John Lockes Letter on Toleration - Research Paper Example

Theology Compare and Contrast Part I What are three main points of John Locke’s Letter on Toleration? Explain Fully. JohnLocke’s (1632–1704) elaborates three main points in his letter on toleration. He based his arguments on both philosophical and theological perspective arguing that it is wrong for government to use force to make people adopt religion beliefs. The first reason he argued that the care for men’s soul has not been committed to the magistrate by either God or the consent of men. With this he argued on the perspective that for man’s natural freedom and equality. For instance, he argued that there is no command in the bible that is urging magistrates to bring people to a true religion. The second point he argued that true religion consists of genuine inward persuasion of the mind, while the power of the government is force. By this he meant that force will never bring people to the true faith. The third point he argued that if the magistrate would have power to change people’s mind, still it will not bring people to the true faith since many of them believe in wrong religions (Locke, 1796). What were the Christian anti-Jewish statements of late antiquity? Give examples. What were Martin Luther’s anti-Jewish statements? One of the historic researches that scholars have found out is that Judaism and Christianity was once unified, but time came and they parted ways because of competition. The anti-Jewish Christians statements about late antiquity suggest that salvation was first for the Jews but it was entrusted to them through grace. For example when Jesus Christ came into the world and was he rejected by the Jews. The anti-Jewish believed that at that point it was their opportunity to receive salvation. Martin Luther’s anti-Jewish were very caring in that he accused the catholic of being unfair to Jews and treating them “as if they were dogs,” he also was annoyed by them when they refused to convert and said “A Jewish heart is as hard as a stick, a stone, as iron, as a devil.” Compare and Contrast James, Otto, and Eliade. Answer Fully. It is very fascinating how theological issues are viewed differently with scholars, believers as well as theologians. For instance, Mircea Eliade, James George Frazer and Rudolf Otto brought their point in a very interesting way. For example, James in his book The Golden Bough distinguishes between magi and religion. He argued that magic is for primitive people while reign through faith. His remarks can be compared to that of Otto who focused on religious experiences with a fear which benefits people’s relation to God. God is taken to be presented in peoples responses and these responses have this role because they are assigned a phenomenological character which is different from other feelings experienced elsewhere in this human life. Eliade however saw religion as something special and autonomous that cannot be reduced to the social, economical or psychological alone. He says, “Some scholars have argued that spaces reserved for religious activity have a distinctive character, which sets them apart from merely profane spaces” (Eliade 1958). Believers approaching a sacred space may have to cross various thresholds to satisfy this. Compare and Contrast Mark Heim, George Lindbeck, and Francis X Clooney There are some theologians who used to criticize and elaborate critical situations about Christianity. For example, Francis X Clooney a renowned philosopher argued about wrong views about Christianity being brought to light. This was indeed an important argument since in Christianity there are a lot of wrong views that people are suggesting to people and hence they end up affecting people’s life and beliefs. His argument can be compared to hat of mark Heim who conceptual problems at the heart of pluralism. He agrees with Clooney about the wrong views in Christian teachings that manipulate their human freedom to rights. Both of them had same point of view like Lind beck, but for Lind b which benefits people’s relation to Goeck had positive statements about Christian theology. For him Christian teachings were important because it gives them insight and open their minds so that they can reason. Compare and Contrast three pre-modern Jewish positions on other religions Jewish hold the belief that there exists only one God, and religions that preach otherwise are wrong. They always believe that they are a chosen generation of God whose main role is to make the world aware of the existence of this one God. However, the Jews do not concern themselves so much with other religions. Jewish also hold the position that “the righteous of all nations shall have a place in the world to come” – not just Jews. This has the implication that the Jews believe that other believers from other religion stand a chance of salvation as long as they are righteous and believe in this one God. This takes into account Christians and even Islam worshippers. Judaism holds the position that its members would be judged on account of their actions, not their beliefs. This position cascades across the other religions. Compare and Contrast Sepulveda and Las Casas on barbarians, conversion, and religion. Bartolomé de las Casas stood against barbarism. He is in fact touted as “the apostle of the Indians,” a lone voice that stood against Spanish brutality in defence of the rights of the Indians. Las Casas asserts that any action of the Church that does not take into account the harms that such acts will incur is wrong. According to Casas, punishment of crimes is not act of justice not unless the victim is restored to a better state of mind as a result of the punishment, or in so far as peace and quiet are re-established to the state. On the other hand, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda pursues barbarian school of thought. While he expresses concept over reputed barbarity against nature, Sepulveda downplays the native threat through blatant belittling of the natives. For example, he says that the “natives are inferior to Spaniards as children to adults, women to men, as the wild and cruel... as monkeys to men (Sepúlveda, qtd. in Hanke, All Mankind 84) (Brunstetter, 2010). Compare and contrast Ayoub, Tariq Ramadan, Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid and and Nasr on how Islam views other religions. Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid and Hossein Nasr al all seem to hold hard positions regarding the other religions. Shaykh Mohammad believes that non-Muslims contradict the will of God no wonder natural phenomenon such as Tsunami hit the South Asia. Similarly, Hossein Nassr holds a hard position on Muslims blatant acceptance of Western’s science and technology. He is critical of this perception and urges Islam to approach science and technology from Islamic point of view. During a public lecture at MIT, he says, “The problem of the partition of science from Islam is a problem that exists unless Islam is willing to give up its claim to being a total way of life.” Contrary to their hard line position about other religions, Mahmoud Ayoub and Tariq Ramadan seem to advocate for extreme religion tolerance. They are keen at not making statements that could fuel animosity. For example, Ayoub calls on Muslims to dialogue with other religions so that they could commune in faith. Similarly, Tariq Ramadan asserts that Muslims should not use their “Islamic Message” as a commitment to universalism and welfare of other religions. He views Islamic message as not all about making demands on other religions, but as a symbol to express solidarity with them. What is the approach of Mahmoud Ayoub to Christian –Muslim dialogue? Explain three topics well. Mahmoud Ayoub’s approach to dialogue encompasses cognitive, spiritual and practical angles. He argues that Christians and Muslims should engage in the discussion of doctrinal questions so as to understand each other better and do away with erroneous concepts about each other. Muslims and Christians should also seek to comprehend their shared values. But then again, he thinks that the doctrinal discourse is only the start and the sole objective of dialogue is communion of faith. This has the implication that believers do not consider each other as adherents of separate religions in competition with one another, but instead as members of a single and universal communion of faith. Ayoub, for example, hopes that Christians and people in general could draw lessons from their past mistakes, desist from pursuing personal narrow interests, and pursue peach more so in the Middle East. His approach further insists that the practical aspect of dialogue is only feasible after the cognitive and spiritual aspects have been established (Ayoub, 2004). How would Knitter, Eliade, Ghosh, x Pope Benedict, and Leo Lefebre view Eastern Religions? Paul F Knitter and Mircea Eliade would certainly view the Eastern Religions from a positive angle. In his words, Knitter urges fellow Christians to first commit themselves to acting together with brothers and sisters from other religions. His idea is to promote love, justice, and peace of God’s reign across the religions. Similarly, Mircea Eliade would be tolerant of Eastern religions. According to him, religion is “essentially the experience of sacred to the ideas of “being”, “meaning” and “truth”. Eliade sees beyond religion inclinations to the ideas of living a sanctified life. To him, the object of worship does not matter so much. Contrary to the above perspectives, Pope Benedict and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre take would certainly not tolerate the eastern religion that deviated from the faith that Catholic teach. Pope Benedict’s radical position may be evidenced when in one of his speeches quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos agreeing that Muhammad has brought nothing good to the world other than evil and inhumanity. He decrees to spread his faith by the sword. Similarly, Lefebvre stood against Vatican II’s willingness to engage in discourse with other religions and non-believers. During an interview after he had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, he says” …This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom, which were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes, have now been accepted by the council of Vatican II.” Part II What Allan brill opinion is toward encounter other faiths- see the book Judaism and Other Religions (models of understanding) - Introduction chapters 1, 10, (cite passages). Compare it to Knitter. Answer fully; feel free to bring in other readings. (12points) Allan Brill asks a number of significant questions such as whether is the only true religion while others are false, or whether it’s the root of all religions or whether all religions are true paths to God. He encourages Judaists to be humble and find out what others are and what they believe in. He stands against the perception where people think they know everything and encourages willingness to read other traditional texts that speak about other religions. He also is against simplistic views where religions are taken in some collective approach and their differences are minimized. He promotes interreligious discussions so that people encounter other religions, appreciate them and fit their complexities in terms understood by one’s own religion (Brill, 2010). Contrary to Brill’s attitude towards other faiths, Knitter in 1985 stated that a pluralistic perspective on interreligious dialogue can only happen within a new truth model that diverges from traditional texts. Pushing for John Dunnes call he says that believers from distinct traditions need to immerse themselves in the practices and ethos of other faiths to experience the dynamics of other religions. His vision is basically summarized as becoming, relatedness, reciprocity, and unity in diversity. The implication of his vision is that religious knowledge is always provisional and is only provisionally complete when representing the insights shared by all those engaged with that religions object. He recognizes that only few people can achieve this kind of double-belonging but still it is a prerequisite if interreligious dialogue for it to bear fruit. He argues that every religion may originate from a powerful event, their identity is not in such events but rather it is given in the process of history of which these events are only a part of. He says that a religion is shaped by its truth claim and not revelation. Similarities among religions exist but differences between them are even more abundant. He proposes a salvation-cantered approach to dialogue based on the common ground of global responsibility for eco-human well-being." References Ayoub, M. (2004). Christian‐Muslim Dialogue: Goals and Obstacles. The Muslim World, 94(3), 313-319. Becker, A. H. (2003). The ways that never parted: Jews and Christians in late antiquity and early Middle Ages. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Brill, A. (2010). Judaism and Other Religions: Models of Understanding. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brunstetter, D. R. (2010). Sepúlveda, Las Casas, and the other: exploring the Tension between Moral Universalism and Alterity. The Review of Politics,72(03), 409-435. Locke, J. (1796). A Letter concerning Toleration. Translated from the Latin of John Locke by W. Popple. J. Brook. Read More