt
Uhh, I think I have not suggested this. I have said that dogma by
definition is either accepted or rejected. IF in our discussion/debate/
whatever a requirement is that I now must NOT be “closed to the
possibility” when it is NOT presented as a possibility but infallible
and unassailable truth, using your agreement to the term tautology,
what is there to discuss? One either believes or doesn’t.
“…and the only reason you seem to be able to give
for that is, because it claims to be just that…” – TC
I’m not sure of the accuracy of that at least not if one has been open
to my criticisms. Since you want reasons, here is another one. Your
list of dogmas are concepts and words. As such, they are subjective as
I’ve claimed all along. In my cosmology, subjectivity does not equate
to objectivity. And, as I see it, the absolute IS by definition,
objective.
“If there is any such
The issue has nothing to do with hiding. See: Apophatic theology
> So, as to your question about ‘assimilation’, I long ago did in the
> sense that I know there are those who embrace blind belief(s) (dogma). - OM
“My own particular embracing of dogma is not blind. So while there
may
be those, you are not conversing with one of them. “ - TC
So you claim. So far, I see no evidence to the contrary…in fact, my
entire point as I’ve explained it is that by definition, accepting
dogma (of the type you have presented here) IS taking on without
question a belief…thus, the blindness involved.
> In this case, something that one is not allowed to reject (according
> to you). - OM
“In the same sense that 3 is not allowed to be other than 1 + 1 + 1.
Thank you! Here you again make my point.
>So, I know there are those who hold these beliefs and do not
> wish to change their beliefs. – OM
“I have no wish to change my beliefs, which should not be an obstacle
to discussing them.” – TC
So far you don’t appear to feel any obstacles except the one that
would require the disillusion and transcendence of your entire
theology.
“ If I wished to change me beliefs, I think I would
simply do so. Don't you?” – TC
I have no idea. My guess based on our discussion so far is no. This
inability or even lack of will to change is at the heart of the issue.
>I feel I have assimilated this reality
> quite well into my world/cosmology. One could also see this acceptance
> of said believers and their beliefs as being a synthesis too. So,
> unless you are asking me to limit myself (rather than the combining to
> form something more complex implied by the term ‘synthesize’)…and in
> the act of limiting myself to take on your small set of dogmatic
> beliefs as being all that is acceptable, something that is common when
> it comes to evangelism, I do not understand your question. – OM
“Plainly, you do not understand my question. Just as plainly, you do
On the contrary, I fully understood your question. And, your beliefs,
being just that, do not require understanding other than the obvious
foundation of belief…tautology. So, any system that accepts so little,
this even though you have made attempts at persuading us of the
universality and righteous appropriation of other systems by
Catholicism, as defined by your list of dogmas at the outset, which as
clarified by you do in fact reject all other religious views, is seen
by anyone not trapped on the inside of such a closed system as being
limiting. I know you have run across this view countless times here
and elsewhere, no? So, just because I have not partaken of the Kool-
Aid and wafer today, this in no way hampers my ability to know the
bounds of belief based systems. In fact, the contrary is the truth.
And, I even understand why you suggest it is I who have the limited
sight.
>If in fact
> it is this latter, I have and continue to reject such a small world
> view founded upon nothing. - OM
“Continuing to tell yourself that my view limits me only limits you.
My experience is to the contrary.” – TC
Then your experience is not Catholicism.
> “…You seem quite mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might
> simply be an accurate
> view of reality.” - TC
> I accept it is your view of reality. It is not mine. – OM
“I didn't say yours or mine, I said "accurate."” – TC
You addressed “the idea that the dogma might be …”. That idea is
yours. It is not mine and has nothing to do with accuracy. If you wish
to continue your monologue, by all means do so.
“So once again we are at the question of whether you believe any
accurate view of reality is even possible?” – TC
Uhhh, I’m not sure we have been addressing epistemology have we? At
least not directly at all. And, yet again, if this argument by
question and failure to state is an attempt at eliciting a quick and
pithy answer, good luck!!!
“I am not in a mentality of "yours vs mine." I find it liberating to
When there is a shared acceptance of openness, as well as a lack of
reliance on dogma, of course it does. Otherwise, there is no
liberation, truth nor even competitiveness possible.
> > Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> > asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> > deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> > when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> > even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best. - OM
> “Are you accusing me of intentional deception? If so, can you support
> such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
> discussion is useless?” – TC
> Whether you intend to deceive or are merely overzealous about your
> belief system I do not know. Only you know this. You have attempted to
> show that Taoism is dogma based. – OM
“Not in the least. I can't find any reason you might even think so,
other than your prejudice, which shows itself here, I think. “ – TC
> I say it is not. You have your
> belief, I mine. – OM
You have made direct claims about the equivalency of the concept of
god in Catholicism with “the concept of Tao…correctly apprehended”.
Your conflation of two entirely different systems, as I’ve already
addressed along with an apparent attempt at appropriation of an older
system and set of methodologies directly into and/or as being
Catholicism can be interpreted in no other way. At least not IF you
continue to maintain the position that you hold strictly and
unquestioningly to Catholic dogma. If you are willing to release such
dogma and associated trappings to actually embrace the universality of
all without condition, then perhaps it would be a different matter.
However, this is why I have accused you of wanting to have your cake
and eat it too. Regardless of your protestations against your own
guess that “Dogma can only lead to attachment to one perspective, to
in and of itself is one of the major points that are based on
supposition and guesswork and in no way supported. Thus, what may be
called prejudice by you is nothing but pointing out a naïve and
inappropriate conflation of specific systems and understandings that
only have the unity in common. Dogma as you have implied as being
compatible to both and equating dogma with ‘laws’ etc. is misuse of
the language.
“I believe there is truth. What do you think?” – TC
My thoughts are of little to no importance when it comes to truth or
beliefs. The way you use the term shows we do not apprehend the thing
itself in like ways. If you grok the term gnosis, then you have the
flavor of any possible response made by me here.
>And, even though it is a fallacy to use in
> argumentation, my best guess is that the vast majority of people who
> are well versed in Taoism would lean in my direction rather than
> yours. – OM
“You mean your straw man of mine.” – TC
No, I mean that I acknowledge that my above supposition as presented
is an appeal to widespread belief.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon
>Now, I do admit to only having looked at Taoism for about 40-45
> years, so you may have more experience with it than I do. - OM
“Maybe, but not chronologically, since I have only been able to read
Of course, as you have already parroted, the tao cannot be discussed,
so none of the words one would read are the tao. Even though I read
these and other texts long ago, I didn’t grok Taoism until I was
studying acupuncture and dealing with the seasons and the elements …
pulses and associated things that required direct apprehension rather
than rote learning in a 5 element acupuncture school…JR’s if you are
so acquainted.
“But, I do embrace the philosophy. I've done more than looked at it,
I
think. I think I've lived it.” – TC
Thought noted.
“What about you?” – TC
See my response above.
>So far, your
> arguments have not been supported by anything but opinion about
> Taoism. And, I did address your attempt at comparing a theology with
> an anthropomorphic deity with a ‘way’ which has none. Herein lies the
> distortion. – OM
“Calling God "anthropomorphic" is a pretty common atheist slant. It
Your beliefs are again noted. And, unless you are claiming special
mystical status within the Catholic Church, I find it difficult to
come to other conclusions. Perhaps this is your intention, to be seen
as a mystical Catholic? Is that a goal of yours?
[snipped section on Taoism]
“No doubt, if you attach yourself to my words, you will completely
We cannot ignore the words here. And, this said, I feel quite
strongly, having interacted with and read you in other forums for
quite a while now, that I do not miss your point…not at all. I merely
disagree with you presenting yourself at once as being Catholic and …
for lack of a better term, one with the all, using new age cosmologies
as well as ancient ones, along with starting out this section with a
list of dogma…and not showing any criticism of said dogma nor even
openness to rejecting dogma is conflating unlike things. I say this
even though I radically embrace unity as you profess to do.
> When you say:
> “Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is implied by
> them, and included in them, though more accurately they both are
> included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> but heaven and earth can be spoken of.” – TC
> …says nothing to support Catholicism. - OM
“Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and are: . . . Revelation
Thank you again, you help to support my use of the term
anthropomorphism as being accurate when it comes to Catholicism.
>If anything, it shows Taoism as
> the more expansive system. - OM
“Or, it illustrates a parallel between Taoism and Catholicism.” – TC
Uhh, no, and there are other possibilities too. However to this point,
as I have criticized, you earlier had equated the two systems, now you
use the term ‘parallel’ and I even question that based on the
specifics I have already mentioned.
>Well, you do make some attempts at
> correlating terms such a heaven and earth, such attempts appearing to
> be based upon nothing…other than pure fiat.- OM
“Or existing correlations.” – TC
The mind will think anything…indeed!
>What follows these
> declarations made by you is but more conjecture, supposition and
> guesswork. – OM
“So you conjecture, suppose, and guess! But you are incorrect in
Do you claim to be a gnostic?
>Your language even confirms this! - OM
> > “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > religion in the world….” – TC
> Your use of qualifiers throughout the paragraph is the message, not
> some aborted attempt at appropriating other systems into a smaller
> one. – OM
“All your insults aside, Catholicism is the most expansive system
possible, seeing that it embraces universal truth.” – TC
You see insults, I see entirely valid criticisms. “go figure”
“My use of qualifiers is not intended to convey any uncertainty on my
I see. And, your argument by scenario is showing.
“Give it a try! What have you got to lose?” – TC
Try what?...thinking for myself?....now it is easy to see where the
not so softly veiled insults (ad hominem) arise. Such glibness! Appeal
to the people is seldom as pretty as the one making the argument
believes it to be…nor is argument by personal charm.
As to loss, all I would have to lose is the nonattachment to dogma.
> I even gave you credit for your search for unity! – OM
“Not enough, since I have not only sought, but found. You don't seem
The core of your argument is lacking…period. To attempt to brush this
aside with a simple term like ‘dismissiveness’ is symptomatic rather
than any honest attempt at discussion let alone an honest attempt at
supporting your original and apparently primary argument. Here, the
projection of dismissiveness is just that…
Oh, right, I forgot, I “don’t seem to get it”….this after your
declaration of finding something as yet not clear but initially
labeled as ‘unity’. . . blithely ignoring similar claims by others.
Now that you have succeeded in moving away from the need to support
your argument, it is time to get back to it.
> > Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> > all, the analysis fails on many fronts. – OM
> To which you ask about how your analysis fails:
> “Such as. . .?” - TC
> You did this even though I had immediately followed my charge with
> examples.
“Yeah, I saw that. The flow came out nicely, almost as if you
Now you are degenerating into fully moving away from the topic. I
don’t have the patience now to list the fallacies…time for you to do
some homework now.
What follows is my direct answer. And, as to suggesting others are
nitpicky…well…I have a mirror for you! : - )
> > First, using your presentation
> > of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> > accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> > fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> > apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. - OM
> You counter with:
> “Or a different perspective on reality, which might not contradict
> another perspective.” – TC
> Here, you in fact offer no argument against my assertions. – OM
“I offered an alternative.” – TC
To which I pointed out that you:
>You attempt
> to drag a pink fish across the road and hope someone will follow. It
> smells fishy, sorry. One simply cannot take a dogma based religion
> such as Catholicism and at once assign attributes from other systems
> to it while at the same time demanding that one cannot deny its
> primary dogmatic set of ‘rules’. This is because the other systems,
> Taoism in this case, are not at all analogous to Catholicism as much
> as you would like to make it so in your argument. I say this knowing
> that it is possible to hold “a different perspective on reality, which
> might not contradict another perspective”. And, knowing this all too
> well, this is not the case as you have presented it. Yes, you weave
> other systems in using a clever thread but like the above, you offer
> no support other than a patchwork of suppositions, possibilities and
> guesswork. Most analogies, as I’ve shown above and below, just are not
> accurate. I will add an analogy, I see your attempt here as attempting
> to place a square peg in a round hole. Your words such as ‘properly
> apprehended’, a phrase I use often, in this case is not supported in
> any way at all. You merely claim by fiat that “…This concept of Tao,
> I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent with the concept of God
> as known in Catholicism…” To which the only refutation necessary is
> “No it is not.” One can respond this way because you have in no way
> supported you claim in any meaningful way unless one already has
> accepted your initial dogma! Again, I can understand how one can come
> to this way of seeing. The difficulty is seeing alternatives. - OM
“As an alternative to all that writing you did above, you could have
Well now that you wish to move the conversation to my style of
argumentation and your preferences, I didn’t ask because it was not
necessary. As can be seen by your attempt to “elucidate” above, it can
be clearly seen that you did not address my criticism again…another
red fish! IF you wish to address how Catholic dogma associated with
the factual creation of heaven and earth has direct correlates within
Taoism, by all means do so. The above, although an nice attempt,
ignores the actual dogmatic basis of Catholicism.
> I had clarified all of this further with:
> >When one
> > additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> > such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> > of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> > historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> > other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> > cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets. – OM
> To which, you entirely ignored my points with a red herring question.
> “What is the value of a cosmology, or of an attachment to a particular
> cosmology?” – TC
“Socratic Method. Not a red herring.” – TC
Uhh, no, no Plato here. You changed the topic again, a common debate
technique that I have called you on more than once. I said nothing
about nor implied anything about “value” nor had you, until now. You
even attempt to obfuscate further by adding the non sequitur
“attachment” to the mix…and actual act of tying.
IF you wish to address ‘value’, fine. Please address my criticism of
your attempt at equating two different cosmologies though.
> And, even recognizing your debate tactic, I will answer your question.
> NONE! - OM
“Then why bother to argue one against another?” – TC
I didn’t as I feel sure you are aware of. Of course, if you wish to
ignore how your argument brakes down because of making entirely
unwarranted equalities, you wouldn’t have understood my response
either.
“But I will follow up with a reiteration of the question that seems
to
be a theme in this reply of mine: Is there any such thing as a fact?”
– TC
Another change of topic? I’d rather not continue to go far afield and
address the subject at hand. If you in fact are no longer interested
in trying to support your argument, we can move into linguistics and/
or philosophy.
“Someone said once (some Zen Master I think,) "Do not give up the
search for truth. Only cease to cherish opinions."” – TC
OK, I’ll bite and let you derail the discussion, do you equate fact
with truth?
> > “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> > into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> > said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> > free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
> > While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> > merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> > of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> > systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> > in the subject of the current topic: dogma. - OM
> “And yet, I have examined many, many different ways of approaching
> these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure! “ – TC
> Not exactly a cogent rebuttal is it TC?
“I thought it was pretty succinct. Sorry it went over your head.” –
TC
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fact
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hypothesis
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#you_too
…and others.
Overall, IF this is the way you wish to continue to ‘discuss’ or
debate, I am not interested. No, it doesn’t mean you are right or
‘win’ or anything like that. Your tactics are contemptible.
