The Dialogue of Religions. / The
International "Waldzell Meeting 2007" at the Melk Benedictine Abbey.
Is Buddhism a Tolerant and Peaceable Religion?
/ Perry Schmidt-Leukel, University of Glasgow.
Pope and King Abdullah of Saudi-Arabia agreed on
Interreligious Dialogue. / G. De Candia 2007-11-06)/
Commentary from the Catholic and Evangelical
Churches on Interreligious Dialogue.
The Borders between the Religions Should Fall.
/ Article by Lothar Gassmann.
(US Evangelicals Hold Allah in High Esteem
and Place Jesus and Mohammed on the Same Level. / Information Service TOPIC, 2007/12)
Biblical Christianity and its claim to sole representation.
With the argument that Jesus Christ acts in revolutions and foreign religions for
the salvation of the world, the leaders of the ecumenical movement in (Christian) churches are now
also striving for an ecumenism of religions. In particular, the four great world religions -
Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity – are increasing their efforts to find a common basis.
The central ecumenical idea here is the "utopian vision" of a community of world peace among all
races, religions and ideologies achieved by united human efforts.
At the "Waldzell Meeting 2007" in the Melk Abbey in Lower Austria, representatives of these four
world religions met together to conduct an Interreligious Dialogue with the Dalai Lama as the
guest of honor. The Tibetan Buddhist debated with representatives of Islam, Judaism, the Catholic
and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. Here we will give only a short, very suggestive summary of this
event by H. Rauscher (of the daily newspaper Der Standard) and then some succinct statements
by the speakers, about which we will make some remarks based on the Bible.
|
Melk Abbey – His Holiness received the most laughs. If there is one religious
leader in the world who could also be a stand-up comedian, it is the Dalai Lama. This quality -
which takes some getting used to – was on display also at the "Waldzell Dialogue" in the
Melk Abbey, where the Tibetan Buddhist debated with representatives of Islam, Judaism, the
Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches.
The audience at "Waldzell" – consisting of managers and business people with esoteric
tendencies – is, like so many in the West, extremely willing to allow themselves to be impressed
by the Dalai Lama. When asked what use faith is for coping with everyday concerns, he answered
with an extra dry "I don’t know", and the Kolomann Hall of the baroque abbey shook with
laughter. Sometimes, it seems that the Dalai Lama has had enough of the mysticism that these
Westerners in search of meaning expect from him. He has other problems – the rapid suppression
of the Tibetan culture by the massive immigration of the Chinese, for example. But here as well
he is counting on crafty pragmatism: Buddhism is again gaining ground in China itself. Thus "I
have nothing against educated Chinese Buddhists coming to Tibet. They bring us good food, we
give them spiritual nourishment."
The "living Buddha" presented himself in Melk once again as a tolerant, multicultural
non-Fundamentalist. There are different religions; everyone – if he believes – considers his own
religion to be the only true one. But that doesn’t matter, as long as everyone lives only
according to the fundamental human values. All religions have the same message of love,
tolerance and sympathy. "The whole world is merging into one body but is multireligious."
The Benedictine monk David Steindl-Rast could only agree with that wholistic view in its
entirety.
Nevertheless, tensions became visible when the moderator asked if the spiritual leaders gathered
on the podium ever – like Mother Teresa – doubted their faith. That Islam is subtly different
was noticeable in the answer by Ahmed Mohammed El-Tayyib, Rector of the Al-Azhar University in
Cairo, the most important Islamic educational institution. He had no doubt because Islam was
different. If the adherents of Western religions doubted, it was because they were searching for
empirical evidence – but that was only knowledge, not faith. In Islam doubt was "continually
accompanied by the spirit that examines if it is still correct." If a Muslim doubts, he has
his rules of conduct: "If you doubt Allah, you must appeal to him until you believe again."
Rabbi David Rosen, President of the Israeli Institute for Communication with Other Religions,
responded with a brilliant argument for critical examination: "Anyone who does not doubt is a
dangerous individual." The Dalai Lama explained: "Buddha has given me the freedom to examine
things." And Archbishop Philip of Poltava, sent by the Patriarch of Moscow for the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church observed "Everyone doubts his faith sometimes. If you don’t doubt, your soul
is dead." It was not a case of "everyone against Islam," but the breach was visible:
Elizabeth Lesser, founder of the Omega Institute said: "I have an affinity with Islam because
of my Sufi teacher, but how women are treated is simply ridiculous."
