One Way: the reason why Christian ecumenicalism is impossible

[iBrian]

If Brian cannot accept criticism of his forum then I think he needs to let it go to those who can.

Heh, that pretty much sums it up - the people who are most critical are simply those who would run it themselves.

Trouble is, who can run an interfaith forum if they can't attempt basic neutrality? Dismiss that, and you can't treat the members equally. Everyone here is treated equally, regardless of faith. All that's required is a basic level of civil conduct.

I do desire to see some forum ownership that isn't heavily biased but maybe that's like asking for the moon. It seems those who start these forums have a strong tendency to be control freaks who want to control other peoples communication of their ideas and who will not tolerate others criticizing their forum management methods or forum ideologies.

It's already been shown just in this thread that I am accused of a pro-Christian bias, and also an anti-Christian bias. Everyone projects something different.

I have as little problem with Gnostic Christians joining and posting as Fundamentalist Christians, Liberal Christians, or even Satanists. It's irrelevant as a prerequisite to being part of the community.

There are a few very core rules most forums share, namely no personal attacks and no spam advertising.

And, sure, few sites admins care for someone new to join up, then tell them that they're doing it all wrong. It's kind of pretty rude, and more importantly, it's often an individual trying to set themselves above the same rules everyone else has already agreed to follow.

Yet a community can only develop as a community if everybody agrees to follow the same basic rules. With that shared understanding, everyone can progress.

My God has one face for all people.

Some see it from a different angle, but it is the same face.

The love He feels for one, is the love He feels for all.

Indeed, full agreement, but we're on the Christianity board so I'm not going to push the point myself.

That's how I view my attempt at neutrality - I'll sometimes post my personal opinions, but I don't make them forum policy.

I probably disagree with most everybody here about some point about faith and belief, but I think for a comparative or interfaith approach, you have to focus more on your similarities, than differences. If you focus on similarities, you have a starting point for positive and constructive communication.

[Ecumenicalism is] "…promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation." This gives me the feeling that ecumenicalism can only exist between Christian churches and Christians. Do some people use this as their definition? Do some people think that Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are automatically not a part of ecumenicalism?

I believe the Anglican Church has been involved in a lot of ecumenical work, not least with Rome, but the issue of Primacy is always a barrier to both becoming one again. Doesn't stop the dialogue, though.

I know The Roman Catholic Church has made a big point to speak to Islam, though - even before 9/11, the Iraq War I, etc, Pope John Paul II was already well engaged with Islamic scholars within the Vatican itself.

 

[nativeastral]

'dance,dance wherever you may be, l am the lord of the dance said he'..o lord he was a devil wasnt he? [or shiva ma timbas!]

d'you wanna be in my gang,my gang, my gang, d'you wanna be in my gang..oh yeah..o gawd that was that glitter gary gadd guy that peed if iliac

Hellenistic ecumenicalism ['of the inhabited earth'] was deemed and admitted an impossibility by the time alexander the great died but still considered a possibility by the imitating romans..but we all know better [or hope for..] thanks to folk like..

That's how I view my attempt at neutrality - I'll sometimes post my personal opinions, but I don't make them forum policy.

I probably disagree with most everybody here about some point about faith and belief, but I think for a comparative or interfaith approach, you have to focus more on your similarities, than differences. If you focus on similarities, you have a starting point for positive and constructive communication.

nice one

hopefully, hope fully christian ecumenicity will burst forth like a fountain of love and good will for all to behold 'in the inhabited earth'

'mitigate energy with love, but let love devour all things' a.crowley...damm another baddy.. does that make me a

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

1. We need to get the various religions together, to improve interfaith dialogue, and improve communication between the various faiths.

This is a constant and ongoing process within the Catholic Church (at least), I cannot vouch for other denominations.

I recently posted a link to a talk by the Dalai Lama as a guest of the Order of Preachers in Oxford. What was delightful was that, within a very busy schedule of talks, the Dalai Lama found he'd 'forgotten what he was going to say' because he regarded himself among spiritual brothers, and had taken the afternoon off!

Most people are unaware of the constant talks that go on at the higher levels between religions. Of course, there is always room for improvement, but we should not assume that nothing is happening, nor that no progress is being made.

Recently Islamic intellectuals have applauded the continuing efforts of Rome to open dialogue with the Moslem community ... sadly the media is only interested in fermenting dissent, and as 'good news is no news', one might say, such steps go largely unreported.

Each should support his or her own religion, and call for further dialogue from within (as I do) according to one's own calling. A close friend of mine has developed strong links with the Moslem community, I for my part look to heal the East-West schism.

2. We need to increase everyone’s respect of everyone else’s religion.

Of course. And towards that end we should ensure we do not, consciously or otherwise, become the mouthpiece of false allegations, rumour-mongering, trouble-making and propaganda.

Th first step is to look to what is good, not what is bad ... you might want to think about that.

Again, if one looks, you will find that both JPII and BXVI call on religions to join together to speak out against the dehumanising advance of materialism and consumerism. It is a fact that Great Traditions uphold a common understanding of the uniqueness and value of human life and existence.

