From: David Storey (storeyd@bc.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 23 2004 - 17:10:28 BST
Leland, i think what Wim is trying to convey is that "religious pluralism" (the belief that, at bottom, either all religions are true, or all religions say the same thing), which is what you seem to be championing, is, albeit a feel-good, humanitarian view that is morally superior to religious absolutism, ultimately an untenable position. Why? Because it tries to iron out the qualitative differences between certain religions, especially the historical claims of the monotheisms. You simply cannot reconcile the claims of some religions with those of others, if you really take those faiths, the claims they make, and the adherents to that faith, seriously. An authentic Christain is someone who believes that the one true god died on a cross two thousand years ago in Judea, and therefore, that means that the Muslims believe in a false prophet, that the Jews are in denial, and that the Eastern world, in total, is caught in a mystical quagmire of psychosis, fleeing from reality...so the pluralist can't come and
say all religions are the same, because they aren't. In the end, this is a suspension of judgment, a smoothing out of the problem. it doesn't work. Monotheisms draw lines in the sand of other people's beaches, and for that reason, we need to jettison the "literalist" faiths that marginalize others, and that means scrapping the monopolizing monotheisms.
-Dave
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 23 2004 - 17:13:09 BST