1. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23619
    30 Apr '08 16:35
    FAITH AND REASON ARE INTRINSICALLY NON-VIOLENT


    VATICAN CITY, 30 APR 2008 (VIS) - Following today's general audience, Benedict XVI received participants in the sixth meeting of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation of Tehran, Iran. They have been meeting to study the theme of: "Faith and Reason in Christianity and Islam".

    The participants in the meeting, led by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and by Mahdi Mostafavi, president of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation, agreed upon the following points:

    "Faith and reason are both gifts of God to mankind.

    "Faith and reason do not contradict each other, but faith might in some cases be above reason, but never against it.

    "Faith and reason are intrinsically non-violent. Neither reason nor faith should be used for violence; unfortunately, both of them have been sometimes misused to perpetrate violence. In any case, these events cannot question either reason or faith.

    "Both sides agreed to further co-operate in order to promote genuine religiosity, in particular spirituality, to encourage respect for symbols considered to be sacred and to promote moral values.

    "Christians and Muslims should go beyond tolerance, accepting differences, while remaining aware of commonalties and thanking God for them. They are called to mutual respect, thereby condemning derision of religious beliefs.

    "Generalisation should be avoided when speaking of religions. Differences of confessions with Christianity and Islam, diversity of historical contexts are important factors to be considered.

    "Religious traditions cannot be judged on the basis of a single verse or a passage present in their respective holy Books. A holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method is necessary for a fair understanding of them".

    OP/ISLAM CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE/TAURAN:MOSTAFAVI VIS 080430 (290)
  2. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    30 Apr '08 18:11
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    FAITH AND REASON ARE INTRINSICALLY NON-VIOLENT


    VATICAN CITY, 30 APR 2008 (VIS) - Following today's general audience, Benedict XVI received participants in the sixth meeting of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation of Tehran, Iran. They have been meeting to study the theme of: "Faith and R ...[text shortened]... erstanding of them".

    OP/ISLAM CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE/TAURAN:MOSTAFAVI VIS 080430 (290)
    If I thought you would actually discuss the content of this text, I would raise a few questions.
    But, it's really just spam for you.

    Nemesio
  3. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23619
    02 May '08 15:55
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    If I thought you would actually discuss the content of this text, I would raise a few questions.
    But, it's really just spam for you.

    Nemesio
    You can always test your luck.
  4. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    07 May '08 07:20
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    FAITH AND REASON ARE INTRINSICALLY NON-VIOLENT


    VATICAN CITY, 30 APR 2008 (VIS) - Following today's general audience, Benedict XVI received participants in the sixth meeting of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Islamic Culture and Relations Organisation of Tehran, Iran. They have been meeting to study the theme of: "Faith and R ...[text shortened]... erstanding of them".

    OP/ISLAM CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE/TAURAN:MOSTAFAVI VIS 080430 (290)
    Sounds a lot like they are trying to pardon themselves for the past brutality, and distance themselves from any future brutality, by their religions.

    I love, after several sweeping generalisations, the passage which says that generalisation should be avoided.
  5. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    07 May '08 07:28
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Sounds a lot like they are trying to pardon themselves for the past brutality, and distance themselves from any future brutality, by their religions.

    I love, after several sweeping generalisations, the passage which says that generalisation should be avoided.
    Not to be outdone, you also commence with a sweeping generalisation.

    Actually, there's nothing in that VIS-paste that I disagree with. It's just that people have a hard time living up to the simple tenets of their faith.
  6. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    07 May '08 07:53
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Not to be outdone, you also commence with a sweeping generalisation.

    Actually, there's nothing in that VIS-paste that I disagree with. It's just that people have a hard time living up to the simple tenets of their faith.
    It does sound like a major hand-washing exercise. And, hey, I wasn't the one who generalised about not generalising!
  7. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    07 May '08 07:56
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    It does sound like a major hand-washing exercise. And, hey, I wasn't the one who generalised about not generalising!
    I think it's more about inter-faith dialogue. Not so long ago Papa Ben was saying that Islam was inferior to xianity, so it seems quite positive. Considering Italy's now a post-fascist state, at least the Popester isn't giving the boys a religious reason to get heavy with Muslim immigrants.
  8. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    07 May '08 07:58
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I think it's more about inter-faith dialogue. Not so long ago Papa Ben was saying that Islam was inferior to xianity, so it seems quite positive. Considering Italy's now a post-fascist state, at least the Popester isn't giving the boys a religious reason to get heavy with Muslim immigrants.
    That, at least, does seem positive.

