[soma]

The Infinite God is a complicated situation that is so far beyond the grasp of languages that it cannot be expressed at all in an un-paradoxical manner, which is why it uses intuition. Throughout the different ages men and women have been intuitively aware of the existence of such a magnificent God, and among the saints and mystics of all times in all religions there is a common experience of unity. Ordinary men and women cannot see or feel this experience because they have not gone pass the ego. They are too busy trying to prove that they are right, better, superior or know when others don't. It is natural that this would happen because some people have developed themselves more than others and are use to feeling and seeing in a dimension distinct from what others know. We have read about many extraordinary things that have happened in our times and in other ages, but the ordinary people deny it because they just don't understand the experience. Cynthia I like your words and approach as I see religion flowing from you from the inside where love springs forth, not from the outside in.

Seeing God as omnipresent is the answer to our problem because it helps us to overcome the present conditions of the world. Quarrels among churches, among countries, religions and wars would end because we would see that there is only one God uniting us all. We live in God move and have our being in this One God so we must continually speak with all men, religions, philosophies and sciences about those things that exceed our understanding so we can grasp the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible and the ungraspable with our minds and representations.

As we climb the mountain to the higher layers of our mind we find the differences in traditional religions diminish because all paths that ascend lead to love and unity. Love and knowledge of God comes from inside and then is built into the life outside in a life of love and unity.

As Christians may we live a life of love and unity, not superiority.

[Cynthia]

David - I love Narnia - that is my favorite quote from the series.

I think that Christianity is right.... that's why I'm a christian. BUT, I think that Christianity along with every other religion is man-made. Man-made organizations tend to go through trends where different aspects of faith are emphasized. God is God. Mystical people can have a mystical union even when it's not popular. Different religions go through different trends at different times. Hence, there is often wisdom that is consistent with your path that is easier found or discovered in another.

As for I am the way, the truth, and the light. Absolutely. I read that as follow me; do what I did; not so much intellectually profess my divinity or do the opposite of what I did and use my message to divide or exclude. Jesus is all about inclusion. At least the way I read and experience Him.

As for sufficiently answering questions, sure. But an expression of my faith is knowing that God is unknowable but trying to know as much as I can about Him - by whatever name. Sufficient is nice - and perfectly acceptable. It's just so much fun to learn more about God - I can't imagine excluding knowledge from people who live obviously Godly lives under whatever banner.

As CS Lewis also said - (paraphrase) if you do good under the name of a false God it counts toward God. If you do evil in the name of God, it counts towards evil.

Great conversation!

[McKenna]

Cynthia, on Jan 15 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

I'd just add a simple thought. God is big. Many people try to make Him small so that they aren't so scared. I think they are just trying to figure out how to be safe. Totally understandable.

To me, a small, knowable God is much scarier than a big, ineffable God. To me, hard and fast rules conflict with my experience of the complexity and paradoxical nature of people and life. To me, learning about God by any name, is an act of faith. It increases my sense of TRUTH at the heart of it all, and it's so very beautiful.

Grace is that God will interact with all of us exactly where we are.

I love the sentiments you expressed here, especially the bolded part. I agree with you there. I flourish in the uncertainty provided by believing in a God too big even for our words, metaphors, images.

davidk, on Jan 16 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

That aside, pluralism is still very bothersome. Mckenna responded apparently certain that all religions could be right, but no religion actually makes that claim. And likewise, assuming I understand her comment correctly, the ecumenical conversation door is shut if we insist a personal-infinite God really exists! If we encounter other faiths and do not insist by reasonable argument that a personal-infinite God really exists, we deny the truth, other faiths will not understand us and any ecumenical conversation will be useless. Once we compromise on what Christianity really is, it ceases to be Christianity. I equally despise its misuse! We, as "fallen man", are susceptable to that sort of thing.

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion. It eliminates the personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it worships both the natural and spiritual, based on a sense of the experience of all things. It makes no room for the human soul or God. Hinduism has unlimited resources for unlimited gods. Islam flatly denies Jesus as Saviour and Lord. The Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom. The Roman Catholics puts the Church between my soul and the Lord Jesus Christ, denying reading and interpreting the Scripture under the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit, declaring that guidance belongs to the Church! I could go on, but you get my drift.

