Mbah Danar,
He he he , Anda memang pantas disebut mbah oleh saya. Ndak pa- pa ya. Terima
kasih kiriman tulisannya, wow 10 lembar . Jadi untuk saat ini tak semua saya
baca kecuali poin terpenting. Btw mbah klo boleh tahu itu dari buku mana
karangan siapa, lumayan juga buat referensi. Definisi pluralisme yang mbah
berikan sudah pas dengan definisi yang ada dalam pikiran saya, meski ada
beberapa hal menjadi catatan kaki. Terutama kata ini
The existence of religious pluralism depends on the existence of freedom of
religion. bla, bla bla,bla . GImana ya mbah, saya tak bisa mengatakan suatu
dalih sedangkan mbah bukan muslim. Aris yakin nggak bakalan nyambung selamanya.
Saya memang bukan orang filsafat yang kadang lebih sering berdefinisi dan
berpikiran agak jlimet, alur pikiran saya sederhana. Aris muslim, maka
konsekuensi sebagai seorang muslim berusaha melaksanakan aturan agama saya.
Mungkin karena terbiasa hidup dalam kesahajaan alam pertanian yang dekat dengan
ciptaan Allah. :-) Jadi mikirnya simple. Sudah ada aturan yang dibuat Pencipta
manusia dan alam segala isinya, sudah pasti sempurnanya, indahnya, rahmatnya ko
ya bingung cari konsep lain yang belum pasti. Sudah terbukti 14 abad lagi ,
kurang punapa malih tho mbah. Diskusi kita akan menemukan titik temu, menawi
simbah muslim. :-)
Mbah, dalam islam negara dan agama itu satu kesatuan utuh ndak terpisahkan,
beda dengan kenyataan dahulu Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. Adalah
katolik dan protestan, bila umat mereka ingin bangkit, Agama dan negara harus
dipisahkan (sekularisme). Sedangkan Islam meminta umatnya ketika berbuat,
berkata,berdiam, berniat, bertingkah laku disegala bidang mengikuti aturan
Allah.Jadi tak ada ruang sekularisme.
Mbah Danar, Kulo nggih mboten sreg dengan tulisan punika :
Muslim views
Classical Muslim views
Like Christianity, Islam originally did not have ideas of religious pluralism
for different Islamic denominations. Early on, Islam developed into several
mututally antagonistic streams, including Shiite Islam, Sunni Islam and Sufi
Islam. In some periods believers in these two communities went to war with each
other over religious differences.
Modern (post-enlightenment era) Muslim views
Many Muslims brought up in Western nations now accept some modern views of
religious pluralism. Some Shiite, Suni and Sufi Islamic leaders are willing to
recognize each other's denomination as a valid form of Islam. However, many
other Islamic leaders are unwilling to accept this; they view other forms of
Islam as outside the Islamic religion.
Tak ada pembedaan classical and modern bagi seorang muslim, karena islam itu
tak berubah sejak dahulu diturunkan hingga sekarang, sehingga harusnya tak ada
perubahan pula seorang muslim dahulu dan sekarang. Kalau ada pembedaan yang
harus di renungkan jangan-jangan orang muslimnya yang salah mengaplikasikan
agamanya. Bukan agamanya yang salah. Aris akui ko mbah banyak umat islam KTP.
Aris berdoa semoga aris dihindarkan dari hal ini dan aris juga berdoa sangat
semoga mereka diberikan hidayah termasuk simbah. Biar merasakan indahnya
islam.:-)
Mbah Danar, jika aturan islam itu diterapkan dan agama nasrani dll ikut
bernaung di dalamnya maka hak antara umat yang Islam dan non Islam itu sama.
Suer mbah, kulo mboten goroh. Bahkan Rasulullah bilang, bila ada yang menyakiti
ahli dhimah maka dia bukan termasuk golonganku. Tapi mbah sekarang sistem islam
ndak diterapkan, umat islam kehilangan ruhnya. Keyakinan 100 persen terhadap
agama islam itu mbah layaknya ruh bagi jasad. Umat islam lagi sakit atau bahkan
sekarat.
