Find Two Examples Of An Agreement In The Dialog
When one wonders what an inter-ideological inter-ideological inter-religious dialogue is, it is important to keep in mind that we generally talk about bipartisan communication in terms of ideas and words. Sometimes we give the notion an expanded meaning of common action or collaboration and common prayer or sharing of the spiritual or profound dimension of our tradition. If intellectual and verbal communication is indeed the overriding importance of dialogue, if the results do not spread in the other two areas of action and spirituality, it will have proved sterile. In addition, it can lead to a kind of schizophrenia and even hypocrisy. We can, of course, rightly refer to a number of recent developments that have contributed to the rise of dialogue – for example. B growth in education, communication and mass travel, a global economy that threatens global destruction – but one of the main causes is a paradigm shift in the West in the way we perceive and describe the world. A paradigm is simply the model, the cluster of hypotheses on the basis of which phenomena are perceived and explained: for example, the geocentric paradigm to explain the movements of planets; A transition to another paradigm – like heliocentrism – will have a huge impact. Such a paradigm shift has occurred and also occurs in the Western understanding of assertions of truth, which has not only made dialogue possible, but even necessary. In addition, we learn a lot about « how we are in the world » by listening to descriptions of our perceptions. Because no one is simply in themselves, but it is always in relation to others, « as we are in the world », how we are in relation to others and that we act on others, is indeed part of our reality, is part of us. For example, it is only through dialogue with another culture that we know our own: for example, I became aware of my particular American culture simply because I lived in Europe for a few years. I only became aware of American culture as such, with its similarities and differences with the European, only in the mirror of my partner for dialogue on European culture.
However, we have to be very careful about this issue of differences. As noted above, we will often learn during the dialogue that what we thought were real differences is in fact only obvious differences; Different words or misunderstandings concealed only positions that were often shared. However, when we enter the dialogue, we must allow the opportunity to learn at the end of the day that we will not find commonalities, but a genuine difference on certain issues. As mentioned above, these genuine differences can have three types: complementary, analogous or contradictory. Complementary authentic differences will be real differences, of course, but not in such a way that only one can be valid. Moreover, we know from our experience that complementary differences will generally be well above contradictions. In the same way, learning about these authentic but complementary differences will not only improve our knowledge, but also adapt for ourselves one or more complementary differences of our partner. As the term suggests, the differences complement each other in one way or another, as the Chinese Taoist says: Xiang fan xiang cheng (the counterparties complement each other). So who would qualify as a member of a religious community? When it comes to the official representation of a community in a dialogue, the clear answer is the one that is appointed by the appropriate official body in that community: the community, Bet Din, roshi, bishop, central committee or other.
However, when it is not an official representation, general reputation is generally considered. However, the qualifications of some people may be questioned by elements within a community, or even by very important official elements. The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for example, has stated that Professors Hans Kong and Charles Curran should no longer be considered Catholic theologians.