Understand only one religion can be true, or ALL are false, they cannot all be true. That is based on the teaching of each religion. Each of us must must make a personal decision, a reasonable decision, based on what actually is. That is why Biblical Christianity is true. It is the only one sufficient to answer our need because of what truly exists. We shouldn't withhold that truth from anyone.

David...I respect your position but I don't feel like you really understood what I was saying. Where did I claim that all religions are right??

I'm trying to figure out how to explain this. See, to me, asking if a religion is "right" completely misses the point. To me religions are man-made constructs that use images and metaphors to try to explain the unexplainable. If someone asked me, "Do you believe your religion is right?" I would have no clue how to answer the question; I don't even understand the question. I view religion more like poetry than math. If someone says, "Am I right if I say 2 + 2 = 4?" I could say yes; that's a fact; there's no dispute. But if someone asked me, "Is this poem correct?" I'd say "Uhhh. What? What on earth do you mean?"

Yes, certain religious beliefs can be factually "right" or "wrong" if they depend on historical events (which is really only the western religions, as far as I can tell). And I will argue against someone's beliefs if I believe they are harmful. But if the religion provides someone with a genuine experience of the divine - then I just have to accept that that's the way God's reaching them.

I'll give a more concrete example. I have a friend who's Mormon. Now, when it comes to Mormon theology, I am in disagreement with them on pretty much everything. I don't believe virtually any of their accounts of historical happenings; and I believe I'm "right" in that sense, because I have genetic data, for example, on my side against their claim that Native Americans are descended from Israelites (if I'm understanding the idea correctly). I also have argued with this friend several times about their views on homosexuality, which I view as harmful (their views I mean). However, when I think of my friend's relationship with her faith - when I put myself in her shoes - I can't see how it could be wrong. It's so right for her - it connects her so genuinely with God - that it really doesn't matter if certain events are factual. And so I deeply respect her faith, because I know that it feeds her soul.

Likewise, when I look at my own faith from others' perspectives, it's sometimes hard to imagine why I believe what I do. But from my own perspective, my beliefs in God exactly match what I need them to be. I envision God the way I do because it's the best way I've found to connect with Him. I don't believe my theology is actually correct in describing the way God is because I think God is beyond our words and thus there is certainly a large piece of the puzzle that I'm missing.

It's like the story of the blind men all touching different parts of the elephant. The guy who touched the tail described the elephant as a whole very differently from the guys touching the elephant's legs, stomach, trunk, or tusks. We all have our own ways of viewing God and I don't believe any of us have the full picture. I think some of us have come close, and those are the people who are hailed as Spirit People as Marcus Borg calls them. I believe Jesus to be someone who was very intimate with God and saw a lot of truth, and I follow Jesus for that reason and also because my ancestors have been Christian for a long time and Christianity permeates my culture. For me Jesus is the fullest revelation of God but that doesn't mean, in my view, that God can only be known through him. Yes I know you'll disagree with me and throw Bible verses at me but I don't care; we have our separate faiths and like I've tried to stress I'm okay with that and I think God is too. I'm sure you believe in God the way that's the most conducive to a spiritual experience for you, and I am so, so glad for you for that.

Okay so that was pretty long...but I really wanted to make myself clear. I feel like Progressives run up this accusation all the time, that we're just saying "everyone's right," and I just wanted to clarify. I believe the sentiments I have expressed here are what is being said in the TCPC's Point 2: "By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us."

Not the same thing as saying everyone's "right," whatever that means.

One more quick thing - I said you'd "shut the door on ecumenical conversation" as a reaction to your statement "There is no other answer." I don't see how you can argue with that. Saying everyone else is wrong does sort of make ecumenical conversation difficult.

God bless.

[mystictrek]

soma, on Jan 4 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

Ecumentalism is the promotion of unity and cooperation between distinct religious groups and denominations in Christianity and in the larger sense the unity among all religions worldwide.

A lot of wisdom here as I have come to expect from you ...

but ...

