Theologian Küng: Christianity Gets on Many People's Nerves

[Ahimsa]

**
For Catholic theologian Hans Küng**, religion has again become a power factor. While Islam and Buddhism are getting more popular, Christianity isn’t. The controversial theologian spoke to DW-WORLD.DE about the reasons.

Born in 1928, Catholic theologian and church critic Hans Küng made his mark as a promoter of dialogue between religions and as president of the Global Ethic Foundation. In 1979, the Vatican withdrew his license to teach after the Swiss native questioned the infallibility of the pope. In the fall of 2005, Pope Benedict XVI invited Küng to a private meeting.

…]

**“No peace among the nations, without peace between the religions! No peace between the religions without dialog between the religions!” Those are two central sentences of your World Ethic principle. In a time of globalization, there are many undreamed-of possibilities for communication on the Internet. The access to knowledge is easier than ever before. Can this development improve the dialog of religions?

** In principle, I would say yes, even though this brings many problems. It’s a positive thing that today we can know a lot about other religions. A different question, of course, is whether we do want to be in the know. There are people who don’t – they already know everything, without studying the Islam.

Who doesn’t want to know?

For one, the fundamental Christians who take everything the Bible says literally and say they don’t need any other religions. Then there are the very secular people, dogmatists of laicism. They get worked up simply when the word religion is mentioned, and they think that we should not talk about it in schools. They have issues with the fact that religion, again, is a powerful factor in world history.

 

[Contarini]

I would have hoped for something better from Kung than this silly old claim:

he reason why Islam has more problems with democracy than Christianity is that Islam, in contrast to Christianity and Judaism, had no Reformation

Insofar as one can make such a comparison, Islam has clearly had a Reformation–Wahhabism–and it’s at the root of many of our current problems (not that pre-Wahhabi Islam was nice and cuddly). How can a learned man like Kung by into the long-discredited liberal myth of the Reformation? I guess it’s typical of a certain kind of liberal Catholic–with mistaken generosity, they glorify the Reformation because they think that way they can make up for the guilt of the past.

Edwin

 

[Peregrino]

Hans Kung is a fantastic theologian. IMHO the church needs to take heed of his suggestions.

 

[Contarini]

Hans Kung is a fantastic theologian.

What’s so fantastic about him? What is the most profound idea you have encountered in his work?

Edwin

 

[Peregrino]

What’s so fantastic about him? What is the most profound idea you have encountered in his work?

Edwin

I think that Kung is spot on with regards to his emphasis on ecumenism, and dialogue between the world religions. His focus on a baseline ethic, or Global Ethic as he calls it has the promise of defeating religious strife while producing inter-religious dialogue and peace. I also happen to think that Kung is on the money with regards to throwing out a patriarchal perspective on God. Of course, you will denigrate these things as “not profound”. I would disagree.

 

[Contarini]

I think that Kung is spot on with regards to his emphasis on ecumenism, and dialogue between the world religions. His focus on a baseline ethic, or Global Ethic as he calls it has the promise of defeating religious strife while producing inter-religious dialogue and peace. I also happen to think that Kung is on the money with regards to throwing out a patriarchal perspective on God. Of course, you will denigrate these things as “not profound”.

Don’t speak for me! I don’t think these topics are “not profound.” Whether Kung’s treatment of them is profound or not is something I can’t decide on the basis of the little Kung I’ve read. I haven’t been impressed with that little, but superficial reading leads to superficial judgments!

Edwin

 

[Genesis315]

Kung is forbidden from holding himself out as a Catholic theologian. Far from “outstanding” he has been censured by the Church. Steer clear of him.

 

[distracted]

Wasn’t Kung censored by Cardinal Ratzinger (before the latter became Pope)?

If Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict censored him, that’s all i need to know.

 

[Peregrino]

Don’t speak for me! I don’t think these topics are “not profound.” Whether Kung’s treatment of them is profound or not is something I can’t decide on the basis of the little Kung I’ve read. I haven’t been impressed with that little, but superficial reading leads to superficial judgments!

Edwin

I apologize. I perhaps overreacted to your tone, or what I perceived as your tone. That is the problem with reading “print”. My bad.