>Even IF one accepted your
> supposition about ‘faiths of the world’ and truths, your enormous jump
> from pointing to what may be close to the truth of the matter that IF
> one looks at the core of many systems (I have doubts about ‘faiths’)
> one finds a commonality, to an attempt at a negation of the meaning of
> the term dogma by pointing to a few words claimed by faith to be from
> a claimed Son of god etc. is so absurd as to be called a complete non-
> sequitur as presented. – OM
“I do make jumps sometimes. It is because the topic at hand is so
vast.” – TC
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#special
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#causal_reduc
“ But we can start as small as you like. I will strive to keep
> “Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
> trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without
> cause.” – TC
> Your disagreement is noted as is your suspicion. Also, your
> supposition that I take the time to enter into a discussion with you,
> employing a lot of time and energy, presenting clear rebuttal to your
> claims while recognizing your dogmas, and then having specific
> conclusions of my own, all is ‘without cause’ apparently because my
> view differs from yours, is noted too. – OM
“What I mean is that you have no cause to dismiss, rather than to
I have great cause to dismiss and have shared some of it.
“You also have no cause to assume that my reason for saying this is
I could see no other reason.
> > “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
> > seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
> > as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > parallel to that in theology…” - TC
> > Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> > start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> > that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
> > proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. - OM
> “That is a comparison one might make, who did not understand the
> dogmas
> I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.” - TC
> You have delineated a long list of dogma. I understand those dogmas. - OM
“Respectfully, no you do not. You no doubt have an impression of
I have addressed this earlier in this post.
> If you are ready to add more dogmas to the list, fine. However, to
> merely claim I do not understand your dogmas says nothing. It is a
> hollow claim. And, when taken in the context that I presented it, the
> 1984 analogy is about as apt as one can be…and, of course, your
> opinion is again noted.
“Well, you are of course free to disagree with my assessment, but
Again, I have addressed far above about dogma in general. And, I am
not talking about the minutia one goes into AFTER one has accepted
basic tenets of the faith…primarily faith itself, but more as to the
generic and actual nature of dogma along with other concepts and
ideas. Of course, claims have been made here about numerous
cosmologies…one would think that if you can make such claims, others
might have at least as much understanding.
> > Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> > mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> > founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> > is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> > make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> > assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> > Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra. - OM
> “But the principles of logic, one cannot so easily replace at will.” -
> TC
> The topic was not nor is it ‘logic’. – OM
“Actually, it is. Not logic merely, but a particular logic that is
the
logic of God's interaction with humanity.” – TC
Since this is the first you have mentioned such an ‘interaction’, no,
the topic was not logic nor is this notion logic either. If you wish
to show how it is logic, I’d find your exercise to be quite
interesting.
>IF you wish to present what logic
> (s) you wish to employ here, by all means do so. Logic is not a
> monolith. Most people consider ‘logic’ to be the way they think.
> Unless you clarify your tenets for logic, anything that follows is
> nonsensical. - OM
“For one thing, the law of non-contradiction applies to any truths
I do not use the term ‘should’ in this context. I have for decades
made the synthetic separation between Relative/subjective mind = words/
concepts
And
Absolute/objective mind = no components
And the union of the two into
Ornamental mind.
Now, when it comes to logic systems, I do recognize formal logic,
identity, contradiction and excluded middle, however, not for
subjective words. More to the point, if anything since this ‘logic’
does not address change, it would apply more to the absolute.
Dialectics rather than formal logic more applies to words. Of course,
you may be using the ‘law of non-contradiction’ differently than this.
Of course, even this ancient set of 3 tenets associated with both
logics can and has changed a bit in interpretation by some over time.
So, even though you ask for a simple answer to something that in fact
requires enormous analysis and understanding …in a word, no. I do not
agree.
> “There is reality, and reality is what it is.” – TC
> Tautology. And..???
> “If there are unseen realities, we cannot know them with certainty by
> our own observations and understanding.” – TC
> Again, you make a ‘truth by fiat’. First, as well as I can ascertain
> your intended meaning here, I fully disagree. But, since you have not
> laid the foundation for your belief, it is difficult to tell. Is this
> dogma? Is it supposition as the “If” implies? We don’t know. – OM
“It seems like a tautology to me. If a reality could be observed, it
would not, by that token, be unseen. “ TC
That is one interpretation. I see many terms that obfuscate.
“Certainty” is one. Our own observations is another. One doesn’t know
what criteria define an observation. And, of course the term
understanding is not universally agreed upon.
> “The mathematical truth that a circumference has the exact ration pi
> to a diameter, we cannot replace at will.” – TC
> Of course we can! This can be done much in the same way we introduce
> different geometries when we change Euclid’s 5th postulate! In both
> cases, even on the mundane physical plane, as long as one retains a
> provincial vantage point, using ‘common sense’ because it ‘works’ in
> our house, yes, both the 3rd and 5th postulates are unassailable.
> However, since reality is not such a small and closed system, one
> merely has to change any or all of the 5 or even add more to them, and
> a different reality arises. - OM
“Playing fast and loose with the term 'reality' here, I think.” – TC
Not by this one.
“But it is not yet clear that we even agree on the signification of
that term. “ – TC
We appear to differ a lot on meaning as well as interpretation etc.
“In any case, pi is a mathematical constant.” – TC
Again, within specific parameters it is. Not all.
“It is facile for you to
claim that it can be changed at will.” – TC
Not at all.
“ It might be a lot more
difficult for you to demonstrate the same.” – TC
It might, but isn’t.
“If it were arbitrary, I
I agree that it does not appear to be that way for you.
“Same for, for example, e. Same for the Mandelbrot Set. There are
“You seem to view Catholic Doctrine as limited in scope, rather than
Your vision is noted. And, your selective “evidence” is anecdotal at
best.
> “We can discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God,
> we can discover, but cannot understand without His help.” – TC
> Again, this is truth by fiat. It is unassailable. You say it is true
> as a premise, so anything I say would have to be within the same tenet
> system, thus accepting your ‘truth’. I do not. – OM
“Why not?” – TC
Your earlier criticism of my use of the term anthropomorphism
apparently is arbitrary for clearly this is a good example thereof.
Human attributes abound in your example. I do not so impute. To accept
your ‘truth’, I would have to reject my own epistemological and
ontological realities.
>You have not made any
> attempt at supporting your belief. You are not at all persuasive.
> Again, no response is possible when these tactics are used. – OM
“There are plenty of arguments for the existence of God. Would you
like to examine some of them?” - TC
No.
“If God is infinite, then plainly, we cannot understand Him without
His
help, since we are finite.” – TC
“Please note that my use of the conditional, 'if,' here, is not meant
Are you meaning to assert this then?...that 1)God is infinite and 2)
we cannot understand him and 3) we need his help to understand him and
4) that we are finite? Oh, and that ‘he’ is a male?...and has other
human attributes?
> > So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’
above
> > …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> > permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue. - OM
> “…Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
> It is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
> appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
> pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
> debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
> reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
> understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
> Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
> that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
> Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
> laying out objections first and then answering them….” - TC
> Here is the core of your ‘debate’. You present dogma, which is not a
> matter of debate. Then you invite debate, using an analogy of a
> ‘saint’ who first laid out objections and then answered them! Are you
> really asking us to debate those things you say are beyond debate only
> to tell us that we can’t debate them!??? – OM
“Nope. “ – TC
What other conclusion can be made then? I see none IF one is to not
attribute dishonorable traits to you.
By the way:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#selective
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#begging
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexquestion
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur
and more.
> > Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> > Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> > such forms of Ingsoc. - OM
> “I have asked no one to believe anything.” – TC
> TC, by default, when any tenet system, based on dogma is presented, to
> discuss it, one is REQUIRED to believe the dogma.
“Except that you don't, and here we are. But true, we haven't yet
And, by extension, to debate one would have to assume specific things
that would support a favorable outcome for your view. I do not accept
dogma, which this would require embracing as a nature of reality.
“I think that it is possible to consider hypotheticals. If you
I find hypotheticals to obfuscate.
> “Let alone enforce particular views with militaristic strength.” – TC
> While not rare in dogmatic systems, the following supports your
> militant position wishing to dispatch all apparent enemies and forge
> ahead. - OM
“But so far you haven't touched on substance, only reiterated your
view
that we can't discuss. Can we get past this, and discuss? Or not?” –
TC
I have answered that. We can discuss non-dogmatic things.
>And, if you do
> not wish me to continue to deconstruct your proclamations, this is
> fine with me. And, I am sure you have several here who are quite
> willing to follow you wherever you take the topic. So, if that is your
> wish, this too is fine with me. All along, my goal has been to point
> out basic inconsistencies, flaws in reasoning and use of words in your
> presentation. So far, you either reject or ignore almost all of my
> criticisms. This too is fine with me. – OM
“I haven't yet seen you touch the substance of my ideas.” – TC
I have addressed your basic assumptions and to then ask me discuss
ideas that are founded upon your assumptions, when I disagree with
your assumptions just wouldn’t work, now would it? Well it would be an
advantage to your debate position.
“For example, why do you think there is no God? Does the universe
First of all, your assumption is false. So what follows does not
apply. In addition, we have the following:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fast
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question
etc.
Quoting someone I know:
”I am willing to address anything and everything implied here, but
Ask one thing and I may respond.
> As to the mountain analogy, there is no invention. My analogy as to
> how you use words and assign your own meaning to them arbitrarily and
> reject all dictionary meanings in specific cases with an obvious
> intention of influencing thinking is again spot on. . . – OM
“Prove it.” – TC
OK.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Continuing:
>your simple
> wave of the hand saying it is invention is just that….an attitude with
> no substance…at least with no demonstrated substance. – OM
“I use theological terms according to their standard meanings in
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#emotive
1) Provide more than one link with the definition you imputed above
for ‘dogma’.
2) I ‘accuse’ because your topic title is at the very least meant to
inform and at worst is to persuade. “The purpose of Catholic Dogma”.
And, you are assigning special meaning to terms. This is a common
tactic.
3) You are right about one thing, such associations may not in fact be
arbitrary. They clearly are intentional.
4) I feel I understand.
5) IF you wish to give advice about asking rather than being
accusatory, you must first take that advice yourself.
On Nov 27, 12:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
More options Nov 28, 7:39 pm
I appreciate your input to this discussion.
On Nov 27, 3:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 27, 3:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
> examined. …” - TC
> TC, I reject considering embracing a dogma which, as you so clearly
> say is not subject to dissent.
…
> examined. …” - TC
> TC, I reject considering embracing a dogma which, as you so clearly
> say is not subject to dissent.
“…far from
proclaiming truth by fiat, I fully expect you to dissent from some of
these dogmas.” – TC
In the current context, I am equating the two, dogma and truth by
fiat. You do both and somehow expect the reader to believe that you
are open to debate when at the foundation of your presentation there
is no room for you to change your view. This is why I am not attracted
to “debating” what you present as dogma. There is nothing to discuss…
at least not with any hope of observable change. An albeit poor
analogy would be having a “debate” with someone on whether the sky is
blue or not and being asked to “debate” this. In this hypothetical,
when one points out the subjective aspect of color to the person
presenting the debate and the presenter responds with ‘truth’ based
upon their own vision and nothing else being possible truth, there can
be no function. When dogmatic belief is at the foundation of a topic
of ‘debate’, by the very nature of dogma itself, one merely blindly
accepts said dogma or rejects it. Dogma, by its nature is not open to
options and any suggestion otherwise is either ill-informed or
deceptive at best. I have pointed out at least once that IF you said
you were open to other options besides a list of assumed ‘truths’,
similar to formal logic which relies upon a set of axioms, a ‘debate’
would be interesting. So far (again) I do not see this as the case. I
have looked at this set of axioms and find no reason to accept them.
You accept them yet do not say why outside of tautology …staying
within that set of axioms. Most sects of Christianity are founded upon
an accept/not-accept set of tenets. This is the foundation of your
presentation. It is the foundation of all belief based systems. One
blindly says “I believe” or they do not. So, since in any final
analysis, there can be no comparisons nor actual arguments given
countering dogma (other than rejecting dogma), a discussion or
‘debate’ other than addressing this fact, primarily about the way the
“debate” is framed, can only lead to a yes/no vote on accepting a
blind belief or not. I have voted. You have voted.
"Not subject to dissent" means, for me, and for those
who believe as I do. So far from closing the door on any debate,
your
expected dissent *opens* that door. If we were already in agreement,
there would be nothing for us to debate.” - TC
who believe as I do. So far from closing the door on any debate,
your
expected dissent *opens* that door. If we were already in agreement,
>So, at the outset, your thinking is
> different when examining the particular. - OM
“Of course. If our thoughts already matched up, again, there would
be
no debate.” – TC
See above RE: “debate”
> In other words, I reject your
> given tenet(s) and have said so.
reasons for rejecting particular dogmas.
If you reject them out of hand, *because* they are dogmas, the it
seems that an examination of your reasons for that would be in order.”
If you reject them out of hand, *because* they are dogmas, the it
– TC
Uhhh, I already did and have continued to address why I am not
attracted to dogma nor faith based systems…being the same thing. And
being asked to do so again does not change my view that I see no
reason to accept the dogma you present. In debate, like god beliefs, I
remain atheistic or at least agnostic in that no cogent reason to
embrace dogma has been forthcoming yet. You have the affirmative. I
see no ‘reason’ given for the affirmative so there is nothing to
debate…well, other than “I believe/I don’t believe”.
“Do you believe that it is impossible for anyone to know the truth? “
– TC
Until you present ‘truth’ as anything other than unsupported beliefs
or being more gracious, I’ll call them tenets for now, your question
is a false choice. You hold the ‘truth’ about what ‘truth’ is and then
ask if I “believe” it is impossible to know “the truth” (*your
truth*)!!!
(Your next set of questions are mostly if not entirely argument by
question thus fallacies by definition. Note that I still respond even
though by the nature of the questions, it is impossible to do so
adequately.)
“Do you resent being told what the truth is?” – TC
I resent being talked down to from a faux pious point of view…little
else.
“Do you reject the concept of truth as something that is independent
of anyone's belief?” – TC
Belief is belief and has nothing to do with truth.
“Do you, after examining specific dogmas, reject them on the grounds
that you know for certain they are not true?” – TC
No dogma founded upon belief/faith (Catholic faith) says anything
about truth, at least not in any ultimate sense. It may about relative
truth.
“If the last, can you be specific and elucidate exactly why?” – TC
The nature of such a supposition, that a subjective belief, based upon
nothing other than belief, is not an ultimate truth which is what I’m
guessing you mean when you say ‘truth’. I will continue with this
assumption until corrected. (see: tautology)
> What you call examination overall is
> only supporting the given tenet(s). In this sense, you use tautology.
“It would be ludicrous to reject *any* tautology. Tautologies must be
true by definition.” – TC
EXACTLY! This is the point I’ve been making all along. You present a
tautology and by definition allow no alternative! Thus, any debate,
whether you invite one or not, can have no function. You have already
defined the ‘truth’ and outcome of the debate *by definition*!!! This
in fact goes beyond simple argument by question but approaches the
fallacy of pious fraud.