I looked up "ecumentalism" at dictionary.com and came up empty!

No results found for ecumentalism.
Did you mean ecumenicalism (in dictionary) or Ecumenicalism (in encyclopedia)?

Dictionary suggestions:
ecumenicalism
Elementalism
ornamentalism
agenitalism
ecu mentalism
ecu-mentalism

I googled it and it did come up with a few references ((less than 100) so the word apparently is in use. As an ecumenist for my entire adult life, I wonder if you really mean "ecumenism?" I'm going to look that one up now!

American Heritage Dictionary defines Ecumenism:
1. A movement promoting unity among Christian churches or denominations.
2. A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.

I googled it and found over 1 million references. That is a ratio of 1000:1. Maybe you want to go with ECUMENISM?

Sorry for being focused on semantics here but I thought this little intervention might be useful.

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com & www.abundancetrek.com/blog + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvellous.

[soma]

Thank you, my spelling is not the best. It is ECUMENISM. I will have to correct all my errors now. Thanks for the heads up.

[Russ]

The challenge to us as People of Faith is not to focus on differences, but to recognize similarities. Faith is not a subject in and of itself to be studied lest we lose sight of the very reason for our Faith. The Light of God Within is the same regardless of what you call yourself or what books you read. We can disagree over words and exchange quotes endlessly, but in the end it must be the Light of God Within that is our motivation in all things and not human constructions, interpretations, words, books, or any other form of second-hand experience with The One. God is within us, all of us, here and now. We need no books, no quotes, no third-party guides or interpretations from experts, no priests, bishops, ministers, hymns, or other such human symbols or representatives to speak to God for us and in our behalf. God is as close to each and every one of us as our own heartbeats and all we have to do is close our eyes, clear away the noise and clutter of our world, and reach out to The Source. God can be experienced by you, by me, by us. It is from that contact, the same contact that Jesus had with God Within, that is truely transformative and can change our lives. This simple Truth needs nothing more than itself.

This post has been edited by Russ: 19 January 2008 - 06:14 AM

[McKenna]

Russ, on Jan 19 2008, 06:08 AM, said:

The challenge to us as People of Faith is not to focus on differences, but to recognize similarities. Faith is not a subject in and of itself to be studied lest we lose sight of the very reason for our Faith. The Light of God Within is the same regardless of what you call yourself or what books you read. We can disagree over words and exchange quotes endlessly, but in the end it must be the Light of God Within that is our motivation in all things and not human constructions, interpretations, words, books, or any other form of second-hand experience with The One. God is within us, all of us, here and now. We need no books, no quotes, no third-party guides or interpretations from experts, no priests, bishops, ministers, hymns, or other such human symbols or representatives to speak to God for us and in our behalf. God is as close to each and every one of us as our own heartbeats and all we have to do is close our eyes, clear away the noise and clutter of our world, and reach out to The Source. God can be experienced by you, by me, by us. It is from that contact, the same contact that Jesus had with God Within, that is truely transformative and can change our lives. This simple Truth needs nothing more than itself.

Beautifully written

You're Quaker, right? I've always thought the Quakers had a beautiful message and a wonderful way of looking at faith. The only problem for me is I don't think I'd be able to handle the silent worship, I'm too restless But I'm very glad it works for you!

[soma]

Russ, nice job. Mckenna I was fortunate to attend a Quaker worship and it was very impressive. You go into the silence, but if compelled to speak, sing or remain silent is a spiritual awakening. People spoke some supported in an inspirational way and some disagreed in an inspirational way. The majority chose silence. It all was a part of the silence inside and out. Russ is the way service is usually conducted? I really like this procedure and found it very beneficial.

[McKenna]

soma, on Jan 19 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

Russ, nice job. Mckenna I was fortunate to attend a Quaker worship and it was very impressive. You go into the silence, but if compelled to speak, sing or remain silent is a spiritual awakening. People spoke some supported in an inspirational way and some disagreed in an inspirational way. The majority chose silence. It all was a part of the silence inside and out. Russ is the way service is usually conducted? I really like this procedure and found it very beneficial.