    If they can't play nice, I'm gonna take all their toys away.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 May '08 09:14
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Christians and Muslims should go beyond tolerance, accepting differences, while remaining aware of commonalties and thanking God for them. They are called to mutual respect, thereby condemning derision of religious beliefs.
    Thats always a tough one:
    "I believe that you are wrong, in fact so wrong that you are going to hell for eternity, your actions an beliefs are a heresy judged by God to be worthy of the worst punishment imaginable, but I will still respect your beliefs in the hope that you respect mine which you believe to be wrong etc etc."

    Interesting also is that Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" argues that the above mutual respect policy is what leads to the tolerance of extremism and various religious practices that should not in fact be tolerated. For example, if a group of Christians decide that it is religiously correct to stone adulterers should the Muslims 'go beyond tolerance' and accept it? The recent happenings in some Texas religious group comes to mind... where even fellow Christians did not want to show much tolerance.
  10. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    07 May '08 09:33
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Thats always a tough one:
    "I believe that you are wrong, in fact so wrong that you are going to hell for eternity, your actions an beliefs are a heresy judged by God to be worthy of the worst punishment imaginable, but I will still respect your beliefs in the hope that you respect mine which you believe to be wrong etc etc."

    Interesting also is that R ...[text shortened]... s group comes to mind... where even fellow Christians did not want to show much tolerance.
    Yeah, but they weren't REAL CHRISTIANS (TM).
  11. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    07 May '08 09:431 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    Interesting also is that Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" argues that the above mutual respect policy is what leads to the tolerance of extremism and various religious practices that should not in fact be tolerated. For example, if a group of Christians decide that it is religiously correct to stone adulterers should the Muslims 'go beyond toleranc ous group comes to mind... where even fellow Christians did not want to show much tolerance.
    You could apply the same critique to secular multiculturalism. Any judgement is considered cultural arrogance. Consider Tony Yengeni's ritual slaughter of a beast, which polarised South African society: animal-rights activists' protests were interpreted as white arrogance towards African culture. So, which moral standard do you recommend for universal application?

    Ecumenism can yield good results, such as the insight that religions share the same core values to a surprising extent, differences usually being an aspect of culture.

    Setting faith aside for a minute -- in terms of ethics, is reason 'intrinsically non violent'?
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 May '08 10:011 edit
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Yeah, but they weren't REAL CHRISTIANS (TM).
    Neither are Muslims. My point is that they were a different faith from the average Christian and no tolerance was shown let alone 'beyond tolerance'. Did anyone get a 'holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method' in order for 'a fair understanding of them'? I doubt it.
  13. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    07 May '08 10:11
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Neither are Muslims. My point is that they were a different faith from the average Christian and no tolerance was shown let alone 'beyond tolerance'. Did anyone get a 'holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method' in order for 'a fair understanding of them'? I doubt it.
    They were left alone for years; the police only intervened after a cry for help (which may have been a hoax). But it seems fairly clear that the practices in question entailed violence against women; it probably goes against the sect's own teachings (it certainly goes against mainstream Mormon teaching) and is morally indefensible. I'm quite confident that rational people, religious or not, would agree on that. The difficulty is in getting people to reason beyond their own interests.

    Do you deplore the actions of that sect? If so, why?
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 May '08 10:12
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    So, which moral standard do you recommend for universal application?
    I think standards should be set universally irrespective of religion or culture. ie If Tony Yengeni can slaughter an animal for 'cultural reasons' I should be allowed to do so without giving a reason. We should not give extra tolerance just because a 'cultural' or 'religious' excuse is given. In Zambia people often get away with all sorts of things by playing the 'its my culture' card. In some cases it might even be true. Its just that the culture includes some despicable things. If someone claims he has a right to beat his wife, it should be judged on merit not based on whether it is his culture or religion or personal opinion that allows it.

    Setting faith aside for a minute -- in terms of ethics, is reason 'intrinsically non violent'?
    I wasn't sure in the original post whether it meant specifically anti-violence or merely neutral. I would argue that both faith and ethics are essentially violence-neutral and that specific beliefs and ethics may be either violent, or non-violent in nature.
  15. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    07 May '08 10:18
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think standards should be set universally irrespective of religion or culture. ie If Tony Yengeni can slaughter an animal for 'cultural reasons' I should be allowed to do so without giving a reason. We should not give extra tolerance just because a 'cultural' or 'religious' excuse is given. In Zambia people often get away with all sorts of things by pla ...[text shortened]... and that specific beliefs and ethics may be either violent, or non-violent in nature.
    Maybe standards should be set universally, but how do you go about doing that?

    You are allowed to slaughter animals if they belong to you; Yengeni's method, not the act itself, was the focus of attention. Supposedly traditional slaughtering methods are 'cruel', while 'modern' (ie. Western) techniques are 'humane'. Yet the opposite could be argued, for a variety of reasons.
Back to Top