Talk:Religious pluralism/Archive 2

message: Contributions to this talk page are ordered by subject matter, not strictly chronologically; some older contributions are archived. I propose that more "intelligent archiving" should be done to increase the readability of this Talk Page. --Robin.rueth 07:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important: Outline of this Talk Page 

message: This sections is about definitions of concepts other than ‘’religious pluralism’’ and subjects narrowly related to it (pluralism, inclusivism, relativism, tolerance); discussions about this should go to #Definition of Religious Pluralism
==== Distinction between Religious faiths and traditions ====
A distinction should be made between religious faiths and religious traditions. For example, I consider Unitarian Universalism to be a religious tradition because it does not require faith. This is an example of a non-dogmatic and non-creedal religion that does not teach absolute truth. Mention should also be made of the Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrianism. Squideshi 16:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Definitions and Distinctions 

message: A distinction should be made between religious faiths and religious traditions. For example, I consider Unitarian Universalism to be a religious tradition because it does not require faith. This is an example of a non-dogmatic and non-creedal religion that does not teach absolute truth. Mention should also be made of the Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrianism. Squideshi 16:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between Religious faiths and traditions 

message: === New Outline For Rewrite - old version ===
Because of its length, this discussions has been archived by --Robin.rueth 07:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aim and Outline of this article 

message: Because of its length, this discussions has been archived by --Robin.rueth 07:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Outline For Rewrite - old version 

message: This is a new overall outline for the article that was jointly developed by Robin.rueth and 20040302. We propose that this outline be implemented into the new article. This entails 
*copying parts of the old article into its right place in the new one
*reworking sections of the article so they fit in
*inserting text into so far orphaned sections
*putting text that would now be too long into separete, linked articles, with a summary on the Religious_Pluralism page.
* reviewing links with other articles (and perhaps the articles themselves; concretly: Religious_Toleration and Interface) 
Quite obiously, any contribution is most welcome and greatly necessary.--Robin.rueth 20:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Outline for Rewrite - New version 

message: === Pages Related to Religious Pluralism ===
This is an attempt to identify pages that contain material on subjects that are to be treated also on this page. So
* content from these pages could be integrated into this page; this does not mean that we want to merge all these pages into one  but that useful material from these pages could be used on this page , for instance to illustrate a point (such as the recently featured article French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools).
* these pages should be linked to from this page.
* definitions on these pages could be used here; definitions must be checked with those of this page for consistency. 
The following pages have been identified so far:
* Religion#Approaches_to_relating_to_the_beliefs_of_others: The concepts exclusivism, inclusivism, syncretism, pluralism and universalism are discussed here; however, the terms are used in a different way sometimes: Universalism is used in a way that I would call pantheism; pluralism there may be close to relativism - in the latter case, the distinctions are fine, obviously.--Robin.rueth 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted to merge these articles together, I think they they should be located at Pluralism, not Religious pluralism. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this remark, I have clarified my above contribution accordingly --Robin.rueth 21:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasks going beyond this page 

message: This is an attempt to identify pages that contain material on subjects that are to be treated also on this page. So
* content from these pages could be integrated into this page; this does not mean that we want to merge all these pages into one  but that useful material from these pages could be used on this page , for instance to illustrate a point (such as the recently featured article French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools).
* these pages should be linked to from this page.
* definitions on these pages could be used here; definitions must be checked with those of this page for consistency. 
The following pages have been identified so far:
* Religion#Approaches_to_relating_to_the_beliefs_of_others: The concepts exclusivism, inclusivism, syncretism, pluralism and universalism are discussed here; however, the terms are used in a different way sometimes: Universalism is used in a way that I would call pantheism; pluralism there may be close to relativism - in the latter case, the distinctions are fine, obviously.--Robin.rueth 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted to merge these articles together, I think they they should be located at Pluralism, not Religious pluralism. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this remark, I have clarified my above contribution accordingly --Robin.rueth 21:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages Related to Religious Pluralism 

