02-12-2015, 11:23 PM
(02-12-2015, 11:20 PM)Parsons Wrote: Monica, I would disagree that this is a tangent. For instance, you presented the example that you gave about acceptance as apparently at variance with your own. You said you were disconcerted that some people were cherry-picking an overly simplistic understanding of acceptance in which they were using as an excuse to justify behavior you perceive as negative. You related this to some religions using dogma to justify negative behavior.
However, using that same logic, I could call your signature dogmatic/religious because it as variance with my interpretation of the LOO and because I view it as very black and white thinking. In fact, I realized your signature could be interpreted as dogmatic / religious long before you even created this thread. I considered the whole concept nearly every time I read your signature. Upon further consideration, I realized anyone could take anyone else's viewpoints/stances on the material as negatively dogmatic/religious depending on their own viewpoint. Unless you are understanding the material verbatim, it is all dogma by definition. So you see, the logic of the OP kind of cancels itself out in my opinion. I even considered creating this same thread but decided against it as those living in glass houses should not throw stones.
In general, I definitely agree there is a potential for this to develop into a very dogmatic religion over time. I could see many of the things I perceive as black and white interpretations gradually develop into concrete dogma in the form of a book/bible. As mentioned elsewhere, most, if not all of the bible was written long after Jesus was dead. So who knows what could happen if the original text were lost and it were spread through word of mouth over hundreds of years passing from one distorted view to another.
TL;DR, One person's positive gospel is another person's negative dogma and vice versa
Ah, so that's what this is about. My sig. I should have known.