>however I see no need to embrace
“When you repeat your negative, it seems you are giving it more
emphasis. So it seems that this point holds special significance for
you.
Setting aside the question of dogma, do you find it necessary or even
useful to embrace truth?” – TC
you.
Setting aside the question of dogma, do you find it necessary or even
First, for the sake of this argument, I have found nothing attractive
about the specific dogma you present so my vote remains ‘no’ when it
comes to your dogma. I have not been persuaded at all. A set of
‘rules’ has been presented and I merely say ‘no’. The apparent fact
that my stance is not appreciated here is why I reiterate … having a
little hope for some understanding and/or empathy.
Leaving aside the only argument you present (dogma), I neither address
necessity nor usefulness when it comes to embracing truth. These
qualities might apply to relative truth. Absolute truth does not
involve itself with these adjectives.
>Most of what follows only turns into a red
> herring in this context. Having read it, you have in no way convinced
> me that there is anything at all attractive when it comes to dogma.
> Nothing.
it
is especially significant for you.
So again, setting aside for the moment the question of dogma, do you
find truth attractive, simply because it is truth? Or not?” – TC
is especially significant for you.
So again, setting aside for the moment the question of dogma, do you
To equate dogma with truth is what I find unattractive. Period. Since
dogma is what your argument is firmly planted on, one cannot ignore
the structure of your “debate”.
So, until you present truth, the discussion is moot.
“I ask because for some, it seems, truth is in their view a mutable
concept. In my view, reality is what it is, independently of
anyone's
belief about it, and there is but one reality, identical for
everyone,
and truth is the correlation of any concept to that sole reality. I
call this position realism. Would you consider yourself a realist?” –
anyone's
belief about it, and there is but one reality, identical for
everyone,
and truth is the correlation of any concept to that sole reality. I
TC
The term ‘truth’, being a word, in the context of your first sentence
here is, by definition a concept and subjective. Your second sentence
reposits the dogmatic view that you hold and know truth and anyone who
disagrees with your dogma does not know truth. And, again the format
used here is argument by question. It looks like a simple yes/no
question when in fact it is not. First terms you use in your second
sentence can mean a myriad of things. Yet again, and here I make a
blind guess, we are in some agreement about the ultimate unity of all.
And, of course, there remains processes and subjectivity too,
consubstantially. Other than this, as much as I appreciate your
attempt at presenting definitions, I have no idea what you are asking.
>And, my intention has been all along to point out how some of
> your non-Catholic dogma (assumptions, leaps in ‘logic’, assumptions,
> misinformation etc.) is just that…unfounded belief voiced with a flair
“I think you are wrong about me.” – TC
Thought noted. In what way am I wrong?
“But I definitely appreciate it if you
can point out specifically where, for example, I have taken logical
leaps. And surely, where I have asserted misinformation. It is the
exact opposite of my intent, to present any misinformation about
anything. Of course, you have only my word about that. But if you
can point out where I have misinformed, I would definitely appreciate
that. I give you my word that I would never intentionally do that,
so
it disturbs me quite a bit to see you accusing me of it. As I
stated,
I think you are wrong about me, in that regard.” – TC
leaps. And surely, where I have asserted misinformation. It is the
exact opposite of my intent, to present any misinformation about
anything. Of course, you have only my word about that. But if you
can point out where I have misinformed, I would definitely appreciate
that. I give you my word that I would never intentionally do that,
so
it disturbs me quite a bit to see you accusing me of it. As I
stated,
I understand your concern. And, I have on occasion where possible
pointed toward some of these illogical and inaccurate aspects of your
presentation. Since I clearly have not been successful to date with my
criticism, I hold little hope at doing so in the future. And, while I
might have suggested knowing your intention(s), of course, I do not. I
can only project upon your words here when it comes to your
motivations. And, I seldom do that. So far, most of my lack of
attraction to your presentation has been based upon what again I can
only guess are core tenets/beliefs that you hold and incorporate into
your words, manipulating and forming your painting of your inner world
as accurately as possible, with the goal of using ‘logic’ to support
that which is not logical. I may not be right about your motivation,
other than your tenacious hold on a single belief system and
presenting it as ultimate (or at least universal) truth. And, of
course, this directly associates itself to any use of ‘logic’ and
analogy and poor analysis to support a telos.
> You later say:“…There is an old expression that "the proof of the
> pudding is in the eating thereof,"
> and I think that expression amply applies to Catholic Dogma. The
> purpose of dogma is to provide a framework for the proper application
> of religion to oneself and one's life.” – TC
> While argument by slogan is a common debate technique, we know it is a
“Necessarily? Why? A slogan is just an expression in words. Is it
impossible that those words might apply to the situation?” – TC
Yes, necessarily…because, “by definition” this is the case. See? Such
“logic” is impossible to refute. I only do this now with the goal of
communicating my main criticism better.
>Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and one accepts that
> “… As such, proofs will tend to be experiential and anecdotal….”, I
> still do not see a need to embrace the basic tenets nor other
> trappings of a specific theology. You wish to…fine. I do not and see
> absolutely no reason to do so. Even if one looks at your following:
> “…There is a vast library of valuable literature published by men and
> women who have been declared by the Church to be in the Canon of
> Saints. This is the Church's official word that these men and women
> have finished the race, and are in heaven, and their methods of
> Here what one finds is an attempt at conflation of a specific dogma
> with other contemplative practices, even some found within
> Christianity. Personally I agree that there are methods for
> transcendence and some that work. However, the very foundation of
> Catholicism, the specific dogma you have presented, precludes the
> possibility of other systems that use similar and perhaps even
> preferable methodologies. One look at your screen name points towards
> some of your apparent motivation here. Yet, at the very foundation of
> this entire topic is the unassailable fact that a specific theology,
> founded upon specific dogma, and when such dogma precludes other
> possibilities, any attempts at appropriating the attributes of systems
> rejected by the one you present cannot, and will not work no matter
> how you couch the issue. – OM
> with other contemplative practices, even some found within
> Christianity. Personally I agree that there are methods for
> transcendence and some that work. However, the very foundation of
> Catholicism, the specific dogma you have presented, precludes the
> possibility of other systems that use similar and perhaps even
> preferable methodologies. One look at your screen name points towards
> some of your apparent motivation here. Yet, at the very foundation of
> this entire topic is the unassailable fact that a specific theology,
> founded upon specific dogma, and when such dogma precludes other
> possibilities, any attempts at appropriating the attributes of systems
> rejected by the one you present cannot, and will not work no matter
“Is there truth? Or not?” – TC
You don’t wish to address any of my criticism at all? You would rather
move to argument by question again? Since I have answered this
question elsewhere here, I won’t again…other than to reiterate that
what you present as dogma is not truth.
> > Personally I prefer
> > to look at the options, actions, functions and the results rather than
> > the more commonly used positive/negative dichotomy. - OM
> “I don't see the distinction here. Wouldn't you be judging what you
> observed as good or bad?” – TC
“What would you hope to discern by looking at them?” – TC
Reality as such.
“It seems unlikely
you would just look and say, "hey, look at that." It seems more
likely you would be looking for a reason other than just to look. So
what would that reason be?” – TC
likely you would be looking for a reason other than just to look. So
You beg the question here yet again Thelemic… so, again, only you can
answer your question to yourself, not me.
> “…Interpretations are subjective; then, the purpose of dogma is to
> eliminate personal interpretations and express universal truth….” – TC
“Do you think it is impossible in principle, or simply not done in
fact?” – TC
Neither… again, the fallacy of a false dilemma.
> In fact, I find that ‘universal truth’ does not reside within any
“You say, "in fact, I find. . .," implying that you know and would
recognize universal truth, and have examined all dogmatic frameworks
and found it lacking therein. Or, you do not believe there is any
such thing as universal truth, and see your belief as a matter of
fact.” – TC
and found it lacking therein. Or, you do not believe there is any
such thing as universal truth, and see your belief as a matter of
And again, an example of bifurcation! So, in a word, neither.
Continuing to engage nonetheless, this is another good opportunity to
point out that all dogma is of the same quality…the same stuff…the
same class…and, as such, each iteration of the same thing requires no
new examination precisely because once the nature of dogma is known,
one need not repeat the same recognition process again and again and
again, infinitum. And, as a result, it quickly follows that it has
nothing to do with actual ‘universal truth’.
Here I do understand that you are positing something different and
almost the opposite.
>Even if one changes the term ‘dogma’ to one of
> ‘tenet’, which more closely matches your description, even here one
> does not find universal truth…at least not in the context of your
> description above. Again, it appears to be a simple case of
“It seems you are implying that the Church has simply adopted certain
ideas, rather arbitrarily, and assigned to them the label of
universal
truth, without any justification. Is that what you believe has taken
place?” – TC
universal
truth, without any justification. Is that what you believe has taken
Well, when you use the weasel term of “any justification”, I’m at a
loss at giving a yes/no response. It is obvious that there has been
thousands of years of and continues to be “justification” for
different Catholic dogmas. Here I interpret the term ‘justification’
in the sense of attempting to support a belief that is not self
evident.
> “I neither stated nor implied such.” – TC - [limiting the conversation
> to one theology]
> Just because you throw a pinch of this system and a pinch of that
> system into a stew mix, your screen name along with the constant
> recurring theme of Catholicism belies your above statement. - OM
> Just because you throw a pinch of this system and a pinch of that
> system into a stew mix, your screen name along with the constant
“I am a faithful Roman Catholic. I make no bones about that. I am
attempting to elucidate why. And obviously, I think I have good
reasons why, and, additionally, I believe there are good reasons for
anyone to embrace the same.” – TC
reasons why, and, additionally, I believe there are good reasons for
Your belief(s) is/are noted. Your argument so far is far from
convincing though.
“I believe Catholicism is the universal religion, and as such, it
would
be very surprising indeed to find that there were truths in other
religions not at all found in Catholicism. I expect, rather, to find
that any truth that has value, from anywhere, has its parallel in
Catholicism. Otherwise, it could not legitimately claim to be
universal.” – TC
be very surprising indeed to find that there were truths in other
religions not at all found in Catholicism. I expect, rather, to find
that any truth that has value, from anywhere, has its parallel in
Catholicism. Otherwise, it could not legitimately claim to be
Your faith is exemplary…unfortunately, many do not embrace dogma nor
equate it with truth. So, since you in this sense are begging the
question, I cannot and do not accept it when it comes to being a
reason to be attracted to your argument.
Now, on the other hand, truth is everywhere, and, since I have already
assumed that ultimate truth is being implied here by you, any notion
of value or equating truth with dogma of any type or even dogma with
universality is a non sequitur.
Also, again, your faith is laudable if it is your goal to use faith,
however, merely expecting to find parallels of truth in a system based
on dogma does not truth nor an argument make…at least not a successful
argument that is. So, again it appears that you are assuming the
answer. Knowing your beliefs as presented here, it is not at all
surprising to see you do this.
“So to say I wish to limit the conversation to "one theology" is, I
think, a bit misleading.” – TC
You started this topic with a presentation of a specific set of dogma
which only resides within one theological set of tenets. So, there is
no ‘misleading’ on my part here.
“In my view, there is only one theology, just
as there is only one reality.” – TC
Fine, then reject dogmatically based theologies. Just because you hold
the above belief does not make it truth or even anything near to
truth. IF one accepted your premise here, then all belief systems are
equal and there would be no unique set of tenets or dogma. I apologize
if I seem to keep harping on this point, but it seems to be
continually missed. And, it is at the core of the topic.
I will skip a lot of what followed because I can only guess that there
is an issue of semantics here. I find the term theology to mean:
▸ noun: a particular system or school of religious beliefs and
teachings
You seem to be using the term in a different and not as obvious a way.
“… If there are direct contradictions, then
the law of non-contradiction tells us that at most one of the two
contradictory ideas can be true.” – TC
There are 3 axioms found in Aristotle’s formal logic. And, while I
embrace bivalence (excluded middle) when it comes to that which does
not change, I do not when it comes to “ideas” as you appear to do.
“ As a faithful Catholic, in such
situations, I adhere to the teaching of the Church. But in every
case
where this is so, I believe definite reasons can be advanced for
preferring the Catholic position, apart from the mere fact that the
Church teaches it.” – TC
case
where this is so, I believe definite reasons can be advanced for
preferring the Catholic position, apart from the mere fact that the
Yes, you accept things based on faith and revelation. I do not.
“ I understand that you would not accept "because
the Church says so" as a reason. That is why we are having this
discussion: because invariably, that is not the only reason.” – TC
I’m guessing that you hold to the infallibility of the church…if so,
then there is little to discuss here. Such a belief is again funded
upon nothing but blind belief. If you do not, I just do not see how
you can suggest the ultimate truth of a specific associated dogmatic
set.
“ And it
seems likely that the additional reasons there are have not yet been
considered by you. Possibly, because you are prejudiced against the
dogmatic teachings of the Church, or dogmatic teachings of any kind.”
considered by you. Possibly, because you are prejudiced against the
– TC
The term prejudice implies a lack of objectivity. In one sense this is
the case. I at once recognize that words and concepts are all
subjective/relative. And, given that, I am prejudice against any set
of words including dogma of any type, but not limited to it when one
is addressing truth. Otherwise, I doubt that prejudice enters into it
for me. Oh, wait, yes, I do not ‘consider’ *any* form of dogma when it
comes to truth…even though I’m merely restating the same thing, it may
appear to be a different issue.
“But your prejudice need not blind you to the truth, and it is
possible
that I could find good arguments to address any and all of your
objections. To find our whether what I have said foregoing is true,
would be a good reason for us to pursue this discussion.” – TC
that I could find good arguments to address any and all of your
objections. To find our whether what I have said foregoing is true,
I sense a condescending pious attitude arising again founded upon
speculation and conjecture. When it comes to ‘good arguments’, based
upon all of my clarification and restating of views above, do you
still hold to such a tenacious evangelical stance?
>The core
> of your set of tenets is not associated with Egyptian religions,
“The core of my belief system is truth, insofar as it is knowable by
us.” – TC
Perhaps you would like to discuss this without bring a unique set of
dogmatic beliefs into the discussion then?
“ I believe the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of truth.” – TC
I have heard that slogan used, yes. And, your belief is clear. And,
your belief does not match using the given, by you, dogmatic criteria
when it comes to truth.
“Apparently, that belief of mine puts you off. But it is not
necessary
You may hold any set of beliefs you wish. And, your beliefs do not
affect my psyche in the way you imply here.
“ You can let go of your
attachment to the idea that if it is dogma, it must therefore be
wrong. Can't you?” – TC
Again, to see a discriminating mind finding relative truths within
subjectivity as being attachment misses the point. This does not
address truth at all.