message: Hello,
I am requesting some help with another Wikipedia page. Currently, the Open Source Religion page is being closely edited by primarily a single individual. A number of religions are claiming to be open source or are exploring aspects of open source collaboration as found within the open source computing community. However, only one religion is being represented in the article on this page, and this without any references to sources such as peer-reviewed journals.
This is the page where your input would be appreciated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_religion
My personal opinion is that this page needs to be either substantially rewritten or removed. However, even tiny steps in revision are being halted since the page is so obscure that currently I am the only one defending expanding the religions that are represented there. I would appreciate the assistance of anyone who can make coolheaded arguments about respecting the right of other religions who see themselves as open source to be factually represented in this article and sticking to Wikipedia policies.
Thank you for any help or third opinions you can give to our discussion.
Kind regards,
Eriostemon 01:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help With Open Source Religion Page 

message: What is the POV complaint, that caused the disputed notice to be posted in the "Christianity" section?  What should we be doing, to resolve the dispute? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my above notice under "Classical Christian Views". Concretely, the first paragraph of "Classical Christian Views" is a bit simplistic, rather on the evangelical side (may still be o.k., though), but the last sentence, "All non-christians are specifically pointed out as destined for damnation" is way beyond acceptability. I think that in the light of the Bible, this cannot be maintained, passages like the Last Judgement in Matthew 25 openly contradict it.
The rest of the section, in my opinion, talks more about relativism than what I understand to be pluralism (see the introduction that I rewrote and the concepts section that I added), so mixing up these concepts just makes the whole paragraph confused. Finally, in the last paragraph ("To these Christians"), I don't really get the point. Most non-Christians who have some sympathy for Christianity would rather acknowledge some of the beliefs of Christianity - such as the value of charity... - but find the sacraments rather bizarre. This even goes for Christian Calvinists and, to a lesser degree, for other protestants, who do not believe in transsubstantiation, so this whole paragraph is pointless even for them.
The "Modern Christian views" section suffers from a lot of confusion as well. Vatican II with "Nostra Aetate" is missing (I might add it one day). The idea that "Most Christians, including most conservative Protestants, reject the idea of the New Testament as an extended covenant, and retain the classical Christian view as described above" cannot be true, because the conservative Protestants are, numerically speaking, a minority within Christianity whereas Catholicism, which is the majority church within Christianity, officialy adhers to a more tolerant view of things.
Generally, much of the article needs reworking as I specified it in my "Concepts" entry above.
--Robin.rueth 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I hope that our recent discussions are helping to clear this up.  Your concerns are valid, and the sections on Christianity may need to be rewritten to address your points.  The ideas I was adding in this article were meant to be about pluralism, not relativism.  Indeed, near the top of this article is a critique of relativism (the idea that all religions are equally true, and equally false.)  Relativism is widely (and I believe correctly) understood to be logically incoherent, because it forces one to violate the law of non-contradiction (God is real, and God is not real.  The Trinity is real, and the Trinity is not real.  There is an eternal soul, and there is not an eternal soul, etc.) RK 14:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Christian views

message: Christianity teaches that on their own, it is impossible for any person to have a relationship with God ... ''
: I'm looking at this section considering how to adjust it.  It has a 'spin' -- maybe 'a wobble' is a better description.  It isn't quite in focus. Few Christian teachers of any stripe will say that we "earn" salvation.  Few would say that salvation consists of "renouncing one's faith" to adopt Christianity. Few - very few indeed - would say that Jews are specially targetted for damnation, and most would be amazed if their doctrine were interpreted that way.  For a section that pretends to represent what Christianity teaches, it represents what may be believed by very few if any actual Christian persons. Mkmcconn
: I was jarred by the "especially Jews, are specifically pointed to as destined for damnation." Where does this come from?  I've been involved in a number of Christian traditions, and I've always thought the consensus to be that the Jews are God's chosen and will eventually be saved. (unless...Arminian free will theology here...they specifically reject salvation). Non Jews are only "grafted" into the covenant.  Pollinator 19:03, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  This take used to be echoed in a number of Christianity articles.  Although most of these occurances have been over-written, I don't think that there is anywhere that it is refuted. See supersessionism, for example.  Mkmcconn 19:24, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Christian views - POV dispute 