 

[distracted]

Kung is forbidden from holding himself out as a Catholic theologian. Far from “outstanding” he has been censured by the Church. Steer clear of him.

THANK YOU!!

 

[distracted]

Kung … with regards to his emphasis on ecumenism, and dialogue between the world religions.

Pope Benedict is in favor of less dialogue with apostates and those who reject Christ… and i am behind that all the way. You don’t dialogue with the devil and i am sorry, but people who aren’t following Christ are, by default, following the devil… whether they fully realize it or not - and i think most of them DO realize it… I don’t believe that anyone rejects Christ because he/she sincerely, whole-heartedly believes that He is NOT the Truth, the Incarnate Word of God… (the Way the Truth and the Life). I believe people know that He is… they reject Him primarily because they don’t want to live by His rules… They want to be “free” to do whatever they think they want to…

…the promise of defeating religious strife while producing inter-religious dialogue and peace.

Religious strife comes from the devil and his followers attacking Christ & his Church and his people… Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats… and if he does that, why shouldn’t we? Are we trying to be more “loving” than He??
We are to be like him as much as possible… What i like about Pope B… is he seems to be saying, “they [those who reject Christ] separate themselves… so why shouldn’t the Church?” It is not “unloving” to do this… It is obedience to the words of Scripture, which says not to be “unequally yoked with unbelievers”… and to “have nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness”… I believe we should only concern ourselves with those who are truly seekng to know the truth… & not those trying to change the truth to fit their evil desires… there are serious forces in the world, out to destroy the Catholic Church &/or “dilute” it as much as possible. The Bible says that when someone is obstinate… eventually we must let him go his own way… In one part, it even says to hand such a one over to Satan, so that in the end, he may be saved…

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Contarini forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

What’s so fantastic about him? What is the most profound idea you have encountered in his work?

Edwin
I think that Kung is spot on with regards to his emphasis on ecumenism, and dialogue between the world religions.

To whom does one talk, to talk to “Protestants”?

To whom does one talk, to talk to “islam”?

To whom does one talk, to talk to “”?

His focus on a baseline ethic, or Global Ethic as he calls it has the promise of defeating religious strife while producing inter-religious dialogue and peace.

Revealed morality is to be debased, which is what making it “baseline” means, to give more power, to “share power”, with those with less moral standing before God than we have?

Fascinating…

I also happen to think that Kung is on the money with regards to throwing out a patriarchal perspective on God.

Ah,… a feminist. Best to you in feminizing maleness into between-maleness-and-femaleness, and in masculating femaleness into between-femaleness-and-maleness.

Relativists are so amusing.

Of course, you will denigrate these things as “not profound”. I would disagree.

They are profound.

Your misunderstanding of Christianity is quite profound.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[chris_molter]

Kung is right. Christianity DOES get on a lot of peoples’ nerves!

This is not surprising considering the founder of Christianity (and most of its early leadership) got on peoples’ nerves so badly that they tortured and killed them in horrible ways. If Kung really understood his own religion, he’d have figured that one out.

Sometimes really smart people can be incredibly stupid.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Kung is right. Christianity DOES get on a lot of peoples’ nerves!>>

I understand what you’re saying, Christ, but you must admit that many Christians act obnoxious and DO get on people’s nerves.

 

[chris_molter]

Oh, I agree, totally. But there’s a difference between saying Christians get on peoples’ nerves and Christianity gets on peoples’ nerves.

I’d say they BOTH do, but for very different reasons!

 

[Cran]

I’d regard Kungs (Kueng, more German ) ideas not as a step to more oikumene, but towards synkretism, and I think we have enough of THAT in our society already.

Actually, I believe his ideas to be a bit outdated, and from time to time a journalist has a go at it and brings it up again…

 

[Greg27]

Kung is a complex and intelligent thinker, and I’ve read several of his books. He lost his post in Catholic theology for his basically liberal position which led to him questioning some aspects of the Catholic church’s teaching on particular issues.

I think Kung has it right on how to approach inter-religious dialogue. Perhaps what Kung’s weakness is that he underestimated how other world religions beside Christianity could become totalitarian in their demands, as radical fundamentalist Islam is becoming now. Karl Jaspers seemed to have more insight into this danger.

