Something that Cardero posted in another thread (second point in his post) got me thinking about whether the ecumenical movement had even the ghost of a chance as long as any religion insisted on any sort of dogma.

In its broadest meaning, ecumenism refers to initiatives aimed at worldwide religious unity.

Dogma means a doctrine relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church, or an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

I have come to think that it is dogma (things which must be believed) that has been the underlying cause of all the schisms leading to 38,000 Christian denominations, and that as long as religion requires any dogmatic belief at all, schism will continue, and ecumenism will remain an impossible dream.

Thoughts?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I think that it is possible to unite religion. One thing all religions have in common (I think LOL) is faith. Faith is more than hope or wishing for something, it is a "expecting the best" additude, that even none believers can benefit from.

I agree with E.H. that dogma could be dropped (should be dropped) if we want to come together as one. Dogma to me are rules and regulations and all religions have different ones. I don't think the problem is in the rules and regulations but in the differences.

As long as there are people that are confined to dogma...there will be people that rebel against it. And that is a good thing and shows me that a religion with dogma is not "it".

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

I think you're right on the money, EH. And as more and more people seek answers and information, I'm hopeful we'll see the beginnings of a new way of relating to each other in terms of religion.

Dogma is the outer shell, which is meaningless in itself. People don't want to give it up, though, because it's sooooo much fun to try to prove that everyone else is either wrong or inferior. Ever notice how much attention we give to the negative, how quickly we spot errors in others? So part of the problem is the dogma itself, and part is that people want to be right so badly they'll hold onto things that don't really work. Another problem is the idea of change, which is scary to all of us. If we reject the fundamental beliefs/core beliefs we grow up with, what will our family think/do? It's much easier to go witht the flow than to venture out on own's own. And finally, I think there are some who simply can't formulate the questions. (There's a saying (I think it's from Shakespeare?) that says "Every man is right in his own wisdom.")

Perhaps we're too impatient with evolution. After all, it was only a couple hundred years ago that people weren't educated. Seems to me we're rocketing along at a pretty fast clip....

Well the real test I think for inter-faith relations is on the local level where people live and in my community we have had a pretty healthy inter-faith community...

We have met regularly for the past five years or so since I've been there and you can see cooperative efforts between Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics and Baha'is. So we have prayers together... pancake breakfasts and Mayors Prayer Breakfasts, World Religion Day and are involved in efforts to feed the community, provide counseling services, half way services for parolees and hiomeless people, assistance to Afgan women and their children to name a few of the things we've been involved in.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

Could we be more specific and name what dogma of one religon might interfere with uniting with the dogma of another religion?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Dogma considered from our normal exoteric perspective does appear to be a means for control. The idea is that since we believe we know and understand better, we can tell another what to do. As the great majority of married men have learned, this doesn't work for long. Others have their own views, demand proofs, and so on. All these forms of secular Christendom offer prestige, fellowship, and consolation through their unique dogmas. For most this is all that is desired from a religion so there is no reason to change.

Christianity, as opposed to Christendom, is one of the paths that initiated with a conscious source so its truths are beyond the comprehension of the Great Beast and its secular religious expression. Its dogmas must be considered differently. The purpose of Christendom is to justify us. It is natural then to want to find things we agree upon and justify us. The purpose of Christianity though is to help man awaken and to provide the help necessary for re-birth. So rather than for self justification, Christianity abandons self importance for the greater truths beyond the self justifications of ourselves and sleeping humanity in general. I'll quote from the Journal of Father sylvan quoted in Jacob Needleman's book "Lost Christianity" to better explain this idea


Christianity teaches man's conscious evolution through re-birth within a perspective of wholeness. Our natural tendency is to pull it apart and accept what justifies us and reject what does not. The task of the Christian then is to rise in his level of understanding to grasp the whole using the pondering of the great mysteries as a tool. The secularist on the other hand just accepts what feels good and denies the rest. The secularist is unaware of the importance of qualities of energy. Father Syslvan explains further:


Secularism works with psychic, biological, and mechanical energies. These are the energies available to all mechanical organic life on earth and produce earthly results that continue turning in circles.

The striving for consciousness at the expense of our conditioned selves invites spiritual energy to help. The dogmas then of higher knowledge have to be pondered rather than argued to help us rise in our conscious understanding by opening doors for us to pass through.