message: I'll work on this later, so I'm not griping without intent to aid in rectifying the mistake. But I do find it ridiculous that Hinduism, one of whose most fundamental ideas is religious pluralism, has no mention in the article, and instead naturally exclusivistic religions like the Abrahamic ones are dealt with for hours on end! "Truth is one, though the sages know it variously." That is part of a Vedic hymn that any Hindu knows. A common saying in Hindi among Hindus is that "Bhagavan ek hi hai!" ("God is but one!"). Once, Gandhi is known to have said, in a crowd, that he was Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc. and a Muslim in the crowd responded, "Only a Hindu would be able to say that." I think more time needs to be devoted to this. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:31, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree totally. I previously put in a little in Section 5.5, but with limited knowledge. I look forward to seeing your expanded entry -- Chris Q 07:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism neglected in pluralism article 

message: Robin Rueth writes "There should be one article about the state of affairs that ReligiousTolerance.org describes as "Religious diversity", and why should we not call it Religious Diversity? 
:We don't need an entire encyclopedia article on the phrase "religious diversity".  The term is merely being use to note that more than one religion exists.  As I read through the ReligiousTolerance.Org articles, they say that in most countries we can find more than one religious faith.  Umm, ok.  But there isn't a new idea; people have always known that many religions existed!  That's why we already have the article on Religion and the many related articles.  It is that main Religion article which should have links to Religious Tolerance, Religious intolerance (aka exclusivism), Religious Pluralism, Relativism, and Syncretism.
I'm worried that we are getting into original research here.  I think we should see how people use the term "Religious pluralism", and describe their uses of this term in an NPOV way.  As you point out, people use this term in different ways.  As such, we cannot always fully clarify the subject. We can only point out the linguistic confusion.  (e.g. Father Smith uses the phrase "religious pluralism" in the same way that Reverend Johnson uses the phrase "religious inclusivism".  RK 16:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this term meaningful for an entire article? 

message: Josiah Willard Gibbs, possibly the greatest American scientist, was a founder of statistical mechanics. His formulation of this science (which explains, for example, the thermodynamic behavior of gases) is based on the concept of a  state space. The state is dependent on some mechanical laws (like Newton's laws, but the exact formulation is immaterial); Gibbs noted the tendency of the state space to become filamentous (to branch out, like the branches of a tree from a tree trunk). I find this tendency to be exactly analogous to the concept of diversity, say in the evolution of one species from another. What I am getting at, is that 'diversity is unstoppable'. You will see this phenomenon in the segmentation of a business market, or in the evolution of political positions of the political parties, or in the evolution of species, or in the growth of ideas (as in the propositions of a belief system), one from the other, over time. 
For example, if you view the responses of species to an external stress, then the species will adapt or not. If a species does not adapt, it will succumb (as almost all species on the earth have) and another species will take its place. My point is that one branch may flourish, and another may wither. Not all branches may be able to co-exist simultaneously (the condition of plurality) but they certainly can or could have existed at one time or another (the condition of diversity). --Ancheta Wis 02:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know in how far this applies specifically to Religious Diversity; it would be a valuable addition to the Diversity article at any rate. It might go into a section explaining why there is religious diversity. --Robin.rueth 08:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What is interesting about this thought, anyway, is the concept of adaption; imho, religious communities also find themselves in a constantly changing world, and they have to ask themselves in how far they want to adapt the interpretation of their traditions to it or in how far they want to adapt the world to their ideals, or perhaps just close themselves to the world and refuse to communicate / to be corrupted. There may be diverse opinions within a religious community, which may lead to tensions and, in turn, to schisms, i.e. diversification, if you want --Robin.rueth 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea represents original research, and can not be included in Wikipedia articles.  In any case, real-world Christians and Jews never use physics and mathematics terms like these to analyze or justify religious pluralism, religious tolerance, etc.  If, someday, some matematician writes an article on this topic, we could then write an article on that mathematician's work.  But that potential, future article wouldn't be on religious pluralism.  Rather, it would be on the way that some mathematician decided to study and model religious pluralism. RK 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity can be modelled by the Evolution of a State Space 