Jadi nyuwun ngapunten boro-boro mau melindungi agama lain. Umat islam nggak
bersatu, lagi tahap berobat. Kalau berobat emang kadang pasien itu agak
merepotkan, banyak permintaannya yang kadang malah membahayakan. Ntar ya mbah
kalau seluruh umat islam sudah bersatu dan cukup sehat. Mbah akan tahu
cemerlangnya agama ini. Makanya nyuwun tulung nggih mbah, hati-hati dalam
berkata, memforward tulisan dan memveri komentar. Biasanya tiyang sepuh itu
lebih bijak :-).
Salam Hangat,
Aris Solikhah
Danardono HADINOTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
aris solikhah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
mas Danardono,
Maaf saya kurang tahu anda muslim atau bukan.
DH: BUKAN Muslim.
Saya penganut salah satu mainstream Kristen aliran Luther (bahasa latinnya: CA,
Confessio Augustana).
--------------
Orang yang bukan muslim pun harusnya menolak pluralisme, sekularisme dan
liberalisme.
DH:
1) Pluralisme (dari kata "plural" lawannya "singular) adalah system dimana
manusia berbagai budaya hidup bersandingan. Ini OK tak mungkin saya tolak.
2) Sekularisme, adalah system, dimana manusia hidup bersandingan walau beda
agama, karena negara diatur secara netral, diatas hukum agama agama. Ini
conditio sine quanon, syarat ultra mutlak, kalau NKRI masih mau exist. saya
akan pertahankan system ini dengan segala daya.
3)liberalisme, adalah system, dimana kebebasan adalah maxime mutlak. Ini patut
ditolak, kalau kebebasan berada diatas segala galanya, diatas moral.
--------------------
Sebelum kita membicarakan apa konteksnya pluralisme itu, punten mas mencoba
cari tahu realitas apa itu pluralisme yang dipahami orang dan makna sebenarnya.
Jangan sampai salah mengkomentari sesuatu padahal (maaf) realitas maknanya
kurang tahu.
DH: saya kurang tahu? saya lulus mata ujian falsafah, mataujian hukum, dan
mataujian ilmu politik. Juga saya kuasai bahasa Latin.
Jangan buru buru mengucapkan hal ini. Saya juga sudah exist jauh sebelum anda
berada didunia.
Apakah itu "pluralism"?
Monggo:
Religious pluralism is the belief that one can overcome religious differences
between different religions, and denominational conflicts within the same
religion. For most religious traditions, religious pluralism is essentially
based on a non-literal view of one's religious traditions, hence allowing for
respect to be engendered between different traditions on core principles rather
than more marginal issues. It is perhaps summarized as an attitude which
rejects focus on immaterial differences, and instead gives respect to those
beliefs held in common.
The existence of religious pluralism depends on the existence of freedom of
religion. Freedom of religion is when different religions of a particular
region possess the same rights of worship and public expression. Freedom of
religion is consequently weakened when one religion is given rights or
privileges denied to others, as in certain European countries where Roman
Catholicism or regional forms of Protestantism have special status. For example
see the entries on the Lateran Treaty and Church of England; also, in Saudi
Arabia the public practice of religions other than Islam is forbidden.
Religious freedom has not existed at all in some communist countries where the
state restricts or prevents the public expression of religious belief and may
even actively persecute individual religions (see for example North Korea).
Contents[hide]
1 History of religious pluralism
2 Religious pluralism as opportunity for change and dialogue
3 Literal truth and spiritual truth
4 Classical Greek and Roman pagan religious views
5 Inter-religious pluralism (between different religions)
5.1 Jewish views
5.2 Christian views
5.2.1 Classical Christian views
5.2.2 Modern (post-enlightenment era) Christian views
5.2.3 The Eastern Orthodox View
5.2.4 Catholic views regarding Buddhists
5.3 Muslim views
5.4 Bahá'í views
5.5 Hindu views
5.6 Buddhist views
6 Intra-religious pluralism (between different denominations within the same
religion)
6.1 Jewish views
6.2 Christian views
6.2.1 Classical Christian views
6.2.2 Modern (post-enlightenment era) Christian views
6.3 Muslim views
6.3.1 Classical Muslim views
6.3.2 Modern (post-enlightenment era) Muslim views
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
//
[edit]
History of religious pluralism
Religious pluralism has existed in the Indian Subcontinent since the rise of
Buddhism around 500 BC and has widened in the course of several muslim
settlements (Delhi Sultanate 1276-1526 AD and the Mughal Empire 1526-1857 AD).
