Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If someone is dogmatic, they are certain that they are right and that other views are wrong; inclined to lay down principles views beliefs or opinions as incontrovertibly true
If someone is dogmatic, they are certain that they are right and that other views are wrong; inclined to lay down principles views beliefs or opinions as incontrovertibly true
Exactly what in the first post is dogmatic?
The only "denigration" I have seen from Mystic is solidly based on harm being done, but you won't see that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
If someone is dogmatic, they are certain that they are right and that other views are wrong; inclined to lay down principles views beliefs or opinions as incontrovertibly true
Yes, this theory has been around for decades, or if reworded and placed around the globe, centuries. You read it somewhere, probably many times under different guises and different myths and stories, and eventually you internalized it, reworded a few things and decided it was your own esoteric information.
Still not seeing the need to stick Jesus into it somewhere? Mystics have been said to achieve this many times in various cultures. Someone *else* can't do this for a person, so Jesus seems like just a security blanket you keep. Probably when we do at last achieve an enlightened state, 1. we won't be on the internet looking for applause and agreement and 2. we finally will not only know but truly understand that nobody, no "sacrifice," no mystic can do our own work for us.
Yes, exactly. Well said.
That addresses an example of dogma in the opening post.
Yes, this theory has been around for decades, or if reworded and placed around the globe, centuries. You read it somewhere, probably many times under different guises and different myths and stories, and eventually you internalized it, reworded a few things and decided it was your own esoteric information.
Still not seeing the need to stick Jesus into it somewhere? Mystics have been said to achieve this many times in various cultures. Someone *else* can't do this for a person, so Jesus seems like just a security blanket you keep. Probably when we do at last achieve an enlightened state, 1. we won't be on the internet looking for applause and agreement and 2. we finally will not only know but truly understand that nobody, no "sacrifice," no mystic can do our own work for us.
nobody here but us, its our duty to each other.
Its just that some want to remove natural consequences. they want to force their morals on us when they do not match observation.
Here is an example of inconsistency and inherent contradiction and flawed logic. He states he has no specific attachment to any dogma, heowever he is very specifically attached to very specific dogma around a very specific religious personality within a very specific religion.
Strongly held beliefs are not all necessarily dogma, especially if they are beliefs based on direct personal experience. I believe with extremely high confidence that Kate Mulgrew gave me a hug about 12 years ago. (For those who don't recognize the name: She was "Captain Janeway" on Star Trek Voyager and "Red" in Orange is the New Black.) If anyone were inclined to call me a liar or if you try to convince me that it was just a delusion, or a mistaken memory, I might seem to react in a rather "dogmatic" way because I am very confident that this event occurred and that it really was her. I'm sure that I'm not simply mistaken. But is my belief an example of dogma? Some might say yes, but in general I suspect most people would not think of this belief as dogma. Why not? Dogma tends to be ridged faith in some authority or doctrine - generally a religious or political type of authority or doctrine. From what I can tell, MPhD is expressing strong faith in his own personal experience - just as I am when I recall my encounters with Kate. He says he was atheist at the time of the experience, and I have no good reason to think he is lying about that. He is adamant in his belief regarding Jesus, just as I am adamant in my belief regarding Kate. (Of course "Jesus" implies a lot more deep metaphysical commitments than "Kate" - so that will probably cloud the issue.)
I think that most of us would say, just off hand, that my story of meeting Kate is far more upfront-plausible than MPhD's story of meeting Jesus, but I don't think this makes his belief necessarily any more dogmatic than mine. MPhD's faith is in his interpretation of a personal experience, just as mine is. As I suggested earlier, if Jesus told MPhD that everything in the Bible is literally true, and if MPhD therefore became a fundamentalist, then I would be inclined to say that dogmatism and flawed logic take hold. Why? Because there are numerous extremely good logical and empirical arguments for believing that the Bible is not literally true. Faith that blatantly flies in the face of our best evidence is very probably going to be an example of clinging to dogmatism.
Some of the details of MPhD's beliefs might touch on irrationality but, in general, I'd say he is just being highly speculative about some things, from a scientific point of view. Personally, I don't see his over-all claim as being wildly irrational - I just don't see his interpretation of his experience as being very plausible. But that's just me.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 11-29-2018 at 05:28 PM..
...The line I draw is when a person has such experiences, comes to such conclusions and then sweepingly and often condescendingly insists that it's THEtruth, the literal truth (not with Jesus as a decidedly Western symbol/archetype) for not just him but everyone, and continues to try to "correct" people.
Up until that point, I'd have no issue whatsoever with someone's personal experience (if it was non-harmful to others). But the "and THIS IS the truth" has gotten people tortured, killed, blacklisted, has had laws initiated or reversed, etc....for huge masses of people. No matter how touchy-feely, demanding all others fall into line with one belief has proved itself over and over again to be dangerous and harmful. That's why solid proof would be required in order to make such claims and have others fall into line with them.
So that's where I can no longer be on board with this sort of self-"revelation," and that is exactly how it's being expressed by some here.
I agree with this being an important valid concern and huge red flag.