message: :: I know what you're going to tell me now: This is original research. Yes, but only as long as I don't find anyone who has had these ideas before, and in some cases, I have found them. Most everything I have been doing on the RP talk page has served to provide a mental framework for contents that are yet to come, i.e. there are different positions that I can conceive of, and we can fit them into this framework (March4 keeps criticizing me for wanting to build up "towering edifices". He's right, my main aspiration here is to somehow get things into a system.) So maybe the structure is original, but it's content has been there elsewhere.--Robin.rueth 17:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: *All religions ultimately aim towards devotional service to God, which can be revived through the chanting of His holy names.
*God has many names. According to the Vedic tradition, the Hare Krishna mantra contains the most potent names of God.
*However, all names of God that come from the revealed scriptures are endowed with the potency of God, therefore, one can chant Jehovah, Krishna, Yahweh or Allah.
*Chanting the names of a pure, self-realised soul is also a way of reaching God. Lord Buddha and Lord Christ are examples of such self-realised souls. By chanting their names, one can receive their mercy in order to understand God.
:(removed as no source given & Krishna would not have referred to Buddha or Christ, as He pre-dates them -- Chris Q 15:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hare Krishna]] views

message: can anyone tell me waht religions are associated with some of Template:User religious pluralism these symbolson the religious pluralist userbox? specifically the center, bottom center, and bottom right? Gatherton 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try clicking on the articles on List of symbols. I found one there but the other 2 ??? -Ancheta Wis 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do these symbols mean? 

message: The old talk pages were unwieldy and had falled into disuse. I archived them. There was no useful discussion about the merger proposal or NPOV dispute. Hopefully, the interested parties will now post. PhatJew 11:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Archiving

message: I propose to replace the phrase 'peaceful co-existence' with 'graceful co-existence' --Ancheta Wis 09:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree 'graceful' has a particular meaning in Christian theology which does not apply here. Maybe "Harmonious coexistence" or something like that. -- Chris Q 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. Thanks for the sanity check. --Ancheta Wis 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graceful co-existence 

message: Recently I expanded on the religious intolerance article, adding a section on contemporary attitudes and policies. Inevitably being as it is a survey of law and attitudes regarding the issue it also covers those countries with laws against religious intolerence. However, since these laws could also be seen as promoting religious pluralism, promoting religious tolerance, promoting religious freedom or preventing religious persecution I must admit to being at a loss as to where it is most suitable. Do we really need separate articles on religous freedom, tolerence, pluralism, intolerence and persecution? I have to say it seems somewhat excessive. In any case, I'd appreciate some feedback on the section I added to religious intolence, and some suggestion as to where the content would be most appropriate. Daduzi 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just glimsped over religious intolerance quickly and it seems good.  I'll take a more indepth look in the near future.  In regards to which articles should exist, I agree that there is too many.  The religious tolerance article seems to me not well written, and so I would comine religious tolerance and religious intolerance into one article.  I also see religious freedom, religious persecution and religious pluralsim as subtopics of religious tolerance/intolerance, I think they should be summarized in the religious tolerance/intolerance article, and have a main link to their appropriate pages.  -- Jeff3000 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What would you think about following the systemic bias thread of reasoning? At the least it would lift up the discussion out of its current tracks within law, country, region etc. and give it a global basis. Another possibility might be to follow a completely personal track (individual pluralism / individual practice of religion). Yet another possibility might be to cover the political power of each culture and the relationship of each culture to its religion(s), and its possible evolution over time. It is pretty clear to me that an individual following his nose on a religious choice is doomed to annihilation if he contravenes the laws of his host culture or society. Yet enough individuals acting en masse can change the culture or society, and eventually, the laws. That leads us to the concept of tipping point. This suggests that the religious pluralism article might be the best venue, as any culture where intolerance or persecution is the mode would beat back any move toward a tipping point with violence. --Ancheta Wis 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluralism of articles