The real esoteric levels of the great transcendent teachings all are aware of this. It is why ecumenism can only begin at the esoteric level of religions and only truly be actualized at the transcendent level of religions for those few capable of sacrificing imagination to become "One" with the conscious transcendent level

I think that you hit the nail squarely on the head, evangelicalhumanist, when you said: ".... and that as long as religion requires any dogmatic belief at all, schism will continue, and ecumenism will remain an impossible dream.".

I think that the only cure for the problem is for all religions to admit that all other religions are equally valid as means of transport to the destination as they themselves are, but i don't see this happening anywhere in the near future, simply because (in general), each religion sees itself as the only valid way to transport people to the destination.

The way to bring it about, in my opinion, would be to remove the dogma from religions which espouse it, this would upset the literalists and fundamentalists of the religions concerned, but if religious leaders in general can be convinced that in order to guide people toward the light - which, after all, is the basis of almost every religion - people can be shown the way but not led along it, leaving them (the people) to decide for themselves to choose the path which most suits them, even if it happens to be the path of a rival religion.


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

Lightkeeper asks:
"Could we be more specific and name what dogma of one religon might interfere with uniting with the dogma of another religion?"
I'll have a go at my pet grouch.

The worst offender in my opinion is the attitude that "x" religion is the only valid way to get to "heaven".
This is transformed in the minds of the adherents to "My religion is the Right one, and you're going to go to Hell because you worship another god."

.... which is about as divisive as it's possible to get.

Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

Dogma … What a strident word and detestable thought! It is nearly universally thought of as being wrong, even by those who hold very dogmatic beliefs. I recall once being excluded from a Bible study because I didn’t hold to the deity of Christ, and then being chided for disrupting the “sweet spirit of fellowship” for using that word. I said that I respected their dogma and understood that I wouldn’t be a good member of their group.

Looking back at bad fruit, especially with-in Christianity, it is the heretic, or the rejecter of dogma, that has spilled more blood than all the heathen combined. Indeed even Christian anti-Semitism is a form of heretic hunting as Judaism is seen primarily as a rejecter of Christian dogma.

It is very easy to fall into the simplistic mindset of “dogma = bad” therefore “no dogma = good.” In defining dogma as the Good Humanist Angel has attempted, it inevitably reduces down to absolute truth: “…one (idea, belief or principle) considered to be absolutely true.” A world without dogma is a world without absolute truth.

The essence of the initiating post is that dogma (universal truth) must be eliminated so that ecumenicalism, the essence of which is universality, can reign. How close is this to the post-modernism absurd axiom of the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. Ecumentalism can not tolerate dogma; the two can not coexist. Dogma is intolerant and to be truly universal, ecumenicalism must be tolerant, hence we have a tolerance for everything except for intolerance. No dogma is the dogma of ecumentalism. Absurd, no?

If I may create a straw man; I propose that dogma is not the cause of bad fruit. That is a post hoc ergo propter hoc. The true underlying cause of religious bad fruit has been the desire for unity, like-mindedness or by another name; ecumenicalism. Christianity and Islam attempt to unite the world with their sacred dogmas, Communism tried with one of their dogmas of no religion and ecumentalism seeks to unite the religious world with the dogma of no dogma. The dogma de’juer is only a tool, a means to an end. It is the striving for unity that by nessecity must eliminate disunity.

For every interpretation of the unknown manifested there is a new dogma born.
the rules and regulations for calculating a mathimatical equation are law,( if you wish to have an answer that is universly considerered correct). You can also say that 2+3 equals a pair of boots. you may have your own set of rules for the equation that do not concern other persons interpratation of the equation. Dogma dose not exist if you believe that an indiviual must find spirtuality within themselves becuase it is a personal conclussion. But alas then there is a Dogma that would unite all with acceptance of indiviual spiritual searching outside of controlling restraints. First, acceptance would have to be accepted as the first individual dogmatic principal uniting denominations,; and even dogmas, for union to be accomplished. Ingnore those who enforce there own interpratation of dogma for that is only conformity and not Ecumenism.

__________________
GOD is an Acronym, G:reatest O:mnipotent D:eity