Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

MissMelsWell

Ok, then the opinions you are peddling are also dogma if you're going to go with teh classic definitions. You are guilty as well.

Dogma:

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.

2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.

3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.

4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

#1 Could be anything... any system or principal or tenent which might not be religious.

#2 Would require doctrine (which my church doesn't have in any special regard). THIS is the dogma most people speak of when they speak negatively of dogma.

#3 This would be from a political view point I suppose... like presidential candidates peddling their dogma

#4 Could be in reference to just about anything you believe in.

So, please don't accuse me of dogma, since everyone is subject to it. You, me, everyone.

I'd say #1 applies best to me specifically... I have no problem with principals and tenets, they are required of me personally and professionally, and in fact the other day I wrote a document for work describing the principals and tenets of the project I'm working on. In fact, it was even called a tenets document.

So it doesn't look to me like dogma is any big deal... because we all have our own special dogma.

Edited by MissMelsWell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Ok, then the opinions you are peddling are also dogma if you're going to go with teh classic definitions. You are guilty as well.

Dogma:

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.

2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.

3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.

4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

#1 Could be anything... any system or principal or tenent which might not be religious.

#2 Would require doctrine (which my church doesn't have in any special regard). THIS is the dogma most people speak of when they speak negatively of dogma.

#3 This would be from a political view point I suppose... like presidential candidates peddling their dogma

#4 Could be in reference to just about anything you believe in.

So, please don't accuse me of dogma, since everyone is subject to it. You, me, everyone.

I'd say #1 applies best to me specifically... I have no problem with principals and tenets, they are required of me personally and professionally, and in fact the other day I wrote a document for work describing the principals and tenets of the project I'm working on. In fact, it was even called a tenets document.

So it doesn't look to me like dogma is any big deal... because we all have our own special dogma.

I'd concur that its real easy to become so biased , ones path can be the 'cats meow' of paths....... and perhaps it is for us but we can't make this determination for anyone else.....

there are guiding principles and then there are dogma's .. at this point I have not concluded that quakerism is a dogma or a guiding principle quite frankly.....

I concur with Ex. l.. humble comes to mind and its a good point.....

for me my path suits me whatever it happens to be at any given moment but it will not be for another nor should it be....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell

The point is that when people talk about not liking "dogma" in religion, they are talking about point #2 (a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.)

When I hear the word "Dogma" and you're talking about a religious topic that's always the definition I think of. As we can see, there are 4 definitions all very different in their context. Context is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
I think most of this information probably comes from Tacticus writing several decades later. Again, despite the mentionings, they do not indicate numbers or the idea that Christians were a significant part of Jerusalem's population in 70 A.D.

That may well be, I could have gotten the author of the history wrong, but as for the christian population, that account is part of the early church fathers not of Tacitus or Titus, who would not have given a wits **** of who was at the other side of his sword.

The christian historians on the other hand would care about that detail...

Destruction of Jerusalem

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
The point is that when people talk about not liking "dogma" in religion, they are talking about point #2 (a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.)

When I hear the word "Dogma" and you're talking about a religious topic that's always the definition I think of. As we can see, there are 4 definitions all very different in their context. Context is important.

I concur our worldview will be filtered through our perspective and its a good idea to clarify for shared understanding ......even the very best of ideas can be dogmatic if we insist they should be a one size fits all IMO.......thats why i always try to ask what one means....imagine context when you have 30 people discussing something lol...

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
I concur our worldview will be filtered through our perspective and its a good idea to clarify for shared understanding ......even the very best of ideas can be dogmatic if we insist they should be a one size fits all IMO.......thats why i always try to ask what one means....imagine context when you have 30 people discussing something lol...

dogmatic:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonyms at doctrine.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

By definition the truth is dogmatic, so, the fact an idea is dogmatic is not necessarily a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
By definition the truth is dogmatic, so, the fact an idea is dogmatic is not necessarily a bad thing.

...to qualify as a truth/fact it has to be verified.......alot of things are assumed to be truth when they are not .......not to mention how is one defining truth...

I do see lots of evidence of many 'claimed dogmatic truths" to be very dangerous and very harmful to humanity. and not jsut in reilgion........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
...to qualify as a truth/fact it has to be verified.......alot of things are assumed to be truth when they are not .......not to mention how is one defining truth...