3. Everyone has the right to choose which religion they believe in, and I respect that right.

Then please curtail your habit of offending Christians at every given opportunity by adding your name to often spurious and unfounded allegations.

4. I encourage a person to have a different religion than mine, if that is what they really want.

OK.

5. Ecumenicalism is only for Christians, or should mainly be a way to spread the Christian message.

'Ecumenism' as a term arose within the Roman world — it was primarily then a Christian practice. As the world grew, as it were, Christianity has come into contact with other religions, so the nature of ecumenism changes.

Many religions do not seek to proselytise, such as Buddhism, or Brahminism, or Judaism, so one cannot accuse them of being backward in ecumenical outreach, as it were. So 'ecumenism' has to be seen within a religious context, before it can operate effectively in an intra-religious context.

Thomas

 

[Will be]

I know I posted a bible verse in here somewhere.

 

[wil]

Wil,

your definition of ecumenicalism is that Christ understood I and the father are one? It seems that you and I have quite a different definition.....

[Ecumenicalism is] "…promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation." This gives me the feeling that ecumenicalism can only exist between Christian churches and Christians. Do some people use this as their definition? Do some people think that Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are automatically not a part of ecumenicalism?

But let’s press on. Let’s consider some various ideas that may or may not be included in one’s definition of ecumenicalism:

1. We need to get the various religions together, to improve interfaith dialogue, and improve communication between the various faiths.

2. We need to increase everyone’s respect of everyone else’s religion.

3. Everyone has the right to choose which religion they believe in, and I respect that right.

4. I encourage a person to have a different religion than mine, if that is what they really want.

5. Ecumenicalism is only for Christians, or should mainly be a way to spread the Christian message.

Namaste NickP,

My bad, I didn't answer your question on Ecumenicalism....I was answering the previous part of your statement.

As to Ecumenicalism, in this I am along the lines of Spong, not looking for a united front by providing a new coat of paint. We must take a look at what we've got from the ground up and rebuild without this whole innerancy and 10k old earth and teaching creationism in schools and that everyone needs to be saved by Jesus. Christianity must change or it will die. It will go the way of the Norse and Roman myths if we insist on holding on to fantasy as fact.

I am for putting truth on the table, no apologetics or dance to make something workable. Practical Christianity is an amazing thing, the value and use of it in our every day lives can benefit everyone. That being said I also know there is value in Judaism, Islam, Sufism, Hinduism, Buddhism...etc. And am not willing to go out and slam my beliefs down everyone's throat.

I don't even have a need for this united front in Christianity, I know that there are Catholics and JWs and Mormons and Baptists that get extreme benefit of their beliefs...but they aren't all aware that their beliefs aren't for everyone...

I love your Christ, I wish your Christians were more like your Christ.

That is what I see is needed. Someone talking plainly from the mount that no one is forced to come hear or see or follow, yet thousands want to.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Boundless compassion and wisdom.

If that's not God, what is?

Followed by:

When deeds are born of intent and ambition they are misguided.

Compassion is an intent, isn't it? Samma sankappa = right intention.

In Buddhism, there are no enlightened persons, only people expressing an enlightenment that has always existed.

How is a pre-existing state of mind an aspect of a G-d concept?

It seems you are equating human beings' Original Mind with G-d.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Nick_A]

Brian writes:

I probably disagree with most everybody here about some point about faith and belief, but I think for a comparative or interfaith approach, you have to focus more on your similarities, than differences. If you focus on similarities, you have a starting point for positive and constructive communication.

This must also be good advice for men relating with women. Concentrate on their similarities and avoid noticing any differences. Let them all feel appreciated equally as "one." This way a man will assure himself access to many women impressed with his impartiality.

 

[citizenzen]

Followed by:

Compassion is an intent, isn't it? Samma sankappa = right intention.

How is a pre-existing state of mind an aspect of a G-d concept?

It seems you are equating human beings' Original Mind with G-d.

Care to elaborate?

I do not believe compassion is intent.

We cannot manufacture compassion.

But we can allow it to guide us.

And yes. I am equating Mind with God.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I do not believe compassion is intent.

Is this position representative of Buddhism or is it a personal belief?

 

[Nick_A]

Will

That is what I see is needed. Someone talking plainly from the mount that no one is forced to come hear or see or follow, yet thousands want to.

Nice description of the Antichrist.

 

[wil]

Will
Quote:
That is what I see is needed. Someone talking plainly from the mount that no one is forced to come hear or see or follow, yet thousands want to.
Nice description of the Antichrist.

Funny I was thinking Sermon on the mount.

What I was getting at is Jesus didn't need to force it down anyone's throat. His words compelled folks to listen because truth rang out.

 

[Nick_A]

Funny I was thinking Sermon on the mount.

What I was getting at is Jesus didn't need to force it down anyone's throat. His words compelled folks to listen because truth rang out.

As we've learned, when the truth rings out people run and hide or react in righteous indignation. The last thing most want to hear is the truth since it isn't flattering. That is one reason Jesus spoke in parables.

If you're looking for a positive peace loving community reaction, you're better off with the Antichrist since he is known for the most eloquent tear jerking speeches. It assures harmony until the next battle breaks out which as usual is always the other guy's fault.

