|
|
Post by Adam on May 14, 2009 10:54:21 GMT -1
I see what you mean, Adam. It is problematic using the word dogma and it will take a lot of work explaining our meaning of it. I don't think Christainty should have a monopoly on the word. Do you think we can turn it around to it's more positive meaning? I don't think Christianity does have a monopoly anymore. We have political dogma, company dogma. The supremacy of the free market is dogma. It applies to all ideology. The word as is used has changed beyond all recognition and that is the nature of words over time (ask megli  ). The origins of its current meaning lie in centuries of political relious authority, and that cannot be overturned. So, no, I don't think it can be re=given a positive meaning beyond a small group of people who may choose to use it in a specific technical sense |
|
|
|
Post by Heron on May 14, 2009 21:45:18 GMT -1
Can you give me a reference? I mean that, I'm not being pointlessly argumentative, but I do have a strong belief that, while dictionaries do lag behind language usage, common usage is pretty much the arbiter of meaning of language and to choose a different yardstick to everyone else simply creates confusion and division. I've searched, on and offline (unfortunately I've let my subscription to the OED lapse), and everything I find specific refers to dogma as a set of beliefs prescribed by an authority, and most everything points to it being not open to dispute. I'm not talking common perception which is frequent misconception, but current definition, which is pretty much the only way I know how to use language as an effective communication tool. For example, my Concise OD gives and no other definition. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions gives and I'm making a guess that you are referring to its use in that early sense. As far as I can see that usage is archaic and likely to cause only confusion if used in that way, unless always used prefaced with "as used by the ancient classical authors". Vaguely ironically, I'm forced to assert, by authority of the OED, that dogma refers to beliefs and principles laid down by an authority and which (in most usages) brook no dispute:-) I wouldn't put too much faith in dictionaries Adam. Years ago when trying to persuade a shopkeeper to take some pagan magazines on sale or return he looked 'pagan' up in the dictionary and it said 'an unenlightened one'. I resolved to change that and spent time saving up a variety of positive refs to paganism and sent them to the OED. When the new edition of the full OED was published, sure enough the definition included my suggested amendment with some examples, all sent in by me. That's all it takes. People complain about Wikipedia but any book is only as good as it's author. In spite of OED, COD is still ambiguous about 'pagan'. It's not just the meaning of isolated words that we need to worry about, but the context in which they are used. 'Dogma' can or course, in its limited sense, simply mean 'what we define to be right' or 'what we believe'. And that leads on to the generalised sense today of 'what you want me to believe against my will'. It depends on your point of view and the social framework of religious belief that operates at whatever period of history we're talking about. From that point of view I agree that by now 'dogma' is a lost cause. But I also think it's worth hanging on to historical meanings and, if appropriate. 'making them new'. I'm not sure how appropriate it is is with 'dogma'. Megli suggests 'Canon' which is a lot less loaded though not without its detractors. But is does have the advantage of being neutral in the religious sense. A Canon of belief? Measurement against a standard. What would that be I wonder? How many pixels of twilight constitute an encounter with the Other World? |
|
|
|
Post by clare on May 15, 2009 5:37:27 GMT -1
'Dogma' seems to've become one of those words that alert us to philosophical debate, it's become something of a touchstone in the changing world of British Paganism. My understanding of the word is that it is an authoritative organizational belief that is not to be diverged from. Dogmatic relgions still manage to contain wildly divergent practices, the positive aspect of dogma offers a model in which to understand the world and make decisions. That say, Judaism, contains everything from ultra-Orthodoxy to Reform Liberal practice suggests that individuals still manage to make individual choices. And I also like your understanding of the word, LittleRaven, which describes it at a more grassroots level. What it seems to come down to is, we need structure to help us make decisions, and that structure can be called dogma. We live in interesting times.  |
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on May 15, 2009 7:41:43 GMT -1
As I have said before on this board. Dogma should be the foundation of a religion not it's roof.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 15, 2009 10:19:45 GMT -1
I wouldn't put too much faith in dictionaries Adam. Years ago when trying to persuade a shopkeeper to take some pagan magazines on sale or return he looked 'pagan' up in the dictionary and it said 'an unenlightened one'. I resolved to change that and spent time saving up a variety of positive refs to paganism and sent them to the OED. When the new edition of the full OED was published, sure enough the definition included my suggested amendment with some examples, all sent in by me. That's all it takes. People complain about Wikipedia but any book is only as good as it's author. In spite of OED, COD is still ambiguous about 'pagan'. It's not just the meaning of isolated words that we need to worry about, but the context in which they are used. 'Dogma' can or course, in its limited sense, simply mean 'what we define to be right' or 'what we believe'. And that leads on to the generalised sense today of 'what you want me to believe against my will'. It depends on your point of view and the social framework of religious belief that operates at whatever period of history we're talking about. From that point of view I agree that by now 'dogma' is a lost cause. But I also think it's worth hanging on to historical meanings and, if appropriate. 'making them new'. I'm not sure how appropriate it is is with 'dogma'. Megli suggests 'Canon' which is a lot less loaded though not without its detractors. But is does have the advantage of being neutral in the religious sense. A Canon of belief? Measurement against a standard. What would that be I wonder I happily concur... the dictionary thing was a shorthand that resulted from my lack of time to find enough examples of common usage to be authoritative. And a dictionary is only as authoritative as it is up to date, well researched and unbiased. And dictionaries and language are interestingly reflexive as your example neatly shows. And if I start another sentence with a conjunction my old English teacher will rise form her grave, I'm sure :-) The point was and is that the only meaningful arbiter of meaning is usage. An alternative strategy (searching google news items for the word dogma) does show that the word in that context (journalism) is used in an almost unremittingly negative context, which is a shame. My point that dogma refers to a set of principles defined by an authority and not open to challenge certainly has a negative connotation for me, but I'm not sure I can impose that negative connotation on someone else. A very good family friend is Roman Catholic and sits quite happily with the idea of church doctrine coming from an authority (how she then sqaures that with the way she lives is her business :-) ). The original meanings of the word (which still, I think, carry the idea of deriving from authority, but in at least one sense authority by meritocracy AND debate as in the beliefs and principles of a school of philosophy) are, IMO, highly desirable and somehow it makes me feel sad that it is such a struggle to find a modern word usage that is tantamount to the same thing. Many get close (I still like credo) but none seem to quite hit that note of deserved authority. How many pixels of twilight constitute an encounter with the Other World? Sorry, I can't see the word twilight without that damnable book/film coming to mind... serves me right for having a teen daughter I guess, and it makes a change from HP :-) |
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on May 15, 2009 16:05:30 GMT -1
Is Catholic dogma direct from there God? I ask 'cos I don't know enough about there tradition.