I do see lots of evidence of many 'claimed dogmatic truths" to be very dangerous and very harmful to humanity. and not jsut in reilgion........

Sometimes, Sheri, truth is reduced to merely what the majority believes. The earth was the center of the universe for centuries and it was a collective truth in that time. It may have been disproved later and truth changed its substance and character but nonetheless it was a "new truth" replacing a truth that was strongly believed by all.

Truth, therefore, can be something of fashion . . . . ever changing and evolving, leaving only the question of whether or not some absolute truth truly exists or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Sometimes, Sheri, truth is reduced to merely what the majority believes. The earth was the center of the universe for centuries and it was a collective truth in that time. It may have been disproved later and truth changed its substance and character but nonetheless it was a "new truth" replacing a truth that was strongly believed by all.

Truth, therefore, can be something of fashion . . . . ever changing and evolving, leaving only the question of whether or not some absolute truth truly exists or not.

good point David I concur with the last sentence profoundly one can arrive at a place where they wonder if there is any such thing as an absolute.....

i stay away from them myself because even when one thinks they have a truth it changes.......i also think that when we start lableing things 'truth' we thwart growth, we close the potential for new udnerstandings. it suddenly becomes above reproach therefore closed to any kind of self correction and I think if we gain anything from our past mistaken 'truths' perhaps thiis is a good point to keep in mind.............

by the way i like your analogy 'truth' the latest fashion (like the new skinny jeans lol)

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
good point David I concur with the last sentence profoundly one can arrive at a place where they wonder if there is any such thing as an absolute.....

i stay away from them myself because even when one thinks they have a truth it changes.......i also think that when we start lableing things 'truth' we thwart growth, we close the potential for new udnerstandings. it suddenly becomes above reproach therefore closed to any kind of self correction and I think if we gain anything from our past mistaken 'truths' perhaps thiis is a good point to keep in mind.............

by the way i like your analogy 'truth' the latest fashion (like the new skinny jeans lol)

Skinny jeans? Remember, where I live the latest fashion is bell bottoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Skinny jeans? Remember, where I live the latest fashion is bell bottoms.

lol, they are the latest rage here at Bloomingdales lift the butt, slim the legs, flatten the tummy diet in a pair of pants .... .... for a mere 170.00 dollars they sell out all the time.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
...to qualify as a truth/fact it has to be verified.......alot of things are assumed to be truth when they are not .......not to mention how is one defining truth...

I do see lots of evidence of many 'claimed dogmatic truths" to be very dangerous and very harmful to humanity. and not jsut in reilgion........

You mean scientific truth has to be verified through scientific means. Since science is limited to the natural world and is incapable of addressing spiritual issues, there is no way for truth to be used to verify spiritual truths. The limitations of science only define science not the truthfulness of those things outside of the boundaries of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired
You mean scientific truth has to be verified through scientific means. Since science is limited to the natural world and is incapable of addressing spiritual issues, there is no way for truth to be used to verify spiritual truths. The limitations of science only define science not the truthfulness of those things outside of the boundaries of science.

Then how do we define the truth of these spiritual issues??

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Then how do we define the truth of these spiritual issues??

fullywired

excellent question ! what makes his spiritual 'truth' any more true than anyone else's ? all are based on mans opinion , beliefs and feelings. Just because he feels/felt something doesn't make it any more true than say what a muslim or buddhist feels.

in that sense there can be no ' king of the hill' or right way.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
You mean scientific truth has to be verified through scientific means. Since science is limited to the natural world and is incapable of addressing spiritual issues, there is no way for truth to be used to verify spiritual truths. The limitations of science only define science not the truthfulness of those things outside of the boundaries of science.

The very word "spiritual" internalizes and personalizes something so much that it can never be equated. To relate spirituality to truth is like relating thought to image. A feeling (the media of spiritualism) is felt only by you and so the idea that it represents a truth makes it only your truth . . . . felt only by you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
You mean scientific truth has to be verified through scientific means. Since science is limited to the natural world and is incapable of addressing spiritual issues, there is no way for truth to be used to verify spiritual truths. The limitations of science only define science not the truthfulness of those things outside of the boundaries of science.

perhas this will l add some insight for you this is how i use sceince I would not say its incapable at all........i use the . sceintific method of verifying as a tool it can be used for many disciplines and is, i use it as a means of making judgements and for decision making ... ...

