Find Two Examples Of An Agreement In The Dialog


As attractive as theorism is, one must be careful not to renounce the various insinuations of God, as if they had no meaning; They can make a significant difference in the human conception of ourselves and therefore, as we take ourselves vis-à-vis ourselves, each other, the world around us and the Ultimate Source. In addition, a theoretical approach does not fail to involve non-theorists in the dialogue. This would exclude not only atheist humanists and Marxists, but also non-theistic theatrical Buddhists who do not deny the existence of God, but who understand the ultimate reality in a non-theistic, non-personal way (theism postulates a “personal” God, Theo). Another way to involve these partners in dialogue, even in this field of “spirituality”, is to speak of the search for the ultimate meaning of life, of the “salvation” (salus in Latin, which means a salutary, whole, holy life; similar to soteria in Greek) than what all men have in common in the “spiritual” field, theists and non-theists. As a result, we can speak of a soterio centrism. 7) Moreover, reality can only “speak” to me with the language I give it; The “answers” I expect from reality will always be in the language, the categories of thought, the questions I ask him. If and if the answers I receive are sometimes confusing and unsatisfactory, I probably have to learn to speak more appropriate language when asking questions about reality. For example, when I ask the question, “How serious is green?” I obviously get a foolish answer. Or, when I ask about living things in mechanical categories, I get confusing and unsatisfactory answers. I also receive confusing and unsatisfactory answers to questions about human sexuality when I use categories that are only physico-biological: look at the absurdity of the answer that birth control is forbidden by natural law – the question is falsely that the nature of humanity is only physico-biological. Such an understanding of truth is a dialoguic understanding. It is therefore important that inter-religious inter-religious dialogue is not limited to official representatives or even experts in different traditions, although they both have an irreplaceable role to play in the dialogue. On the contrary, dialogue should involve all levels of religious and ideological communities, up to “people in the pews of the Church”.

Only in this way will religious and philosophical communities learn from each other and understand each other as they really are. Of course, reference can rightly be made to a number of recent developments that have contributed to the rise of dialogue – for example. B growth of mass education, communication and travel, a global economy that threatens global destruction – yet one of the main causes in the West is a paradigm shift in the way we perceive and describe the world. . . .