(Hans Rauscher/Austrian Daily Newspaper DER STANDARD,
Print version, 19.9.2007)
The question, quoted in the above article, that a conference participant asked the
Dalai Lama as to what use faith is for coping with everyday concerns and his answer "I don’t know",
made the room in Waldzell break out in thunderous laughter. It is the usual way that the spiritual
head of Tibetan Buddhists astonishes his Western listeners. Since the conference participants were
composed of managers and business people, one wonders if the chairman of the board of a business answered
the question of how profit could be made in a business with the statement "I don’t know" would
have evoked such enthusiasm.
The "crafty pragmatism" of the Dalai Lama is apparent not only from his statements on the
massive immigration of the Chinese into Tibet but also and especially in the way he knows how to win
the West for his cause through careful tactics. There could absolutely be no objection to that, if
this Tibetan Buddhist was the prime minister of his country and this conference was political in
nature. But this meeting was a dialogue of religions and the Dalai Lama is the spiritual head of a
religious community that makes very clear and concrete statements precisely on the effects of
someone’s way of life on the situation after his death. But the "living Buddha" deliberately
keeps quiet about that in this circle. And, unfortunately, there was no one, apparently, who might
have asked about this.
The statement by the Catholic nun, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, i.e. "Mother Teresa," mentioned in the
article above with regard to her doubting her faith, is taken from the book on her private writings,
where she writes:
"since 1949 or 1950 this terrible sense of loss-this
untold darkness … The place of God in my soul is blank. – There is no God in
me. – When the emptiness and longing is so great – I just long & long for
God … He is not there … Sometimes I just hear my own heart cry out – ‘My
God’ and nothing else comes."
(From the book, Come be My Light: The Private Writings of the "Saint of
Calcutta", Doubleday Publishers)
With this, the "Saint of Calcutta" confesses, on the one hand, that she has
lived for the last thirty years without fellowship with the Holy Spirit and, on the other, that she
has obviously sought God in the wrong place. God cannot be found in the soul. According to
Scripture, the soul is the blood (Lev 17,11.14; Deut. 12,23) and for people and animals the blood is
the seat of all compulsive stirrings. But God is spirit (Jn 4,24) and those who seek and worship him
must worship him in spirit and in truth. Therefore, God cannot be found in our souls but in our
spirit.
On the margins of this top dialogue of representatives from the world religions, which was not
accessible to the media – apart from Der Standard, obviously – the ORF (Austrian
Broadcasting) interviewed some participants on these statements in their lectures. And here the
Dalai Lama appealed once more, as he said, to human values. Spirituality will be helpful to
continually more people. But sympathy and mercy are not important only for believers.
The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), Head of Tibetan Buddhism
There is much in our religions that they share: love that is practiced,
sympathy, forgiveness, tolerance, frugality, simplicity, self-discipline such as, for example,
celibacy for Catholic nuns and monks. Thus, there are many similarities, but the philosophy is
different. Some, Christians for example, believe in one God; others, such as we Buddhists, do
not. But the goal is the same: to strengthen the enthusiasm that is experienced with these
values.
(Waldzell Meeting 2007 – https://religion.orf.at/)
For the Dalai Lama, therefore, the issue is enthusiasm (passion) with which
the commonalties in the religions are experienced. If we take a look at the individual criteria that
are cited here, no extensive theological treatment is necessary to see the difference – at least
with the Christian religion. Buddhists practice these ways of acting because they hope for a better
starting position at their "rebirth" as a result of the "fruit of a good deed" (Buddhism
teaches the rebirth of every person, in line with his karma, as a human being, an animal, etc.,
until he can enter Nirvana at the end of the rebirths).
Of course, values such as love, sympathy, forgiveness, etc. also have a high standing in
Christianity. But the foundation for true Christian action is not the gathering of good points on
some "account" (ones own merits) but faith in the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on
the cross for our sins (salvation through grace). This distinguishes true Christianity from Buddhism
(fruit of the good deed), Judaism (righteousness), Islam (wrongly proclaimed struggle against
unbelievers) and Catholicism (bearing suffering). And if the Dalai Lama declares that "Buddha has
given me the freedom to examine things", then through his son Jesus Christ the one and only God
has given all people the freedom to accept this substitutionary redemptive death for their sins and
through that to be saved eternally.