This is also another example of addressing dogma found in the opening post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
... the TRUE NATURE of God ...UNAMBIGUOUSLY reveal and emphasize the TRUE NATURE of God....unambiguous proof of God's TRUE NATURE.... the true nature of God and was the Son of God.....God is God is God, period, but the ONLY TRUE REVEALED GOD.....NOT the one described by our ancestors in the OT. ....
The problematic subtext in claiming THE TRUE is it casts other views opinions beliefs as false wrong incorrect. That is dogmatic through and through. It leaves no room for other views and adamantly insists that other views opinions beliefs are wrong.
Strongly held beliefs are not all necessarily dogma, especially if they are beliefs based on direct personal experience. I believe with extremely high confidence that Kate Mulgrew gave me a hug about 12 years ago. (For those who don't recognize the name: She was "Captain Janeway" on Star Trek Voyager and "Red" in Orange is the New Black.) If anyone were inclined to call me a liar or if you try to convince me that it was just a delusion, or a mistaken memory, I might seem to react in a rather "dogmatic" way because I am very confident that this event occurred and that it really was her. I'm sure that I'm not simply mistaken. But is my belief an example of dogma? Some might say yes, but in general I suspect most people would not think of this belief as dogma. Why not? Dogma tends to be ridged faith in some authority or doctrine - generally a religious or political type of authority or doctrine. From what I can tell, MPhD is expressing strong faith in his own personal experience - just as I am when I recall my encounters with Kate. He says he was atheist at the time of the experience, and I have no good reason to think he is lying about that. He is adamant in his belief regarding Jesus, just as I am adamant in my belief regarding Kate. (Of course "Jesus" implies a lot more deep metaphysical commitments than "Kate" - so that will probably cloud the issue.)
I think that most of us would say, just off hand, that my story of meeting Kate is far more upfront-plausible than MPhD's story of meeting Jesus, but I don't think this makes his belief necessarily any more dogmatic than mine. MPhD's faith is in his interpretation of a personal experience, just as mine is. As I suggested earlier, if Jesus told MPhD that everything in the Bible is literally true, and if MPhD therefore became a fundamentalist, then I would be inclined to say that dogmatism and flawed logic take hold. Why? Because there are numerous extremely good logical and empirical arguments for believing that the Bible is not literally true. Faith that blatantly flies in the face of our best evidence is very probably going to be an example of clinging to dogmatism.
Some of the details of MPhD's beliefs might touch on irrationality but, in general, I'd say he is just being highly speculative about some things, from a scientific point of view. Personally, I don't see his over-all claim as being wildly irrational - I just don't see his interpretation of his experience as being very plausible. But that's just me.
Holding opinions views beliefs is not dogmatic. However the adamant insistence that other views opinions beliefs are wrong is dogmatic. The supremacy and superiority and condescension and denigration of other views opinions beliefs is dogmatic.
That's why I included a definition of dogmatic:
If someone is dogmatic, they are certain that they are right and that other views are wrong; inclined to lay down principles views beliefs or opinions as incontrovertibly true
Strongly held beliefs are not all necessarily dogma, especially if they are beliefs based on direct personal experience. I believe with extremely high confidence that Kate Mulgrew gave me a hug about 12 years ago. (For those who don't recognize the name: She was "Captain Janeway" on Star Trek Voyager and "Red" in Orange is the New Black.) If anyone were inclined to call me a liar or if you try to convince me that it was just a delusion, or a mistaken memory, I might seem to react in a rather "dogmatic" way because I am very confident that this event occurred and that it really was her. I'm sure that I'm not simply mistaken. But is my belief an example of dogma? Some might say yes, but in general I suspect most people would not think of this belief as dogma. Why not? Dogma tends to be ridged faith in some authority or doctrine - generally a religious or political type of authority or doctrine. From what I can tell, MPhD is expressing strong faith in his own personal experience - just as I am when I recall my encounters with Kate. He says he was atheist at the time of the experience, and I have no good reason to think he is lying about that. He is adamant in his belief regarding Jesus, just as I am adamant in my belief regarding Kate. (Of course "Jesus" implies a lot more deep metaphysical commitments than "Kate" - so that will probably cloud the issue.)
I think that most of us would say, just off hand, that my story of meeting Kate is far more upfront-plausible than MPhD's story of meeting Jesus, but I don't think this makes his belief necessarily any more dogmatic than mine. MPhD's faith is in his interpretation of a personal experience, just as mine is. As I suggested earlier, if Jesus told MPhD that everything in the Bible is literally true, and if MPhD therefore became a fundamentalist, then I would be inclined to say that dogmatism and flawed logic take hold. Why? Because there are numerous extremely good logical and empirical arguments for believing that the Bible is not literally true. Faith that blatantly flies in the face of our best evidence is very probably going to be an example of clinging to dogmatism.
Some of the details of MPhD's beliefs might touch on irrationality but, in general, I'd say he is just being highly speculative about some things, from a scientific point of view. Personally, I don't see his over-all claim as being wildly irrational - I just don't see his interpretation of his experience as being very plausible. But that's just me.
maybe not dogma, but the brain uses imagery it has stored. meme's, if you will, passing through use memories that brain has. I call it filtering.
its not dogma. taz has a way of flipping it, rubbing it down, and tossing it back at us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