“In any case, I neither assume nor require that you share that belief
of mine.” – TC
Yet, you do assume the universality of your view, right? So, at the
start, I am judged ‘wrong’ if I disagree. This again is at the
foundation of the lack of function when it comes to finding ‘truth’ in
such a dialectic.
“ I think I can support it, and that support, that
justification, is what I seek to share with you, if you can possibly
open your mind to it.” – TC
I feel I have been quite clear and open to your words Thelemic. To
disagree is not being closed minded regardless of your implication
otherwise.
“To reject it out of hand is not open-minded.” – TC
Perhaps you can now see why these words appear to be ironic to me?
“To give definite reasons why you reject specific principles, is much
better.” – TC
IF by ‘specific principles’ you mean the initial dogma presented here
by you, since they are presented as axioms, one need not give a reason
against an axiom. If anything, you could make a better argument
supporting your basic assumption(s).
…
“A faithful Catholic believes what the Church teaches. Period.
This is tautological.” – TC
So, you are not making an attractive argument here Thelema…not that I
expect nor require you to do so. I merely point to the actualities
that for some are not attractive.
> “I submit that, on the one hand, some Buddhists tend to cling to the
> words of the Buddha as authoritative even though they may not have
> experienced any definitive proof of either their exclusivity or even
> their truth, and, on the other hand, the dogmas of Catholicism are
> subject to the same examination, experimentation, and self-observation
> of results, as the dogmas of Buddhism are.” – TC
> Here, if one assumes that you are correct, it becomes obvious that
> there is no need for a specific theology called Catholicism with its
> associated dogmas. The practice of examination, experimentation and
> self-observation of results of tenets (not mere dogmas) can be
> completed by any human being whether associated to a specific theology
“True, but the results will not necessarily be the same.” – TC
IF you hold this belief, I can only wonder how you embrace some of
your earlier views about universality. Regardless, I appreciate your
agreement that “there is no need for a specific theology called
Catholicism with its associated dogmas.” QED
“”Tenets, as
you might prefer to call them, are specific or else they are nothing.
And particular techniques based on those tenets will have relatively
different levels of utility.” – TC
And particular techniques based on those tenets will have relatively
Currently, when it comes to this discussion, if you wish to equate
tenets with dogma, you have already laid out a specific list. Are you
now suggesting that an examination of them will “have relatively
different levels of utility.”??
“We can examine the results of applying Catholic Dogma, treating it
as
a set of tenets that can be applied just like any other. Any
prejudice we might hold against dogma per se need not blind us to the
results of any such examination.” – TC
a set of tenets that can be applied just like any other. Any
prejudice we might hold against dogma per se need not blind us to the
Are you suggesting that Catholic authority would agree with your words
here? If so, I would like to learn more about them.
> “That is not what dogma is.” – TC [unexamined belief]
> OK, it is according to the definitions I have found, but for now,
> let’s assume, using some of your words:
> “…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
> examined. …” - TC
> Since you have your meanings associated with words, I will ‘define my
> terms’ by using the reference:http://www.onelook.com/?w=dissent&ls=a
> Since I do not assent to Catholic Dogma at all, there is dissent which
“It cannot be done by a faithful Catholic, since he would ipso facto
fall away from fidelity by the act of dissent.” – OM
So, where is the room for discussion and argumentation in that? Again,
it is a binary system…either right or wrong, good or bad etc.
Something you earlier both said directly and have implied, using
analogies to other systems, does not apply.
“Obviously, it can be done, since you do it, though I believe you do
so unexaminedly.” – TC
Belief noted.
> So, within the parameters of your very own
“Again: should you wish to bow out, simply do so, but kindly don't
blame it on me. I'm not the cause of your behavior.” – TC
Of course you do not cause anything about my behavior. You do though
set up the rules of engagement and ‘victory’ by the application of
dogma and then inviting discussion about that which is not
questionable!
> I do not and have not nor will I accept
“Even if it can be demonstrated?” – TC
Based on everything you have said so far, we are working with
tautology, so demonstration is out of the point and not an acceptable
methodology of argumentation.
“ That wouldn't make any sense. Your
statement above comes across as the epitome of closed-mindedness.” –
TC
Only when apprehended from within the confines of a given set of dogma…
otherwise, it is seen as discrimination.
>Using your own ‘rules of the game’, - OM
“The rule of no dissent applies to faithful Catholics, by definition.
And clearly, you are not one of those. So if you wish to bow out, it
will not be because I have disallowed your dissent. I hope this is
clear by now.” – TC
will not be because I have disallowed your dissent. I hope this is
Thelemic…by definition, this ‘rule’ is applied to everything from
within your original dogmatic set. By definition, then you do not
allow dissent when it comes to said dogma. So, it directly follows
that your invitation to discuss such things does not include any other
option than your original assumption/dogma. Again, I will ask you if
you are looking for a way to escape from your dogmatic and closed
subjective system? If so, we can change the direction of the
discussion. If not, please clarify for me what the function of
continuing would be?...other than, perhaps the goal of all evangelical
endeavors. I too hope this is clear by now.
> the discussion is
> over because any examination you make will make no difference for me
> when it comes to any attempt at persuading me to accept your basic
“Stubbornness or obstinacy is a personality you are free to choose
for
yourself, should you so desire. I will only ask that you acknowledge
that it is in you, and not because of something I've presented, nor
because of what dogma is.” – TC
yourself, should you so desire. I will only ask that you acknowledge
that it is in you, and not because of something I've presented, nor
Assigning traits to an analysis misses the point. If you wish to
address the topic of free will, that too could be interesting and
informative. And, I will lightly suggest that what you ask of me here
is projection and see no reason yet presented to change the English
language and how it approaches the term ‘dogma’.
.
> >Such proclamations of
> > truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> > in the title of this conference. - OM
> “If you choose not to discuss these things with me, that is your
> right.” – TC
> There is no function in doing so, your protestations to the contrary
> aside. – OM
> >Such proclamations of
> > truth by fiat are unassailable when it comes to Debate…the term found
> > in the title of this conference. - OM
> “If you choose not to discuss these things with me, that is your
> right.” – TC
> There is no function in doing so, your protestations to the contrary
“So you say. Others appear to disagree, so again, if there is no
function in it for you, that is your choice, to disallow any
function.” - TC
Are you suggesting that there is a function other than those I’ve
already pointed to? If so, please elucidate!
>You embrace a specific dogma, I do not. I do not wish to be
> evangelical in getting you to further examine your beliefs to a point
“Why not?” – TC
Because you have not yet asked me to do so. And, in this sense, I
embrace the principle of universality.
>I accept your right to hold fast to
“Even if to do so is irrational?” – TC
First, I haven’t used the term nor implied the term ‘irrational’. Red
herring. Secondly, Yes, I extend to you the respect to believe as thou
wilt…even if it might be the whole of the law for you! And, in any
case, my tenet system does not address any damnation nor hell for such
thinking.
“ Why? Do you believe I am closed to
reason, or do you simply not think to talk me out of my dogmatic
stance worth the effort? Or is it something else?” – TC
Yes, not yet, and yes.
> Again, using your own words:
> “Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
> It
> is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth.” – TC
> This is followed by:
> “Debate is appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the
> "real value of pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be,
> it is no more debatable than the value of pi.” – TC
> You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you proclaim
> unassailable ‘truth’ in the form of dogma. Then, when I recognize your
> dogma and say it is unassailable, you accuse me of not wanting to
> discuss this!!! Why in the world would I want to? (rhetorical) There
> would be absolutely no function in doing so at all. I hope you grasp
“If what I say is true, you should want to discuss it in order to
find
the truth.” – TC
Not at all.
“If what I say is false, you should want to discuss it in order to
expose its falsehood.” – TC
Not at all.
“I made an analogy between Catholic Dogma and a mathematical
constant.
If you find this analogy inapt, you should be able to say why. So
far, it appears that you treat dogmas as exalted opinions rather than
simple facts. If my analysis is accurate, then is that because you
do
not believe there to be any such thing as truth per se, or simply
that
the Doctors of the Church have mistakenly apprehended what truth
there
may be?” – TC
If you find this analogy inapt, you should be able to say why. So
far, it appears that you treat dogmas as exalted opinions rather than
simple facts. If my analysis is accurate, then is that because you
do
not believe there to be any such thing as truth per se, or simply
that
the Doctors of the Church have mistakenly apprehended what truth
there
*sigh* - False choice…and, you are welcome to your belief.
> > Again, unassailable due to its nature of dogmatism. - OM
> “You are free to call it dogmatism, but it isn't. If you are using
> dogmatism in its negative connotation (the dictionary doesn't list any
> positive connotations,) are you not yourself being essentially
> dogmatistic about that?” – TC
> Just saying that your earlier presentation is not dogmatism doesn’t
> make it otherwise. Your words were based upon total dogma/belief(s)
> associated with a specific theology, Catholicism. Period. Here look at
> your own words and I will deconstruct them pointing out each point of
> > “…The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > there will be no more sin.” – TC
> You start out with a declaration of purpose. And, this professed
> purpose presupposes a dogma of sin. I do not nor wish to nor will
“Why?” – TC
See what follows:
> It is dogma. – OM
“Is that why? If so, then I would ask, why do you reject dogma out
of
hand, without examining it, based only on the fact that it *is*
dogma? Do you think truth is a matter of opinion, and each should be
free to form his own ideas of truth?” – TC
hand, without examining it, based only on the fact that it *is*
dogma? Do you think truth is a matter of opinion, and each should be
I have addressed this issue at length already in this post so won’t do
so again.
> You continue with some nebulous
“How were my comments nebulous?” – TC
Because, using the meaning of the term, they didn’t communicate an
idea.
>Clearly you have your beliefs/
> assumptions about what this includes and clearly it does not include
“That seems like a prejudicial assumption you have made about me. I
will not confirm it for you. Things are not as simple as you paint
them here.” - TC
Fair enough. Are you willing to go to greater lengths to answer my
question above?
“The People of God are all those are now or who will be in heaven.
As
such, it includes many who are currently not Catholic. I hope, even
you.” – TC
such, it includes many who are currently not Catholic. I hope, even
Ahhh, but of course! And, this view does not support your earlier
attempt at showing that Catholic dogma is either universal nor
applicable and found within all other systems.
> Or IF you include all people as
“Some people will condemn themselves to hell, so they would not be
included in the People of God. So no, it does not include "all
people." It includes all *good* people. And there is a specific
relationship of all good people to the Catholic Church, and that
relationship is ultimately one of identity, despite present
appearances. Our perspective is in time, but God's perspective
transcends time.” – TC
people." It includes all *good* people. And there is a specific
relationship of all good people to the Catholic Church, and that
relationship is ultimately one of identity, despite present
appearances. Our perspective is in time, but God's perspective
So thelemic, are you suggesting now that the Catholic Church has
returned to embracing the notion of reincarnation? Oh, wait, it more
appears that even at the ‘end of eternity’ there will be countless
souls left out, correct?
>You
> continue with comments about eternity and “the Communion of Saints”.
> Eternity is a notion embraced by many different systems and, as such
“Why not?” – TC
Because by definition IF other systems besides Catholicism embrace the
notion of eternity, which they do, then the unique and confined use of
the term and associating it with other notions NOT embraced by
countless other systems, while appearing to be ‘special’ due to the
associated trappings, in fact, the core notion of eternity can be seen
as being universal and not needing the special associated beliefs
found within the Catholic dogma
“ Is it because it is a notion embraced by many different
systems?” – TC
That were my words, correct
“Are you assuming that I must be parochial in my view?” – TC
By appropriating a notion in existence far longer than the Catholic
Church and attempting to twist it to a specific and dedicated use and
meaning, rather than accepting the larger universal meaning, yes, that
is parochial…by definition.
“ That
would be your assumption, not mine, and not something you
legitimately
assign to me.” – TC
legitimately
It is an “assumption” only in the same way that using language can and
does hold some meaning is an assumption. And, it is not legitimate if
one does not accept common use of words and concepts, true.
> However, the term “the
> Communion of Saints” is filled with assumptions that may not be
“Was that a question?” – TC
Yes.
“ Are we in a discussion, here?” – TC
Apparently only when you deem it to be so…thus my constant questioning
of function.
“ To reiterate:
Faithful Catholics do not dissent from the teachings of Holy Mother
Church. Anything beyond that statement will likely be your spin, not
attributable to me. “ – TC
Church. Anything beyond that statement will likely be your spin, not
Thus my question that so far you have not addressed and continue to
avoid.
>One must accept that there are saints, correct? - OM
“The Buddha did. He called it the Sangha, part of the triple refuge.
“ – TC
This is non-responsive…do I need to bring up the specific fallacy
again? (rhetorical) I hope not.
And, clearly the topic is not Buddhism. Or do you now wish to
appropriate Buddhist tenets for the Catholic Church too???
“What about you? Are all human beings equally holy, or enlightened,
or
adept? Or are some more advanced than others? Is there any such
state as perfection? Has anyone ever reached such a state?” – TC
adept? Or are some more advanced than others? Is there any such
Me. Yes and no. Yes and no. Yes and no. Yes.
Of course, we could open an entire topic on any one of these questions
so there is no way I can give short and pithy responses…remember the
fallacy?
> One must accept that there is ‘communion’, whatever that is in this
“Unity of Will.” – TC
I’ll assume this is your definition of ‘communion’ until corrected.
“Is such a thing possible? Is a universal harmony desirable? Is it
attainable?” – TC
Here I will assume you are using rhetorical questions as your
argument.
>with saints. In any case, one must first accept the notion of
“Are there any undesirable human behaviors? Does religion, after
all,
serve any purpose whatsoever, or does it just keep priests in
business? If there is no purpose at all to religion, yet priests are
still in business, are they charlatans? And if they are charlatans,
is that wrong? If it is wrong, wouldn't it be a sin?” – TC
serve any purpose whatsoever, or does it just keep priests in
business? If there is no purpose at all to religion, yet priests are
still in business, are they charlatans? And if they are charlatans,
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question
“Sin implies moral responsibility, which implies freedom of will. Is
there free will? Is there moral culpability? If not, then why do we
prosecute criminals?” – TC
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question
> the notion of ‘the catholic church’, the idea of one being
> saved from their ‘sins’, people being associated with the church as
> being people of god, god itself, that there will come a time when no
> more work is to do, the notion of heaven, and finally, after all of
> the previous is accepted (as a matter of faith or dogma…at least not
> The entire paragraph is not only peppered with dogma but primarily IS
> dogma. I can only guess that one who has accepted said dogma might not
> see this, but for me, who accepts none of the dogma it shines quite
> clearly as such. – OM
> dogma. I can only guess that one who has accepted said dogma might not
> see this, but for me, who accepts none of the dogma it shines quite
“Is the problem that there are just too many dogmas, and you could
never get to the end of understanding all of them, or is it simply
that you object to any one view of reality as correct?” – TC
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#reductive
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question
“If the first, I maintain that the number of dogmas is less than
infinite, and all of them can be explained and understood. Are you
pressed for time?” – TC
I have all eternity.