In the 8th century, Zoroastrianism established in India as Zoroastrians fled
from Persia to India in large numbers, where they were given refuge. The
colonial phase ushered in by the British lasted until 1947 and furthered
conversions to Christianity among low caste Hindus. In 1948 as many as 20,000
Jews Bene Jews and Cochin Jews lived in India, though most of them have since
emigrated to Israel.
The rise of religious pluralism in the modern West is closely associated with
the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Religions like Judaism and Islam had
existed alongside Christianity in many parts of Europe, but they were not
allowed the same freedoms as the established form of Christianity. New forms of
Christianity were suppressed by force (see for example Lombard heresy and
Huguenots). Early forms of Protestantism sought the same privileges as those
previously claimed by Roman Catholicism; In Protestant England, Scotland, and
Ireland, there were severe legal and social restrictions on Jews and Roman
Catholics until the passing of acts of emancipation in the nineteenth century.
Similar restrictions on smaller Protestant sects who disagreed with the
national churches in these countries prompted such groups as the Pilgrim
Fathers to seek freedom in North America, although many historians have noted
that when these groups became the majority they sometimes sought to deny this
freedom to Jews and Roman Catholics. However, Protestant and freethinking
philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Paine, who argued for tolerance and
moderation in religion, were strongly influential on the Founding Fathers, and
the modern religious freedom and equality underlying religious pluralism in the
United States are guaranteed by First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which states:
"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In the United States, therefore, religious pluralism can be said to be overseen
by the secular state, which guarantees equality under law between different
religions, whether these religion have a handful of adherents or many millions.
The state also guarantees the freedom of those who choose not to belong to any
religion.
Freedom of religion encompasses all religions acting within the law in a
particular region, whether or not an individual religion accepts that other
religions are legitimate or that freedom of religious choice and religious
plurality in general are good things. Many religions in the United States, for
example, teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth,
and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the
falsehoods taught by other religions. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example,
with many other Protestant sects, argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and
fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like
those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious and even Satanic.
[edit]
Religious pluralism as opportunity for change and dialogue
Many religious believers believe that religious pluralism should entail not
competition but cooperation, and argue that societal and theological change is
necessary to overcome religious differences between different religions, and
denominational conflicts within the same religion. For most religious
traditions, this attitude is essentially based on a non-literal view of one's
religious traditions, hence allowing for respect to be engendered between
different traditions on fundamental principles rather than more marginal
issues. It is perhaps summarized as an attitude which rejects focus on
immaterial differences, and instead gives respect to those beliefs held in
common.
[edit]
Literal truth and spiritual truth
Religious pluralism generally does not claim that all religions are absolutely
true. Different religions make certain claims that logically contradict each
other: For example, most Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and
part of the Trinity, while both Muslims and Jews hold that it is impossible for
any human to be God incarnate, and that no Trinity exists. Christians believe
that Jesus was crucified, while Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified.
Therefore, claiming that both Chritianity and Islam are absolutely true gives
rise to a logical contradiction.
In contrast, most religious pluralists hold that no religion can claim to teach
the only or absolute truth, arguing that religion is not literally the word of
God, but rather is mankind's attempt to describe the word of God. Given man's
finite and fallible nature, no religious text can absolutely describe God and
God's will in absolute precision. On this view no religion is completely true
and there is an infinite Reality, or God, that is beyond the ability of any
single religion to capture with total accuracy. Instead, all religions make an
attempt at capturing this Reality, but this always occurs within a cultural and
historical context that affects the viewpoints of the faith's holders.
Religious pluralists note that because nearly all religious texts are a
combination of historical documents, journalist accounts, essays, and morality
plays, distinctions must be made between the literal claims within religious
texts, and those claims contained within spiritual metaphors. The differences
between spiritual metaphors are seen as common.
In the last century, liberal forms of some religions (Reconstructionist and
Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, etc.) have modified some of their
religious positions. Religious liberals in these faiths no longer claim that
their religion is complete and of absolute accuracy. Believers holding such
positions may claim that their faith is the most complete and accurate
revelation of the divine available, but that other religions contain valid and
useful views which establish common ground or provide a different perspective.
