THE DOGMA OF EXISTENCE

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Just curious ,does the rejection of dogma --religious or otherwise--constitute the creation of another dogma opposite in ideals to the former?.if so what is THAT neutral party which decides that the ideals of the former are no longer present in the latter dogma.

With regards to atheist vs creationist.The dogma of the creationist is that all things extant come from a singular source---then the opp dogma becomes that all things DO NOT COME FROM A SINGULAR SOURCE --that they come from everywhere!elsewhere.it can be argued that that a singular thing is part of everything!everywhere..........is it not true then that there exists a creationist ideology in every atheist and that every creationist is a small part of everthing!everywhere n there 4 part of the greater being that is everywhere-----THE ATHEIST'S 'SOURCE /ORIGINATOR'.

Would it not be right to say that the greater being is that which can constitute the parts into the whole n vice versa.the CONSCIOUS BEING Is the supreme being able to see one thing in many and many things in one.so tell me which is the greater being (the gods--singular..man--conscious..the devils--the many!everywhere).then why is man a slave(afraid of) to both.the way i see it in order for things to exist --first man must exist to perceive them.which is the greater being....which is....which is?

a reply to: fr33coll3ct1v3

,does the rejection of dogma --religious or otherwise--constitute the creation of another dogma opposite in ideals to the former?

Not necessarily. The rejection of dogma would eliminate most absolute statements and "ists" and "isms."

It's possible to entertain and even sleep with an idea without marrying it.

a reply to: fr33coll3ct1v3

I do not believe that abandonment of dogma is the same thing as abandoning a principle, or even a faith, or that abandoning a dogmatic attitude toward things automatically requires the construction of new dogma in order to replace it.

For example, I believe in Jesus. I am not however, a pro-lifer, nor do I spend time expressing hateful sentiments toward those whose lives are not lived according to scripture. Everyone has free will, which is a God given thing, and they must do as they will. It is not my job to judge them for it, even in the smallest way.

I also tend to view everything through a lens of reason, based on my life experience, my understanding of the sciences, my understanding of human nature, the condition with which we all must live. My conclusions about what goes on around me are not products of dogma, but of logic, empathy, and compassion. I am also aware that not every situation which shares elements in common with another, is necessarily THE SAME as another, and a dogmatic person would tend to generalise and oversimplify the universe around them, and what goes on inside it, in order to better fit an event or happenstance, into one of a few neat pigeon holes, for ease of filing for want of a better phrase.

I have never been one to do such a thing. To my mind every single second of every single life on this planet, is unique, and cannot be perfectly, or even practically imperfectly compared alongside another, making the pigeon holes that are so comfortable for some, totally useless to me as tools to aid my progress through life, and my ability to connect with the reality of living it.

Dogma is not necessary. Thought is necessary, feeling is necessary, and coming to ones own conclusions based on the experience and wisdom of the individual, these are necessary. Applying poorly thought out templates based on authoritarian values to a situation like life and living (by definition, chaotic concepts) would seem to be counter productive, no matter from whence that dogma might issue!

in the dark forest of philosophy on life,one can see only as far as the light in his mind shines. i guess its a question of how far one's mind can shine.

originally posted by: fr33coll3ct1v3
in the dark forest of philosophy on life,one can see only as far as the light in his mind shines. i guess its a question of how far one's mind can shine.

Dogma vs Dharma

The question is which will lead us....

One is the programming we receive,
(i.e, the convictions we hold on to)
the other our ability to drop our
dogma (i.e., programmed beliefs)
and experience a paradigm shift.

We mistake dogma for validation.
And because we need validation we
also think we need dogma. We do not.

Validity is a form of truth; or rather
it is our ability to sense what is true.
Thus validation is a confirmation of
our sense of reality, a confirming what
we see, think or feel is real.

Fear and guilt distort our ability to sense the truth
and cause us to feel bad without good reason. When
we cease to have “good feelings” because of the
corrupting influence of memory, immediately our
view of reality becomes hazy.

As memories from the past (guilt) are projected into
our future (fear) the effect is always a distortion our
intuition and an invalidation of our reality. One moment
we see the love and acceptance all around us; then in the
next instant we only see the product of our own insecurity.

At such times we literally become crazy. When we entertain
fear our need for validation grows more and more insane and
our view of the world is become invalid and untrue. This is the
world of illusion called Myah, the bad dream that we ourselves
create. It is the human perception distorted by fear and it is
the Universal problem dogma tries, but can not fix.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: fr33coll3ct1v3

I do not believe that abandonment of dogma is the same thing as abandoning a principle, or even a faith, or that abandoning a dogmatic attitude toward things automatically requires the construction of new dogma in order to replace it.

Dogma is not necessary.

Thought is necessary, feeling is necessary, and coming to ones own conclusions based on the experience and wisdom of the individual, these are necessary. Applying poorly thought out templates based on authoritarian values to a situation like life and living (by definition, chaotic concepts) would seem to be counter productive, no matter from whence that dogma might issue!

Well said.

The problem with belief is that we don’t know what we don’t know, and our beliefs are always changing based on new information. This is why a relationship with God ought to be based experience and not just the dogma or doctrine of some organized religion. The beliefs we hold today may be very different that the beliefs we held a few years ago, and while our belief may have changed, it is our faith really matters.

Those who call them selves Christian often assume that their belief in Jesus is what saves them, but is that true? Ask yourself this question: Does Jesus Save Me, or Does My Belief in Jesus Save Me? That is a question few seem to ask, but contained in that quarry is the answer to the single greatest error in Christian theology. We need to challenge our thinking on this matter, and move beyond theology in to a space of understanding God’s grace.

Faith matters, however, belief matters very little. The memes we cling to are not faith, in fact they are obstacles to genuine faith. Beliefs are those things we are programmed with. For example, when a traffic light turns red we are programmed to stop. That red light is a symbol of false authority. We are programmed with fear to submit to our social conditioning. And without thinking, we conform and obey. Ironically, those who overcome their programming and disregard false authority are the individuals who exercise real faith.

Faith is not belief. We use these two terms interchangeablely, but when you think about it one has more to do with external programming, or what we where are told to believe, and the other has more to do with what we know is true by our own experience. In short, belief comes form an external source where as faith comes from an internal source. Faith then is what we do, and not merely what we believe. One compels our action out of duty, obligation, and the need to conform to other peoples expectations; the other compels us in the other direction.

Eternal life starts now. We can choose eternal life by choosing to life by faith. When we submit to false authority out of fear, then we are not living my faith. Jesus came so that we would have life and have it more abundantly. This means seeing the red light for what it is, and after we look both ways we are free to proceed. That is what faith is all about. It means trusting the Holy Spirit to guide us as we choose life. It means breaking the rules that are imposed on us from outside and living by faith in communion with the Living God.

You relationship with God is your own. It is personal.
Screw what anyone else says, thinks, or does.

originally posted by: fr33coll3ct1v3
the way i see it in order for things to exist --first man must exist to perceive them.which is the greater being....which is....which is?

First, you have to get rid of this dogma. Until you can achieve that, you won't ever get anywhere near the basis of what is real and have any shot at determining what does, in fact, exist.

a reply to: NorEaster

i agree i will let go this dogma ,however i don't think we will agree on what 'the truth' or 'fact', perhaps.one possible way our 'truths' are reconciled is through communication written,spoken,symbolic e.t.c.but our methodologies of comm are diverse ,perhaps a lack of communication is necessary for the truth to manifest.