And it is quite interesting to observe that the representative of Judaism in this dialogue of
religions, the President of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, Rabbi
David Rosen, who actually should share the belief in this one and only God with Christians,
argues in his lecture for a critical examination and confesses that his truth is not better than the
other religions.
Rabbi David Rosen, President of the International Jewish Committee for
Interreligious Consultations:
I do not believe that there is only one way. If God speaks to us in such
diversity, there must be different ways. I believe in my truth but I cannot say that it is
better than the truth of another.
(Waldzell Meeting 2007 – https://religion.orf.at/)
If one recalls that, in the Jewish as well as in the Christian faith, the other two religions represented here are completely unbiblical, since Islam worships a false God in Allah and Buddhism does not worship any God at all, the assertion that the truth of these religions is not better than the truth of the Bible is – particularly for a Jewish spiritual leader like Rabbi Rosen - an extremely disturbing statement.
See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me.
Deut 32,39 ‘See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides
Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one
who can deliver from My hand. 32,40 ‘Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live
forever. Deut 32,39-40;
Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.
Isa 43,10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I
am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. 43,11 "I,
even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. 43,12 "It is I who have declared
and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses,"
declares the LORD, "And I am God. Isa 43,10-12;
Remember the former things long past, For I am God and there is no one like Me.
Isa 46,5 "To whom would you liken Me And make Me equal and compare
Me, That we would be alike? 46,6 "Those who lavish gold from the purse And weigh silver on the
scale Hire a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god; They bow down, indeed they worship it. 46,7
"They lift it upon the shoulder and carry it; They set it in its place and it stands there.
It does not move from its place. Though one may cry to it, it cannot answer; It cannot deliver him
from his distress. 46,8 "Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you
transgressors. 46,9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no
other; I am God, and there is no one like Me. Isa 46, 5- 9;
Rabbi Rosen confesses that his Jewish religion is only one of "different ways"
and, what is more, not even better, although his Torah (the five books of Moses, the Pentateuch) and
the Jewish Scriptures say that there is no God besides the God of Israel. If he can do so, as a
representative with knowledge of the Mosaic confession of faith, it is not surprising that the
representative of the Catholic Church, the Benedictine monk David Steindl-Rast, also holds
the view that Christianity, like the other religions, is only "a door through which we go to the
Ultimate."
Father David Steindl-Rast, Benedictine Monk Austria/USA:
As long as we consider our religion to be the only correct one and only tolerate
the others, we will not be able to make ourselves understood in the end. Then there is only
pious talk and politeness. But if we are aware that our religion, like every other, is a door
though which we go to the Ultimate, that can no longer be articulated, that can no longer be
expressed, then we can manage, with this possibility, where words and forms fail, to get along
nicely with one another.
(Waldzell Meeting 2007 – https://religion.orf.at/)
In his attempt to blur the distinctions between the religions with a kind of "politics
of appeasement," the Benedictine monk Steindl-Rast indicates unawares the background of his
position. When he says that we cannot "make ourselves understood in the end" if we "consider
our religion to be the only correct one," he simply confirms, like Rabbi Rosen further above, that
his own religion is not the only right one. On the other hand, he also indicates what it is all
about for him: he wants understanding between the religions.
An understanding is certainly a good thing and worthy to be striven after, if it brings advantages
for all concerned. Thus, to stay within the business milieu, an understanding between employers and
employees is to be approved if it means more profit for the former and an adequate pay raise for the
latter. But the well-known attempt to motivate the trade unions with gifts to keep an unequal
division of advantages quiet is to be strictly rejected.
But something very much like that is being done here. Similarly, as these trade unionists no longer
represent the employees, D. Steindl-Rast obviously does not represent the Catholic Church and
certainly not the Christian churches. As can be deduced from his resume, his actual achievements are
to be found in the area of Buddhist-Christian dialogue and "building bridges between religious
traditions."
After twelve years of monastic training and studies in philosophy and
theology, Brother David was sent by his abbot to participate in Buddhist-Christian dialog, for which
he received Vatican approval in 1967. His Zen teachers were Hakkuun Yasutani Roshi, Soen Nakagawa
Roshi, Shunryu Suzuki Roshi, and Eido Shimano Roshi. He co-founded the Center for Spiritual Studies
in 1968 and received the 1975 Martin Buber Award for his achievements in building bridges between
religious traditions. (https://www.waldzell.org/site?page=147)
This is therefore also the reason why the Benedictine monk could agree with the "holistic"
view of the Dalai Lama: "The whole world is merging into one body but is multireligious."