message: Religious Pluralism is one of the few articles that Wikipedia cannot create. Because, in order to stay at least somewhat united in purpose and function, Wikipedians must have similar viewpoints and biases, constituting a community of Tolerance more than anything. Tolerance and pluralism are certainly related, but nonetheless incompatible. The disorganization of this article and the disputes that constantly surround it are not only inevitable, but show how this is The Impossible Article for Wikipedia.
69.197.111.78 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is unduly pessimistic. There are good articles on many controversial topics. -- Chris Q 09:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Impossible Article 

message: Many religions in the United States, for example, teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth, and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the falsehoods taught by other religions. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, with many other Protestant sects, argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious.
I'm editing that because not at all sure how this is related to "religions in the United States"--it's not their "United States-ness" that is the defining characterization, but there exclusivist theology.  (Also, this is a problem in many parts of the world, not least in Taliban Afghanistan, where the Buddhas were destroyed.)  Further, even groups which have an exclusivist theology are capable of co-existing (tolerance), even while they are actively preaching that everyone else is wrong.  They do, after all, co-exist without incident most of the time. Miss w 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical mention?

message: Sounds like all you guys live in Massachusetts. There is the rest of the world, you know. And for that matter, the rest of the country. Please consider the narrowness of your cultural vision. Perhaps reading more articles about other parts of the world would help you out.  NLOleson 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is completely opaque.  What are you trying to say?  You applied a POV tag, but are leaving other editors to guess at what a Massachusetts point of view on the subject of religious pluralism might be, and where in this article it might be over-represented. Jkelly 03:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  What on Earth does that mean? Yes, I'm currently from Massachusetts, but I was also from Buffalo and have lived in Albuquerque, and, more to the point, did my undergrad work in comparative religion.  I did focus on U.S. religion (because I find it interesting), but I didn't note anything in the article that screamed "Massachusetts" or even "New England" (usually associated with a heavy-handed philosophical moralism as opposed to pragmatism or charismatic movements, though of course there were often charismatic leaders and pragmatists involved). Miss w 11:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrow point of view 

message: I note what appears to be a mistaken beleif that the Muslim faith denies Christ was crucified.  My limitd knowledge of the Koran indicates that Mohammed wrote that Christ was crucified but "merely fainted" on the cross, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.147.94 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relligious Pluralism Article 

message: I realize that some people use the terms interchangeably, but since there is a religious tolerance article already, I would suggest that this article be about the first definition in the intro:
* Religious Pluralism may describe the worldview that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus recognizes that some level of truth and value exists in at least some other religions.
I will call this "definition 1" for short.  The problem with the current article is that the sections keep switching between definitions without making it clear which definition is being discussed.  For example, "The belief that all religions can teach truths" is about definition 1, "Pluralism as interfaith dialogue" is partly about religious tolerance but mostly about ecumenism, "Conditions for the existence of religious pluralism" is entirely about religious tolerance.  In addition to being confusing, there is a not-so-subtle (although perhaps to some extent accidental) implication that those who reject definition 1 of religious pluralism also reject ecumenism and/or religious tolerance.  CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is pretty terrible, so go ahead and change it in any way you think will improve it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article about religious pluralism or religious tolerance? 

