GeorgeW

I am all for religious pluralism. God manifests itself in all traditions, but unfortunately, syncretism doesn't work, in my opinion.

Syncretism doesn't work? Hmm, but Christianity is loaded with syncretism.

George

I try to read up on them but spend most of my time on Christian books because I'm a Christian.

Matt,

Would you recommend this approach to people of other faiths (i.e. reading up on their own faith rather than Christianity)?

George

Matt,

I have a somewhat different view. First, 'tolerance' implies recognition that there are differences and respect for these differences. However, I don't think tolerance entails acceptance differences that are harmful, threatening or dangerous. Further, the differences, at least in religion, are often in the details not the broad principles.

Also, it seems to me that one can focus on our differences or our similarities. I think the world would a better place if the focus is on the similarities rather than the differences.

George

Since baptism is symbolic in all cases (even with fundamentalists), I suppose one could assign any meaning they wish to it. As long as the meaning is benign, why would anyone object?

George

It seems to me that there are essentially two different ways of viewing the text. The first is seeing it as a message from God to all of humankind for all time. The second is seeing it as a human message that depends on context for understanding and may or not be applicable, or meaningful, to the reader at this time.

If one takes the former view (message from God), the focus is on understanding what God intends for every person at all times and in all places.

If one takes the latter view (human authorship), I think there are also two basic approaches to Bible study. The first is more historical and focused on determining what the author of the text intended for his audience, at the time. The second is more philosophical and is determining what it can mean for the reader today. The results can be entirely different things.

George

Mr. Kat,

I would endorse what Jenell has recommended. The NRSV is considered the best English translation. As far as study resources, there are two that I find particularly useful: The Five Gospels, a product of the Jesus Seminar and The Early Christian Reader by Mason and Robinson. As a quick reference guide to both the OT and the NT, I like The Trinity Guide to the Bible by Richard Hiers.

These all are have more a historical bent than theological.

George

It may be that the 6th commandment is in conversation with the accounts of massacres, etc. and not part of a unified message. There is more than one view in the Hebrew Bible.

Dutch

I think that 'kill' is just a bad translation a word about which various views can be held. One can oppose capital punishment, as I do, but to cite the 6th Commandment as authority is incorrect. The author did not forbid all killing and clearly not capital punishment.

George

What about war (particularly assassinations)? Capital punishment? Lynchings in the South? The Crusades? Purges and Pogroms?

 

I think that killing is relative to whether or not the victim is "the enemy" or not.

 

In the construct of the so-called "just war," it can be said that killing the enemy is morally correct because one is preventing a "greater evil."

 

NORM

I agree. These killings are not amoral acts. They are justified by the 'greater evil.'

FWIW, the translation of the Hebrew word ratsach in the 6th Commandant 'kill' is IMO a bad translation. It does not ban killing; it bans 'murder' (illegal killing). It is very clear that the Jewish law allowed all sorts of killing (enemies, adulterers, etc.). The 6th Commandment is often wrongly cited as prohibiting war, abortion, capital punishment, etc. These may be argued to be wrong on other grounds, but they are not prohibited by the 6th Commandment.

George

There is a kind of relativism called "moral relativism", which says that moral truth is relative to the individual person (Ethical Subjectivism) or relative to a person's culture (Ethical Conventionalism). If moral truth is relative to the individual person, then whatever I think is morally right is in fact morally right. If moral truth is relative to a person's culture, then whatever a person's culture says is morally right is actually morally right.

I would argue that these (individual and cultural) variations exist within a basic, universal set of values. There is good research to suggest that we are all born with certain moral impulses and these get elaborated by culture and experience. The differences are in the details, not the basics.

To my knowledge, no culture, or sane, sober and mature individual would claim that whimsically torturing babies is a morally neutral act like say pulling weeds or breaking rocks.

George

Myron,

Aside from a theoretical construct, does anyone really embrace absolute relativism? I have never encountered them personally or in writing. As an example, does anyone claim that killing, lying or stealing is morally neutral in all instances?

Different cultures define moral principles differently on the edges, but to my knowledge no culture permits, as example, killing under any circumstance against any person at any time. Therefore, I think we would all agree that killing is a core moral absolute with clearly defined exceptions that vary from culture to culture.

George

But if pluralism and relativism are basically the same thing, then it seems to me that our driveways simply lead to everywhere (if we go far enough). There is no destination, no goal, we simply drive around, taking in the scenery.

I think that pluralism and relativism are related but not the same thing. And, I think both are related to tolerance and that has a very practical result: reduction of discord and violence.

George

And if one religion requires or motivates something of or in its adherents that is reprehensible according to popular consensus then in that dialog, which also takes place in the public square there will be changes.

Yes. Even the most relativistic among us does not advocate acceptance of racism, homophobia and the like. We tend to draw the acceptability line at benign beliefs and behaviors.

George

I think these definitions of pluralism ignore the interconnection between religion, cultural and social practice. Of it were merely a matter of each different group observing and practicing their religion behind the doors of their churches, synagues, whatever designated sacred places, and their own homes, that works. But people go out into daily life, acting out of that intertwined mix of religion, cultural and social practices, and there is going to be discord between how one groups accustomed behaviors and attitudes interact and even interfere with those of others.

