Quote:
Originally Posted by Seekers
Already witnessed in this thread, there are several possible meanings of "religious". It is often used in a derogatory sense, as a bad word, both by Christians and secularists. One way of being negative to it from a faith perspective, that we have seen a glimpse of here, reminded me of what Pentecostals, Baptists and other Christians have said to me. There is a point to it, but I see it as something that comes down to different levels. Most importantly, there is of course a difference between believing strongly and just joining like you would join the local football club. On another level I think it has something to do with an unwillingness to conform to common sense vocabulary, which in itself could come down to different levels. One of them is the general unwillingness of being defined by an outsider, but it doesn't stop there. For example, there is a resentment against the relativism that is implied by the term for a class of religions, where Christianity is just one out of many. I must say that this resentment comes with its problems, which is also illustrated by the inclusivist approach of Karl Rahner. Is it really possible to respect other faiths - and other ethnicities where other faiths are involved - with this approach? It is a brand of supremacism, where God is used as an alibi for it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gonzalvus
The way I see it, once you admit that other religions are also acceptable paths towards Divinity and Truth, your own beliefs loose most of their meaning. That implies that you are catholic (or muslim, or whatever) just as a consequence of geographical and ethnic factors. Rejecting this relativistic ecumenism is, imo, essential for any true believer. You can call it supremacism if you want.
|
One of the possible reconciliations between such extremes was a position developped by many Catholic theologians in the past, according to which there is only one truth and path to salvation, but nevertheless there exists a possibility that people who never heard of the Christian message (
invincible ignorance) or were by some objective circumstances barred from being members of the Church, can attain salvation nevertheless, on condition that they lived according to the moral and natural law engraved in our hearts. In that case they are not saved by that other religion or by some other god, but through Christ nevertheless, without knowing it, although they attended to some other religious ceremonies. It was implied that Christ's saving grace can work either through ceremonies of other religions or without any rituals, through the natural law, the rituals being irrelevant (this point was debated). But that leaves no excuse for those who heard, but refused to accept. So in that case any relativism is excluded.
The positions of Karl Rahner go even some steps further, in the direction of relativism sensu stricto, as do those of Hans Küng.