Buddhism in particular, whose faith has nothing at all to offer to its adherents – not even a God -
attempts to compensate for this deficit by making itself equal to the other religions.
And also, as Rabbi Rosen further above had to be reminded of the statements made by his God (if he
still believes in him) in the books of Moses and the prophets, one cannot help pointing out to
Father Steindl-Rast the statements made by his Lord Jesus Christ (if he still believes in him) in
the New Testament:
He who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
Jn 10,1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door
into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. 10,2
"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. Jn 10, 1. 2;
Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Jn 10,7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am
the door of the sheep. 10,8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep
did not hear them. 10,9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved,
and will go in and out and find pasture. 10,10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill
and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. Jn 10, 7-10;
For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth.
Jn 18,37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus
answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I
have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
Jn 18,37;
I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Jn 14,6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father but through Me. Jn 14, 6:
According to these – for an biblical Christian – binding statements by the Son of God, there is no other way to the one and only God than through Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Everyone who is of the truth hears His voice. Whoever does not proclaim Jesus Christ to be the only savior of humankind proclaims a false gospel and, according to Gal. 1,9 is accursed (Greek: anáthema Gal 1,8.9; 1 Cor 16,22).
If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
Gal 1,6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called
you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 1,7 which is really not another; only there
are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 1,8 But even if we, or
an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is
to be accursed! 1,9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a
gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Gal 1, 6- 9;
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting.
2Jn 1,9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of
Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
1,10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house,
and do not give him a greeting; 1,11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his
evil deeds. 2Jn 1, 9-11;
These Scripture passages apply not only to Steindl-Rast but to the whole Catholic
Church, for it is precisely the Vatican (see above) that approves of such unbiblical developments in
its ranks. And, as Giuseppe De Candia, a frequent visitor to Immanuel.at, informs us, the
pope himself has personally agreed with representatives of Islam on this Interreligious Dialogue.
Brother De Candia writes:
"The following topical news report is in the same tenor as the above
statements. Actually, this is pleasant news – because it confirms the truth of the Bible about the
things of the end times."
November 6, 2007: For the first time Pope Benedict XVI received Abdullah, the King of Saudi
Arabia, on Tuesday. Both shook hands in greeting and exchanged gifts. In a subsequent
conversation on "Iinterreligious Dialogue" and the situation in the Near East, the pope and
King Abdullah agreed that Christians, Muslims and Jews should work together for "peace,
justice and spiritual and moral values." Moreover, they declared themselves in favor of a "just
solution" in the Near East. Here the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" was emphasized in
particular.
https://www.die-topnews.de/koenig-abdullah-besucht-den-papst-3536
And it is remarkable here that there were two representatives of Catholicism among
the speakers at this dialogue of religions – namely Archbishop Philip of Poltava and Kremenchuk
from
the Ukraine, as a delegate of the Orthodox Church of the Patriarch of Moscow, and David Steindl-Rast
from Austria/the USA, a Benedictine monk and "spiritual leader," as the representative of Roman
Catholicism. Apparently, no representative of the Christian churches was even invited, because he
would have – hopefully!! – called this premature vision of a politically correct union of the great
world religions back to reality.
One of the speakers did attempt this, but his comments were not – as expected – taken seriously. The
representative of Islam in this dialogue, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, Rector of the Al-Azhar
University in Cairo, the oldest university in the world (founded in 975), was
the only one to point to obvious differences in the religions and the principles
of faith:
Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, Rector of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo and Member of
the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs.
What follows for humankind from this divinely ordained diversity is that human
beings differ in their religions and principles of faith, and they will continue to do so until
Judgment Day. The differences in principles of faith and their continued existence are a Koranic
truth and also a truth of creation.
(Waldzell Meeting 2007 – https://www.waldzell.org/site?page=150)
For an biblical Christian, it is shameful that a representative of a false faith with a false God and a false expectation of salvation was the only one apparently in this round to see through these hypocritical attempts at religious egalitarianism. To be sure, when he says,
If the adherents of Western religions doubted, it was because they were
searching for empirical evidence – but that was only knowledge, not faith. In Islam doubt was "continually
accompanied by the spirit that examines if it is still correct." If a Muslim doubts, he has his
rules of conduct: "If you doubt Allah, you must appeal to him until you believe again."
it can be seen that it was not wisdom that made it possible for him to arrive at
this insight but quite simply a lack of information. This is like the teacher of the Koran said to
his students, "You should not ask any questions about the Koran, you must only learn it by heart".