message: I'm not a religious scholar but I don't think that the "classical Christian view" presented in this article really represents the entirety of Christian belief.  Honestly, it sounds like the words of a preacher in a traditional Protestant church.  Certainly the views conflict with the traditional Roman Catholic Church which propose that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation.  From the Roman Catholic view the good works of man are necessary in order to achieve salvation.  Since this view takes some of the weight off of accepting Christ and places it on good deeds there is an inherent logical progression to pluralism.  Increasingly, Roman Catholic scholars and laypeople have taken the significance of the works of man to accept the possibilty of those who do good deeds, but are not Christian, being "saved."
I wonder if the writer of this section is so biased against religious pluralism that he or she is unable to be pluralistic about ideas within his or her own religion.  Oh, and get some references in there... Pastor Bob doesn't count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanvitale (talk • contribs) 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Christian View? 

message: I'd propose changing or moderating the sentence "Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the concept of "validity" when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of Roman Catholic Sacraments to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual content." - only the most conservative Eastern Orthodox would deem the Roman Catholic Sacraments as "devoid of actual spiritual content." Most Orthodox recognize the Catholic sacraments as truly Sacraments, and the Roman Catholic Church as truly Church, though excluded from ecclesiastical communion. This is similar to the now common Catholic view on the Ortodox Church, and though both camps have conservatives viewing the other Church as "devoid of actual spiritual content," the mainstream members and theologians of both Churches would go for the more liberal view. I haven't changed this myself as I need citations/references and a better source than the Russian Orthodox priests I've talked to about the matter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.54.126 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox view on Roman Catholic Sacraments 

message: There are a couple of phrases which appear to have been written by a Muslim who believes that the Caliphate and Muslim rule heralded an immediate wonderful age for non-Muslims in the conquered areas.  I have toned them down a bit, and pointed out that non-Muslim non-"people of the book" had no rights ascribed to them.  I have also removed a totally irrelevant sentance talking about the Hajj as an example of Muslim brotherhood, etc.  This has zero relevance to religious plurality and to non-Muslims, who could traditionally only go to Mecca on pain of death anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.22 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Muslim Bias 

message: The seventh and last paragraph under heading #1, "The belief that all religions can teach truths", seems oddly derived to me. The religions listed are each part of a nearly direct succession. Christianity formed after the life of Jesus (who actually taught Judaism, not a new religion), and was based on Judaism. Islam formed during the life of Muhammad, and has deep roots in Judaism as well as influences from Christianity. Baha'i is influenced by Islam, and those before. And ALL of them follow many of the same religious figures and tenets. This is not an example of retrospective pluralism, it is just an obvious consequence of the history and beliefs of these four religions. I think this is a case of applying an effect to the wrong cause.. a hidden variable, an erroneous conclusion. Anyone else think this section would be best removed? It doesn't add any useful information to the article besides this strange observation regarding Judaism and its successors. 74.36.116.152 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrospective views -- Huh? 

message: The Catholic Church (Cal Ratzinger) has reaffirmed its opposition to religious pluralism (see the document called Dominus Jesus) this should be noted!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominus Jesus 

message: There needs to be information on controversial relationships between religious pluralism and soteriology, as it is found here for example. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with soteriology

message: There ought to be something added on pluralism vs. the Magisterium. One of the main reasons that Catholics have been historically cold to the idea of pluralism is that the Magisterium functions like a unilateral Teaching body and does not allow for easy discussions, like in some or most branches of Judaism, Islam, Protestantism and Secularism.ADM (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Magisterium

message: A related issue is the controversial relationship between pluralism and Catholic dogmas, such as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension of Jesus, etc.  Catholics can't be Catholic without their religious beliefs or dogmas, and in many cases pluralism implies an implicit rejection of dogmas. ADM (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluralism and dogmas

message: It was quite a surprise to find the work of Chris Beneke mentioned under "Works cited". After all, on the first pages he explain the differences between religious pluralism and religious toleration, so you can't possibly say the the first is a synonym of the latter. So I had to at least check the edit history. The mentioning of the work was added by User:Historyball (diff), but he apparently didn't actually do any work on the article. Zara1709 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works cited?