What needs to be fought is any religious ideaology which endangers human dignity (including human rights and freedoms) in the claim to carry out God’s will on Earth. Whatever one’s stance on the truth or falsity of another religion, if a religion is only causing more human misery and suffering than is already the case with the lot of human life on Earth, then that religion and its ideas need to be examined and criticised. No religion should be immune from scrutiny and criticism, especially if it is using violence to coerce people into accepting its beliefs.

 

[Peregrino]

Revealed morality is to be debased, which is what making it “baseline” means, to give more power, to “share power”, with those with less moral standing before God than we have?

If you believe this nonsense (“those with less moral standing before God than we have?”-jeez), then I think we have put our finger on the problem…

Ah,… a feminist. Best to you in feminizing maleness into between-maleness-and-femaleness, and in masculating femaleness into between-femaleness-and-maleness.

Are you ok keikiolu? Are you recommending sex changes or something? I am not sure what stuff you are talking about. All I am saying (and I think Kung would agree) is that we should do away with a male dominant perspective on God, Theology and religion. Would you have been one of those people who probably responded to abolistionists during the civil war as “ah,…an egalitarian?”

Your misunderstanding of Christianity is quite profound.

Wrong again. I do not misunderstand your version of Christianity, I just profoundly disagree with most of your version (the Church’s).

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Revealed morality is to be debased, which is what making it “baseline” means, to give more power, to “share power”, with those with less moral standing before God than we have?

If you believe this nonsense (“those with less moral standing before God than we have?”-jeez), then I think we have put our finger on the problem…

If you don’t believe that Christianity, especially Christianity as practiced by Catholics, isn’t more in line with God’s wishes for us as practice and belief, then you’re simply not a Christian.

If you’re not a Christian, then you have no standing whatsoever in the area of commenting on “internal Christian matters”. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Ah,… a feminist. Best to you in feminizing maleness into between-maleness-and-femaleness, and in masculating femaleness into between-femaleness-and-maleness.

Are you ok keikiolu? Are you recommending sex changes or something? I am not sure what stuff you are talking about. All I am saying (and I think Kung would agree) is that we should do away with a male dominant perspective on God, Theology and religion.

I have no idea what you mean by that, as God is a “male” figure, as both the Father and the Son, and is indeterminate as regards the Holy Spirit.

You would seek to “de-nature” revealed truth, which is a no-no.

Luckily, your variety of nonsense will never prevail.

Would you have been one of those people who probably responded to abolistionists during the civil war as “ah,…an egalitarian?”

Your analogy is self serving and not applicable. I would have, as a good Catholic, said that humans are humans and should be treated as humans.

You don’t seem to be able to differentiate special cases of human relations, which is not surprising for a liberal (probable libertine) “fuzz-ball”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Your misunderstanding of Christianity is quite profound.

Wrong again. I do not misunderstand your version of Christianity, I just profoundly disagree with most of your version (the Church’s).

Then you do misunderstand Christianity, which is The Church’s “version”, in it’s fullest and truest example.

Your welcome to your partial self-idolatrous version of quasi-Christianity,… but your silliness in self-interpreting “what you’d like” for “what is truth” is not good for anyone.

Best to 'ya, chief.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Peregrino]

If you don’t believe that Christianity, especially Christianity as practiced by Catholics, isn’t more in line with God’s wishes for us as practice and belief, then you’re simply not a Christian.

If you’re not a Christian, then you have no standing whatsoever in the area of commenting on “internal Christian matters”. Period.

I disagree again. Everyone of every faith (including a Catholic like myself) has the right to comment and question.

Your analogy is self serving and not applicable. I would have, as a good Catholic, said that humans are humans and should be treated as humans.

EXACTLY! Now you are on to something. Good job! Why didn’t you say this in the first place for yourself rather than accusing me of being a feminist? As St. Paul wrote, “there is no male or female…we are all one in Christ”. Gender with regards to matters of religion and worship should not factor in at all.

You don’t seem to be able to differentiate special cases of human relations, which is not surprising for a liberal (probable libertine) “fuzz-ball”.

Tut tut. Name calling again. How old are you? Four?

Then you do misunderstand Christianity, which is The Church’s “version”, in it’s fullest and truest example.

“Fullest”. I agree with you, but for different reasons! lol.