“If the second, I would ask how you justify the view that no
particular
view of reality is correct, as correct? Or are reality, and truth,
both mutable for you? “ – TC
view of reality is correct, as correct? Or are reality, and truth,
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_question
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#begging
> “Why assail? Why not assimilate and synthesize?” – TC
“Whenever you're ready.” – TC
Perhaps you are suggesting that I haven’t been discussing stuff with
you. Perhaps not. It looks like it though.
> I do not accept your primary tenets/dogma/
“Then kindly justify your non-acceptance of them. That would be a
discussion.” – TC
I have addressed this. I am willing to discuss non-dogmatic beliefs
you hold though.
>The group is about ‘Debate’. When something is not accepted, one
“But in a debate, one would expect to, and be expected to justify
one's
rejection of any assertion.” – TC
In any sort of normal debate perhaps. However, your assertion, by
definition, cannot be questioned.
In this way, I reject your entire assertion.
>In the act of rejecting, my words would be
“Not if you just say, "I reject that." That would be a non-
conversation.” - TC
See below
“If you say, "I reject that BECAUSE. . .," and insert your rationale
for the ellipses, that would be a conversation, discussion, debate,
whatever you'd like to call it. So far, I get from you that you reject
all dogma because it is dogma.
But you have not yet justified that stance. Personally, I'd like to
get beyond that and into specific objections that I could address,
but, we're kind of stuck here for as long as you'd like.” – TC
whatever you'd like to call it. So far, I get from you that you reject
all dogma because it is dogma.
But you have not yet justified that stance. Personally, I'd like to
get beyond that and into specific objections that I could address,
I have taken full responsibility for my own views. Not wishing to
justify dogma other than as tautology is where I perceive ‘stuckness’
here. Do you have any other reason for dogma other than a blind
acceptance of dogma?
>I see no function in doing so
> UNLESS you tell me you are ready to reject your dogma and your
“If you can show me why I should, I will.” – TC
Ok, now we ARE getting somewhere. So I don’t waste a lot of energy
trying to show ‘reasons’ why that you do not accept as being evidence
or some such thing, could/would you at least point me in the direction
of what criteria OTHER THAN DOGMA ITSELF that you will accept as being
a valid ‘why’ you should change? Thanks.
> So far, you do not appear to be looking to do that. - OM
“I'm not looking to do that, and I doubt very much you'll be able to
say why you even think I should. But I am open to surprises.” – TC
This is what I thought, even though you just said you were open to it.
And, I too have serious doubts about being able to influence any sort
of fundamentalism. Apparently you find fundamentalism as being
attractive, correct?
“I already have definite reasons why I do accept these dogmas, and
further, why you should as well. I am ready and willing to
elucidate.” – TC
I have been waiting.
“But initially, you have introduced an obstacle that must be dealt
with. You seem closed to the possibility that Catholic Dogma may
simply be the truth,…” – TC
Uhh, I think I have not suggested this. I have said that dogma by
definition is either accepted or rejected. IF in our discussion/debate/
whatever a requirement is that I now must NOT be “closed to the
possibility” when it is NOT presented as a possibility but infallible
and unassailable truth, using your agreement to the term tautology,
what is there to discuss? One either believes or doesn’t.
“…and the only reason you seem to be able to give
for that is, because it claims to be just that…” – TC
I’m not sure of the accuracy of that at least not if one has been open
to my criticisms. Since you want reasons, here is another one. Your
list of dogmas are concepts and words. As such, they are subjective as
I’ve claimed all along. In my cosmology, subjectivity does not equate
to objectivity. And, as I see it, the absolute IS by definition,
objective.
“If there is any such
thing as truth, and if a body knows it, and knows it to be the truth,
why would that body hide that knowledge, especially since that
knowledge would be part of that truth?” – TC
why would that body hide that knowledge, especially since that
The issue has nothing to do with hiding. See: Apophatic theology
> So, as to your question about ‘assimilation’, I long ago did in the
“My own particular embracing of dogma is not blind. So while there
may
be those, you are not conversing with one of them. “ - TC
So you claim. So far, I see no evidence to the contrary…in fact, my
entire point as I’ve explained it is that by definition, accepting
dogma (of the type you have presented here) IS taking on without
question a belief…thus, the blindness involved.
> In this case, something that one is not allowed to reject (according
“In the same sense that 3 is not allowed to be other than 1 + 1 + 1.
It is that, by definition. A faithful Catholic is not allowed to
dissent from Church teaching, by definition of faithful Catholic. A
bachelor is not allowed to marry. He can marry, but by doing so he
gives up his status as a bachelor.” – TC
dissent from Church teaching, by definition of faithful Catholic. A
bachelor is not allowed to marry. He can marry, but by doing so he
Thank you! Here you again make my point.
>So, I know there are those who hold these beliefs and do not
“I have no wish to change my beliefs, which should not be an obstacle
to discussing them.” – TC
So far you don’t appear to feel any obstacles except the one that
would require the disillusion and transcendence of your entire
theology.
“ If I wished to change me beliefs, I think I would
simply do so. Don't you?” – TC
I have no idea. My guess based on our discussion so far is no. This
inability or even lack of will to change is at the heart of the issue.
>I feel I have assimilated this reality
> quite well into my world/cosmology. One could also see this acceptance
> of said believers and their beliefs as being a synthesis too. So,
> unless you are asking me to limit myself (rather than the combining to
> form something more complex implied by the term ‘synthesize’)…and in
> the act of limiting myself to take on your small set of dogmatic
> beliefs as being all that is acceptable, something that is common when
“Plainly, you do not understand my question. Just as plainly, you do
not understand my beliefs. I say so because of your use of words
referring to limitation, which is the opposite of the effect my
beliefs actually have on me.” – TC
referring to limitation, which is the opposite of the effect my
On the contrary, I fully understood your question. And, your beliefs,
being just that, do not require understanding other than the obvious
foundation of belief…tautology. So, any system that accepts so little,
this even though you have made attempts at persuading us of the
universality and righteous appropriation of other systems by
Catholicism, as defined by your list of dogmas at the outset, which as
clarified by you do in fact reject all other religious views, is seen
by anyone not trapped on the inside of such a closed system as being
limiting. I know you have run across this view countless times here
and elsewhere, no? So, just because I have not partaken of the Kool-
Aid and wafer today, this in no way hampers my ability to know the
bounds of belief based systems. In fact, the contrary is the truth.
And, I even understand why you suggest it is I who have the limited
sight.
>If in fact
> it is this latter, I have and continue to reject such a small world
“Continuing to tell yourself that my view limits me only limits you.
My experience is to the contrary.” – TC
Then your experience is not Catholicism.
> “…You seem quite mentally closed to the idea that the dogma might
> simply be an accurate
> view of reality.” - TC
“I didn't say yours or mine, I said "accurate."” – TC
You addressed “the idea that the dogma might be …”. That idea is
yours. It is not mine and has nothing to do with accuracy. If you wish
to continue your monologue, by all means do so.
“So once again we are at the question of whether you believe any
accurate view of reality is even possible?” – TC
Uhhh, I’m not sure we have been addressing epistemology have we? At
least not directly at all. And, yet again, if this argument by
question and failure to state is an attempt at eliciting a quick and
pithy answer, good luck!!!
“I am not in a mentality of "yours vs mine." I find it liberating to
concern myself with whatever truth there may be, wherever I may find
it, and to get out of the mindset of competitiveness. Does that
appeal to you at all?” – TC
it, and to get out of the mindset of competitiveness. Does that
When there is a shared acceptance of openness, as well as a lack of
reliance on dogma, of course it does. Otherwise, there is no
liberation, truth nor even competitiveness possible.
> > Now, the use of the Tao as an analogy is interesting. Here one is
> > asked to accept the ineffability of a system without anthropomorphic
> > deities as being a correlate to one which does. This is a distortion
> > when examined in clear light. Further, Taoism is not dogma based so
> > even bringing it into the conversation is deceptive at best. - OM
> “Are you accusing me of intentional deception? If so, can you support
> such an accusation with more than your opinion that this whole
> discussion is useless?” – TC
> Whether you intend to deceive or are merely overzealous about your
> belief system I do not know. Only you know this. You have attempted to
“Not in the least. I can't find any reason you might even think so,
other than your prejudice, which shows itself here, I think. “ – TC
> I say it is not. You have your
You have made direct claims about the equivalency of the concept of
god in Catholicism with “the concept of Tao…correctly apprehended”.
Your conflation of two entirely different systems, as I’ve already
addressed along with an apparent attempt at appropriation of an older
system and set of methodologies directly into and/or as being
Catholicism can be interpreted in no other way. At least not IF you
continue to maintain the position that you hold strictly and
unquestioningly to Catholic dogma. If you are willing to release such
dogma and associated trappings to actually embrace the universality of
all without condition, then perhaps it would be a different matter.
However, this is why I have accused you of wanting to have your cake
and eat it too. Regardless of your protestations against your own
guess that “Dogma can only lead to attachment to one perspective, to
parochialism rather than to universality, to narrow-minded attachment
to one's own perspective rather than inclusion of all perspectives.”,
in and of itself is one of the major points that are based on
supposition and guesswork and in no way supported. Thus, what may be
called prejudice by you is nothing but pointing out a naïve and
inappropriate conflation of specific systems and understandings that
only have the unity in common. Dogma as you have implied as being
compatible to both and equating dogma with ‘laws’ etc. is misuse of
the language.
“I believe there is truth. What do you think?” – TC
My thoughts are of little to no importance when it comes to truth or
beliefs. The way you use the term shows we do not apprehend the thing
itself in like ways. If you grok the term gnosis, then you have the
flavor of any possible response made by me here.
>And, even though it is a fallacy to use in
> argumentation, my best guess is that the vast majority of people who
> are well versed in Taoism would lean in my direction rather than
“You mean your straw man of mine.” – TC
No, I mean that I acknowledge that my above supposition as presented
is an appeal to widespread belief.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon
>Now, I do admit to only having looked at Taoism for about 40-45
“Maybe, but not chronologically, since I have only been able to read
for 40 years or so and didn't read the Tao Te Ching until years after
that.” – TC
Of course, as you have already parroted, the tao cannot be discussed,
so none of the words one would read are the tao. Even though I read
these and other texts long ago, I didn’t grok Taoism until I was
studying acupuncture and dealing with the seasons and the elements …
pulses and associated things that required direct apprehension rather
than rote learning in a 5 element acupuncture school…JR’s if you are
so acquainted.
“But, I do embrace the philosophy. I've done more than looked at it,
I
think. I think I've lived it.” – TC
Thought noted.
“What about you?” – TC
See my response above.
>So far, your
> arguments have not been supported by anything but opinion about
> Taoism. And, I did address your attempt at comparing a theology with
> an anthropomorphic deity with a ‘way’ which has none. Herein lies the
“Calling God "anthropomorphic" is a pretty common atheist slant. It
implies that we created God in our image, rather than the reverse,
which I hold as the truth.” – TC
Your beliefs are again noted. And, unless you are claiming special
mystical status within the Catholic Church, I find it difficult to
come to other conclusions. Perhaps this is your intention, to be seen
as a mystical Catholic? Is that a goal of yours?
[snipped section on Taoism]
“No doubt, if you attach yourself to my words, you will completely
miss
my point. And if that is all you can do, then I will have to agree
with you that our discussion is useless.
But if you can look beyond words into the heart of the matter, then
perhaps we can both learn from each other.” – TC
my point. And if that is all you can do, then I will have to agree
with you that our discussion is useless.
But if you can look beyond words into the heart of the matter, then
We cannot ignore the words here. And, this said, I feel quite
strongly, having interacted with and read you in other forums for
quite a while now, that I do not miss your point…not at all. I merely
disagree with you presenting yourself at once as being Catholic and …
for lack of a better term, one with the all, using new age cosmologies
as well as ancient ones, along with starting out this section with a
list of dogma…and not showing any criticism of said dogma nor even
openness to rejecting dogma is conflating unlike things. I say this
even though I radically embrace unity as you profess to do.
> When you say:
> “Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is implied by
> them, and included in them, though more accurately they both are
> included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> but heaven and earth can be spoken of.” – TC
“Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and are: . . . Revelation
19:12 . . . And he had a name written, which no man knoweth but
himself. 13 . . . And his name is called: THE WORD OF GOD. “ – TC
Thank you again, you help to support my use of the term
anthropomorphism as being accurate when it comes to Catholicism.
>If anything, it shows Taoism as
“Or, it illustrates a parallel between Taoism and Catholicism.” – TC
Uhh, no, and there are other possibilities too. However to this point,
as I have criticized, you earlier had equated the two systems, now you
use the term ‘parallel’ and I even question that based on the
specifics I have already mentioned.
>Well, you do make some attempts at
> correlating terms such a heaven and earth, such attempts appearing to
“Or existing correlations.” – TC
The mind will think anything…indeed!
>What follows these
> declarations made by you is but more conjecture, supposition and
“So you conjecture, suppose, and guess! But you are incorrect in
your
assessment. I am not an academic, and I am not talking about what
I've read and assimilated, but rather what I've experienced and
confirmed by reading of others' similar experiences.” – TC
assessment. I am not an academic, and I am not talking about what
I've read and assimilated, but rather what I've experienced and
Do you claim to be a gnostic?
>Your language even confirms this! - OM
> > “…This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > religion in the world….” – TC
> Your use of qualifiers throughout the paragraph is the message, not
> some aborted attempt at appropriating other systems into a smaller
“All your insults aside, Catholicism is the most expansive system
possible, seeing that it embraces universal truth.” – TC
You see insults, I see entirely valid criticisms. “go figure”
“My use of qualifiers is not intended to convey any uncertainty on my
part, but only to get the reader to think for himself about these
things.” – TC
I see. And, your argument by scenario is showing.
“Give it a try! What have you got to lose?” – TC
Try what?...thinking for myself?....now it is easy to see where the
not so softly veiled insults (ad hominem) arise. Such glibness! Appeal
to the people is seldom as pretty as the one making the argument
believes it to be…nor is argument by personal charm.
As to loss, all I would have to lose is the nonattachment to dogma.
> I even gave you credit for your search for unity! – OM
“Not enough, since I have not only sought, but found. You don't seem
to get it, but, that would be why we're discussing it in the first
place. If we could move past your dismissiveness, and on to a real
discussion, that would be refreshing!” – TC
place. If we could move past your dismissiveness, and on to a real
The core of your argument is lacking…period. To attempt to brush this
aside with a simple term like ‘dismissiveness’ is symptomatic rather
than any honest attempt at discussion let alone an honest attempt at
supporting your original and apparently primary argument. Here, the
projection of dismissiveness is just that…
Oh, right, I forgot, I “don’t seem to get it”….this after your
declaration of finding something as yet not clear but initially
labeled as ‘unity’. . . blithely ignoring similar claims by others.
Now that you have succeeded in moving away from the need to support
your argument, it is time to get back to it.