It does sound nice. Perhaps I'd like it more than I think. After all when I pray I normally lapse into silence fairly quickly, without even meaning to. I'll be talking along and suddenly I'll just stop and pray inwardly instead. Anyway, I'd really love to attend a Quaker worship session sometime.

I recently read a book by a Quaker...it was called a Quaker Book of Wisdom by Robert Lawrence Smith (here it is on Amazon). It was a quick read and a great introduction to the Quaker mindset, which I find appealing.

[David]

The Christian Century reports:

“The recently dismissed head of the United Methodist Church’s main ecumenical and interreligious agency says his forced departure was due to disagreements over the body’s future direction….Larry D. Pickens said of his December 5 dismissal as chief executive of the denomination’s General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns….that the action stemmed in part from disagreements between him and some commission members over his support for what he called the ‘social justice dimension’ of ecumenical work. He said the commission often dealt with doctrinal and theological issues. ‘But in my mind, there has to be a social justice aspect for ecumenism to have a real impact,’ added Pickens, the first African American to lead the United Methodist commission.”

There is that word “unity” again used as the mission of an ecumenical group. I have no “inside” knowledge of what is going on here, but it seems that some wanted to come together based upon a theological vision and some thought that there was not enough emphasis on social justice.

I would argue that the ecumenical world should be dominated not by a discussion of unity, especially theological unity, and the theological goal should be pluralism. This would allow different religious groups to focus effectively on social justice concerns. Such a dynamic seems to have the real potential to bring people together.

This post has been edited by David: 22 January 2008 - 11:39 AM

[McKenna]

David, on Jan 22 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

I would argue that the ecumenical world should be dominated not by a discussion of unity, especially theological unity, and the theological goal should be pluralism. This would allow different religious groups to focus effectively on social justice concerns. Such a dynamic seems to have the real potential to bring people together.

I agree. I think the most practical aim of ecumenism would be to bring people together over social justice. It's a lot less touchy of a subject, it's easier to bring people together on (without anyone feeling they're giving up some of their values), and it is helpful to the community as a whole, which can further advance ecumenical dialogue.

[McKenna]

David, on Jan 22 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

I would argue that the ecumenical world should be dominated not by a discussion of unity, especially theological unity, and the theological goal should be pluralism. This would allow different religious groups to focus effectively on social justice concerns. Such a dynamic seems to have the real potential to bring people together.

Also, tonight I was watching "A" Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and there was an interview with Jim Wallis (I think it was the episode from last night, 1/22). Interestingly, Wallis expressed pretty much the same sentiment: that our focus should not be on everyone else's religious beliefs but on our mutual moral values (and the moral values he was advocating were social justice, environmental concerns, etc.); and that, in terms of our politicians, our concern should not be whether they are religious, but whether they have, as he put it, a "moral compass." Just thought it was interesting/relevant

[soma]

The beatitudes are found at Matthew 5: 3-12

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall possess the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[davidk]

soma, on Jan 16 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

The Infinite God is a complicated situation... far beyond the grasp of languages..., which is why it uses intuition.

Quote

...I see religion flowing ... from the inside where love springs forth, not from the outside in.

Quote

We live in God move and have our being in this One God

Quote

...we can grasp the... ungraspable....

I really don't understand the contradictions. God is a situation we can't understand or explain? Is God inside or outside? Grasping the ungraspable? You lost me.

Cynthia, on Jan 16 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

It's just so much fun to learn more about God.

This is a most sage comment. Brilliant. Thank you. (Can't find your Lewis quote, though. Help.)

Mckenna: If you are not a pluralist, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but when you quoted Diana Eck, it was implied when she said,"...in a pluralist view, ... we honor the same God..." We abandon morality if we do not decide right from wrong.

Our Faith is not from some inexplicable religious experience. We would only be fooling ourselves. It comes from knowing of and understanding an infinite God who is personal with you. That personal God said, Here is my only begotten Son. Because of His sacrifice, neither you nor any fallen "man" need live in guilt. Salvation is yours, believe it because "I" did it for you. If you deny My Son, you will not be Saved. If you follow Jesus, believe it when He said. "No one comes to the Father except by Me."