And it is precisely this attitude that is probably also responsible for those problems in which
Islam worldwide finds itself today. Believers are prevented from asking too many questions because
otherwise they would "know" and not believe, but this also leads at the same time to other false
teachers with false answers satisfying the believers’ thirst for knowledge.
Buddhism is seen by many in the West as an exemplary, tolerant and peaceable
religion. It was precisely this perception that was the theme of a conference on Buddhism at the
Salzburg Education Center St. Virgil. Perry Schmidt-Leukel, a religious scholar involved in
Christian-Buddhist dialogue, and also an Anglican Christian, was a participant who relativizes the
truth.
Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Professor of Systematic Theology and Religious
Studies, University of Glasgow.
The religious history of, for example, the eastern religions is not this
magnificent, pure, peaceable, tolerant history, as it has often been presented here. You will
indeed find people who will tell you, often subjectively with a good conscience, that
"a
religious war was never conducted in the name of Buddhism". And that is historically and
radically false …
The question here is to say, on the basis of special criteria of one’s own religion, special
norms from one’s own religion: Must we really say that this concrete, other religion testifies
to less truth, testifies to less good, testifies to less holiness than mine? Or must we not
rather say: Yes, it is different in many ways, it is dissimilar in many ways, but in the end
equal. And the theological conception that would permit such a model is that – now stated from a
Christian point of view – God has revealed himself to all people. That there are no people -
since people have existed – who have lived without any connection to the divine. And that this
connection that God has with every person manifests itself also of course in the different
cultures and religions of humanity ....
(Conference on Buddhism at the Salzburg Education Centre St. Virgil. – https://religion.orf.at/)
Perry Schmidt-Leukel is an advocate of a pluralistic theology of religions. This
view disputes the position that Christianity is superior to all other religions and assumes that at
least some religions are equal with regard to their knowledge of the divine reality and their power
to mediate salvation.
If we look at the statements above by P. Schmidt-Leukel, such as where he argues, among other
things, that:
"Must we really say that this concrete other religion testifies to
less truth?"
the whole problem of this way of thinking becomes clear: when a religious scholar
involved in Christian-Buddhist dialogue compares Buddhism with Christianity – the one a religion
without a God, without a Creator and the other with a God, the creator of all things – and then
argues:
Or must we not rather say: Yes, it is different in many ways, it is
dissimilar in many ways, but in the end equal,
this is very much like comparing a cab horse with a racehorse, from the vantage
point of the cab driver. In all these attempts to argue that the different religions are equally
valid, their content becomes unimportant. And then one can, of course, abandon the question of
truth: unity at the cost of truth.
Particularly Buddhism is seen in the West – perhaps also partly because of the "crafty pragmatism"
of the Dalai Lama – as an example of a tolerant, pluralistic religion, and the first part of the
following parable by P. Schmidt-Leukel appears to confirm that as well.
Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Professor of Systematic Theology and Religious
Studies, University of Glasgow.
A Parable for Reflection.
Some men who had been born blind and were not familiar with elephants touched an elephant, each
touching a different part of its body. The one touched the elephant’s leg, another the tail, a
third its ear, a fourth its trunk. And then they were asked to describe the elephant: What is an
elephant like? And they described it according to the part they touched. The one who touched the
leg said: The elephant is like a tree trunk. The one who touched the trunk of the elephant said
that it is like a liana and the one who touched its tail said that the elephant is like a fly
whisk, which was widely used in India. And then they disputed with each other about the
elephant, because they said that the other said something completely false about elephants. And
this parable is used frequently today to present a pluralistic interpretation of religions in
this way, i.e. that the religions perceive different aspects of the common reality and, instead
of recognizing their complementarity, they become entangled in an argument with one another.
(Conference on Buddhism at the Salzburg Education Centre St. Virgil. - https://religion.orf.at/)
This parable is actually very excellent, because it is so vivid and therefore easy
to understand. The men born blind represent the founders of the world religions, who – each for
himself – believe that they possess the truth, but in reality have only understood a more or less
large part. And the argument about their different discoveries can also serve as an excellent
comparison with reality. One can understand Schmidt-Leukel’s thesis very well here, which
logically means that if these people, instead of arguing, would get together and exchange their
respective discoveries, they would very quickly come much closer to the truth.