> > Again, while I fully laud this and most attempts at finding unity in
> > all, the analysis fails on many fronts. – OM
> To which you ask about how your analysis fails:
> “Such as. . .?” - TC
> You did this even though I had immediately followed my charge with
> examples.
answered
my question directly. What is your specific objection to my putting
in the question for your answer? Feeling nitpicky today?” – TC
my question directly. What is your specific objection to my putting
Now you are degenerating into fully moving away from the topic. I
don’t have the patience now to list the fallacies…time for you to do
some homework now.
What follows is my direct answer. And, as to suggesting others are
nitpicky…well…I have a mirror for you! : - )
> > First, using your presentation
> > of Catholic dogma, the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ are to be
> > accepted as fact. Taoism holds no such belief structure at all and in
> > fact, for many (here I do not even suggest anything near “properly
> > apprehended”), implies an entirely different cosmology. - OM
> You counter with:
> “Or a different perspective on reality, which might not contradict
> another perspective.” – TC
“I offered an alternative.” – TC
To which I pointed out that you:
>You attempt
> to drag a pink fish across the road and hope someone will follow. It
> smells fishy, sorry. One simply cannot take a dogma based religion
> such as Catholicism and at once assign attributes from other systems
> to it while at the same time demanding that one cannot deny its
> primary dogmatic set of ‘rules’. This is because the other systems,
> Taoism in this case, are not at all analogous to Catholicism as much
> as you would like to make it so in your argument. I say this knowing
> that it is possible to hold “a different perspective on reality, which
> might not contradict another perspective”. And, knowing this all too
> well, this is not the case as you have presented it. Yes, you weave
> other systems in using a clever thread but like the above, you offer
> no support other than a patchwork of suppositions, possibilities and
> guesswork. Most analogies, as I’ve shown above and below, just are not
> accurate. I will add an analogy, I see your attempt here as attempting
> to place a square peg in a round hole. Your words such as ‘properly
> apprehended’, a phrase I use often, in this case is not supported in
> any way at all. You merely claim by fiat that “…This concept of Tao,
> I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent with the concept of God
> as known in Catholicism…” To which the only refutation necessary is
> “No it is not.” One can respond this way because you have in no way
> supported you claim in any meaningful way unless one already has
> accepted your initial dogma! Again, I can understand how one can come
“As an alternative to all that writing you did above, you could have
simply asked me to elucidate, and I would have obliged. Even though
you didn't bother to ask, I will still bother to oblige: Commonalities
between Tao as known to the Chinese and Yahweh as known to the
Hebrews: Eternity Creativity Pervasiveness Power Invisibility
Ineffability Fundamentality Accessibility “ – TC
you didn't bother to ask, I will still bother to oblige: Commonalities
between Tao as known to the Chinese and Yahweh as known to the
Hebrews: Eternity Creativity Pervasiveness Power Invisibility
Well now that you wish to move the conversation to my style of
argumentation and your preferences, I didn’t ask because it was not
necessary. As can be seen by your attempt to “elucidate” above, it can
be clearly seen that you did not address my criticism again…another
red fish! IF you wish to address how Catholic dogma associated with
the factual creation of heaven and earth has direct correlates within
Taoism, by all means do so. The above, although an nice attempt,
ignores the actual dogmatic basis of Catholicism.
> I had clarified all of this further with:
> >When one
> > additionally brings other required belief found within Catholicism,
> > such as a Triune, a virgin birth, hell, heaven, an anthropomorphicism
> > of judges and judgments of people made by a unique and specific
> > historical personage and associated resurrection, sin, saints and
> > other doctrines (dogmas) of faith, one enters an entirely different
> > cosmology…based on an entirely different set of tenets. – OM
> To which, you entirely ignored my points with a red herring question.
> “What is the value of a cosmology, or of an attachment to a particular
> cosmology?” – TC
Uhh, no, no Plato here. You changed the topic again, a common debate
technique that I have called you on more than once. I said nothing
about nor implied anything about “value” nor had you, until now. You
even attempt to obfuscate further by adding the non sequitur
“attachment” to the mix…and actual act of tying.
IF you wish to address ‘value’, fine. Please address my criticism of
your attempt at equating two different cosmologies though.
> And, even recognizing your debate tactic, I will answer your question.
“Then why bother to argue one against another?” – TC
I didn’t as I feel sure you are aware of. Of course, if you wish to
ignore how your argument brakes down because of making entirely
unwarranted equalities, you wouldn’t have understood my response
either.
“But I will follow up with a reiteration of the question that seems
to
be a theme in this reply of mine: Is there any such thing as a fact?”
– TC
Another change of topic? I’d rather not continue to go far afield and
address the subject at hand. If you in fact are no longer interested
in trying to support your argument, we can move into linguistics and/
or philosophy.
“Someone said once (some Zen Master I think,) "Do not give up the
search for truth. Only cease to cherish opinions."” – TC
OK, I’ll bite and let you derail the discussion, do you equate fact
with truth?
> > “…There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen
> > into, and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > rather than inclusion of all perspectives. By contrast to this, Jesus
> > said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
> > free." (John 8:32)…” – TC
> > While the cherry picked adage about knowing truth and freedom has its
> > merits, it misses the precise and obvious point that the vast majority
> > of Christian trappings preclude even the open examination of other
> > systems and ways to apprehend reality. This point (fact) can be found
> > in the subject of the current topic: dogma. - OM
> “And yet, I have examined many, many different ways of approaching
> these questions, and, I am a faithful Catholic. Go figure! “ – TC
> Not exactly a cogent rebuttal is it TC?
TC
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fact
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hypothesis
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#you_too
…and others.
Overall, IF this is the way you wish to continue to ‘discuss’ or
debate, I am not interested. No, it doesn’t mean you are right or
‘win’ or anything like that. Your tactics are contemptible.
>Even IF one accepted your
> supposition about ‘faiths of the world’ and truths, your enormous jump
> from pointing to what may be close to the truth of the matter that IF
> one looks at the core of many systems (I have doubts about ‘faiths’)
> one finds a commonality, to an attempt at a negation of the meaning of
> the term dogma by pointing to a few words claimed by faith to be from
> a claimed Son of god etc. is so absurd as to be called a complete non-
“I do make jumps sometimes. It is because the topic at hand is so
vast.” – TC
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#special
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#causal_reduc
“ But we can start as small as you like. I will strive to keep
my assumptions as few as possible. But kindly hear me at least, that
when I make a leap, it is not because I don't have anything filling
in
where I've leaped over, but really more in the interest of time,
bandwidth, readership, etc. Sometimes, I assume that what I see so
plainly is actually obvious, when maybe it actually isn't. That is
my
bad. Thanks for calling me on it. But don't assume it is for
ulterior motives, as I really don't think I have any of those.” – TC
when I make a leap, it is not because I don't have anything filling
in
where I've leaped over, but really more in the interest of time,
bandwidth, readership, etc. Sometimes, I assume that what I see so
plainly is actually obvious, when maybe it actually isn't. That is
my
bad. Thanks for calling me on it. But don't assume it is for
> “Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of "Christian
> trappings," and suspect you are being quite dismissive, without
> cause.” – TC
> Your disagreement is noted as is your suspicion. Also, your
> supposition that I take the time to enter into a discussion with you,
> employing a lot of time and energy, presenting clear rebuttal to your
> claims while recognizing your dogmas, and then having specific
> conclusions of my own, all is ‘without cause’ apparently because my
“What I mean is that you have no cause to dismiss, rather than to
discuss. Perhaps this is your way of doing what I alluded to above,
i.e. to save time, bandwidth, etc.” – TC
I have great cause to dismiss and have shared some of it.
“You also have no cause to assume that my reason for saying this is
"apparently because my view differs from yours." That isn't why. To
make that assumption is, in fact, dismissive.” – TC
I could see no other reason.
> > “…In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two
> > seemingly opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma
> > as, rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
> > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > parallel to that in theology…” - TC
> > Sadly, as noble as such an attempt may be, you have failed before you
> > start. Here one is even asked to equate dogma with “essential truths
> > that sets one free to explore all truth”!!!!! I equate this with a
> > proclamation by Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. - OM
> “That is a comparison one might make, who did not understand the
> dogmas
> I am talking about. In my opinion it is quite inapt.” - TC
“Respectfully, no you do not. You no doubt have an impression of
them,
and you probably understand your impression, but I see it as very
unlikely that you truly understand the dogmas themselves.” – TC
and you probably understand your impression, but I see it as very
I have addressed this earlier in this post.
> If you are ready to add more dogmas to the list, fine. However, to
> merely claim I do not understand your dogmas says nothing. It is a
> hollow claim. And, when taken in the context that I presented it, the
> 1984 analogy is about as apt as one can be…and, of course, your
> opinion is again noted.
nonetheless I stand by it. One would not normally claim to
understand
2 + 2 = 4 but simply disagree. Yet, you claim to understand Catholic
Dogma and simply disagree. I don't see that as possible. But in
another part of this thread, I am elucidating further on what I've
already presented, so maybe you can address this there, should you
choose to.” – TC
understand
2 + 2 = 4 but simply disagree. Yet, you claim to understand Catholic
Dogma and simply disagree. I don't see that as possible. But in
another part of this thread, I am elucidating further on what I've
already presented, so maybe you can address this there, should you
Again, I have addressed far above about dogma in general. And, I am
not talking about the minutia one goes into AFTER one has accepted
basic tenets of the faith…primarily faith itself, but more as to the
generic and actual nature of dogma along with other concepts and
ideas. Of course, claims have been made here about numerous
cosmologies…one would think that if you can make such claims, others
might have at least as much understanding.
> > Even the analogy of addition’s fundamental necessity when exploring
> > mathematical truth and a unique and specific theological belief system
> > founded on unassailable dogma being necessary when exploring theology
> > is specious at best. Both specific areas of math and a dogmatic system
> > make basic assumptions. Here the analogy ends. Mathematical
> > assumptions can be replaced at will…such as what can be found in non-
> > Euclidian geometry and other areas of abstract algebra. - OM
> “But the principles of logic, one cannot so easily replace at will.” -
> TC
“Actually, it is. Not logic merely, but a particular logic that is
the
logic of God's interaction with humanity.” – TC
Since this is the first you have mentioned such an ‘interaction’, no,
the topic was not logic nor is this notion logic either. If you wish
to show how it is logic, I’d find your exercise to be quite
interesting.
>IF you wish to present what logic
> (s) you wish to employ here, by all means do so. Logic is not a
> monolith. Most people consider ‘logic’ to be the way they think.
> Unless you clarify your tenets for logic, anything that follows is
“For one thing, the law of non-contradiction applies to any truths
that
can be expressed in words. Do you agree that this is a tenet we
should hold?” – TC
can be expressed in words. Do you agree that this is a tenet we
I do not use the term ‘should’ in this context. I have for decades
made the synthetic separation between Relative/subjective mind = words/
concepts
And
Absolute/objective mind = no components
And the union of the two into
Ornamental mind.
Now, when it comes to logic systems, I do recognize formal logic,
identity, contradiction and excluded middle, however, not for
subjective words. More to the point, if anything since this ‘logic’
does not address change, it would apply more to the absolute.
Dialectics rather than formal logic more applies to words. Of course,
you may be using the ‘law of non-contradiction’ differently than this.
Of course, even this ancient set of 3 tenets associated with both
logics can and has changed a bit in interpretation by some over time.
So, even though you ask for a simple answer to something that in fact
requires enormous analysis and understanding …in a word, no. I do not
agree.
> “There is reality, and reality is what it is.” – TC
> Tautology. And..???
> “If there are unseen realities, we cannot know them with certainty by
> our own observations and understanding.” – TC
> Again, you make a ‘truth by fiat’. First, as well as I can ascertain
> your intended meaning here, I fully disagree. But, since you have not
> laid the foundation for your belief, it is difficult to tell. Is this
“It seems like a tautology to me. If a reality could be observed, it
would not, by that token, be unseen. “ TC
That is one interpretation. I see many terms that obfuscate.
“Certainty” is one. Our own observations is another. One doesn’t know
what criteria define an observation. And, of course the term
understanding is not universally agreed upon.
> “The mathematical truth that a circumference has the exact ration pi
> to a diameter, we cannot replace at will.” – TC
> Of course we can! This can be done much in the same way we introduce
> different geometries when we change Euclid’s 5th postulate! In both
> cases, even on the mundane physical plane, as long as one retains a
> provincial vantage point, using ‘common sense’ because it ‘works’ in
> our house, yes, both the 3rd and 5th postulates are unassailable.
> However, since reality is not such a small and closed system, one
> merely has to change any or all of the 5 or even add more to them, and
“Playing fast and loose with the term 'reality' here, I think.” – TC
Not by this one.
“But it is not yet clear that we even agree on the signification of
that term. “ – TC
We appear to differ a lot on meaning as well as interpretation etc.
“In any case, pi is a mathematical constant.” – TC
Again, within specific parameters it is. Not all.
“It is facile for you to
claim that it can be changed at will.” – TC
Not at all.
“ It might be a lot more
difficult for you to demonstrate the same.” – TC
It might, but isn’t.
“If it were arbitrary, I
would agree that it could be changed at will. But it does not appear
to be arbitrary.” – TC
I agree that it does not appear to be that way for you.
“Same for, for example, e. Same for the Mandelbrot Set. There are
many facts of reality that are simply not arbitrary. We can invent
alternatives, but they will necessarily be limited in scope.” – TC
“You seem to view Catholic Doctrine as limited in scope, rather than
simply reality. I see Catholic Doctrine as a clear statement of the
truth of reality, upon which any number of true understandings can be
built. Evidence for this is the diversity of spiritual paths that
the
Saints have walked.” – TC
truth of reality, upon which any number of true understandings can be
built. Evidence for this is the diversity of spiritual paths that
the
Your vision is noted. And, your selective “evidence” is anecdotal at
best.
> “We can discover it, because it is visible to our understanding. God,
> we can discover, but cannot understand without His help.” – TC
> Again, this is truth by fiat. It is unassailable. You say it is true
> as a premise, so anything I say would have to be within the same tenet
“Why not?” – TC
Your earlier criticism of my use of the term anthropomorphism
apparently is arbitrary for clearly this is a good example thereof.
Human attributes abound in your example. I do not so impute. To accept
your ‘truth’, I would have to reject my own epistemological and
ontological realities.
>You have not made any
> attempt at supporting your belief. You are not at all persuasive.
“There are plenty of arguments for the existence of God. Would you
like to examine some of them?” - TC
No.
“If God is infinite, then plainly, we cannot understand Him without
His
help, since we are finite.” – TC
“Please note that my use of the conditional, 'if,' here, is not meant
to imply doubt on my part, but simply the hypothetical nature of the
statement itself. It is an "if/then" statement, not a confession of
uncertainty.” – TC
statement itself. It is an "if/then" statement, not a confession of
Are you meaning to assert this then?...that 1)God is infinite and 2)
we cannot understand him and 3) we need his help to understand him and
4) that we are finite? Oh, and that ‘he’ is a male?...and has other
human attributes?
