A website launched Friday with the backing of technology industry and Hollywood elite urges people worldwide to help craft a framework for harmony between all religions.
The Charter for Compassion project on the Internet at www.charterforcompassion.org springs from a “wish” granted this year to religious scholar Karen Armstrong at a premier Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) conference in California.
“Tedizens” include Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin along with other Internet icons as well as celebrities such as Forest Whittaker and Cameron Diaz.
We have elected ( [i] [b] ad hominem word deleted [/b] [/i] ), now time to forumlate the one world religion. We know who follows next into the role prepared! Vladmir Soloviev’s “A Short Story of the Anti-Christ” makes instructive reading about now.
[i] Continued use of the deleted word will put the commenter into Moderation.[/i]
-Elf Lady
The WCC… the NCC… the ECC… do we really need another liberal pan religious body? I really don’t have a problem with someone writing up a one paragraph promise that we will not kill or harm each other over religious differences. Although this seems a bit repetitious since those sorts of declarations have been made all over the place (getting all of the Mohammedans to sign onto this will be fun). But the moment this “charter” strays into doctrine I am outta there.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
[i] World Asked to Craft Online Charter for Religious Harmony [/i]
Ad Orientem [#2] rightly points to how such a statement could be beneficial: by affirming tolerance in the classic sense of recognizing others’ rights to believe, worship, and speak.
But we have no reason to believe the organizers intend anything that focused. In their view, “religious harmony” probably entails limits on Christians’ freedom to evangelize and to criticize other faiths. Even if the organizers envision a more generous approach, the more adamant Muslim and Hindu leaders would probably not agree to it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] We have elected ( [i] [b] ad hominem word deleted.[/b] [/i] ), now time to forumlate the one world religion. [/i]
What a nasty, gratuitous comment! What’s the evidence that Obama has anything to do with this project? Or that this project has anything to do with Obama?
If you and your talk-show friends actually believe that Obama is the Antichrist, come out and say so explicitly. Don’t assume it’s a view the rest of us share, much less consider obvious.
As for “instructive reading,” try the Ninth Commandment.
The first clue that something is awry with this effort is the name Karen Armstrong. And doesn’t she know about the URI so beloved of the former bishop of California?
It’s unfortunate that the headline and article spoke of “religious harmony,” inasmuch as some conservative Christians regard that as code for watering down orthodoxy.
The video is nothing like that; it speaks mainly of the need for universal emphasis of the Golden Rule.
If that’s a bad thing, then perhaps we should (re)edit the gospels’ account of the Sermon on the Mount ….
————–
Irenaeus [#3], bravo on the second part of your comment, concerning Obama.
The problem is that the central point of Christianity is NOT the golden rule – it is Christ and Him Crucified. There is an excellent new book on this topic: Christless Christianity – The Alternative Gospel of the American Church by Michael Horton. He points out both the liberal and evangelical tendencies to focus on what we do instead of what Christ did on the cross. As he points out, the question is not “What would Jesus do?†it is “What has Jesus done?â€
There is absolutely nothing wrong with grounding tolerance for people of other beliefs in the dictum to “do to others as you would have them do to you”.
There is something wrong with suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount, or even an particular part of it, can be decontextualized and reduced to nothing more than an interesting discourse on morality. (See the writings of theologians like Stanley Hauerwas on this point.)
Harry Edmon [#6] writes: “Michael Horton …. points out both the liberal and evangelical tendencies to focus on what we do instead of what Christ did on the cross. “
Perhaps that’s because, in view of subsequent human history, it’s not irrational to reject the claim that “what Christ did on the cross” had any supernatural salvific effect.
After all, Jesus didn’t return within the lifetimes of those followers to usher in God’s reign, as they predicted he would.
Moreover, the dogmas those followers conceived haven’t resulted in universal peace and brotherhood. For that matter, neither have those dogmas ever been able to attract the assent of more than a minority of humanity.
Let those who have ears to listen ….
(arms around each other) *singing* “All we are sayyyyy-iiinnnggg…is give peace a chance!”
Followed quickly by *singing* “Imagine there’s no heaven…”
Thanks, but I’ll have no part of this foolishness.
D.C. – Jesus and the apostles NEVER claimed there would be universal peace and brotherhood in this life. To the contrary, the prediction is continual strife until the Day of the resurrection. Looks like an excellent prediction to me.
As to the “rationality” of the Cross, see 1 Cor 1:18-25. The Cross is contrary to human wisdom. So you could claim that it is rational to reject salvation by the Cross – but you would be wrong none the less.
The deeply self-important and self-righteous mission of these California celebrities is just WAY too close to the plot of the movie TEAM AMERICA (written and directted by the creators of SOUTH PARK). In TEAM AMERICA the newly formed group was called the Film Actors Guild.
I encourage everyone to run (not walk) to their local Blockbuster and rent this now.
Basically this is not religion but simply secular harmonizing.