But this is, unfortunately, only the "Western variant" of this parable, whose second part the
advocates of a pluralistic religion of unity do not cite.
Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Professor of Systematic Theology und Religious
Studies, University of Glasgow.
But this parable is not told in this way in Buddhism, because the point in Buddhism is entirely
different. There it is, namely, a sighted king, who had the blind people led to this elephant.
And the king is amused in the end about the argument of the blind men. And the context leaves no
doubt that the sighted king represents Buddha. And the blind represent the rival religious
teachers and masters in Buddha’s time. The context states even explicitly that the partial
view of the others was not sufficient to attain redemption; only the complete view that the
sighted king – who is thus not a blind man, i.e. the Buddha – has, can do this.
(Conference on Buddhism at the Salzburg Education Centre St. Virgil. - https://religion.orf.at/)
Here we are again in the reality of this world. This closes the discussion on the
tolerance and pluralism in Buddhism. To the contrary, the Buddha is amused in the end about the
argument between the blind men, because he is the only one who sees, who has the complete view.
From a Christian point of view, however, we can still add something here:
The Buddha is pleased too quickly! With his inclination for malicious pleasure and arrogance, he
provides the proof that he himself is blind and lacks insight. Actually, it does not even concern
the question who sees the elephant or not. The elephant here represents knowing the truth and thus
knowing God. But God is spirit and whoever wants to know him must worship him in spirit and truth.
Thus it is not a question of the physical power of sight but of the spiritual.
And it is true that the majority of us are "born blind." But contrary to the behavior of the
Buddha in this parable, who causes these blind men to argue and laughs at them and thus disqualifies
Buddhism as a religion of redemption, Christianity shows the right way. Christ does not laugh at
these blind people but makes them see spiritually. And he also does not force them to convert to
him, but he leaves it up to them to decide for or against him.
I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness;
Jn 12,44 And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not
believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.12,45 "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. 12,46
"I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in
darkness. Jn 12,44-46;
For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.
Jn 9,39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so
that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind." 9,40 Those
of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too,
are we?" 9,41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since
you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains. Jn 9,39-41;
And this is actually how a loving God acts. Buddha was a "sighted king" who was
spiritually blind. He was one of those founders of a religion who, like blind men, stand around and
argue about an elephant, without knowing that it is not their eyes they need but their spirit to
obtain knowledge of God.
And we can see why the Christian religion is viewed as the only religion of redemption – because it
has a redeemer and is not, like the other religions, dependent on some theory of self-redemption. It
is God himself who reveals himself to all people in his Son. But Jesus Christ is not a demon who
possesses the spirit of human beings without their consent. All people are free either to believe in
the Son of God or to reject him. Whoever accepts him is saved and has eternal life; whoever rejects
him remains in his sins and is judged. Whoever – precisely as theologian and as Anglican – has not
understood that has not understood Christianity at all.
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed.
Jn 3,16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten
Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 3,17 "For God
did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through
Him. 3,18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged
already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jn 3,16-18;
But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive.
Jn 7,38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his
innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’" 7,39 But this He spoke of the Spirit,
whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus
was not yet glorified. Jn 7,38-39;
I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies.
Jn 11,25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he
who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 11,26 and everyone who lives and believes in
Me will never die. Do you believe this?" Jn 11,25-26;
The Catholic Church – The Archdiocese of Cologne (https://www.erzbistum-koeln.de/seel)
The great challenges confronting people in our time can be dealt with only through the
cooperation of all. Interreligious Dialogue today makes a contribution to the understanding and
peaceful coexistence of people from different cultural and religious backgrounds. The church
witnesses to its faith and its hope in Interreligious Dialogue.
The Ecumenical Council of the Churches: Der interreligiöse Dialog (The Interreligious Dialiog]
The Evangelical Churches in Germany (www.ekd.de/ezw/42787_42920.php)
In a time in which religious plurality reigns in Germany, as in most countries of the world, and
a uniform Christian culture can no longer be presupposed, dialogue on all possible levels is
necessary and without any alternative …
In general, Interreligious Dialogue is to be conducted in the spirit of politeness and mutual
respect. It is important to have the ability and willingness even to testify to one’s own
faith, without this entailing the explicit intention of winning the dialogue partner over to one’s
own faith. Dialogue is not about finding a compromise truth or a compromise theology together
but about understanding the other better and, via that way, sometimes, understanding one’s own
faith better …
This process includes the possibility for change, because religious traditions are not closed
entities. The experiences that the adherents have had during encounters and Interreligious
Dialogues throughout history do have consequences in time.