> > So far, I see no agreement that the given dogmatic ‘doctrines’
above
> > …. Not one!... can be altered, replaced or removed. When that
> > permission is given then an actual debate or discussion can ensue. - OM
> “…Dogma cannot be changed any more than the ratio pi can be changed.
> It is not a matter of debate, but a matter of truth. Debate is
> appropriate in its place, but we would not debate the "real value of
> pi." So if Catholic Dogma is what it purports to be, it is no more
> debatable than the value of pi. It is useful to know, which is a good
> reason to bring it up on a forum. It is even more useful to
> understand, which would be the purpose of bring it into a debate.
> Argument and counterargument is a way to develop understanding, and
> that is the constructive purpose of debate. That is why Saint Thomas
> Aquinas, for example, structured his Summa Theologica as he did,
> laying out objections first and then answering them….” - TC
> Here is the core of your ‘debate’. You present dogma, which is not a
> matter of debate. Then you invite debate, using an analogy of a
> ‘saint’ who first laid out objections and then answered them! Are you
> really asking us to debate those things you say are beyond debate only
“Nope. “ – TC
What other conclusion can be made then? I see none IF one is to not
attribute dishonorable traits to you.
By the way:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#selective
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#begging
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexquestion
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur
and more.
> > Until that point, we find ourselves returned to 1984 where “War is
> > Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” …along with all
> > such forms of Ingsoc. - OM
> “I have asked no one to believe anything.” – TC
> TC, by default, when any tenet system, based on dogma is presented, to
> discuss it, one is REQUIRED to believe the dogma.
got
to actually debating the items in question, only so far as debating
whether we can debate!” – TC
to actually debating the items in question, only so far as debating
And, by extension, to debate one would have to assume specific things
that would support a favorable outcome for your view. I do not accept
dogma, which this would require embracing as a nature of reality.
“I think that it is possible to consider hypotheticals. If you
agree,
then we can discuss anything at all, without exception, since our
discussion won't require our acceptance of truths, only of
conditional
hypotheses.” – TC
then we can discuss anything at all, without exception, since our
discussion won't require our acceptance of truths, only of
conditional
I find hypotheticals to obfuscate.
> “Let alone enforce particular views with militaristic strength.” – TC
> While not rare in dogmatic systems, the following supports your
> militant position wishing to dispatch all apparent enemies and forge
> “You are invoking hyperbole here, no doubt, but you are not so much
> making a mountain of a molehill as you are inventing a mountain. If
> you choose not to explore these topics, by all means bow out of the
> discussion. But there are several here who have expressed an
> interest, and I intend to continue.” – TC
> For those with eyes to see, accusing me of ‘not exploring these
> topics’ when I in fact have explored almost every *word* of your
> topics that is not dogma is disingenuous at best again. – OM
> making a mountain of a molehill as you are inventing a mountain. If
> you choose not to explore these topics, by all means bow out of the
> discussion. But there are several here who have expressed an
> interest, and I intend to continue.” – TC
> For those with eyes to see, accusing me of ‘not exploring these
> topics’ when I in fact have explored almost every *word* of your
“But so far you haven't touched on substance, only reiterated your
view
that we can't discuss. Can we get past this, and discuss? Or not?” –
TC
I have answered that. We can discuss non-dogmatic things.
>And, if you do
> not wish me to continue to deconstruct your proclamations, this is
> fine with me. And, I am sure you have several here who are quite
> willing to follow you wherever you take the topic. So, if that is your
> wish, this too is fine with me. All along, my goal has been to point
> out basic inconsistencies, flaws in reasoning and use of words in your
> presentation. So far, you either reject or ignore almost all of my
“I haven't yet seen you touch the substance of my ideas.” – TC
I have addressed your basic assumptions and to then ask me discuss
ideas that are founded upon your assumptions, when I disagree with
your assumptions just wouldn’t work, now would it? Well it would be an
advantage to your debate position.
“For example, why do you think there is no God? Does the universe
make more sense without God? Show me how. Why do you think there is
no such thing as sin? It does not seem possible that you think there
is no such thing as inappropriate human behavior. But that's what sin
is. So do you just object to the use of the word? Is it *because* it
is dogma that you object to it? Or do you think (which seems absurd
on the face of it) that all human behavior is exactly as it should
be? It seems pretty plain that if
that were the case, the Buddha never would have elucidated the First
Noble Truth.” – TC
no such thing as sin? It does not seem possible that you think there
is no such thing as inappropriate human behavior. But that's what sin
is. So do you just object to the use of the word? Is it *because* it
is dogma that you object to it? Or do you think (which seems absurd
on the face of it) that all human behavior is exactly as it should
be? It seems pretty plain that if
that were the case, the Buddha never would have elucidated the First
First of all, your assumption is false. So what follows does not
apply. In addition, we have the following:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fast
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question
etc.
Quoting someone I know:
”I am willing to address anything and everything implied here, but
kindly understand that the issues are a bit complex, and we will have
to get into depth to treat it properly.”
Ask one thing and I may respond.
> As to the mountain analogy, there is no invention. My analogy as to
> how you use words and assign your own meaning to them arbitrarily and
> reject all dictionary meanings in specific cases with an obvious
“Prove it.” – TC
OK.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> “…What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is
> dogmatic.” - TC
> When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
> picking, one finds:
> ▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
> believed all the Marxist dogma")
> ▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
> This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
> As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
> recognition for each of us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> dogmatic.” - TC
> When the definition is examined both in context and with less cherry
> picking, one finds:
> ▸ noun: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative ("He
> believed all the Marxist dogma")
> ▸ noun: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=dogma&ls=a
> This additional information is at once instructive and illuminating.
> As with all words, the meaning is subjective and holds special
> recognition for each of us.
Continuing:
>your simple
> wave of the hand saying it is invention is just that….an attitude with
“I use theological terms according to their standard meanings in
theology. They are not inaccessible to you by any stretch. So why
would you accuse me of assigning my own meaning arbitrarily? There
is
nothing arbitrary about anything I do. Why would you assume so? If
you do not understand, the standard practice would be to ask me to
explain. Instead, it seems you would rather accuse me of foul
motives. I don't appreciate it.” – TC
would you accuse me of assigning my own meaning arbitrarily? There
is
nothing arbitrary about anything I do. Why would you assume so? If
you do not understand, the standard practice would be to ask me to
explain. Instead, it seems you would rather accuse me of foul
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#emotive
1) Provide more than one link with the definition you imputed above
for ‘dogma’.
2) I ‘accuse’ because your topic title is at the very least meant to
inform and at worst is to persuade. “The purpose of Catholic Dogma”.
And, you are assigning special meaning to terms. This is a common
tactic.
3) You are right about one thing, such associations may not in fact be
arbitrary. They clearly are intentional.
4) I feel I understand.
5) IF you wish to give advice about asking rather than being
accusatory, you must first take that advice yourself.
On Nov 27, 12:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Michele Gennette
Nov 29, 2009, 3:48:39 PM11/29/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Tracey <Tracey.M...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
On Nov 28, 1:26 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Michele Gennette
Nov 29, 2009, 3:51:46 PM11/29/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| You guys leave in so much repetitive text that it isn't worth scrolling through it all to find if there's anything new. xnun |
--- On Sun, 11/29/09, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Tracey
Nov 29, 2009, 4:09:46 PM11/29/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 29, 12:48 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
it here step by step. I'll be very grateful.
> Atheists.jpg
> 153KViewDownload
> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 1:26 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Good stuff Tracey, I am glad you belong to Opus Dei!
> >Thanks Joe. You made of lot of sense in your post above. Good stuff as
>
> well.
>
> RED ALERT!!!
>
> The doctrinaire RC's are conspiring against us apostates, whether
> they know it or not!!! Be vigilant!!
lol, I least I don't know. How did you do the jpg. thing? Can you post
> On Nov 28, 1:26 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Good stuff Tracey, I am glad you belong to Opus Dei!
> >Thanks Joe. You made of lot of sense in your post above. Good stuff as
>
> well.
>
> RED ALERT!!!
>
> The doctrinaire RC's are conspiring against us apostates, whether
> they know it or not!!! Be vigilant!!
it here step by step. I'll be very grateful.
> Atheists.jpg
> 153KViewDownload
Michele Gennette
Nov 29, 2009, 6:40:25 PM11/29/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Tracey <Tracey.M...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
|
Bridge
Nov 29, 2009, 7:32:59 PM11/29/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 29, 1:46 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Joe View profile
>
> More options Nov 28, 7:39 pm
> I appreciate your input to this discussion.
> On Nov 27, 3:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> “…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
> > examined. …” - TC
> > TC, I reject considering embracing a dogma which, as you so clearly
> > say is not subject to dissent.
>
> …
> “…far from
> proclaiming truth by fiat, I fully expect you to dissent from some of
> these dogmas.” – TC
>
> In the current context, I am equating the two, dogma and truth by
> fiat. You do both and somehow expect the reader to believe that you
> are open to debate when at the foundation of your presentation there
> is no room for you to change your view. This is why I am not attracted
> to “debating” what you present as dogma.
I see your point, OM, but there is definitely room to debate his
>
> More options Nov 28, 7:39 pm
> I appreciate your input to this discussion.
> On Nov 27, 3:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> “…Dogma is not subject to dissent, which does not mean it cannot be
> > examined. …” - TC
> > TC, I reject considering embracing a dogma which, as you so clearly
> > say is not subject to dissent.
>
> …
> “…far from
> proclaiming truth by fiat, I fully expect you to dissent from some of
> these dogmas.” – TC
>
> In the current context, I am equating the two, dogma and truth by
> fiat. You do both and somehow expect the reader to believe that you
> are open to debate when at the foundation of your presentation there
> is no room for you to change your view. This is why I am not attracted
> to “debating” what you present as dogma.
"interpretation" of dogma.
Perhaps we wait until he's done and see if he makes any jumps besides
the initial leap of logic.
I myself speak about my experiences and in no way can prove them. I am
fortunate that some such as you can meet me experientially. I think a
different tact, one of assuming the barest bones of Catholic dogma,
the Apostle's Creed apparently, may make for a fun exercise.
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
Nov 29, 2009, 10:27:14 PM11/29/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
“I see your point, OM, but there is definitely room to debate his
"interpretation" of dogma.” – B
Thank you Bridge…and, all words and concepts, being subjective,
provide fertile ground for discussion. It is when such subjective
notions are presented as absolutes that I find the exercise fails…
along with any meaningful communication and apprehension of the nature
of reality.
“Perhaps we wait until he's done and see if he makes any jumps
besides
the initial leap of logic.” – B
I do not understand what you mean here B….sorry.
“I myself speak about my experiences and in no way can prove them. I
am
fortunate that some such as you can meet me experientially.” – B
Thank you…yes, as you know I do not reject experience…my current
debate w/TC is over foundational philosophical notions and the use of
language and logics. I care not a whit about the religious dogma part.
I leave that to those who are interested in such things.
“I think a
Perhaps one could find such an exercise to be fun. For now, I’m not
interested in such things.
“ There is nothing to discuss… “ - ?
Was this your post B?
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
"interpretation" of dogma.” – B
Thank you Bridge…and, all words and concepts, being subjective,
provide fertile ground for discussion. It is when such subjective
notions are presented as absolutes that I find the exercise fails…
along with any meaningful communication and apprehension of the nature
of reality.
“Perhaps we wait until he's done and see if he makes any jumps
besides
the initial leap of logic.” – B
I do not understand what you mean here B….sorry.
“I myself speak about my experiences and in no way can prove them. I
am
fortunate that some such as you can meet me experientially.” – B
Thank you…yes, as you know I do not reject experience…my current
debate w/TC is over foundational philosophical notions and the use of
language and logics. I care not a whit about the religious dogma part.
I leave that to those who are interested in such things.
“I think a
different tact, one of assuming the barest bones of Catholic dogma,
the Apostle's Creed apparently, may make for a fun exercise.” – B
Perhaps one could find such an exercise to be fun. For now, I’m not
interested in such things.
“ There is nothing to discuss… “ - ?
Was this your post B?
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tracey
Nov 30, 2009, 12:59:08 PM11/30/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 29, 3:40 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
problem that I can't do it. Too bad, I have many pictures to share.
the pics. Thanks.
> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >lol, I least I don't know. How did you do the jpg. thing? Can you post
> >it here step by step. I'll be very grateful.
>
> It's one of my file pics. Just originate an email from your ISP, and
> upload.
I don't use any ISP to post, I use Google directly. That must be the
>
> >lol, I least I don't know. How did you do the jpg. thing? Can you post
> >it here step by step. I'll be very grateful.
>
> It's one of my file pics. Just originate an email from your ISP, and
> upload.
problem that I can't do it. Too bad, I have many pictures to share.
>
> I have MANY more RC tweaking pics :)
Let's see them. And maybe you'd like create a different subject for
> I have MANY more RC tweaking pics :)
the pics. Thanks.
Michele Gennette
Nov 30, 2009, 5:53:15 PM11/30/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Mon, 11/30/09, Tracey <Tracey.M...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
|
Tracey
Dec 1, 2009, 1:59:24 PM12/1/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 30, 2:53�pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
have anything about attaching pictures. Perhaps you are talking about
posting it from your email?
> --- On Mon, 11/30/09, Tracey <Tracey.Maddow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't use any ISP to post, I use Google directly. That must be the
> >problem that I can't do it. Too bad, I have many pictures to share.
>
> � If you use Google mail, the "Compose" window has a provision for
> attaching pictures.
This is embarrasing, I couldn't find it. In the + new post, it does
>
> >I don't use any ISP to post, I use Google directly. That must be the
> >problem that I can't do it. Too bad, I have many pictures to share.
>
> � If you use Google mail, the "Compose" window has a provision for
> attaching pictures.
have anything about attaching pictures. Perhaps you are talking about
posting it from your email?
Bridge
Dec 4, 2009, 6:55:42 PM12/4/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 29, 9:27 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> “I see your point, OM, but there is definitely room to debate his
> "interpretation" of dogma.” – B
>
> Thank you Bridge…and, all words and concepts, being subjective,
> provide fertile ground for discussion. It is when such subjective
> notions are presented as absolutes that I find the exercise fails…
> along with any meaningful communication and apprehension of the nature
> of reality.
I like to use Joe as a case study. It's fun when your own subject has
> "interpretation" of dogma.” – B
>
> Thank you Bridge…and, all words and concepts, being subjective,
> provide fertile ground for discussion. It is when such subjective
> notions are presented as absolutes that I find the exercise fails…
> along with any meaningful communication and apprehension of the nature
> of reality.
an opinion!
What kinds of dynamics do you see in this idea of dogma?
I see and seem to understand the baseline stuff ie, Jesus is real,
died for our sins, etc.