Seductive!
AO and Irenaeus are of course entirely correct. To the extent that the declaration is few sentences saying we shouldn’t boldily harm or kill each other over religious differences, great. If it emphasizes that individuals in any country should be able to believe and worship whoever they like, even better. If it declares that we should all be free to use speech to explain our beliefs and encourage others to convert, best of all.
But I simply can’t imagine it will say anything like that — and if it did I can’t imagine the Muslim world signing onto it.
And it doesn’t say all those things it won’t get to the heart of religious conflict. As long as those three things are not affirmed, there is going to be major fighting over religion.
Harry Edmon [#10] writes: “As to the “rationality†of the Cross, see 1 Cor 1:18-25. The Cross is contrary to human wisdom. So you could claim that it is rational to reject salvation by the Cross – but you would be wrong none the less.”
Harry, I’m familiar with the Corinthians passage (“… God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe”). It appears to be of roughly equal dignity with the Qu’ran’s assertion that the righteous are awaited in paradise by young, full-bodied maidens: Both claims are hopeful speculations, but incapable of verification, and therefore to be treated with caution..
As to my being wrong on this particular point: That’s a corollary of your opinion about Jesus, which has never been shared by more than a minority of humanity; while truth isn’t a numbers game, I’m curious whether you can point to any concrete evidence suggesting that the majority of humanity over the last 2,000 years has been wrong about him.
—————
Back to the original topic: Bill C [#12], please tell us whether you think there’s something wrong with what you call “secular harmonizing,” just because it doesn’t include everything conservative Christians would want to see in their ideal evangelical program.
D.C. – since it is a matter of faith, not sight, it is impossible to argue your points – except to point out that the Bible has always claimed that the faithful are a minority. But you don’t care what the Bible says anyway, so what’s the point?
As far as Christian participation in this, it is excluded for several reasons:
1. People are basically sinful, not basically good.
2. Jesus is the only way to external life.
3. We are saved by grace through faith, and not by good works.
This effort will eventually cause the participants to deny these one or all of these 3 basic Christian truths. #1 is the reason it will not work in the long run.
One think this would do would be to limit Christain Evangelization and criminalize evangelists.
That would be a difficult tenent to observe, I think, in the name of “Tolerance of other Religions”.
Since when do we see technocrats and entertainment celebrities as leaders of an intellectual, ethical or moral discussion world-wide?
Please! It is an indication of the intellectual level to which we have sunk. I am so depressed … but not surprised. I worked with people in the entertainment industry for years in LA. Aside from having an inflated sense of self importance (fed by us … the adoring public), they have way too much time on their hands.
I do apologize for my characterization, very much tongue-in-cheek, of our President-Elect, Barak Obama. He is a very intelligent, articulate and charismatic leader and his election is indeed a remarkable accomplishment and would be at this pivotal time in the US no matter what his skin color. I do not think he is an Anti-Christ, much less the Anti-Christ, however inflated the secular-messianic expectations placed on him by some of his supporters. His own campaign staff was trying in the days before the election to lower expectations, not because of any lack of his experience or ability, but because of the tremendous challenges he will face to inspire the people and invigorate the economy of the US. I voted for McCain and never demonized Obama, and Obama is as much my President now as Bush was the last 8 years, both subject to the checks and balances built into the Constitution, at least if we don’t give them away or let activist judges eviscerate them.
Nonetheless, this kind of melting together of irreconcilable religions into a godless mush is exactly the scenario in Soloviev’s story and in C. S. Lewis’ better-known “The Last Battle”, where there is no Aslan and there is no Tash. Aslan is Tash and Tash is Aslan – Tashlan. Give us bread and circuses and never mind that we have sold ourselves to worshipping Satan in reality. If we sell our birthright of salvation in Jesus Christ the Lord alone for a mess of pottage, we will reap the harvest produced by that sowing.
Milton: Thank you very much for your comment #19. Tashlan is one of the prime spirits of the age, and has been on the prowl in ECUSA. We need to remain on the lookout for it.
DC:
The “Golden Rule” as quoted is not at the heart of all religions. That includes Christianity whose heart is the Gospel of forgiveness for our sins through Christ’s atonement on the cross at Calvary, and His resurrection and ascension to Heaven. That, as Jesus said, that all who believe on Him should not perish but have eternal life. His commission to us was to spread the good news this to all men. Within that lies the heart and ‘golden rule’ of Christianity. Doing unto others as we would have done to ourselves is a commandment and seen by Christians to be part of the evidence of the Spirit-filled life.
Mahommet, could not even begin to make a claim like that of himself. His sword was a bloody one -as were, sad to say, the swords of many, many Christians.
I am worried by the fact that these guys run Google.
William Swing must be loving this! But, never to worry. In the end their efforts will fail to bring peace on earth. Only Christ the Lord of Life can do that! And be sure that HE has and HE will.