#pluarlism

[wisdomfish]

According to the laws of logic and the historical veracity of Scripture, pluralism, no matter how popular and appealing, cannot be true.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. ‘Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions.; p. 170

[swissmountaingoats]

Maybe we should display Pride, BLM, or other social justice flags along with our American Flags this Fourth of July to show that what makes America great is pluralism.

[errantabbot]

A Contemplative’s Journey

Reflection on the Interpretation of Scripture "From mother’s womb quite soon asperged, then flung from “Christendom’s” feat; settling amongst rural hills, begad, and into churches sans steeples: too neat! When soon from ‘tween narrow bookends, upon his quaint chest did grow, an endless supply of fascicles- new friends, who’d but a view quite narrow to show. For from those days the lad recalls, but one scripture he could quote, a tome quite weighted within the halls, in which he’d never have a vote. And so begins the psalmist’s chord, that would encumber him a’murth, “…that you alone, whose name is Lord, are the Most High over all the earth.” Through constant quib from lecterns low, forbidden questions did take root, of Vishnu, Amaterasu too, the wider world in tow, how could but one expression of spirit be that, solely beaut? Behold he of all scripture to be inspired by God indeed, agreeing they to hold the things necessary to salvation, yet that too the only way is not but for a Lord to bleed, as mystics seek for not allegory alone, rather to find relation. ~sunyananda 

[errantabbot]

For much of my life, I've lived at the margins of a number of faith traditions. Being raised between the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church of Christ and the Watchtower Society during my youth, my best friend in high school was a devout Hindu from Gujarat. I recall spending hours of time, in between bouts of cricket (played in the parking lot of his family's hotel) and delightful snacks prepared by his mother, immersed in conversation concerning the praxis of Sanatana Dharma, "the eternal religion". I was utterly fascinated by the iconography that graced my friend's home, with the shrines, and, especially, with the semi-annual Dandiya Raas festival (traditional Gujarati folk dance festival) that I was lucky enough to attend with him. For me, despite being devoutly raised in a faith tradition so rooted in its own other-hemispheric truth that it fueled the flames of western imperialism for hundreds of years, there was yet no doubt that the sacred was absolutely present in the Hindu practices of my dear friend. How could I then, even fathom evangelizing, as I was so instructed to do in my own church? I recall on numerous occasions being questioned, concerning why I was so free to listen to the descriptions of the faith of another, whilst not not "sharing my own". From the time I was five or six, I've had an in depth involvement with the martial arts and the appendant disciplines (calligraphy,tea, etc) of East Asia. From there came my first exposure to the practice of meditation, and through no brief series of events, some (almost) twenty-five years later I've found myself deeply rooted within the non-dual Buddhistic tradition of Zen (be it called Chan, Seon, Thien, or even Dzogchen). In some way, the Zen meditation tradition has been a strong anchor for me, with its straightforward "toolbox" approach to spirituality, lacking in comparison with other spiritual traditions, a strong sense of narrative from which the sacred may be defined and then approached. The practice of Zen is simple, sit down, shut up, and pay attention- and then maybe, just maybe, something spiritual may dawn within you. This past week, I spent several days in retreat at a Roman Catholic Benedictine monastery in Northern Missouri, oddly enough with a group of American Baptists (and the occasional Episcopalian). Entering into the rhythm of Christian monastic life, I carried with me a question proposed in perhaps new ways, from a Zen mentor, concerning the crux of that tradition, namely, unknowing, and what its identity *could be*. With this, ever running in the background of my being, I had, for the first time, a very profound experience during the practice of Eucharistic Adoration. First in the chapel of the sisters over the hill from the abbey where our group was cloistered for the week, whose charism itself is "perpetual adoration", and again unmistakably back in the abbey, as a priest fully vested in cope and humeral veil, processed reverently with the blessed sacrament from a side chapel, to place it in a monstrance on the main altar. Again. Amidst the just-out-of-reach accessibility of partaking in the daily celebration of the Eucharist, the sacred was indeed and absolutely present during these aforementioned periods of adoration. This experience of the sacred was for me, both clear and strong enough to be, what some, many perhaps would term a "conversion experience". And before anyone gets too excited- I've had many. I've heard, and discerned viscerally the call, or rather, unmistakable presence of the holy, many, many, many times. During extended periods of chanting in "Pure Land" Buddhist monasteries, in receiving a blessing by means of the touch of a ceremonial scepter to my head by an eminent Lama, spinning in the ecstatic dance of the Sufi tradition, being asperged during Gaudiya Vaishnava worship, clapping and bowing before a Shinto shrine, and even in simply beholding with my ears the adhan, or Islamic call to worship beckoning from distant minarets. In this, it would seem to me that true unknowning is being able to enter into the world of just about any "mythology", that is, any sacred narrative and therein to behold it unmistakably as reality- to perceive it as a legitimate expression of the ultimately inexpressible ground of being, on which drawing any line (or lines) gives rise to a very real if not anything but full picture of what many-to-billions call "the divine". The Zen discipline equips its adherents with tools of perception, with a spiritual vocabulary that entreats but the beat of a broken-open heart as perhaps the most refined of diction. And, herein, has been found to date, the essence of my spiritual journey, and indeed, reality. Not in the supremacy of one, or any faith tradition, nor in any prescribed inferiority. To me it rather seems, that religion, in essence, arrives at its destination to not one, but many peaks of varied mountain ranges, whose roots stretch yet from but one ground, crusting as it may the fiery core of the planet, that mirrors in intensity the core of the human spirit, seeking from the unknowing and unknowable to see and be seen. To know, and to be known. Everything else is flourish to the view. ~sunyananda

[wisdomfish]

Any one who would become a pluralist must...

Since Jews, Christians, and Muslims all conceive the identity of Jesus of Nazareth differently (human teacher, thus blasphemer; God-incarnate; human prophet), logically speaking, their conceptions simply can’t all be true. While it is logically possible that all three positions are false, they definitely cannot all be true. Thus, the claims of popular religious pluralism fail to comport with the self-evident laws of thought. Thusly,

“Any one who would become a pluralist must first abandon the very principles of logic that make all significant thought, action, and communication possible.” [Ronald H. Nash]

~ Samples, Kenneth Richard. ‘Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions.; p. 165

[zwischenstadt]

Pluralism, or the doctrine that it is many means... [that] things are 'with' one another in many ways, but nothing includes everything, or dominates over everything.  The word 'and' trails along after every sentence.  Something always escapes.  'Ever not quite' has to be said of the best attempts made anywhere in the universe at attaining all-inclusiveness.

William James

[moiraoneill-blog]

pluralism

America’s political extremes categorically object to compromise.  But what good comes from rejecting the other outright?  

Without a marketplace of ideas, we succumb to the angry mob or the fascist demagogue.  

Let us work together, remembering always that complexity does not equate to chaos.  

[joshuadlittle]

Parity, not privilege. Hardly a barnstorming election campaign slogan, but, in a nutshell, the strategic goal of Abraham Kuyper’s vision of “pluralism.” Christians should not seek a position of political or legal privilege in the public squares of their religiously and culturally diverse nations, but one of parity. The aim is to enjoy equal rights alongside other “confessional communities” within a constitutional democracy marked by wide freedom of expression, fair representation, and a diversity of voices. Thus, at the height of the Dutch nineteenth-century struggle for equal treatment for Christian schools, Kuyper asserted that “our unremitting goal should be to demand justice for all, justice for every life-expression.”

"The Full Weight of Our Convictions": The point of Kuyperian Pluralism by Jonathan Chaplin

An interview with the author (James Bratt) of the book mentioned in this review is now free to listen to at Mars Hill Audio.