All Comments (14)

stouty electroballistics annualize damply unvitrescibility disunity outreign dikage
American Bank of Texas, NA
http://www.folkharbour.com/

As a practicing Muslim married to a practicing Christian and a graduate of the Madirassa, I submit to you that this dialogue,by itself, about different religious traditions will not lead to that which we all desire so much --a peaceful world. That is because the root causes of what trouble our world are not religious differences but the desires by some to subjugate and dominate others. These different religious traditions are merely used either as tools to achieve subjugation/domination or to resist it. On the subjugation side of the equation, both Christianity and Islam had been used: "manifest destiny" to justify evils visited on Native Americans, Popes blessing the slaveships and enslavement of the non-christian Africans, Arab Muslims using the "infidels" label to justify same evil enslavement of the Africans. On the resitance side, Christian Europe used Christianity effectively to check the onslaught of Islamic conquerors while the Iraqis are similarly using Islam to resist the occupation of their country. Find true practioners of either Christianity or Islam or any of the other religious traditions, and you will find peace-loving and real human beings. And the reason for this? To be true practioners of any of these religious traditions mean the they have eliminate the urge to subjugate and dominate their fellow human beings.

As a practicing Muslim married to a practicing Christian and a graduate of the Madirassa, I submit to you that this dialogue,by itself, about different religious traditions will not lead to that which we all desire so much --a peaceful world. That is because the root causes of what trouble our world are not religious differences but the desires by some to subjugate and dominate others. These different religious traditions are merely used either as tools to achieve subjugation/domination or to resist it. On the subjugation side of the equation, both Christianity and Islam had been used: "manifest destiny" to justify evils visited on Native Americans, Popes blessing the slaveships and enslavement of the non-christian Africans, Arab Muslims using the "infidels" label to justify same evil enslavement of the Africans. On the resitance side, Christian Europe used Christianity effectively to check the onslaught of Islamic conquerors while the Iraqis are similarly using Islam to resist the occupation of their country. Find true practioners of either Christianity or Islam or any of the other religious traditions, and you will find peace-loving and real human beings. And the reason for this? To be true practioners of any of these religious traditions mean the they have eliminate the urge to subjugate and dominate their fellow human beings.

As a practicing Muslim married to a practicing Christian and a graduate of the Madirassa, I submit to you that this dialogue,by itself, about different religious traditions will not lead to that which we all desire so much --a peaceful world. That is because the root causes of what trouble our world are not religious differences but the desires by some to subjugate and dominate others. These different religious traditions are merely used either as tools to achieve subjugation/domination or to resist it. On the subjugation side of the equation, both Christianity and Islam had been used: "manifest destiny" to justify evils visited on Native Americans, Popes blessing the slaveships and enslavement of the non-christian Africans, Arab Muslims using the "infidels" label to justify same evil enslavement of the Africans. On the resitance side, Christian Europe used Christianity effectively to check the onslaught of Islamic conquerors while the Iraqis are similarly using Islam to resist the occupation of their country. Find true practioners of either Christianity or Islam or any of the other religious traditions, and you will find peace-loving and real human beings. And the reason for this? To be true practioners of any of these religious traditions mean the they have eliminate the urge to subjugate and dominate their fellow human beings.

As a practicing Muslim married to a practicing Christian and a graduate of the Madirassa, I submit to you that this dialogue,by itself, about different religious traditions will not lead to that which we all desire so much --a peaceful world. That is because the root causes of what trouble our world are not religious differences but the desires by some to subjugate and dominate others. These different religious traditions are merely used either as tools to achieve subjugation/domination or to resist it. On the subjugation side of the equation, both Christianity and Islam had been used: "manifest destiny" to justify evils visited on Native Americans, Popes blessing the slaveships and enslavement of the non-christian Africans, Arab Muslims using the "infidels" label to justify same evil enslavement of the Africans. On the resitance side, Christian Europe used Christianity effectively to check the onslaught of Islamic conquerors while the Iraqis are similarly using Islam to resist the occupation of their country. Find true practioners of either Christianity or Islam or any of the other religious traditions, and you will find peace-loving and real human beings. And the reason for this? To be true practioners of any of these religious traditions mean the they have eliminate the urge to subjugate and dominate their fellow human beings.

"But most of us do not think that our tradition assumes only its truth or denies the possibility that other traditions can lead to underlying truth."

All the underlying "truths" that different religions are altogether capable of leading to are already accepted as non-religious truths. You can get there easier without religion. Using religion to filter truth is what obscures it. Anything that is not held in common by these different traditions will not pass muster as an "underlying truth."

Snowbeast highlights what sounds like an absolute: "No man cometh to the father but by me." As I recall that quote is preceded by "I am the way and the truth and the life." But even apparent absolutes are complex. "Insofar as ye do it to the least of these my children you do it unto me..." and "In that day you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." What did Jesus mean? Is he the only one to partake of this holiness, this oneness? Does he speak of himself individually or himself as the universal holiness and goodness each of us must find in ourselves to reach salvation, to be born again into? Who is this "me" of whom the man Jesus speaks? What was he trying to teach us, what to have us understand?