much of our human afairs are uncertain and contigent we can't reach conclusions with the certatinty or absolute precision we would associate with deductive or formal reasoning and yet decisons are needed and guiding prinicples need to be weighed for merit and effectiveness and soundness. not to mention I have kids that have to be able to think for themselves.....

so science provides a means of justifiying decsions under uncertainty and the way it does this is 1st by subjecting ideas to a rigorous testing that can seem like a adversial process perhaps to you but upon closer look one test ideas by asking another to bring to table the strongest doubts or the strongest grounds for objection that we can imagine , its not a cut throat competition or a zero sum game (or science against reilgion son...) the goal is to find the best possible outcome..... rigour is the means to do that so the goal is shared and the activity is fundamentally cooperatve., if you are percieviing it as bad or against you. or the enemy ... you are missing or not understanding the value of this activity ........ Now the result of this collaboration is to ground our desicions or guiding principles in 'good reasons"..

but this doesn't establish them as certain or absolute we can still be wrong son... ... surely you have some sort of method in place to weigh ideas for merit and value ........

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Then how do we define the truth of these spiritual issues??

fullywired

That's a great question. If I ever figure out a process everyone can agree with you can read about it as I accept the Nobel Prize.

perhas this will l add some insight for you this is how i use sceince I would not say its incapable at all........i use the . sceintific method of verifying as a tool it can be used for many disciplines and is, i use it as a means of making judgements and for decision making ... ...

much of our human afairs are uncertain and contigent we can't reach conclusions with the certatinty or absolute precision we would associate with deductive or formal reasoning and yet decisons are needed and guiding prinicples need to be weighed for merit and effectiveness and soundness. not to mention I have kids that have to be able to think for themselves.....

so science provides a means of justifiying decsions under uncertainty and the way it does this is 1st by subjecting ideas to a rigorous testing that can seem like a adversial process perhaps to you but upon closer look one test ideas by asking another to bring to table the strongest doubts or the strongest grounds for objection that we can imagine , its not a cut throat competition or a zero sum game (or science against reilgion son...) the goal is to find the best possible outcome..... rigour is the means to do that so the goal is shared and the activity is fundamentally cooperatve., if you are percieviing it as bad or against you. or the enemy ... you are missing or not understanding the value of this activity ........ Now the result of this collaboration is to ground our desicions or guiding principles in 'good reasons"..

but this doesn't establish them as certain or absolute we can still be wrong son... ... surely you have some sort of method in place to weigh ideas for merit and value ........

You can try to use your TV's remote control to vacuum your carpet as much as you want, but your carpet will remain soiled because TV remotes are limited to controlling TVs. Much the same way, you can try to use science to study spiritual issues as much as you want, but due to it's limitations, your success will be highly curtailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
That's a great question. If I ever figure out a process everyone can agree with you can read about it as I accept the Nobel Prize.

You can try to use your TV's remote control to vacuum your carpet as much as you want, but your carpet will remain soiled because TV remotes are limited to controlling TVs. Much the same way, you can try to use science to study spiritual issues as much as you want, but due to it's limitations, your success will be highly curtailed.

but feelings , your experiences are not proof to anyone but you. hence it's an opinion. nothing more. facts have proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
good point David I concur with the last sentence profoundly one can arrive at a place where they wonder if there is any such thing as an absolute.....

i stay away from them myself because even when one thinks they have a truth it changes.......i also think that when we start lableing things 'truth' we thwart growth, we close the potential for new udnerstandings. it suddenly becomes above reproach therefore closed to any kind of self correction and I think if we gain anything from our past mistaken 'truths' perhaps thiis is a good point to keep in mind.............

by the way i like your analogy 'truth' the latest fashion (like the new skinny jeans lol)

So, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is truth to you... one of the oldest sayings in the town my wife comes from goes something like "drink from too many wells and you get indigestion"... It seems that since each well is in a geolocally different area around the town, they each have their own peculiar taste due to the trace elements found in the water....

It's actually true...

The same can be applied to so many different truths, since there can really be only one....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
That's a great question. If I ever figure out a process everyone can agree with you can read about it as I accept the Nobel Prize.