We could go on ad infinitum discussing all these particular issues. Unless we can come to grips with fundamental (don't be frightened by that word!), universal truths then discussing the particulars will be endless. Indeed we all have a world view (philosophy) and we must decide what it is and where it came from.

If given a choice between unreasonble and reasonable answers for these truths, and since everyone here appears reasonable, our choice is obvious, we want reasonable, rationally and logically considered, able to be communicated truths neccesary to answer Mans needs sufficiently and to "...speak with all men, religions, philosophies and sciences about those things... ." SOMA.

To understand we should know that the three areas of philosophic thought are what they always have been. The area of "Being", the metaphyical neccesity; then of "Man and his dilemma", that is: the moral neccessity. The third area is "epistemology" or, how do we know that we know, our epistemological neccesity.
Biblical Christianity provides the answers to those areas of question...sufficiently.

I run a great risk saying this, but here goes; because Biblical Christianity is the only religion which can answer those questions satisfactorily then that does, in fact, make it the superior religion.

Before you blast away, find out why I can so brashly say that.
Can you say any other religion can reasonably provide answers to the three areas? And how?
Illogical, unreasonable leaps of faith will not be accepted. Points will not be counted off for spelling.

[David]

David, (I love this, sounds like I am writing to myself—which may very well be),

Your concerns are wide and deep. I am not sure that any response in this kind of medium can do them justice--certainly not within the topic here of ecumenism.

My response “on topic” is first that I doubt that we would go to the same Sunday School class and the tension between us is because we tend towards the “opposite ends of the spectrum” within Christianity. As Diana Eck points out there is more similarity between our counterparts within other religions than there is between us. This makes any attempt at ecumenical discussion between some Christians more difficult than between Christians and other faith traditions.

I am fascinated by your interest in epistemology. Diana Eck notes that beneath many (most?) theological divisions one will find the epistemological problem. Many discussions never realize that the point of disagreement is not so much what you believe but how you know what you think you know. Basically I would argue that if you can not agree on how you know what you think you know it is frustrating to discuss anything. You will see that some will try to play the game of trying to assume an epistemology and attempt to show why a position is “wrong” by the “way you know what you think you know”. I see some Progressives that attempt to “prove” a point by Biblical authority even though they do not accept that epistemological method in the same way as the person they are talking to. I do not see that as helpful. That is why I make it a rule never to argue with a fundamentalist and I see no hope for an ecumenical bridge between fundamentalists and progressives.

Anyway, my main response to you now is that I would suggest that you start a new topic and attempt to limit that topic as much as possible while still speaking to your wide and deep concerns. I would be interested in a topic related to epistemology. You will find others who will respond more to morality or metaphysics. I would just ask that you review the prior discussions that have taken place within this message board and see if your concerns have been discussed already (this does not mean that you can not discuss them again with your own viewpoint).

Good luck on your spiritual journey,

David

[soma]

DavidK, The Bible to me is a Holy Book a guide to know oneself and God. I don't see it as a law book so it can be thrown at people. God is not a genie that can be put in one book so only certain people can believe that their religion is superior and everyone else's is inferior. I find that disturbing because "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." --Proverbs 14:15 (KJV). Does this make you feel superior that God is with you and everyone else is wrong. I know people have told you this a thousand times and you believe it that your idea is correct and everyone else's is wrong, but "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." --Proverbs 12:15 (KJV) Learn from everything.

It is hard to love with a superior attitude. "Let all that you do be done in love." --1 Corinthians 16:14 (RSV)

[David]

I'm still not sure what DavidK's primary interest may be but if it has to do with Biblical authority I would again suggest looking at prior discussions. For instance, look at "Blinded by Belief" which I think is an excellent exchange started by JosephM.

[McKenna]

davidk, on Jan 24 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

Mckenna: If you are not a pluralist, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but when you quoted Diana Eck, it was implied when she said,"...in a pluralist view, ... we honor the same God..." We abandon morality if we do not decide right from wrong.