Some liberal worshipers go further, refusing to privilege their own religious
teachings over some others: Just as scientists ought to hold enough
intellectual humility to acknowledge that their theories are almost certainly
incomplete or inaccurate, many pluralists claim that members of other faiths
are searching for the same truths in different ways, and that all religious
knowledge is limited by human fallibility. This level of pluralism does not
preclude
holding one's own ideas or participating in the rituals or spiritual life of
one particular relgion or community; rather, such worshipers practice according
to their own traditions, ideas, and community norms while recognizing the
validity of a host of other practices or interpretations.
Many people hold that it is both permissible and imperative for people of all
faiths to develop some form of religious pluralism. They believe that it is
intellectually valid to do so because since Biblical times, humanity's
understanding of man's place in the natural world has changed radically, due to
advances in science; since Biblical times, philosophers have challenged
humanity to rethink the notion of truth, and the very way that language is used
itself; advances in travel and communications are thought to rule out
isolationism; and advances in weaponry and warfare are thought to rule out
religious intolerance, as this can now lead to mass-murder on scales previously
unimaginable.
Some religions hold a retrospective form of religious pluralism. A religion can
tolerate and sometimes endorse religions which were created before its
beginning, but will not accept any new religion which has arisen after itself.
For example, Christianity accepts some aspects of Judaism, but generally
rejects Islam. Islam accepts some aspects of Christianity, but does not
tolerate the Bahá'í Faith. Most adherents of Bahá'í Faith accept Christianity,
Islam and Judaism, but do not accept new theological innovations that have been
created in their community since then.
[edit]
Classical Greek and Roman pagan religious views
The ancient Greeks were polytheists; pluralism in that historical era meant
accepting the existence of and validity of other faiths, and the gods of other
faiths. Greeks and Romans easily accomplished this task by subsuming the entire
set of gods from other faiths into their own religion; this was done on rare
occasion by adding a new god to their own pantheon; on most occasions they
identified another religion's gods with their own.
[edit]
Inter-religious pluralism (between different religions)[edit]
Jewish views
There is a separate entry on Jewish views of religious pluralism, which
discusses both classical and modern views of Judaism's relationship to other
religions, and the permissibility and purpose of inter-faith theological
dialogue.
[edit]
Christian views[edit]
Classical Christian views
Christianity teaches that on their own, it is impossible for any person to have
a relationship with God, and that the result of a lack of such a relationship
is damnation. To avoid such a fate, Christianity teaches that Jesus was God
made flesh in a literal manner, and that by accepting various beliefs about
Jesus and God and repenting, a person could then have a meaningful relationship
with God and avoid damnation, and be given gift of eternal life in Heaven. All
non-Christians are specifically pointed to as destined for damnation; they
complain that such teachings may be considered hateful or anti-Semitic.
Christians hold that the consequence of self-separation from the triune God,
who they view as the ultimate source of all life, is eternal death. Some view
Christianity as a form of egalitarianism, because it teaches that all humanity
potentially has equal access to salvation: a person simply has to renounce
their faith and sincerely adopt Christianity.
Christians have traditionally argued that religious pluralism is an invalid or
self-contradictory concept. Maximal forms of religious pluralism claim that all
religions are equally true, or that one religion can be true for some and
another for others. This Christians hold to be logically impossible. (Most Jews
and Muslims similarly reject this maximal form of pluralism.) Christianity
insists it is the fullest and most complete revelation of God to Man. If
Christianity is true, than other religions cannot be equally true, although
they may contain lesser revelations of God that are true. So the pluralist must
either distort Christianity to make it pluralistic, or reject it and
acknowledge that one cannot be a complete pluralist.
One image of the Church that was often used by the Church fathers was that of a
hospital. In this analogy the doctor does not always care for a patient in the
way the patient would like, but in the way best suited to bring about healing
to the patient. (Entry into the hospital should of course be voluntary.) Doing
what pluralists ask would be somewhat akin to accommodating the false "pillow
prophets" of the Old Testament who prophesied to the king what he wanted to
hear, predictions of victory, rather than God's words of certain defeat that
could only be avoided through thorough repentance. Thus, Christianity must
preach salvation through the Church to all outside the Church, in order to help
people realize that through conversion to Christianity one will achieve
salvation.
