lunamoth said:
That's the point, Bandit. To hold one's own religion as sacred and true, without condmening others for their differences. It is not suggesting that the religions merge or do away with all differences, it does not suggest a Christianity without the death and resurrection of Christ, or without the Bible. It leaves Christianity intact as it leaves all other religions intact. It's basically a worldview of respect for other religions.
{Defintion of pluralism, from Wiki}
As a synonym for ecumenism. At a minimum, ecumenism is the promotion of unity, co-operation, or improved understanding between different denominations within the same religion, or sometimes between different religions. The latter is sometimes called Macro-ecumenism.
As a synonym for religious tolerance, which is a condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
Just wanted to nod in accord with what you've said above, lunamoth, and in fact, with pretty much everything from Tuesday's posts. I think there needs to be an
emphasis on the
accepting others, or the fact
that others maintain various beliefs ... which as has been pointed out, means
tolerance of such beliefs, but not necessarily acceptance in the sense of agreement. It has as much (or more) to do with our attitude, and the need for respect, than any question of belief(s). And this must be done
prior to, and
during, any useful dialogue between people of varying faiths, or belief.
In terms of the pluralism definition, I am definitely of the
Macro-Ecumenical persuasion, in that I believe quite strongly in "
the promotion of unity, co-operation, or improved understanding between different denominations/religions." As such, differences - both of belief and practice -
must be respected, and as best as possible, understood (including tolerance & respect
at a minimum). That is just a given, and cannot be overlooked.
Now as an individual with
my own beliefs, practices and spiritual understanding, I increasingly realize, on these forums, that it becomes confusing, even frustrating, for some people, when I say things like, "
I think the message of the Buddha, the Christ, Sri Krishna and Mohammad,
was essentially the same, or of one Essence." On the one hand, that can be seen as sufficiently vague, even tautological (a statement of the obvious), but I think it's troubling if someone interprets this as my saying that these teachers all taught the exact same thing, in the exact same way, with no variation.
Or, even that they were
trying to! That is
not what I maintain, and so I think it's helpful to be more clear in suggesting something like,
there is a common moral code, or emphasis on the Golden Rule, to be found in the world's major religions. Perhaps that makes more sense, for it certainly hones in on the point I might try to make. And such threads as the one
which discussed the Golden Rule, and the fact that one encounters it almost Universally ... was a Beautiful one!
As far as "picking and choosing" from within the world's various religions,
let me make myself ... perfectly clear ...
I am not a crook ...
Sorry, what I was going to say is, while I do believe that one day, there will be a "Universal Religion," I am also of the opinion that none of us yet knows exactly what that will look like. Further, it would be strange if we didn't each want to assume that that would be our own current faith, now wouldn't it? So perhaps I'll start a thread on this topic, but with the disclaimer that - beyond posting something like "I do not think this will happen" ... the discussion could focus on, Yes, fine, and what it might look like for those of us who DO ... believe, think, or hope that it might happen. That way, people can avoid being offended, or feeling the need to present any particular set of religious ideas again & again as evidence that "it will never come to pass." At the same time, I do think it is important to consider all factors which might stand in the way of a Universal Religion (I'm not saying Univeralism, but a Universal Religion). Just so nothing gets hammered on so repeatedly ... that it becomes a distraction. And thus, this thread ... would not be ideal for that discussion.
just my 2 cents of the moment ...
andrew