You can try to use your TV's remote control to vacuum your carpet as much as you want, but your carpet will remain soiled because TV remotes are limited to controlling TVs. Much the same way, you can try to use science to study spiritual issues as much as you want, but due to it's limitations, your success will be highly curtailed.

son you have started this debate with the presumption that science can't help you with matters that are abstract...you are using s circular logic ..it basically restates your claim in the conclusion you don't advance understanding in this manner and your claim is assumed in the argument you are putting forth it has not been established so basically you are ignoring the discussion at hand...

why???? what are your underlying intentions.......

the question is can science be used in matters of spirituality...

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
son you have started this debate with the presumption that science can't help you with matters that are abstract...you are using s circular logic ..it basically restates your claim in the conclusion you don't advance understanding in this manner and your claim is assumed in the argument you are putting forth it has not been established so basically you are ignoring the discussion at hand...

why???? what are your underlying intentions.......

the question is can science be used in matters of spirituality...

I didn't argue that science can't study supernatural events, I stated it. No argument about it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

well except you didnt say that you qouted this:

Son quotes:

You mean scientific truth has to be verified through scientific means. Since science is limited to the natural world and is incapable of addressing spiritual issues, "there is no way for truth to be used to verify spiritual truths." The limitations of science only define science not the truthfulness of those things outside of the boundaries of science."

son quotes:

"there is no way for truth to be used to verify spiritual truths" is what i addressed... and you are in error philosophy which is a discipline one of many that uses the methodology of science applys it to ideas including spiritual or religious ..its called argumentation.....

i explained it in detail a few posts up.......

now if you really meant something else then we have more to talk about ... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
So, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is truth to you... one of the oldest sayings in the town my wife comes from goes something like "drink from too many wells and you get indigestion"... It seems that since each well is in a geolocally different area around the town, they each have their own peculiar taste due to the trace elements found in the water....

It's actually true...

The same can be applied to so many different truths, since there can really be only one....

The very theme of this thread proves the point. What is your truth is probably not mine and yet to each of us we hold the truth. We cannot be so certain as you state that "there can really be only one . . . ."

It is equally possible that there is no absolute in the realm of truth and that it is not, by nature, a stable factor of belief but fluctuates and alters itself to best serve the believers.

It would depend on how we want to equate truth. The man bathing in the River Ghangis each year to purify his soul believes that water to be holy as strongly as any Christian believes that salvation exists through Christ. The Dogon tribal member believes with all his heart that his god lives beyond Sirius B and to the Arab Allah is a fierce and vengeful god but the same god as known to the Christians.

If we calculate truth in accordance with its acceptance by humans, then it indeed is a broad, expansive concept offering itself equally to all . . . . like sunlight.

But absolute truth narrows that concept to a singular dimension and perhaps that is the crux of this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
The very theme of this thread proves the point. What is your truth is probably not mine and yet to each of us we hold the truth. We cannot be so certain as you state that "there can really be only one . . . ."

It is equally possible that there is no absolute in the realm of truth and that it is not, by nature, a stable factor of belief but fluctuates and alters itself to best serve the believers.

It would depend on how we want to equate truth. The man bathing in the River Ghangis each year to purify his soul believes that water to be holy as strongly as any Christian believes that salvation exists through Christ. The Dogon tribal member believes with all his heart that his god lives beyond Sirius B and to the Arab Allah is a fierce and vengeful god but the same god as known to the Christians.

If we calculate truth in accordance with its acceptance by humans, then it indeed is a broad, expansive concept offering itself equally to all . . . . like sunlight.

But absolute truth narrows that concept to a singular dimension and perhaps that is the crux of this debate.

There is only one truth, and that truth is God himself...

"To quote a psalm; "The fool in his heart says there is no God... To acknowledge him is the beginning of wisdom..."

That will probably infuriate a few people, so let the flaming begin....

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
well except you didnt say that you qouted this:

Son quotes:

You mean scientific truth has to be verified through scientific means. Since science is limited to the natural world and is incapable of addressing spiritual issues, "there is no way for truth to be used to verify spiritual truths." The limitations of science only define science not the truthfulness of those things outside of the boundaries of science."

Yes, I did and there is nothing in that which suggests an argument. If you read it, that is a statement.

son quotes:

"there is no way for truth to be used to verify spiritual truths" is what i addressed... and you are in error philosophy which is a discipline one of many that uses the methodology of science applys it to ideas including spiritual or religious ..its called argumentation.....

i explained it in detail a few posts up.......

Sheri, that is a statement, I did not posit that science can't verify spiritual truths, I made a statement about the KNOWN, PLANNED, and UNDERSTOOD limitations of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.