To these Christians, it appears to be a contradiction for non-Christians to
acknowledge the validity of Christian prayers or sacraments, but continue to
deny the beliefs which underlie those prayers and sacraments. The central
sacrament, the Eucharist, for example, is believed to be the actual body and
blood of Jesus Christ; (this is a belief held by those who subscribe to
transubstaniation) belief in its efficacy is based on the belief that it really
and truly is. If a person were to deny that the Eucharist is Christ's body and
blood, that would amount to denying that it unites us to God, imparts grace, or
administers any other benefit, save possibly through a sort of psychological
placebo effect.
[edit]
Modern (post-enlightenment era) Christian views
In recent years, some Christian groups have become more open to religious
pluralism; this has led to many cases of reconciliation between Christians and
people of other faiths.
In recent years there has been much to note in the way of reconciliation
between some Christians groups and the Jewish people. Many modern day
Christians, including many Catholics and some liberal Protestants, have
developed a view of the New Testament as an extended covenant; They believe
that Jews are still in a valid relationship with God, and that Jews can avoid
damnation and earn a heavenly reward. For these Christians, the New Testament
extended God's original covenant to cover non-Jews. The article
Christian-Jewish reconciliation deals with this issue in detail.
Many smaller Christian groups in the US and Canada have come into being over
the last 40 years, such as "Christians for Israel". Their website says that
they exist in order to "expand Christian-Jewish dialogue in the broadest sense
in order to improve the relationship between Christians and Jews, but also
between Church and Synagogue, emphasizing Christian repentance, the purging of
anti-Jewish attitudes and the false 'Replacement' theology rampant throughout
Christian teachings."
A number of large Christian groups, including the Catholic Church and several
large Protestant churches, have publicly declared that they will no longer
proselytize Jews.
Most Christians, including most conservative Protestants, reject the idea of
the New Testament as an extended covenant, and retain the classical Christian
view as described above.
As a whole though, Christianity still rejects the idea of interreligious
pluralism, though liberal churches further the dialogue with other religions
for the sake of peace.
[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox View
As is often when viewed from a Western perspective, the Eastern Orthodox
teaching appears confusing and paradoxical. On the one hand, the Orthodox
Church teaches that Eastern Orthodoxy is the only path to choose for salvation.
On the other hand, the Church also teaches that no human being, by statement
nor by omission of a statement, may place a limit upon the Will and choice of
God, who may save whomsoever it pleases Him to save. Orthodox try to explain
how the paradox is resolved by metaphorically comparing the Church to Noah's
Ark. It is not, in theory, utterly impossible for someone to "survive the
flood" of sin by clinging to whatever driftwood is around or by trying to
cobble together a raft from bits and pieces of whatever floats, but the Ark is
a far safer choice to make. Likewise, it is not inconceivable that the
heterodox and even non-Christians might be saved simply through God's own
choice, made for His inscrutable reasons, but it is far safer for any
individual person to
turn to the Orthodox Church, thus, it behooves Orthodox Christians to exhort
others to take this safer path. Likewise, the Orthodox remember that Christ
mentions one, and only one thing that unfailingly leads to perdition--blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit. No other path is explicitly and universally excluded
by Christ's words.
Ultimately, however, the question of salvation of unbelievers is considered
purely secondary to what the Church expects of ordinary Orthodox Christians. As
St. Theophan the Recluse put the matter: "You ask, will the heterodox be
saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the
salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not
be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will
tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the
Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will
lose your soul forever."
[edit]
Catholic views regarding Buddhists
The question of whether Buddhism, and Chinese folk religion, consists of
worshipping a God or veneration of a saint was important to the Catholic church
during the Chinese Rites controversy of the early 18th century. This dispute
was between the Dominicans who argued that Buddhism and Chinese folk religion
was worship, and therefore incompatible with Catholicism, and the Jesuits which
argued the reverse. The pope ultimately ruled in favor of the Dominicans; a
decision which greatly reduced the role of Catholic missionaries in China.
[edit]
Muslim views
Islam, like most other monotheistic faiths, views itself as the only true path
or way. For someone who is living after prophet Muhammad, the only way to go to
Paradise, and avoid Hell, is to follow the message of Islam. Other monotheistic
faiths before Islam are considered also as valid. For someone to worship other
Gods (contradicting monotheism), or denying the prophethood of Muhammad is a
sure way to Hell.