John warns us that he can only write a little of what is true of Jesus: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." (John 21 verse 25.)

If all we can see is a small, small piece of the whole -- if only this tiny window can be passed down to us -- how arrogant is it to think that we understand the whole truth?

As also with Islam. Mohammed's last sermon says there are two guides to a holy life: "I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah and if you follow these you will never go astray."

The Sunnah, Mohammed's example, is his life: he is saying live as I have lived, to be holy. For this reason biographies of the life of Mohammed are studied with extraordinary rigor - yet all of them are at the very best stories told second hand by observers, and even the best and most faithful of observers and biographers is necessarily an editor, a discarder of infinite nuance and observation in favor of the few, precious few things that can be chosen, an interpreter with his/her own biases, judgments, and thoughts -- we cannot help but be this.

Absolute truth is unknowable, even in the places we seek it.

Mohammed knew this. He rejected the concept of an absolute truth that could in principle be known; he called for reason and the development of understanding over generations: "Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you " he said - and "may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly." (All quotes from Mohammed's last sermon.) This is a call to reason. Mohammed expected each generation to apply reason, and to assume the responsibility to understand better than their predecessors.

There may be absolute truth. It is arrogant to the point of folly-- and arrogant beyond the claims of the founders of our faiths for us -- to think we can know it.

That does not absolve us of the responsibility to seek the core truths the founders of our faiths wanted us to hold. But it should teach us considerable humility about any claims that we have found it, and considerable skepticism when we hear that claim from others.

A quote I remember, but not the writer: "I am not sure I am a believing Christian, but I hope I am a practicing one". Quaker doctrine states "Live life in imitation of Christ". Perhaps that is enough (and more than enough, since it is so hard) for one lifetime.
Peggy Friedman

edit: ". . . a dogged, if not dogmatic, supernaturalist."

I don't mean to be flip, but does the author have an atheist on staff, too? I ask because I suspect that his is a dogged, if not dogmatic, supernaturalism. In other words, he seems to be open to different interpretations of god, just not the one that says there is no evidence for god and therefore we shouldn't behave as though such a thing exists. Reasonable, rational dialogue presupposes that one's conclusions are mutable. Embrace this: inviting a rabbi on your staff is novel, but imagine becoming the first atheist rector. That would be groundbreaking.

The previous commenters all seem to be reasonable, mercifully undogmatic believers. But step one is admitting that many of your fellow believers have a problem, namely that they are, in fact, very dogmatic. I will freely admit that many atheists can be strident, unreasonable and grating, but dogmatic they are not. Atheism is not a dogma; by definition it is the absence of dogma.

I think there's a place for church, but I have as yet been presented with no compelling evidence to support the case for god. The author and the previous commenters have already headed down the slippery slope of DIY spiritualism. Why not grab a sled and enjoy the ride to full blown atheism? You can still be spiritual, but you'll be unbounded by the noble ignorance of antiquity.

I'd agree that Christianity and Judaism have been pretty good, relatively speaking, at encouraging free debate and open discussion of ideas. But if you believe in the Bible, there's a large number of issues on which there's no real room for debate. "No man cometh to the Father but by Me." There's no clause in there that says "Except for the nice Jewish people that we share church space with." To really, truly believe in what the Bible says is to reject the calm, almost indifferent ecumenicalism of this forum's panelists.

Of course, you can cherry-pick what you believe out of the Bible, and I'm very glad that most people do, but the justification for doing so is not Biblical. If everyone chooses to believe certain things in our holy books and not others, on what basis does the religious person say that I am wrong to choose more things not to believe in than he?

Believing your religion is the absolute truth is not an end to dialogue and common ground. People who are truly following the path of God, especially Christians, are commanded to treat others with respect and love. Superceeding our religious and cultural differences however, are our human similarities. In order to find common ground, one does not need to put aside religious ideals, but realize that we are all people and human beings with families, friends, love, goals and ideals. We all want to live in a peaceful world, and if we can truly see that in each other, the rest is much easier to accomplish.

What bothers me is that the question has been put in terms of "absolute truth." I think that leads us down paths which do not contribute to fruitful dialogue. Let us take the dialogue on to talking about how we respond to God's action in the world, in whatever way we understand God. Then we can begin to find some common ground, if we do not have the specter of "absolute truth" or even a limited understand of truth hanging over us. Most of us find dialogue more helpful when we are trying to discover how different traditions see
God acting in our world. I am not at all convinced that there is some "divine truth" that lurks around in heavenly or earthly places.

I think the common ground is obvious. If you look at any religion, right up to current day spiritual advisors who don't adhere to any one specific faith, the commonality allways revolve around love, compassion, and faith in a power beyond us.

I wonder if it is possible for people of seperate faiths to acknowledge that their particular interpretation of God, their particular rules and traditions, are just branches off the same tree. For some this branch is chosen by family, for others a search through their own troubled lives. However we arrive at our own faith, surely it is an expression of ourselves, not THE devine truth.

Bill K