Dogmatism in Religious Discourse | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Dogmatism in Religious Discourse

@MistyWrites

Hey, thanks again for your input.

It looks like I'm going to have to stop using this account. It doesn't seem like the people I offended are really ever going to move on from this.

I'm just going to take a little break and come back with a whole new account, so I can have a fresh start.

Looking forward to not having all this unnecessary conflict and baggage.

Wonkavision out......
 
No, you have not discouraged me. I just think that as long as there's an unwritten rule that you can't be dogmatic in a religion thread, I just find that to be too limiting for me.

My main purpose here is to meet other INFJs, because I don't have enough exposure to them in my daily life. I didn't come here to preach, or to offend people, but to relax and have fun.
Right, that's why I said fishing should not be preachy or bashy, but warm and fluid - by being a living example of light and love.. It should be attractive, not off-putting. :)

But yes, I also meant in life.. not just in the forum, don't let me douse your desire to talk about your faith in a public venue ( kindly ) lol.
 
@MistyWrites

Hey, thanks again for your input.

It looks like I'm going to have to stop using this account. It doesn't seem like the people I offended are really ever going to move on from this.

I'm just going to take a little break and come back with a whole new account, so I can have a fresh start.

Looking forward to not having all this unnecessary conflict and baggage.

Wonkavision out......
PS..
You just blew your own cover, brosef.. :m047:

And, you're welcome.:wyotethumb:
 
Last edited:
These people are just like Cain who slew his brother Abel because God accepted Abel and did not accept Cain. God have mercy on them.

Actually, we are none of us like Cain, but feel free to hate. That you believe you’ve been “saved” and everyone else is damned - that is your own conception of our reality. I have a totally different perspective and I am glad for it. I feel pretty good about my prospects in my next life. I also have an inherent faith in my fellow (wo)man and believe in their salvation. So, you see, I don’t believe that you have something that I don’t have.
 
First, the premise that religious belief is a shared, standardized experience among masses of people is wrong in my opinion. An individual's religious faith, regardless of what dogma or doctrine guides their belief, is personal. Otherwise, it's merely obedience to a set of rules, which in itself requires no thought, no emotional investment and thus, no faith to execute.

Second, the premise that the Bible (or any other religious text or external source of doctrine) is flawless and unerring (and therefore, not to be questioned) is at the very least a premise that demands some scrutiny. Regardless of any divine source of inspiration, the various books of the Bible were in fact written and then centuries later filtered and compiled by mortal (flawed, imperfect) men. I completely understand the idea of placing one's faith in the teachings and concepts of the text. I do not understand the idea that the text must always be taken as literal fact when so much of it is open to interpretation and criticism.

To OP's point - if all religious discussions "should" originate or lean toward dogmatic teachings, why bother having discussions in the first place? Would religious discourse then be limited purely to questions of translation?
 
Last edited:
if all religious discussions "should" originate or lean toward dogmatic teachings, why bother having discussions in the first place? Would religious discourse then be limited purely to questions of translation?

Exactly
 
I have to start this by saying I have literally hated religions for a long time and came to the realization that they are some good to people who need it.

If someone closes their eyes on the mere basis of thinking they know it all I deem that person an idiot on the spot. It does sound harsh, but I've come to value objectivity over belief. I'm not saying belief couldn't be right, I've had gut feelings enough to say it, but that there's no room for one truth above others. I've seen those who are dead wrong and debating from that point of view, I've seen those who believe in something to deal with their own issues, I've seen those who believe in something to beat others and so forth. Religious beliefs are no different to me. I'm glad people open up their minds to objective thought.
 
To OP's point - if all religious discussions "should" originate or lean toward dogmatic teachings, why bother having discussions in the first place?

Along the lines of what @dogman6126 said before, I do think it is possible to have a productive exchange with a staunch defender of religious dogma. The person might not be open to changing their mind about the answers, but might provide interesting arguments for arriving at the answers – or even interesting arguments for not being open to changing their minds about the answers. I think quite a bit of theological philosophy works like that. Or even a discussion with a priest. The priest will probably stick to dogma, but might provide an enlightening perspective on why he commits to it.

The problem is that the definition we've been offered of “dogmatic” here is more along the lines of: “I believe things are the way they are because they are the way they are. And that is it.” In such conditions, it's obvious that discussion cannot be had. But I wonder if that definition may not amount to a kind of obtuse defacement of dogmatism. Surely there have been philosophical arguments in defense of commitment to dogma. I may not agree with them, but I would have liked to hear them from the self-proclaimed dogmatists. ;)
 
Last edited:
obtuse defacement of dogmatism

This thread in a nutshell.

Also
my_karma_ran_over_your_dogma_large_mug.jpg