However, this view does not at all translate to religious intolerance. Far from
it, Islam has guaranteed freedom of belief and freedom of worship from the time
of Muhammad himself. Non-Muslim minorities living under Muslim rule were
guaranteed certain freedoms and protections, under the dhimmi system. Although
that system was initially for people of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians, it
was extended to include Mandeans, Zoroasterians, and Hindus.
Despite the common allegation that Islam spread by the sword, in reality,
forced conversions of adherents of other religions is not sanctioned by Islam,
and is not common throughout Islamic history. It is true that Muslim rule
spread through conquest, but that is the military and political aspect only,
and not the religious one. In other words, war was waged to put lands under
Muslim rule, but the subjects were free to continue practice whatever religion
they chose. However, they were subject to taxation, economic impediments, and
restrictions on political participation and social advancement based on their
non-Muslim status. At one time this was not a unique activity of Muslim
countries, as similar legal restrictions and penalties were imposed on minority
Christian groups within European Christian countries.
Religious persecution is also not sanctioned by Islam, although a few
occurrences are known in history, but are mostly due to cruel rulers, or
general economic hardships in the societies they are in.
To that effect, most pre-Islamic religious minorities continue to exist in
their native countries, a fact which is in glaring contrast to the extinction
of Muslim minorities in Europe at the time of the Renaissance.
Over the centuries, several known religious debates, and polemical works did
exist in various Muslim countries between various Muslim sects, as well as
between Muslims and non-Muslims. Many of these works survive today, and make
for some very interesting reading in the apologetics genre. Only when such
debates spilled over to the unlearned masses, and thus causing scandals, and
civil strife did rulers intervene to restore order and pacify the public outcry
on the perceived attack on their beliefs.
As for sects within Islam, history shows a variable pattern. Various sects
became intolerant when gaining favour with the rulers, and often work to
oppress or eliminate rival sects (e.g. Mu'tazili persecution of Salafis,
Safavid imposing Shia on the population of Iran, ...etc.). Sectarian strife
between Shia and Sunni inhabitants of Baghdad is well known through history. In
contrast, several sects coexist in other parts of the Muslim world with little
or no friction.
[edit]
Bahá'í views
Bahá'u'lláh urged the elimination of religious intolerance. He taught that God
is one, and has manifested himself to us through several historic Messengers.
Bahá'u'lláh taught, therefore, that Bahá'ís must associate with peoples of all
religions, showing the love of God in relations with them, whether this is
reciprocated or not.
Bahá'í's refer to the concept of "Progressive Revelation", which means that
God's will is revealed to mankind progressively, as mankind matures and is
better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this
view, God's word is revealed through a series of messengers: Moses, Jesus,
Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith) among them. In the Book
of Certitude, Bahá'u'lláh explains that messengers of God have a two-fold
station, one of divinity and one of an individual. According to Bahá'í
writings, there will not be another messenger for many hundreds of years.
[edit]
Hindu views
The Hindu religion is naturally pluralistic. A well-known Rig Vedic hymn
stemming from Hinduism claims that "Truth is One, though the sages know it
variously." As such the Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in
accepting degrees of truth in other religions. Just as Hindus worshiping Ganesh
is seen as valid those worshiping Vishnu (who accepts all prayers), so someone
worshiping Jesus or Allah are accepted. Indeed many foreign deities become
assimilated into Hinduism, and some Hindus may sometimes offer prayers to Jesus
along with their traditional forms of God. For this reason, Hinduism usually
has good relations with other religious groups accepting pluralism. In
particular, Hinduism and Buddhism coexist peacefully in many parts of the world.
[edit]
Buddhist views
The Wisdom tradition of Buddhism necessarily entails a plural position, but
does not adhere to ideas of religious syncretism. Ethnocentrism of any sort
(including the idea of belonging to a 'school of Buddhism' as well as
evangelism and religious supremacism) is, for Buddhists, rooted in
self-grasping and reified thought - the cause of Samsara itself.
The current Dalai Lama has repeatedly pointed out that any attempt to convert
individuals from their beliefs is not only non-Buddhist, but abusive: the
identification of evangelism as an expression of compassion is considered to be
false, and indeed the idea that Buddhism is the one true path is likewise false
for Buddhists. What Buddhists are encouraged to do is to act as sensitively and
appropriately to each situation as they can, and in the process not allow any
reifying views obscure their capability to do so. Buddhists are supposed to use
their understanding of the shortfalls of the world as the basis for compassion,
and then focus this compassion on their own development: as enlightened beings,
they will be able to deal more adequately with the sufferings of the world.
