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: Thoughts?

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. 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. Those are your beliefs; I disagree. But this is not the right thread for theological disagreements 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). Of course we want reasonable answers. 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). 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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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. 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.

Lovely writings. I agree!

I think a lot of people would disagree with you on that one. Namely the people who have been hurt by the Christian religion and the people who have had deep, meaningful relationships with the Divine through their own faiths. Or people like me who feel fulfilled by following Christ but understand that Christianity is not for everyone; that my way of connecting with God is different from others'; and that that's okay. Well that kind of shuts the door on ecumenical conversation. I'm glad you're so fulfilled by your religion (honestly, not trying to mock) My Buddhist, Muslim, UU, Mormon, Catholic, and Methodist friends are too That's why I agree with David and Soma: I'll close with a couple of quotes: "God has no religion." -Mahatma Gandhi and my personal favorite: "God is like a mirror. The mirror never changes, but everybody who looks at it sees something different." -Rabbi Harold Kushner

That's an interesting concept and, I think, a very true one. At least, that's how it ought to be. When religion becomes a way of life, rather than just a "Sunday" thing, it becomes something that dwells within us, rather than something that is imposed on us from the outside. It's also interesting to note that the vast majority, if not all, of the criticisms of religion that I have heard tend to attack only the latter sort of "religion" - the one that flows from the outside in, which can thus be criticized as a kind of "brainwashing." Spirituality that comes from the heart can not be criticized as such, unless the argument is made that one is brainwashing oneself. Even if that's the case, I'd prefer to brainwash myself than have someone else do it for me, thank you very much Anyway, ramble ramble, I liked what you said!

Thought I'd resurrect this thread because I've been looking for progressive Christian devotionals lately Anyone know of any good ones that haven't yet been mentioned on this thread?

Sounds like you and soma are pretty much making the same point, so I guess I must be misinterpreting the saying, "Not my will, but Yours." I guess, in that context, it sounds to me like Jesus is saying that his death is God's will, and so that's what's going to happen. It sounds like an appeal to, but recognition of, God's omnipotence and the possibility of divine intervention (or the lack thereof). Does that make any sense? Now, I personally reject this idea, for the reason you stated in the quote below - sh** happens, that doesn't mean it's God's will. (I personally don't believe in divine intervention.) But maybe you both are correct in interpreting those words in a different way. Maybe we should look at the passage to see the context in which Jesus uses the words? Anyone know the verses? Regardless, I now see what the OP was saying in stating the power of those words. Allowing God's Will to run your life instead of your own...that's what it means to dedicate our lives to God, I suppose

But how does that view differ from a conservative's? I've never heard of a conservative who rejects the idea that God is omnipotent and to some degree controls what happens.

Hey David! I realize this is a pretty old thread, but I was looking through some old ones and came across it. I like what you've written here a lot. I was wondering if you could expand a bit on some of the ideas you presented, though. You said, "I believe in the power of prayer in ways that that conservative apparently doesn't." What do you mean by this? How do you view the "power of prayer"? What are the implications of the words "Not my will, but Yours," in your view? I realize these are personal questions, and I don't mean to pry, so don't answer them if they make you uncomfortable! I just thought this post was interesting and was hoping I could get you to explain it a bit more

Love your ideas. I'm trapped somewhere in between the "set of rules" God and the Living God. I'm still grappling. Where did you get such certainty for your caveat?

This is what I was thinking of suggesting I am currently enrolled in a world religions class and this book has been our primary "textbook" for Hinduism and Buddhism, and we also used it a bit for primal religions. All that we've read so far has been very interesting and well-written. I also have read a little of the section on Christianity and enjoyed that as well. I would also recommend Philip Novak's The World's Wisdom: Sacred Texts from the World's Religions which has also been mentioned