Dogma opinions

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
I keep coming across places where non-Catholics keep downing “religious dogma”. IDK what their meaning of dogma is, but ours is something required to be believed isn’t it. Maybe theirs is something else. Or they don’t know what dogma is. 🤷 Now does CCC 88 describe what Catholic dogma is? Is it beliefs that are required and not optional?
 
A great Kevin Smith movie! 🙂 From my understanding, I would call dogma an absolute belief in a religion without questioning or even doubting any of it. Some would call this absolute faith or “truth.” But the dangers of refusing to ever question one’s beliefs, especially with evidence to the contrary has seemed to lead to most conflict in the world today, whether it be “holy wars” or “religious freedom”.
 
I keep coming across places where non-Catholics keep downing “religious dogma”. IDK what their meaning of dogma is, but ours is something required to be believed isn’t it. Maybe theirs is something else. Or they don’t know what dogma is. 🤷 Now does CCC 88 describe what Catholic dogma is? Is it beliefs that are required and not optional?
The fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God himself and one Person of the Trinity is Dogma. The fact that He was crucified, died and was buried, and then resurrected is dogma. These are only a few. Now why would any good Protestant down “religious dogma”?

Yes, believing Dogma is not optional. It is what we believe as a Church.
 
Church Disciplines may be debated, but Dogmas’ are true because God says they are true, either in scripture or through the Church He commissioned and granted authority to.
 
A great Kevin Smith movie!
When was the last time you watched it?

I tried to recently and… it has not held up well at all… even ignoring all the blasphemy and such, its’s just really not very good…
 
A great Kevin Smith movie! 🙂 From my understanding, I would call dogma an absolute belief in a religion without questioning or even doubting any of it. Some would call this absolute faith or “truth.” But the dangers of refusing to ever question one’s beliefs, especially with evidence to the contrary has seemed to lead to most conflict in the world today, whether it be “holy wars” or “religious freedom”.
Many good mystery stories present evidence, piece by piece, in a way to lead the reader to a conclusion. Then, in the last chapter, the writer presents compelling evidence that refutes what the reader thought was true and the reader realizes his thinking was wrong. So evidence to the contrary is not conclusive proof. One has to get to the rest of the story.

There are a number of easy to read books about St Thomas Aquinas and how he presented reasoning to prove the existence of God. He would deal with each and every objection - evidence to the contrary - and defeat it with sound reasoning. THEN he would present the compelling reasoning for the existence of God.

Dogma - the principles we accept and follow in obedience - are short statements based on considerable reasoning and accepted historical scripture - the Word of God. We understand it enough to accept it and follow it. But we know we are not scholars and do not know it fine enough to explain it convincingly to others.

It is one thing to question for better understanding but quite another to question to be argumentative. An honest person must first ask himself is he trying to understand or is he trying to justify NOT understanding so he can continue as he pleases.
 
Many good mystery stories present evidence, piece by piece, in a way to lead the reader to a conclusion. Then, in the last chapter, the writer presents compelling evidence that refutes what the reader thought was true and the reader realizes his thinking was wrong. So evidence to the contrary is not conclusive proof. One has to get to the rest of the story.

There are a number of easy to read books about St Thomas Aquinas and how he presented reasoning to prove the existence of God. He would deal with each and every objection - evidence to the contrary - and defeat it with sound reasoning. THEN he would present the compelling reasoning for the existence of God.

Dogma - the principles we accept and follow in obedience - are short statements based on considerable reasoning and accepted historical scripture - the Word of God. We understand it enough to accept it and follow it. But we know we are not scholars and do not know it fine enough to explain it convincingly to others.

It is one thing to question for better understanding but quite another to question to be argumentative. An honest person must first ask himself is he trying to understand or is he trying to justify NOT understanding so he can continue as he pleases.
I thought the church says you can’t prove the existence of God. You accept or you don’t. I didn’t know Thomism proved God’s existence .
 
Church Disciplines may be debated, but Dogmas’ are true because God says they are true, either in scripture or through the Church He commissioned and granted authority to.
Maybe they aren’t defining dogma properly. So it’s just a basic belief of the church right?
 
