Ecumenism?

[Harel13]

Do you agree?

Nope. I don't see every path as a viable option towards truth. I won't push a Christian to be a better Christian, at best, I'd push them to be a better person. And so forth.

 

[Brickjectivity]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

The best communities support the holistic improvement of each individual, and a well rounded person is the highest attainment any community can achieve. Toward that end we all must labor. To the degree that Gandhi's quote fits this I agree.

 

[Estro Felino]

Generally no, I don't agree.

Ecumenicalism strikes me as a crappy, prejudicial version of secularism: "let's set aside our differences and focus on what unites us... but let's still exclude those nasty atheists."

I perfectly agree. And in fact ecumenism cannot have a sense unless atheists are included too.
Only if atheists and theists are considered equally valuable to dialogue.

 

[metis]

Generally no, I don't agree.

Ecumenicalism strikes me as a crappy, prejudicial version of secularism: "let's set aside our differences and focus on what unites us... but let's still exclude those nasty atheists."

Not all of us who favor ecumenism to the degree in the OP exclude atheists and/or agnostics, and that includes Gandhi himself and now myself.

 

[metis]

From an honest perspective I do not have the answer, and the idealism of ecumenism is a naive illusion.

Even on a personal level?

 

[metis]

Nope. I don't see every path as a viable option towards truth.

But which religion/denomination has a lock on Truth?

I won't push a Christian to be a better Christian, at best, I'd push them to be a better person.

Here we disagree per my comment above.

 

[metis]

And in fact ecumenism cannot have a sense unless atheists are included too.
Only if atheists and theists are considered equally valuable to dialogue.

I 100% agree with you.

 

[Harel13]

But which religion/denomination has a lock on Truth?

What do you think my answer will be?

Here we disagree per my comment above.

Well, I didn't think we agreed when I wrote my reply, based on your OP.

 

[metis]

What do you think my answer will be?

Well, that depended on whether you were thinking or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even on a personal level?

I believe I answered this question post #16

"The responsibility of the relationships with those that believe differently is that one most give up the egocentric nature of their own belief."

 

[Harel13]

Well, that depended on whether you were thinking or not.

On RF I usually am.

 

[metis]

On RF I usually am.

Since when?

Here's what I have posted in the past at times as an example, but this time I'll tailor it towards you: Using objectively-derived evidence, please provide such evidence that Torah is correct and the Bhagavad Gita is not . And I can add, using this same approach, please provide evidence that there's only one god. Now, please note that I am not asking for you opinion, just for the objective evidence.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, so please don't take this personally.

 

[Harel13]

Since when?

Hey!

Using objectively-derived evidence,

Define this.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Generally no, I don't agree.

Ecumenicalism strikes me as a crappy, prejudicial version of secularism: "let's set aside our differences and focus on what unites us... but let's still exclude those nasty atheists."

I don't have anything to do with it, myself, as I don't trust the major Abrahamic religions due to their genocidal leanings. Christians destroyed so many indigenous cultures all over the world, why should I, as a polytheist, trust them? As far as I know, the Catholic Church never apologized to polytheists for what they did. As individuals, we can get along. But there's two many general differences and gaping wounds from the past (and into the present) to go much further than that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not all of us who favor ecumenism to the degree in the OP exclude atheists and/or agnostics, and that includes Gandhi himself and now myself.

If we were applying the term "ecumenism" by its strict definition, it would be about unity between Christian churches to the exclusion of anyone else.

I get that the you're talking about something broader, but it seems to me that it's still about cooperation between religious people in some way for the term "ecumenism" to really apply.

If you're using the term to just describe unity or cooperation between all people, then I would wonder why you chose such a baggage-laden term.

 

[pearl]

If we were applying the term "ecumenism" by its strict definition, it would be about unity between Christian churches to the exclusion of anyone else.

I think this is true. By referring to an ecumenical effort, in this case, is an interfaith dialogue which is inclusive beyond Christianity.

 

[stvdv]

"My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him [her] a better follower of his [her] own faith.” -- Gandhi.

Do you agree?

BTW, this is my new signature statement.

I agree. And it's a wonderful quote, you can't go wrong with that

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since when?

Here's what I have posted in the past at times as an example, but this time I'll tailor it towards you: Using objectively-derived evidence, please provide such evidence that Torah is correct and the Bhagavad Gita is not . And I can add, using this same approach, please provide evidence that there's only one god. Now, please note that I am not asking for you opinion, just for the objective evidence.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, so please don't take this personally.

If you're suggesting that religious people should be open to the possibility that their own scriptures and beliefs might be wrong and other religions' scriptures and beliefs might be right, then this seems to speak as much against devoting onesself to a particular religion as it speaks in favour of treating other religions with respect.

 

[Estro Felino]

If we were applying the term "ecumenism" by its strict definition, it would be about unity between Christian churches to the exclusion of anyone else.

I get that the you're talking about something broader, but it seems to me that it's still about cooperation between religious people in some way for the term "ecumenism" to really apply.

If you're using the term to just describe unity or cooperation between all people, then I would wonder why you chose such a baggage-laden term.

That is exactly the point. Interfaith dialogue among theists is a given nowadays...
That is why, in order to go further, we need to improve the atheism/theism relations.
In fact, I have never seen a real opening in this sense.
I deeply understand the difficulty for many religions to do that. And I understand the easiness for me, since the Pelagian philosophy does not require "theism" to be good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not all of us who favor ecumenism to the degree in the OP exclude atheists and/or agnostics, and that includes Gandhi himself and now myself.

Another thought on this: your Gandhi quote spoke to faith specifically; it did exclude the faithless.