Jenell

Jenell,

I don't agree that diversity necessarily entails discord. Of course there are many examples of ethnic strife in situations where different groups live in proximity. Nazi Germany would be a classic example. The American South (in which I grew up) until recent times is another. People lived in tight bounded domains (physical and social) and had very negative attitudes about the other. I would not consider these as pluralistic as they lacked the acceptance feature.

Pluralism, as I understand it, entails both diversity and the acceptance of the diversity. I personally very much like living in a diverse culture. I am not African-American, Hispanic or Asian but that doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate their cultural differences and contributions to the "common civilization" (Merriam Webster). I am not Catholic, Mormon or Jewish, but I have no animosity against these groups. And, I don't think I am an exception or exceptional.

George

As is common in discussions such as this, there are different definitions and understandings. The following seem to have some common ideas.

My Merriam-Webster defines ‘pluralism’ as follows: "A state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."

Nick (in #2 above) says, "Pluralism is the acceptance that those who differ from you have a right to their difference, even if you disagree."

Neon (in #4 above says, "Pluralism accepts that everybody has different opinions, beliefs, and cultures and we can all co-exist with each other in spite of our differences."

All of these have some important similarities; difference, commonality, acceptance, co-existence. None express ideas about equality or hierarchy.

George

Pluralism is good when done right. And just like all potentially good things, it can be done wrong.

If a path isn't distinctive enough to be meaningful, then there's an issue, though it could be a lot of different things. At the same time, tribalism and hard boundaries are at least as problematic.

Nick, a couple of questions about this.

At risk of putting you on the spot (but knowing that you are careful in what you write), can you cite a concrete example of where pluralism was negative?

Secondly, more rhetorically, can tolerance flourish in the absence of pluralism?

George

Nick,

Can you think of any societies in which the urbanites are generally less open minded (tolerant) than their rural counterparts?

In the U.S., as an example, if liberal correlates with tolerant (and I think it does), it is clear that urbanites are, on average, more tolerant than ruralites.

I would think that the intensity of contact would be a factor. As I recall, Wright emphasized commercial cooperation being a (or the) factor in promoting universal love. Maybe it becomes harder to hate the guy who buys your fish every week.

George

Thinking that tolerance got invented by the Founding Fathers helps nobody.

Robert Wright in The Evolution of God has a lot to say about this under the rubric of 'universal love.' He relates it to the degree of contact and interaction among different religious or ethnic groups. Contact motivates mutual interests which promote tolerance (or universal love). He gives early examples such as Philo, a Jew, living in Egypt and later Paul. (He suggests that Jesus' universal love was more limited to Jews).

I have a rough hypothesis that relates urbanism and tolerance as a result of interaction with those who are culturally different. Multicultural interaction would, I think, be more common in urban environments. It is easier to hate/fear the Other in the abstract than in face-to-face reality.

George

It seems to me that the issue in pluralism and relativism is a matter of degree, where one draws the line. The idea of absolute relativism is, as Nick has said, a caricature; no one has no values. The more conservative worldview would draw the line much closer to home where a liberal worldview would draw it at some distance.

As an example, in religion, one could view anyone outside their denomination as a heretic. Alternatively, one could draw the line at Protestantism/Catholicism > Christianity > Judeo-Christian > Abrahamic religion > any religion > any or or no religion.

This plays out as well in the political world as well. Conservatives draw the line closer to home. They are more parochial, more 'patriotic,' more nationalistic, more states' rights, more assertive in promoting national interests. We see this in the idea of American exceptionalism. It surfaces in one’s view of the U.N. which some consider a serious threat to national sovereignty and others the best hope for the world and accept the right of other countries to have a say.

George

^{Nick and Neon,}

^{I really liked your definitions. However, does anyone espouse absolute relativism? Don't we all (or most) accept that there is, at some level, absolute truth? As I have mentioned here before, someone has said, 'even relativism is relative.'}

^{As an example, I think all humans (well, maybe sane, sober and mature) would agree with the general principle: 'Thou shall not murder.' However, the relativism would come into play in the details, the exceptions. Most people, I think, make exceptions for self defense or to prevent unjustified killing. Some would define abortion after conception as murder, some after the 3rd trimester, some at birth, others at sentience. But, none of us claim it is morally right to kill an innocent 10 year old.}

^George

Reminds me of the quote "Actions speak louder than words"

"Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words." (St. Francis of Assisi)

George

I kept thinking about this last night, and woke up with it on my mind this morning...why is it that we seem to think we should, have to, or even want to do this?

Jenell

Maybe because we are social animals and, as such, interested in other people.

George

Jenell,

My condolences.

George

Nick,

I like that a lot, particularly the last sentence.

George

As I browsed the news over morning coffee, it seemed stories pertaining to the presently popular discussion and expression of differing views of whether or not natural disasters are messages or warnings from God, or punishment upon sinful people and nations, were a recurring theme.

Jenell

This is part of the theodicy question. For, those who believe in an omnipotent and benevolent god, the answer to natural disasters is they are a warning from God. (Never mind the ambiguity of the message)

I might have to revisit my view of this now that Rick Perry is running for president and Texas is suffering an awful drought. Maybe there is a message there.

George

Joseph,

You seem to be reading it as interpretation, commentary, elucidation of the New Testament. Is that right? Would this be different (ignoring the historical assertions or claims of revelation) from one might get from a preacher or theologian?

George