They are doctrines by virtue of the fact they can be defined.
Doctrine:
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group;
Doctrine denotes whatever is recommended as a speculative truth to the belief of others.
And, as I keep saying, the approach is flawed, and no-one seems to be able to address the issue of the flaw I'm highlighting.
Just because something is paradoxical, does not mean it cannot be true. Light is both wave and particle. Paradoxical, but true. Panentheism points toward a fundamental way of approaching God that speaks to paradox.
And OK, by your definition, I choose to have a vaguely defined doctrine. I like this. This means it is open-ended and has room for development as I learn.
Then you're in the dark, and not really in a position to saying anything about anything, surely?
Are you saying personal relationship with God and spiritual experience cannot provide light? Only
systemized belief can do this?
Maybe. Maybe it's all delusion. If you can't trust it, I don't see how you can ask anyone else to.
That's the difference between me and someone espousing only "one way" (their way, usually
). I don't ask people to trust my experiences and journey. I would encourage them to embark on their own. And anything could be delusion- all religions, select religions, materialism. So far as someone is functional and sane, I fail to see how anyone can point to any particular religious tenets or approach and say "Now, this one is definitely not delusional, but that other one is."
Everyone always says the other guy is delusional. No one would ever call oneself an idolator.
No, they are revealed data. Whether you believe in them is another matter, but the revelation was there before the doctrine.
As some of this, such as substitutiary atonement, is at the root of disagreements and doctrinal debates, it is questionable whether it is revelation or whether it is what was built on top of revelation. I realize you think that only the RCC has THE way, but surely you can recognize that from most other perspectives, you are speaking from faith (which is fine) and I am speaking from an historical standpoint.
I can't accept that. Your approaches are conditioned by something ... and you approach something ... both that which you approach, why you think there is something to be approached, and the way of approach, and so on, is a doctrine. Otherwise you're saying you haven't got a clue about what you're doing, you're just flailing about in the dark ... which you're not.
I see what you're saying... I wasn't saying we all aren't conditioned- we are. What I was trying to get at is that there are clearly approaches that mostly define the Divine for the practitioner by an institution and religious elite, emphasize agreement with said institution and belief, and greater restrict the practitioner's worldview, ideas, and practices. There are other approaches that mostly keep questions about the Divine open-ended and encourage individual engagement and responsibility, emphasize personal study and experience rather than belief, and seek to get the practitioner to be self-reflexive about his/her own conditioning and contemplate potentiality rather than restrict oneself to a particular view.
I think 'no doctrine' is an avoidance.
I should probably say no dogma. You are right, I was using the wrong word.
Where do you get your idea of God from?
Primarily from my mystical experiences, but considering the huge amount of revelatory and sacred text in the world from other people, I choose to think I only have a little glimpse... the glimpse that is most beneficial to my development at this time. I'm always open for revisions, and as my experience changes, this constantly occurs.
Then it's not about God, it's about human nature. It's more about ethics than essences.
How can one reasonably divorce one from the other? We invariably are saddled with human bodies, human brains, human natures... If we talk about God as somehow divorced from these things, it makes no sense, because in thinking and talking about something at all (anything) we are already engaging human nature. As for ethics and essence... oh my, I can't begin on that. I'm currently writing a book that is partly what I've come to realize on my journey about my essence, the essence of human potential, and its relationship to action through ethics. It's a very complex thing.
