'The terms interfaith or interfaith dialogue refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions [1] (ie. “faiths”) and spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional level with the aim of deriving a common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world.
It is distinct from syncretism or alternative religion, in that dialogue often involves promoting understanding between different religions to increase acceptance of others, rather than to synthesize new beliefs. There is a view that the history of religion shows conflict has been more the state of affairs than dialogue.
Throughout the world there are local, regional and international interfaith initiatives; many are formally or informally linked and constitute larger networks or federations. The often quoted “There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions” was formulated by Dr Hans Küng, a Professor of Ecumenical Theology and President of the Foundation for a Global Ethic. [2]
The term interreligious relations refers to relationships between religions (rel. comparative religion).’
Mine is of the Christian faith. I don’t belong to a particular sect, but am non-denomintional. The Gospels in the New Testament are the tenets that I hold to. My basic feeling is those of the Christian faith that are saved through Jesus and is directed to God will be His children for eternity.
Well, I’m cogitating my reply for you in your Baha’i Faith thread, but can’t really get past the characterism of Buddhism you gave (above). There are a few questions I have with it. Are you saying the Dalai Lama has been reading the wrong stuff? Are Gautama and Jesus more or less spiritual equivalents? If God manifests in terms of particular personages, is this an extension of a particular universal personage or more like reflections through the minds of individuals? Is God a person?
As to my particular beliefs, I’m officially on the fence, but for practical purposes consider this life the one and only moment I’ll ever experience. After that I’m just a flag in the wind of time. I believe kindness is pretty important. And not being deluded, insofar as that’s possible.
I’m a “Boston” Confucian, a strain of Confucianism that was really only realized in the second half of the twentieth century (without a Chinese Empire and, more importantly, an Imperial Examination system, Confucianism needed to make some changes). When I first joined ILP, I was a great admirer of Xunzi and the (with tongue firmly in cheek) South of the Charles River School. But over time (in no small part due to the rigor encouraged by ILP) I’ve come to a more orthodox, Mencian understanding of Confucianism and now align myself with the North of the Charles River School. The foremost figure of that school is Tu Weiming, whose influences lean towards Mencius, more towards Yangming than Zhu Xi, and more towards Shili than Youlan (though the angle is far closer to 90 degrees in the former than in the later), and Kirkegaard. I can’t say I’ve left all my previous influences behind, so there is still some influence from those days and I can’t say I agree entirely with Weiming et al. I add other influences to my own personal philosophy, but if I constrain myself to a rigid orthodoxy, I would say that I believe:
Human nature is good. This isn’t as naive as it sounds – humans are, by nature, good in the same way that an acorn is, by nature, an oak. This isn’t mere potentiality, one of the critical ways that Weiming and others depart from Kirkegaard is that the notion of a crossroads in a Kirkegaardian sense doesn’t exist in Confucianism. As Rosemont Jr said, there is “the Way and the ditch”. A good discussion on that topic can be found here. So, to return to the relationship between an acorn and an oak, we have to realize than an acorn has a choice (as close as it comes to a Kirkegaardian one . . .) in that it can either be an oak or it can opt not to be. Human nature and authentic humanity work the same way.
The self is relationally defined. Think about yourself now and then think back to when you were 18, 16, 12, 8, and 4. Did you look the same? Did you act the same? Did you think the same? Of course not! None of those things can bound ‘the self’. However, your family, your friends (to a lesser extent) remain the same. They are what make you ‘you’.
Embodiment in roles is the authentic expression of humanity. This goes along with the second point. If we are relationally defined, then it follows that how we act in those relationships is what it means to be human. Tu Weiming gave a good speech that touched on this subject here (though his essay entitled “A Confucian Perspective on Learning to be Human” is better, but not available on-line).
There is a great deal more, but I’d say that those provide a crude foundation upon which other elements are built.