"Revelation" in other religions (Abeje Zewde - Utume)

A theological evaluation of “revelation” in other religions

Ratzinger, Joseph, “The Unity and Diversity of Religions: The Place of Christianity in the History of Religions,” in Truth and Tolerance. Christian Belief and World Religions, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

Comprehension questions

The phenomenon of religious pluralism

1.       Why does Cardinal Ratzinger think that “a phenomenological investigation [of religions] which would not straightaway concern itself with the value of these religions for eternity… needs to precede such theological judgments about other religions” (p. 18)?

   He was the opinion that we ought first of all to seek an overall view of the whole panaroma of religions, with it inner development and spiritual structure. We should have to ask how this basic types relate to one another and whether they present us with any basic alternatives, not just be discussing an undefined entity of "religion" en masse

2.       Name two possible attitudes towards other religions in the light of the Christian conviction that Christ is the only Savior and salvation of man? One may address them as being provisional, as preparatory to Christianity and, attribute to them a positive value, allow themselves to be regarded as precursors. They can be understood as insufficient, anti-Christian, contrary to the truth.

3.       What does the Christian rejection of gods signify? How is it viewed by the secularised man of today?

The Christian rejection of the gods signifies much rather a choice to be on the side of the rebel, who for the sake of his conscience dares to break free from what is accustomed.

4.       What is the concept of religion held by “the man of today”?

 The dominant impression of most people of today is that all religions, with a varied multiplicity of forms and manifestation, in the end are and mean one and the same thing; which is something everyone can see, except for them. The man of today will for the most part scarcely respond with an abrupt no to a particular religion's claim to be true; he will simply relativism that claim by saying "There are many religions.

5.       What is the “future for religions” according to the thinking of Radhakrishnan?

 One day will be able to unite fundamental unity with the most varied differentiation.

The Place of Christianity in the History of Religion

6.       What is the first perception of the man of today when he looks at the plurality of religions?

What is the next impression? He begins to look beyond the limits of his own is that of a limitless plurality, an absolutely overwhelming multiplicity and variety, which makes the question about truth seem illusionary from the very start.

7.       “This mystical interpretation of religion forms the background of the idea of religion of man today.” Elaborate on this statement.

This mystical interpretation of religion forms the background for the idea of religion of man today, which we have already outlined.

8.       According to the mystical interpretation of religion, what is “first hand religion” and what is “second hand religion”?

Primitive experience, those who are, They put themselves like God. 

Mmythical religion: lies in leaving the confines of myth. for those under the primitive experience, I mean by authority.

9.       Name and explain the stages of development history of religion.

Primitive experience mean, large scale-myth, its strong but not based on reason.  

Mythical religions mean, is difficult to understand them, because they brought the different myth.  EX; many years ago, the Earth and the Sky they were very close but one day the Mule kick a sky then it happened the separation between them.

10.   What are the three ways of moving beyond the myth of religions?

Mysticism, Monotheism revolution and enlightenment

Mysticism and belief

11.   What is the Christian approach to “mysticism” in religions?

"Mysticism" is here understood in radical sense, as one path in the history of religion, as an attitude that does not tolerate any other element superior to itself rather, it regards the imageless, unmetaphorical, and mysterious experience of the mystic as the only determinative and ultimate reality in the realm of religion.

12.   Why is the monotheism of Israel a sort of “revolution” in the history of religion?

The monotheism of Israel had its origin by way of a revolution, the revolution, the revolution of a few people who were filled with a new religious awareness and  who shattered the myths and overthrew the gods of whom the myths spoke.   

13.   How is the monotheism of Israel different from that of Hinduism of ATR?

 Firstly, it is directed toward mysticism, that is to say, it is open to monastic development and thus may appear as a mere preliminary stage to something of more permanence, that is, the experiencing of identity. Secondly, it arose, not through a revolution, as in Israel, but through an evolution.

14.   How does monotheism and mysticism differ from each other radically? What is the core of their difference?

Monotheism mean, for those who believe there is only one God. But he does not come to us, we have to go to him (cloth him).

mysticism mean, they believe that knowledge of God and truth found through prayer and meditation rather than reason.  

The structure of the two great ways of Religion

15.   What does Jean Daniélou say about Christianity in contrast to the great non-Christian religions?

Jean Daniellou in particular has shown this fact with great emphasis, stressing again and again that Christianity "is essentially faith in an event", whereas the great non-Christian religions maintain the erxistence of an eternal world "that stands in opposition to the world of time.

16.   Mention the obvious difference between the patriarchs and prophets of Israel and the great founders of East Asian religions. What does this say about the structure of the way of mysticism and belief in one God?

 Furthermore, the obvious difference between the patriarchs and prophets of Israel and the great founders of East Asian religions becomes comprehensible on the basis of the principle outlined here. If we set the principal actors in the covenant-event of Israel against the religious personalities of Asia.

17.  Why does Christianity not recognise the distinction between “first hand religion” and the “second hand religion” as viewed by mysticism?

For Christianity, they are the believers, whatever level of inwardness they may have achieved. A little child, an overworked workman, if they believe, stand at a higher level than the greatest ascetics. "We are not great religious personalities", guardini once said; "we are servants of the word."  

18.   In brief, what is the place of Christianity in the history of religions?

That we are all a part of a single history that is in many deferent fashions on the way toward God. For that was what turned out to be the critical insight: for Christian faith, the history of religions is not a circle of what is endlessly the same, never touching the essential thing, which itself ever remain outside of history; rather the Christian holds the history of religions to be a genuine history, to be a path whose direction we call progress and whose attitude we call hope. And thus he should serve: as someone who hopes.