I just feel like the extrapolations about how these form into rules
and extrapolated understandings of the universe fit into a different
degree or level of dogma. Like there are orders of it.
1st Order is a claim of experience
2nd Order is the rules and traditions that follow from it
See what I'm getting at?
I think 1st Order dogma is no big deal. It's the 2nd Order that
bothers me.
>
> “Perhaps we wait until he's done and see if he makes any jumps
> besides
> the initial leap of logic.” – B
>
> I do not understand what you mean here B….sorry.
>
question the 2nd.
My intuition's telling me that 1st Order stuff doesn't really matter.
People will order their interpretation of their religion however they
want.
> “I myself speak about my experiences and in no way can prove them. I
> am
> fortunate that some such as you can meet me experientially.” – B
>
> Thank you…yes, as you know I do not reject experience…my current
> debate w/TC is over foundational philosophical notions and the use of
> language and logics. I care not a whit about the religious dogma part.
> I leave that to those who are interested in such things.
>
> “I think a
> different tact, one of assuming the barest bones of Catholic dogma,
> the Apostle's Creed apparently, may make for a fun exercise.” – B
>
> Perhaps one could find such an exercise to be fun. For now, I’m not
> interested in such things.
>
> “ There is nothing to discuss… “ - ?
>
> Was this your post B?
I'll start. Look for my reply to Joe's initial.
>
> read more »
Bridge
Dec 4, 2009, 7:05:22 PM12/4/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 21, 3:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.
>
> What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogmatic.
> Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> of Catholics.
So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the Holy
> Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics.
>
> Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
>
> 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
> 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
> 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
> 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
> 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> buried. He descended into hell.
> 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
> 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> Father Almighty.
> 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
> 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
> 10. The Communion of Saints,
> 11. The forgiveness of sins,
> 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
>
> Amen!
>
> Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma,
as we believe the
> Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
> rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
> necessary and not optional.
>
> The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> there will be no more sin.
was Jesus' job to save us from our sins?
>
> Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is One
> God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe God is
> Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point.
>
> 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
>
> The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> but heaven and earth can be spoken of.
>
> This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> religion in the world.
>
> There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen into,
> and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> rather than inclusion of all perspectives.
>
> By contrast to this, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the
> truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
>
> In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two seemingly
> opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma as,
> rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
>
rules out of the Dogma. It seems excessive.
> That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> parallel to that in theology.
>
I see it as us projecting onto that framework. IMO, a person's
interpretation of this dogma(all Christian dogma in general meaning
the Bible) almost shows more about them than about *their*
"Christianity".
> More later!
Bridge
Dec 4, 2009, 7:24:33 PM12/4/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Nov 25, 12:09 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will briefly address each point in the Apostles' Creed below.
>
> On Nov 21, 4:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> > thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.
>
> > What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogmatic.
> > Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> > of Catholics. So, for example, there are subtle theological questions
> On Nov 21, 4:43 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of references on this group to dogma as a negative
> > thing. It has come up enough to deserve its own thread.
>
> > What is dogma? Dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogmatic.
> > Dogma is that subset of doctrine that is non-optional for the belief
> > like the exact relationship of free-will to grace, that are open
> > questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> > own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> > theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the Holy
> > Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> > pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics.
>
> > Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
>
> > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
>
> 1a. "I believe. . ."
> > questions, and about which a Catholic may in good conscience form his
> > own opinion from several possible alternatives. But there are other
> > theological questions, for example, the exact relationship of the Holy
> > Eucharist to the Person of Jesus Christ, that have been definitively
> > pronounced, and are not open questions for faithful Catholics.
>
> > Dogma is implied by the Apostles' Creed, which has twelve points:
>
> > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
>
>
> To believe means to hold true.
>
> To believe also means to place faith in.
>
> Faith implies fidelity and trust.
Surrender!!
Trust implies reliance,
Why?
while
> fidelity implies reliability.
True.
Thus faith is a two-way street.
Why does a two-way street need reliance? That seems extraneous to the
beautiful metaphor you're painting. At least apatheistically it's a
nice metaphor. ;-)
First,
> God's fidelity to us and our trust in Him. Second, our fidelity to
> God and His trust in us. It may be surprising to consider that God
> trusts us, but if faith is a two-way street, then plainly, God's trust
> in us is part of faith.
Wha?
But God initiates everything, so it is
> necessary first for us to trust Him, and first of all is His
> reliability in our regard. God is first of all faithful; that is why
> He is justified in asking us to return the same.
Justified?
>
> 1b. ". . .in God, . . ."
>
> The object of our faith is God. We believe, i.e. hold as true, that
> God exists. And beyond that, we trust in Him, and believe that He is
> faithful to us, and, we seek to be faithful to Him, so that finally,
> we ourselves will be trustworthy for Him.
Check.
>
> 1c. ". . .the Father. . ."
>
> Who God Is to us is a loving Father. Not some remote deity to whom we
> can only be either subservient or indifferent. We believe that He
> cares deeply for us individually, the way a father ideally cares for
> His children.
>
Got it. Love. Check.
> 1d. ". . .Almighty. . ."
>
> God can do anything at all. He is not merely powerful, His power is
> actually infinite. This fact justifies our faith in Him, since one
> who is omnipotent is worthy of faith.
Why bring up worthiness?
He Himself justifies His faith
> in us, since He is powerful enough to change us from unworthy to
> worthy.
>
So he believes in us because he can change us? He believes in us
because he knows that if we want him to we can let him change us?
I like this.
"How Mighty?"
"Real Mighty!"
"How Mighty?"
"Real Mighty!"
"How Mighty?"
"He's soooooo Mighty, he has the power to not think you're a piece of
shit."
To me that says a lot about how we humans view ourselves.
> 1e. ". . . Creator of heaven and earth, . . ."
>
> Evidence that God can do anything at all is the vast magnificence we
> call the universe, or heaven and earth. We believe that the existence
> of heaven and earth is a direct result of the specific intention of
> Almighty God. As such, heaven and earth are good, since the good God
> created them.
But can they turn bad? It seems to me that God can create stuff that
goes haywire.
We ourselves, also, in our existence, are good, since
> God created us. We are existentially good. Our problem is that,
> quite often, we are morally bad. But God, in His Omnipotence, has
> provided the solution for that.
>
> To wit:
>
> > 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
>
> 2a. ". . .And in Jesus Christ,. . ."
> > 2. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
>
>
> This is the Name above every other Name. Jesus, or Y-H-Sh-V-H, also
> rendered Yahshuah or Joshua, is the Name given to the Son of Mary by
> the angel at His conception. (Annunciation.) It means, literally,
> "God saves," or "the salvation from our God." Christ means the
> Messiah or the Anointed.
>
> 2b. ". . .His only Son,. . ."
>
> In the first Article we called God our Father, and now we are saying
> that Jesus Christ is uniquely His Son. Obviously, we mean something
> more than that sonship or daughtership that we all have with God by
> virtue of His being the Father Almighty. By calling Jesus Christ His
> *only* Son, we mean to set Him apart; we do not mean to include
> ourselves as His equals in Sonship to God.
Wha? Where do you get that? Aren't you kinda denying the power of the
Eucharist by saying that?
The Nicene Creed, a more
> expanded version of this Apostles' Creed, has the words, "God from
> God, Light from Light, true God from true God," and "begotten, not
> made, one in Being with the Father." These words point to the
> Divinity of the Son, the Divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. God is able
> to save us from our sins because He is God. Jesus Christ is His only
> begotten Son, truly one in Being with His Father, though distinct as
> Person. He is able to be our Savior by the power of God, because He
> is God, "God from God."
>
> 2c. ". . .Our Lord. . ."
>
> He is Our Lord; we are His unworthy servants. We hope to be made
> worthy of such a Lord. The One to sanctify us is the One He promised
> to send in His Name, the selfsame who conceived Him in the Virgin's
> womb:
>
> > 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
>
> 3. The Third Divine Person is the Holy Spirit. He is a Person,
> > 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
>
> distinct from the Father and the Son, but with the Father and the Son,
> One God.
>
> God is Love, and Love is always interpersonal. God the Father is the
> Origin of All, including God the Son. God the Son is the Logos, the
> Word, God's infinite knowledge of Himself, the only begotten Son of
> God. God the Father loves God the Son in the infinity of Divine Love,
> and God the Son loves God the Father in the infinity of Divine Love.
> This Love that proceeds from the Father and the Son is none other than
> God the Holy Spirit, Divine Love Himself, as the Gift of the Father to
> the Son and the Son to the Father. God is One Being in Three Persons;
> The Origin of All; The One; and Love as Gift. In Love, there is
> always the image of the Trinity. There is always, in Love, the Lover,
> the Beloved, and the Love between them. Thus Love is manifestly
> Triune, since Lover, Beloved, and Love always manifest as Three. God,
> then, must be the Trinity, if God is Love.
>
It sounds cool but I think that's a lot of riffing off of the dogma. A
lot. Is that doctrine?
> > 4. And born of the Virgin Mary.
>
> of God; that is the Father. God's Origin is His Father. God came
> among us as a Man. Every man has a father and a mother, and the Man
> who is God is no exception; He also has a Father, who is God, and a
> Mother, who is Mary. She was a virgin; Jesus was not born from the
> desire of a man, but from the Will of God.
>
> > 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> > buried. He descended into hell.
>
> This was the Great Work that Jesus carried out in order to save us.
> > 5. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
> > buried. He descended into hell.
>
>
> > 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
>
> This was God's acceptance and ratification of that Great Work. Death
> > 6. On the third day, He arose again from the dead.
>
> could not hold Jesus, since death is not even a creature, much less a
> creature powerful enough to hold God. God submitted Himself to death,
> and in this way gained the victory over death, which we also hope to
> share. The Resurrection is God's Victory over death.
>
> > 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> > Father Almighty.
>
> After His work on earth was completed in His Body, He ascended in that
> > 7. He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the
> > Father Almighty.
>
> Body to heaven, where He had been before. He descended from heaven in
> order to take birth in human form for our salvation; now He ascended
> back to whence He came, victorious, now in His resurrected Body, the
> Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
>
> > 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
>
> He has been on earth with us and experienced the temptations to which
> > 8. From thence He shall come to judge both the living and the dead.
>
> we are all subject. He earned the right to Victory over death by
> willingly submitting Himself to the ignominy of the Cross. God made
> him the judge of both the living and the dead. All are subject to His
> judgment; death will not spare us that. Death, indeed, has no power
> over Him, so how could it have the power to hide us from Him?
>
> > 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
>
> The Holy Spirit was mentioned in 3. Now in 9, is mentioned the ripened
> > 9. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
>
> fruit of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church. The Church is
> God's People.
>
> > 10. The Communion of Saints,
>
> All the saints in heaven are in communion with God and with each
> > 10. The Communion of Saints,
>
> other; there is but one Will among them, and that Will has the name
> Charity, and is God's Will.
Where is this from?
>
> > 11. The forgiveness of sins,
>
> God; the healing of the rift between us caused by sin; the purpose of
> the Incarnation insofar as it was a Work.
>
> > 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
>
> The resurrection of the Body and life everlasting is the final purpose
> > 12. The resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.
>
> of the Incarnation, insofar as it is a completed work and that work
> has its reward. It is the restoration of all things, and the final
> end of all suffering. An end means a cessation, and an end is that
> toward which a means strives. The end of all suffering as in the
> cessation of all suffering is found in the resurrection of the body
> and life everlasting, with God, in heaven. The end of all suffering
> as in the goal toward which all our suffering ideally tends, is the
> same. After all is done, there will be no more suffering at all,
> since "God will wipe away every tear."
>
> Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and
> death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be
> any more, for the former things are passed away.
>
> > Amen!
>
> > Point 9 implies all the rest of Catholic Dogma, as we believe the
> > Church is the organ of the Holy Spirit, and must teach all truth. The
> > rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> > twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> > summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
> > necessary and not optional.
>
> > The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > there will be no more sin.
>
> > rest of Catholic Dogma consists in teachings that go to support these
> > twelve basic points. So we can treat these twelve as essentially a
> > summation of Catholic Dogma, and examine why each is considered
> > necessary and not optional.
>
> > The purpose of the Catholic Church, insofar as it has work to
> > accomplish, is to save us from our sins. Beyond that, the Church is
> > the People of God, and as such, will continue in eternity as the
> > Communion of Saints, without any more work to do, since in heaven
> > there will be no more sin.
>
> > Points 1, 2, and 3 express our belief in the Holy Trinity, who is One
> > God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe God is
> > Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point.
>
> > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
>
> > The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> > that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> > unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> > accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> > Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> > existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> > implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> > both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> > but heaven and earth can be spoken of.
>
> > This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > religion in the world.
>
> > God. To be situated in the fullness of truth, one must believe God is
> > Three Persons in one God. Why? Let us examine each point.
>
> > 1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
>
> > The Chinese philosophy posits heaven and earth as the primary duality
> > that points to a single source they call Tao. Tao is ineffable,
> > unable to be seen by us, yet pervading everything, and always
> > accessible to us in principle, even if we know it not. Heaven and
> > Earth, by contrast, are visible to us, and constitute for us, all
> > existence. Tao is not extraneous to heaven and earth, rather, it is
> > implied by them, and included in them, though more accurately they
> > both are included in it. The true Tao cannot actually be spoken of;
> > but heaven and earth can be spoken of.
>
> > This concept of Tao, I submit, properly apprehended, is equivalent
> > with the concept of God as known in Catholicism. This is an important
> > point that should not be passed over lightly. It is the gateway to a
> > Great Synthesis. If what I have stated in this paragraph is true,
> > that points to a universality of religion that transcends competing
> > creeds. If there is a parallel to God in such a philosophy as ancient
> > Chinese Taoism, then probably, there are parallels also in every major
> > religion in the world.
>
> > There is a danger, however, that it seems to me many have fallen into,
> > and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > rather than inclusion of all perspectives.
>
> > By contrast to this, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the
> > truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
>
> > and that is the danger of reasoning as follows: if there are
> > parallels, if indeed the major faiths of the world are expressing
> > essentially the selfsame truths, then it seems Dogma can only lead to
> > attachment to one perspective, to parochialism rather than to
> > universality, to narrow-minded attachment to one's own perspective
> > rather than inclusion of all perspectives.
>
> > By contrast to this, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the
> > truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
>
> > In this post, I intend to expose the resolution of those two seemingly
> > opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma as,
> > rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
>
> > opposite perspectives. I intend to elucidate Catholic Dogma as,
> > rather than a restrictive limitation on truth-seeking, actually a
> > framework of essential truths that sets one free to explore all truth.
>
> > That which has been encoded as Dogma is actually not restrictive, any
> > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > parallel to that in theology.
>
> > More later!
> > more than knowledge of the operation of addition is restrictive to
> > mathematics. Addition is basic to mathematics, and provides the
> > framework for exploration of mathematical truth. As such, is not
> > optional, but rather essential. I intend to expose Catholic Dogma as
> > parallel to that in theology.
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages