isbell@marvin.DEC (Chris Isbell ) (05/08/84)
[] The following quote is from the "Rock Edicts" of the Buddhist Emperor Asoka. I would suggest it as a motto for this news group. Chris Isbell. (...decvax!decwrl!rhea!marvin!isbell) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ One should not honour only one's own religion and condemn the religions of others, but one should honour others' religions for this or that reason. So doing, one helps one's own religion to grow and renders service to the religions of others too. In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one's own religion and also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honours his own religion and condemns other religions, does so indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking "I will glorify my own religion". But on the contrary, in so doing he injures his own religion more gravely. So concord is good: Let all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (05/12/84)
I am very much afraid that Larry missed the point of the whole exercise as it relates to the net-most likely, he responded to the use of the word "religion". There is a pretty regular argument on the part of some Christians (particularly those of the Evangelical/ Fundementalist strain) that Christianity is not a religion. It is not a very simple point to argue among those who do not hold a similar set of values, and more often than not winds up looking like a strain of the "I've got the SECRET knowledge school of religious disputation. I suspect that a great amount of the flames Larry gets will concern itself with exactly this problem. One must be ready to discuss matters of religious commitment in terms other than those provided by the language of "insiders" within the religious tradition. Taken as a reflection of the way that general conduct reflects on the way that people perceive the adherents of a religious tradition, Chris is pretty dead on in his quotation. I will be the last to admit that such a position is often difficult, given the sort of vitriol pitched about here- but it is the best position to take. charis en pax, gtaylor
amigo@iwpba.UUCP (amigo) (05/15/84)
From Larry Bickford's article: >> Quoth Chris Isbell quoting other: >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> One should not honour only one's own religion and condemn the >> religions of others, but one should honour others' religions for >> this or that reason. So doing, one helps one's own religion to >> to grow and renders service to the religions of others too. In >> acting otherwise one digs the grave of one's own religion and >> also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honours his own >> religion and condemns other religions, does so indeed through >> devotion to his own religion, thinking "I will glorify my own >> religion". But on the contrary, in so doing he injures his own >> religion more gravely. So concord is good: Let all listen, and be >> willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Basic problem: I do not strive to honor my *religion*. I strive >> to honor *God*. My "religion" (if the term applies) is not >> something I have concocted to glorify something - it is doing >> what God said to do. (And His command to Israel upon going into >> the Promised Land was the opposite of the above quote: >> "Exterminate the worship of other gods.") Isbell's quote >> implicitly assumes some human control over religion; my "religion" >> is neither subject to nor authorized by man. One of the problems that many people have is that they seem to feel that their perception of God is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Persons who disagree with them are either deluded (at best) or agents of the powers of darkness (at worst). Remember what the Talmud teaches: That the righteous Gentile has as much standing before the throne of God as the High Priest of Israel. The attitude that the Buddhist king Asoka espouses is one of mutual respect between followers of different faiths. What he seems to be saying is that one should not act as if one's religion (in the sense of how one perceives God and man's relationship to God) had an absolute monopoly on the truth. We are all believers in God, he is saying, and we can learn from one another. If we attempt to do so, then we will enhance our own understanding of and appreciation for God. Larry, you should remember that we are called upon to love our neighbours--how can you do that without respecting them? Ghandi once asked: "How can he who thinks he possesses absolute truth be fraternal?" Speaking as a Christian myself, I believe that God has revealed himself to all men in Christ; but first he has revealed himself as love. Truth is then grasped as love; but not in such a way as to exclude love in certain circumstances. Only he who loves and respects others can be sure that he is still in contact with the truth, which in fact is too absolute to be wholly grasped by his mind. Hence, he who holds to the truth should be afraid that he may lose the truth by a failure of love, not a failure of knowledge. In this case he is humble, and therefore he is wise. But knowledge can inflate one. Knowledge tends to expand one like a balloon, and can give a precarious wholeness in which one may be deluded into thinking that he holds the entire dimensions of a truth the totality of which is denied to others. It then becomes one's duty, by virtue of superior knowledge, to oppose--even to punish--those who do not share the truth. How can one "love" others except by imposing on them the truth which they would otherwise insult and neglect? This is the temptation. The more that I am able to affirm others, to say "yes" to them inmyself, by discovering them in myself and myself in them, the more real I am. I will be a better Catholic, not if I can refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and go on from there. So, too, with the Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot "affirm" and "accept," but first one must say "yes" where one really can. If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: And certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwpba!amigo (NOTE TEMPORARY MACHINE)
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (05/16/84)
> The attitude that the Buddhist king Asoka espouses is one of mutual > respect between followers of different faiths. What he seems to be > saying is that one should not act as if one's religion (in the > sense of how one perceives God and man's relationship to God) had > an absolute monopoly on the truth. We are all believers in God, he is > saying, and we can learn from one another. If we attempt to do so, > then we will enhance our own understanding of and appreciation for > God. Larry, you should remember that we are called upon to love > our neighbours--how can you do that without respecting them? Thank you for expressing this thought so well. As one modern Yogi put it, "No religion has a patent on God. No sect has a copyright on the truth. God is beyond all paths." ONE TRUTH, MANY WAYS. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
rcd@opus.UUCP (05/16/84)
This began with Chris Isbell's quote suggesting tolerance and respect for other religions, ending with: >>...Let all listen, and be >>willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others. Bickford responds with the orders from HIS God: >...(And His command to Israel upon going into the Promised Land was the >opposite of the above quote: "Exterminate the worship of other gods.") >Isbell's quote implicitly assumes some human control over religion; my >"religion" is neither subject to nor authorized by man. I see a contradiction (or two:-) here - Bickford the human has been commanded to control other humans, but his commands come from a source outside humanity. To put it bluntly: Force others to your beliefs; "God" is on your side. How does one reconcile "Exterminate the worship of other gods" with the US doctrine of freedom of religion? That is, since our laws expressly provide for this freedom, they expressly oppose this doctrine which would "exterminate" (yack, that's offensive) other forms of worship. >Lest someone address the question of Christian denominations: there is a >difference between *central* theology (also known as the fundamentals of >the faith) and *peripheral* theology (the source of many denominations). >Peripheral theology is debatable; central isn't, without going into a >different religion. ...and you can debate minor theological points, subject to Bickford's personal definition of what is a permissible subject for debate. Interesting idea, especially since including Roman Catholicism with the other denominations makes the status of the Pope a "minor issue". But I guess that if it's your system of reasoning you can make up the rules. -- ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
judy@ut-ngp.UUCP (05/16/84)
Kudos for your article! If the Catholics around me when I was growing up exposed this phylosophy I never would have turned away! I am happy to see that more Catholics than just Pope John Paul have this point of view. We could ALL follow this example - religious or not! Judy
lab@qubix.UUCP (05/17/84)
Quoth Chris Isbell quoting other:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One should not honour only one's own religion and condemn the religions
of others, but one should honour others' religions for this or that
reason. So doing, one helps one's own religion to grow and renders
service to the religions of others too. In acting otherwise one digs
the grave of one's own religion and also does harm to other religions.
Whosoever honours his own religion and condemns other religions, does so
indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking "I will glorify my
own religion". But on the contrary, in so doing he injures his own
religion more gravely. So concord is good: Let all listen, and be
willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic problem: I do not strive to honor my *religion*. I strive to honor
*God*. My "religion" (if the term applies) is not something I have
concocted to glorify something - it is doing what God said to do.
(And His command to Israel upon going into the Promised Land was the
opposite of the above quote: "Exterminate the worship of other gods.")
Isbell's quote implicitly assumes some human control over religion; my
"religion" is neither subject to nor authorized by man.
Lest someone address the question of Christian denominations: there is a
difference between *central* theology (also known as the fundamentals of
the faith) and *peripheral* theology (the source of many denominations).
Peripheral theology is debatable; central isn't, without going into a
different religion.
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPAlab@qubix.UUCP (05/19/84)
[The bug has no respect for anyone.]
The "problem" I referred to in my previous article on this subject
centers on the difference between religion and God. Chris's view :
"Religion ... [is a] mental construct of humans, over which we
have (at least some) control - such as a choice to follow a
particular religion in preference to another. At the conventional
level, there are many different religions in the world."
presupposes that one religion is essentially as good as another, merely
taking a different view of God. But the problem is not a *different view*
of God; it is a view of a *different God*. Alan Driscoll's "ONE TRUTH,
MANY WAYS" runs directly against John 14:6 "I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and
THE life; NO MAN comes to the Father BUT BY ME." The two are incompatible.
A variety of gods abound; Scripture makes reference to "gods that are no
gods." The former refers to the position that worshippers place the god
in; the latter refers to actual godhood. (Isaiah 44:8-19 brings this out.)
Christianity can well be considered a "disruption" - the Caesars certainly
viewed it as such, since the Christians would not worship Caesar as well
as their God. Rome had a different way of "expelling" offenders (munch).
I do respect people, and their views (but for the grace of God, I am as
others). I may not share the same respect for their god(s), however.
There will probably be some conflict in this. (But not enough to keep
the various ists around here from agreeing that it is good that we get
our programs working - and working right.) What is needed is balance;
but what is too often asked is compromise. There is a difference.
The more I read about the Pope's visit with the Buddhist leaders, the
more I wonder how devoutly he holds certain views of the religion which
he heads, e.g., the Church of Rome's teaching that there is no salvation,
no access to heaven, outside of itself (I confirmed this with ex-priests).
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPAamigo@iwpba.UUCP (amigo) (05/22/84)
Larry Bickford says: >> The more I read about the Pope's visit with the Buddhist >> leaders, the more I wonder how devoutly he holds certain >> views of the religion which he heads, e.g., the Church of >> Rome's teaching that there is no salvation, no access to >> heaven, outside of itself (I confirmed this with ex-priests). Well, Larry, I don't know which ex-priests you have been talking to, but any Catholic who states that persons outside the Catholic church cannot be saved is guilty of formal heresy. About 50 to 75 years ago, there was a priest near Boston (Fr. Feeny) who taught that non-Catholics were not capable of salvation, and he was condemned as a heretic and ex-communicated (which must have given him and his followers quite a spiritual dilemma). I believe that he did recant near the end of his life, and was received back into the Church. The "outside the church there is no salvation" argument derives from such Biblical teachings as: "He who believes and is baptised shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). This is also a feature of other Christian denominations, e.g. Calvinism. Calvin says (INSTITUTES Book 4 c. 3): "Outisde the fold of this Church there is no hope of pardon for sins, no salvation." However, even the most ardent Catholic traditionalist (I have before me a small tome from 1906, entitled A MANUAL OF THEOLOGY FOR THE LAITY, by Rev. P. Geiermann, C.Ss.R, which is almost the epitome of the Catholic triumphalist point of view--a most infuriating book, given to quick, simplistic, this-is-the-truth-and-I-don't-want- to-hear-any-arguing-about-it, statements. Fr. Geiermann also refuses to admit even the possibility that the Catholic Church, at any time in her history, might possibly have been less than a perfect examplar of the Christian gospel.) will admit that persons who do do not or cannot accept Christ and his church, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, may be saved. The current Catholic teaching on other religions is best seen in the DECLARATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS (NOSTRA AETATE) from the Second Vatican Council; which states (n. 2): Other religions to be found everywhere strive variously to answer the restless searchings of the human heart by proposing "ways," which consist of teachings, rules of life, and sacred ceremonies. The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct, and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many pariculars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. This is scarcely something new in Catholicism. For example, Justin Martyr (2nd century AD) mentions that the "true light which enlightens every man who comes into the world" (John 1:9) manifests itself in all religions. Unfortunately, missionaries often have adopted the attitude that non-Catholic (rephrase that last word to be non-Christian, and we can expand it to include Protestant missionaries) religions were the work of Satan and that their job was to convert people from error to the truth. Another document from Vatican II which is relevant is the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH (LUMEN GENTIUM), which says, with regard to non-Catholic Christians (n. 15): The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptised, are honoured with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honour sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and action, and who shew a true religious zeal. They livingly believe in God the Father almighty and in Christ, Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, through which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and receive other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesial communities.... They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also He gives His gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with His sanctifying power.... She [the Catholic Church] exorts her sons to purify and renew themselves so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the Church. In the next section, which deals with non-Christians, the operative sentences are: Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace. So, Larry, I trust that I have made it clear that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. (Doesn't that make you feel better?) John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwpba!amigo