 

[citizenzen]

Is this position representative of Buddhism or is it a personal belief?

Buddhism is as splintered and factionalized as Christianity. So it would be difficult to say that my statement is "representative of Buddhism".

It is a personal belief.

And I have been taught this as a Buddhist concept.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Buddhism is as splintered and factionalized as Christianity. So it would be difficult to say that my statement is "representative of Buddhism".

It is a personal belief.

And I have been taught this concept by my Buddhist teachers.

Are you aware of any Buddhist scriptures that support the view?

 

[wil]

As we've learned, when the truth rings out people run and hide or react in righteous indignation. The last thing most want to hear is the truth since it isn't flattering. That is one reason Jesus spoke in parables.

If you're looking for a positive peace loving community reaction, you're better off with the Antichrist since he is known for the most eloquent tear jerking speeches. It assures harmony until the next battle breaks out which as usual is always the other guy's fault.

I beg to differ. Jesus spoke of personal responsibilty and tough choices. It is the words I follow.

I don't get wrapped up in the anti christ worries and end of times. This to me represent a lack mentality and negativism that I have no use for. My Father has given me an abundent world, and I am truly appreciative.

 

[citizenzen]

Are you aware of any Buddhist scriptures that support the view?

Yes. Aren't you?

Are we going to get into my least favorite bickering match where we compare competing verses to prove somebody "right"?

Those are so utterly boring.

 

[path_of_one]

Will and path_of_one,

This is beginning to become a valuable discussion. I am beginning to think that some people have very different definitions of the word ecumenicalism. I was particularly surprised by the partial definition that path_of_one found:

[Ecumenicalism is] "…promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation." This gives me the feeling that ecumenicalism can only exist between Christian churches and Christians. Do some people use this as their definition? Do some people think that Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are automatically not a part of ecumenicalism?

I have no clue. That was the definition from the Miriam-Webster dictionary. I had to go look it up, because I was confused as to how interfaith is or is not different from ecumenical. I was about as surprised as you were.

I dunno about the definition of ecumenical, but I do believe:

1. We need to get the various religions together, to improve interfaith dialogue, and improve communication between the various faiths.

Yes. Most people are relatively clueless about other people's religions in any sort of detail. Q, for example, seems to be confused by Citizenzen's assertion that he believes in God because Citi is Buddhist. But many Buddhists actually believe in God. Just not a personal God that judges people and sends them to heaven or hell. But then, some Christians don't believe in that kind of God either.

2. We need to increase everyone’s respect of everyone else’s religion.

Yes. Respect does not mean agreement. But it means approaching any religion with the attitude that "I can learn something."

3. Everyone has the right to choose which religion they believe in, and I respect that right.

Yes. Provided it is not causing harm, people's religious choices should be respected.

4. I encourage a person to have a different religion than mine, if that is what they really want.

Yes. So long as it isn't something that harms them (a cult that is going to lead to drinking the kool-aid) and the person is mentally healthy- that is, in almost all cases- people should be encouraged on whatever religious path they have chosen. I am more concerned with people's transformation and actions in the world than I am with their social structures/institutions and ideas about the world.

5. Ecumenicalism is only for Christians, or should mainly be a way to spread the Christian message.

According to the definition in the dictionary, it is a Christian thing, but I don't think it says anything about spreading the Christian message. I interpreted the definition to be a process of unification (that is, coming together in spite of differences and in mutual understanding) and cooperation (that is, doing stuff together to make a difference in the world and for the religious members). I could be wrong, but I thought it was referring to work within Christianity rather than work between Christians and other religious groups.

Christianity is highly diverse and frequently internally contentious, so it makes sense to do work to actively promote unity and cooperation.

This is a valuable discussion, in that we are learning that there are large differences in our definitions of ecumenicalism. At least we can all start working towards a definition that everyone agrees on. (Then, we can start working towards ecumenicalism itself, which is the purpose of this Form in the first place.)

I'd be happy to build a new definition. When I read the dictionary definition, I figured ecumenism was the intra-faith (within Christianity) version of interfaith dialogue.

 

[Nick_A]

I beg to differ. Jesus spoke of personal responsibilty and tough choices. It is the words I follow.

I don't get wrapped up in the anti christ worries and end of times. This to me represent a lack mentality and negativism that I have no use for. My Father has given me an abundent world, and I am truly appreciative.

It is the Antichrist that speaks of tough choices and personal responsibility. Jesus spoke of re-birth and freedom from hypocrisy which is about as insulting as one can get.

 

[wil]

It is the Antichrist that speaks of tough choices and personal responsibility. Jesus spoke of re-birth and freedom from hypocrisy which is about as insulting as one can get.

Again, I'll prefer to continue to study the Christ and live now, you may continue to learn and teach of your antichrist and worry about the future.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Are we going to get into my least favorite bickering match where we compare competing verses to prove somebody "right"?

You mean you would prefer to sit here all day and waste your time bickering about nonscriptural issues?

Those (scriptures) are so utterly boring.

For a moment I thought you were going to teach us something about Buddhism. My mistake.

If I may ask, what are you doing on an interfaith forum?