In brief then, the expression of compassion is done so in the languages and
beliefs that Buddhists find around them. For instance, when Buddhists talk with
Christians, it is an abuse to deny Christ, God or the immortal soul- what they
can hope to do is to help people within their own belief structure to greater
insight and greater kindness. Indeed what Buddhists philosophers such as
Nagarjuna and Candrakirti demonstrated so well is that Buddhists can use
language to defeat language. Buddhists can use the conventions of the world to
reveal them for what they are, within the contexts that they find them. If
Buddhists wish to help those around them, they are admonished to continually
demonstrate exampler behaviour; a way of being that inspires everyone to better
themselves, which is contextual, sensitive, and everyone-centred. These
positions hold for both inter-religious and intra-religious pluralism.
[edit]
Intra-religious pluralism (between different denominations within the same
religion)[edit]
Jewish views
Jewish views on relations between different Jewish denominations is covered in
the entry on Jewish views of religious pluralism.
[edit]
Christian views
Classical Christian views
Before the Great Schism, mainstream Christianity confessed "one holy catholic
and apostolic church", in the words of the Nicene Creed. Catholics, Orthodox
Christians, Episcopalians and most Protestant Christian denominations still
maintain this belief.
Church unity was something very visible and tangible, and schism was just as
serious an offense as heresy. Following the Great Schism, Roman Catholicism and
recognizes the Orthodox baptisms as valid. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the
concept of "validity" when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of
Roman Catholic baptism to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual
content. Both generally regard each other as "heterodox" and "schismatic",
while continuing to recognize each other as Christian. Attitudes of both
towards different Protestant groups vary, primarily based upon how strongly
Trinitarian the Protestant group in question might be.
Modern (post-enlightenment era) Christian views
Most fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups hold that only their Church
provides a pathway to God and salvation. All other Christian groups are held to
be heretical, and are sometimes attacked as Satanic. Neo-evangelical Protestant
Christian Churches reject this view outright, and hold that most forms of
Christianity are valid pathways to God. They continue to believe in "one"
church, but see the Church as being generally invisible and intangible. Many
Protestants doubt that either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are still
valid manifestations of the Church.
Modern Christian ideas on intra-religious pluralism (between different
denominations of Christianity) are discussed in the article on Ecumenism.
Muslim views
Classical Muslim views
Like Christianity, Islam originally did not have ideas of religious pluralism
for different Islamic denominations. Early on, Islam developed into several
mututally antagonistic streams, including Shiite Islam, Sunni Islam and Sufi
Islam. In some periods believers in these two communities went to war with each
other over religious differences.
Modern (post-enlightenment era) Muslim views
Many Muslims brought up in Western nations now accept some modern views of
religious pluralism. Some Shiite, Suni and Sufi Islamic leaders are willing to
recognize each other's denomination as a valid form of Islam. However, many
other Islamic leaders are unwilling to accept this; they view other forms of
Islam as outside the Islamic religion.
***********************************************************************************
It is wrong to think that misfortunes come from the east or from the west;
they originate within one's own mind. Therefore, it is foolish to guard against
misfortunes from the external world and leave the inner mind uncontrolled.
Sidharta Gautama
---------------------------------
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB kostenlosem Speicher
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. http://www.ppi-india.org
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:
1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Reading only, http://dear.to/ppi
4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "ppiindia" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
"Bangkitnya manusia karena pemikirannya"
"Kemajuan mustahil tanpa perubahan. Dan mereka yang tak bisa merubah
pemikirannya, maka tak akan bisa merubah apa pun"
(George Bernard Shaw 1850-1950)
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
<font face=arial size=-1><a
href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hinehp4/M=323294.6903899.7846637.3022212/D=groups/S=1705329729:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123225296/A=2896125/R=0/SIG=11llkm9tk/*http://www.donorschoose.org/index.php?lc=yahooemail";>Take
a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who
cares about public education</a>!</font>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. http://www.ppi-india.org
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:
1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Reading only, http://dear.to/ppi
4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