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 15, 2009 16:27:21 GMT -1
Is Catholic dogma direct from there God? I ask 'cos I don't know enough about there tradition. Nope, Catholic dogma originates with the church and the origins of the bishop of Rome. |
|
|
|
Post by megli on May 15, 2009 19:37:07 GMT -1
To be more precise (  ) it originates from the Holy Spirit acting through the Church. (Worth googleing ''sensus fidelium'). |
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on May 15, 2009 20:22:05 GMT -1
If that is the case then our dogma comes from us not spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 18, 2009 7:03:01 GMT -1
To be more precise ( ) it originates from the Holy Spirit acting through the Church. (Worth googleing ''sensus fidelium'). Okay, yes it's technically more accurate more it's that's essentially a justification for the methods of the Church. It's the Church that actually makes the beliefs of the communion into dogma, which is the point when considering religious absolutism. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jul 3, 2009 18:26:52 GMT -1
As someone who's interested in history as part of my spiritual iterests, I often get 're-con' thrown at me in a way which can only really be interpreted as an 'accusation', indeed an insult. I can never quite understand the anachronistic need for people to call themselves Druid for example, but have a go at people who look to actual history for the odd bit of knowledge. Ho hum. For me, it matters not a jot whether something I do has historical authenticity. But if it *does*, then the idea that I may be doing something my ancestors did gives me a feeling of connection that makes my hair stand on end (cup to the right ). Let's face it, bishops carrying croziers have a link of tradition to pre-Christian Roman religion, why is it that neo-pagans almost seem to want to deny such potential links? Thoughts? Historical accuracy = important / not important? It's important to understand our ancestors if we are to truly honour them. We show respect by trying learn of their ways & then in turn try to apply/adapt them now. I feel it's rather insulting to blindly make stuff up & mix it with anything that suits in their name and call it 'druidry'. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jul 5, 2009 20:54:05 GMT -1
Personally, I feel very strongly that a dawn planetary alignment in 503BC was - and therefore continues to be - an incredibly important event in the development of our traditions. But how do i determine the historical accuracy of this? And I must, or else stand accused as being an inventor of a fanciful fallacy! I do this by looking for evidence, and moreover consistencies within these evidences: where one piece (or maybe all of them) may be subject to criticism on its own, where there is a consistent 'pointing' to the contntion and where there is no contrary evidence to destroy the thoght, the model can develop. I think there is a prior stage, which is where I find myself generally at a disadvantage... your feeling/hunch is no doubt one that originates in the mind of someone well versed in historical literature. One of things I love here is watching the (what mught superficially appear as) banter between the likes of megli and littleraven, both well versed in the fields they have chosen to study over the years, and the hunches they have and follow stem from a cauldron of knowledge within which such hunches can fruitfully ferment. Not having that historical versing, my hunches are, IMO, generally of lesser value (and if I made a big thing of them, wrote books, etc, I would be deeply in the realm of fantasy) So it is not just the research afterwards that provides credence... that alone would seem like an attempt to justify fantasy and there has been too much of that over the years. Credence also comes from the prior knowledge of those to whom the hunches come. Einstein's geometrical vision of gravity would have had less sway in the world of physics if it had been proposed by Picasso ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jul 6, 2009 21:07:59 GMT -1
Whoa! And what happens to the idea? Just sits inside, never expressing itself? Lost to the world at large, without even an airing! Don't you worry about that... ask anyone who knows me <g> |
|
). The origins of its current meaning lie in centuries of political relious authority, and that cannot be overturned. So, no, I don't think it can be re=given a positive meaning beyond a small group of people who may choose to use it in a specific technical sense
) it originates from the Holy Spirit acting through the Church. (Worth googleing ''sensus fidelium').