I thought the church says you can’t prove the existence of God. You accept or you don’t. I didn’t know Thomism proved God’s existence .
From years ago on Catholic Forums:

Aquinas’ Five Proofs

What real evidence can be supplied for God’s existence? St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, sets forth five separate proofs for the existence of God, Unlike St. Anselm’s proof, which deals with pure concepts, St. Thomas’ proofs rely on the world of our experience-what we can see around us. In these proofs we can easily see the influence of Aristotle and his doctrine of the Four Causes.

**l) The Proof from Motion. **We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause–its maker–and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.

3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.

**4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. **We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.

**5) The Proof from Design. **As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design–the bird’s wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God.
 
I keep coming across places where non-Catholics keep downing “religious dogma”. IDK what their meaning of dogma is, but ours is something required to be believed isn’t it. Maybe theirs is something else. Or they don’t know what dogma is. 🤷 Now does CCC 88 describe what Catholic dogma is? Is it beliefs that are required and not optional?
A simple way to think of dogma is as a “non-negotiable” belief. In other words, if you reject them, you are rejecting the Faith. So yes they are required.

Some Protestants by “religious dogma” actually mean “man-made traditions” which the Bible does condemn. (Well, it condemns putting those traditions above the commands of God.) But I’m sure if you asked these Protestants whether there are some beliefs that are necessary for a Christian to hold in order to properly be called a Christian (I.e. The divinity of Christ etc…) they would probably agree.

And really, EVERY belief system has dogma, no matter how open-minded they might claim to be. There’s always at least one set of truths that they’ll hold to that differentiates them from other groups. Even atheism does. If you say there may be something more than the material universe, well guess what? You’ve denied an essential teaching of atheism and therefore are not an atheist.

The only way to get completely away from dogma is to deny our ability to know objective truth all together. An agnostic could possibly do that, but not a Christian.
 
I thought the church says you can’t prove the existence of God. You accept or you don’t. I didn’t know Thomism proved God’s existence .
Actually Vatican I taught that the existence of God can be known from reason alone. Doesn’t mean that everyone WILL find God by their reason alone, or that it’s easy and obvious. Just means it’s possible.
 
I keep coming across places where non-Catholics keep downing “religious dogma”. IDK what their meaning of dogma is, but ours is something required to be believed isn’t it. Maybe theirs is something else. Or they don’t know what dogma is. 🤷 Now does CCC 88 describe what Catholic dogma is? Is it beliefs that are required and not optional?
No Church doctrines are optional. Catholics are BOUND BY ALL doctrine (both infallible and non-infallible).
 
No Church doctrines are optional. Catholics are BOUND BY ALL doctrine (both infallible and non-infallible).
👍 OK. So Thomism’s proof of God is not ex cathedra. Which is another topic. But it is dogma. Dogma is required, Thomism isn’t, and doctrine is required? Whew.
 
A simple way to think of dogma is as a “non-negotiable” belief. In other words, if you reject them, you are rejecting the Faith. So yes they are required.

Some Protestants by “religious dogma” actually mean “man-made traditions” which the Bible does condemn. (Well, it condemns putting those traditions above the commands of God.) But I’m sure if you asked these Protestants whether there are some beliefs that are necessary for a Christian to hold in order to properly be called a Christian (I.e. The divinity of Christ etc…) they would probably agree.

And really, EVERY belief system has dogma, no matter how open-minded they might claim to be. There’s always at least one set of truths that they’ll hold to that differentiates them from other groups. Even atheism does. If you say there may be something more than the material universe, well guess what? You’ve denied an essential teaching of atheism and therefore are not an atheist.

The only way to get completely away from dogma is to deny our ability to know objective truth all together. An agnostic could possibly do that, but not a Christian.
IDK that all these people who speak I’ve read are Christian, let alone Catholic. But they seem to have respect for Jesus. I think it’s possible they might be talking about traditions. Maybe they think the Priest wearing his dress is tradition. I can’t remember what it’s called.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top