The following prayer from "oekumene-live" shows where the
ecumenical wrong path leads:
"Blessed be Lord, God of Muhammad. You are great and exalted. You are
incomprehensible and aloof. You are great in your prophets.
Blessed be Lord, you God of Buddha. You live in the depths of the world. You
live in everyone. You are the fullness of silence.
Blessed be Lord, God of Africa. You are the life in the trees. You are the
strength in father and mother. You are the soul in the world."
(Official material and confession of the papal mission organization "Missio"
from Aachen intended for distribution in Catholic parishes).
Source: https://www.oekumene-live.de/content/view/39/44/
I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Jn 14,6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father but through Me. Jn 14, 6:
Peace in the world suddenly becomes so important, that peace with God is lost to
view. The former takes precedence over the latter, but, as a result, the latter is lost. Indeed,
God is still spoken of, but he is given hardly more than the role of spectator at human attempts
at peace – the kingdom of peace that we ourselves have built on this old earth by a united
humanity. The human being should achieve through his "moral efforts," what can no longer be
expected from God. The Christian truth has been watered down.
People no longer want to hear that Jesus Christ claims to be the truth in person and the only
way to the Father. For the sake of political peace, the view that the unity of humankind must
have precedence over Christian truth is endorsed. The borders between the religions should fall.
Jesus should be seen by many as the founder of a religion but not as God’s only Son and
Redeemer. His claim to absoluteness should not stand in the way of the unity of humankind that
is striven for and the world peace that people hope should stem from that. The peace with God
becomes lost. Peace with God means taking his will and commandments seriously (Isa. 48:18).
Whoever transgresses the fundamental first commandment cannot count on God’s peace nor on an
enduring earthly peace but at most on a short-lived false peace. It is clear in the whole
biblical history of salvation that the people of God always lost true peace with their Lord when
they thought they had to cut deals with the representatives of heathen religions.
(Lothar Gassmann)
In its November issue TOPIC had reported on a letter from 138 Islamic scholars
that had been sent to a number of Christian leaders. In the letter the Muslims developed
parallels between Islam and Christianity and encouraged Christians to enter into a dialogue with
Islam on the basis of love of God and neighbor.
138 Christian leaders – mainly from the USA – answered the Muslims. In the letter that they
signed jointly, they point out that both the God of the Bible and Allah command people to love
and therefore Christians and Muslims can encounter each other on this common level of love. As a
matter of course, Allah is placed on the same level as the God of the Bible and the statements
by Jesus are placed, without any further comment, next to those by the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
At the beginning of the letter, the signees ask forgiveness from Muslims for the Crusades and
the "excesses of Christians" in the war against terror. At the end of the letter they
challenge Muslim leaders to take the initial steps, together with Christians, to fulfill the "requirement
that we love God and one another."
Among the signers of the letter are:
Bill Hybels (founder of Willow Creek), Rick Warren
(founder of Saddleback Community Church), Brian D. McLaren (one of the
representatives of the Emerging Church), Robert Schuller (TV preacher), David
Yonggi Cho (a world-famous Charismatic), Geoff Tunnicliffe (Chairperson of
the worldwide Evangelical Alliance), George Verwer and Peter Maiden
(Operation Mobilisation/OM), as well as a number of representatives of prominent Evangelical
training centers in the USA.
In contrast, the letter from the 138 Islamic scholars was received in the Evangelical Church in
Germany (EKD) with caution. The EKD Council chair, Bishop Wolfgang Huber, pointed out
that the original text of the letter contained the Arabic word da’wa, which means "call
to Islam." The document thus did not make any concessions as regards the idea of the
conclusiveness and unparalleled nature of Islam. Moreover, the Christian understanding of the
"double command to love" – love of God and neighbor – is different from the explanation
given by the Islamic scholars. According to Huber, for Christians, the foundation is the love of
God that is shown in Christ and in the covenant with Israel.
Information Service TOPIC / published by: Ulrich Skambraks (Kreuztal bei Siegen).
Biblical Christianity and its claim to sole representation.
God is attainable for every single
person who desires it. |