I don't know if I'm not a pluralist. I think there are a lot of definitions of pluralism floating around this thread so I'm not sure whether I am or not. I believe exactly what I stated above; that I don't think all religions can be factually "right" but that doesn't stop them from providing genuine experiences IMHO.

davidk, on Jan 24 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

Our Faith is not from some inexplicable religious experience. We would only be fooling ourselves.

My faith comes from what I deem religious experiences. And I could be fooling myself. I'm okay with that possibility. I understand that you're not and I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. I'm just trying to explain my POV.

davidk, on Jan 24 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

It comes from knowing of and understanding an infinite God who is personal with you. That personal God said, Here is my only begotten Son. Because of His sacrifice, neither you nor any fallen "man" need live in guilt. Salvation is yours, believe it because "I" did it for you. If you deny My Son, you will not be Saved. If you follow Jesus, believe it when He said. "No one comes to the Father except by Me."

Those are your beliefs; I disagree. But this is not the right thread for theological disagreements

davidk, on Jan 24 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

We could go on ad infinitum discussing all these particular issues. Unless we can come to grips with fundamental (don't be frightened by that word!), universal truths then discussing the particulars will be endless. Indeed we all have a world view (philosophy) and we must decide what it is and where it came from.

Yes, and I don't believe any single human being can possibly "come to grips" with universal truths. I don't think the whole of an infinite truth can be grasped by a finite mind. Which is exactly why I believe as I do (see the story about the elephant, above).

davidk, on Jan 24 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

If given a choice between unreasonble and reasonable answers for these truths, and since everyone here appears reasonable, our choice is obvious, we want reasonable, rationally and logically considered, able to be communicated truths neccesary to answer Mans needs sufficiently and to "...speak with all men, religions, philosophies and sciences about those things... ." SOMA.

Of course we want reasonable answers.

davidk, on Jan 24 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

To understand we should know that the three areas of philosophic thought are what they always have been. The area of "Being", the metaphyical neccesity; then of "Man and his dilemma", that is: the moral neccessity. The third area is "epistemology" or, how do we know that we know, our epistemological neccesity.
Biblical Christianity provides the answers to those areas of question...sufficiently.

I run a great risk saying this, but here goes; because Biblical Christianity is the only religion which can answer those questions satisfactorily then that does, in fact, make it the superior religion.

I don't know how to "find out why you can so brashly say that" as you commanded me to do below. But needless to say I disagree with you. For one thing I'm not sure any religion really answers the question of epistemology sufficiently (including Christianity). As for meeting the first two criteria I think most religions do a pretty decent job (i.e. Buddhism).

davidk, on Jan 24 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

Before you blast away, find out why I can so brashly say that.
Can you say any other religion can reasonably provide answers to the three areas? And how?
Illogical, unreasonable leaps of faith will not be accepted. Points will not be counted off for spelling.

I'm sorry if you thought I was "blasting away" at you. I really wasn't trying to go on a rant or anything, I just needed a lot of space to explain my views.

Though now I'm slightly irritated because I feel you're being condescending. But that's okay, perhaps I came off as condescending earlier, and if so, I apologize.

Anyway, I answered your question above. It's not a sufficient answer but maybe you could first explain how your version of Christianity meets all of those requirements. But we are so far off topic...this should probably be addressed in other threads.

[McKenna]

I was reading Wikipedia's article on Hans Kung earlier and I found this. I thought it would be an interesting addition to our discussion on ecumenism and partnership between religions.

From the Wikipedia article:

Quote

Drafted initially by Dr. Hans Küng, in cooperation with the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions staff and Trustees and experts drawing on many of the world's religious and spiritual traditions, Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration identifies four essential affirmations as shared principles essential to a global ethic.

1. Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life
2. Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order
3. Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness
4. Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women

This Declaration was signed at the Parliament of the World's Religions gathering in 1993 by more than 200 leaders from 40+ different faith traditions and spiritual communities. Since 1993 it has been signed by thousands more leaders and individuals around the world. As such, it established a common ground for people of faith to agree and to cooperate for the good of all.

Thoughts?

[David]

Thank you for this. Maybe a fragile ecumenical bridge between fundamentalists and progressives? (although equality between women and men may be an issue for some fundamentalists?)

This post has been edited by David: 26 January 2008 - 07:19 PM