its a unique contest thats a mixture of it,science and commerce...
right now the name is resonanza..i feel the name is wired...Can any suggest a name for a inter school contest?No, no i cant.Can any suggest a name for a inter school contest?Science and Industry.Can any suggest a name for a inter school contest?devil?
Monday, February 20, 2012
What is Gandhi's approach to inter-religious dialogue?
how does his approach compare to the catholic churches?What is Gandhi's approach to inter-religious dialogue?In a globalized world, where there is global interdependence and consciousness of the one world but also comparative interaction of different world views, distinct communities, highlighting the virtues of particularism, are bound to produce new cultural conflicts. In such conflicts, religious traditions play a special role, since they can be mobilized to provide an ultimate justification for one's view of the globe. Closely linked to the process of globalization is therefore the problem of interaction between cultural or religious actors and communities holding different views of world order. Therefore, while the very idea of a clash of civilizations is wrong, a civilization of clashes is today’s reality. That is what makes dialogue among cultures and peoples an urgent matter of international politics and global ethics.
But dialogue to be meaningful has to proceed in a spirit of reciprocity, mutual recognition and solidarity. Dialogue to be meaningful has to be infused with cultural broad-mindedness. Intercultural dialogue can be inspired by several considerations and in each case it takes the form of a hermeneutical quest for inter-civilizational reflection on the modes of global existence. This dialogue might be intended to foster mutual understanding.
Or it might be considered as a way of addressing global issues such as climate change. Or it might be undertaken as a process of tolerance education in order to ensure that there will be no more conflict between cultures. The main question then is to know whether in today’s world cultures should, could and would engage in a dialogue with each other. This is a hard question with which Gandhi wrestled in his times, while trying to find an answer for it through his own life experience.
Tolerance, cultural broad-mindedness, mutual understanding are the hallmarks of Gandhian view of religion and politics. Mahatma Gandhi was deeply interested in the comparative study of cultures and religions since the days of his youth. The major portion of Gandhi’s life was spent in dialogue between East and West, between the East of his native India and the West of the colonizers. But his dialogue was not merely with words or ideas or theory, as can so easily become the case in our own day of dialogue.
His was a lived dialogue, springing from his love for Truth (Satya) and nonviolence (ahimsa). He once said: “In order to transform others, you have to first transform yourself.” The heart of Gandhi's message is to first look within one self, change oneself and when the world see's a different you, then it automatically change itself. At a more fundamental level Gandhi, speaking out of his own interpretation of Hinduism, could not see nations — or individual people — as isolated entities, one of which might be chosen by God among all others to play a special role in history.
Therefore, Gandhi rarely spoke in terms of linear world history. His goal for every culture (including his own) was the same as his goal for every individual: to find Truth. This was for Gandhi a way to opening the full truth of the person or reality encountered in a direct, immediate way. For Gandhi, himsa — a selfish desire to control others’ behaviors — inevitably prevented us from direct immediate awareness of truth. At a more philosophical level, in Gandhi’s view every culture can and should learn from others.
As such, Gandhi argues that there is truth in every culture but none represents the Absolute Truth. According to Gandhi, “Preservation of one’s own culture does not mean contempt for that of others, but requires assimilation of the best that there may be in all the other culture ''.
Gandhi is very conscious of talking of the idea of equality of cultures without being accused of cultural relativism. Gandhi was not a genuine relativist but he understood that the world was composed of different and inter-related cultures, each with something profound to give, and he tried to form a bridge among them based on common moral principles. Gandhi believed in the toleration of other cultures because he believed that they are crucial aids to understanding and evaluating one's own.
Gandhi is very conscious of talking of the idea of equality of cultures without being accused of cultural relativism. Gandhi was not a genuine relativist but he understood that the world was composed of different and inter-related cultures, each with something profound to give, and he tried to form a bridge among them based on common moral principles. Gandhi believed in the toleration of other cultures because he believed that they are crucial aids to understanding and evaluating one's own. Gandhi always saw other cultures as equal conversational partners and his plea of equality of cultures was based on the paradigm of inter-cultural spirit which was based on a creative interplay of concepts and values. His greatest ideas, like Satyagraha were neither purely Eastern nor purely Western, but came from a process of living in between cultures.
Finally, derstanding in today’s world. Of course, dialogue without listening and leaning is merely a discussion. Therefore, the Gandhian intercultural dialogue is an important step in being able to understand not only other cultures, but to bring different cultures together and to find a common path towards the future. But most of all, intercultural dialogue is about understanding other people and being able to see under the surface of difference. At the same time, through this interaction we also learn how to understand ourselves – who we are, what is important for us and how we want to live in this world of crisis. Mahatma Gandhi once said that “The future depends upon what we do in the present.” Our task today is not to make cultures ready for cultural conformity but to democratize cultural conformity with a true dialogue of cultures.
Thanks for the opportunity !!!What is Gandhi's approach to inter-religious dialogue?Kill them all, let God sort them out.
Yeah, That's Right
But dialogue to be meaningful has to proceed in a spirit of reciprocity, mutual recognition and solidarity. Dialogue to be meaningful has to be infused with cultural broad-mindedness. Intercultural dialogue can be inspired by several considerations and in each case it takes the form of a hermeneutical quest for inter-civilizational reflection on the modes of global existence. This dialogue might be intended to foster mutual understanding.
Or it might be considered as a way of addressing global issues such as climate change. Or it might be undertaken as a process of tolerance education in order to ensure that there will be no more conflict between cultures. The main question then is to know whether in today’s world cultures should, could and would engage in a dialogue with each other. This is a hard question with which Gandhi wrestled in his times, while trying to find an answer for it through his own life experience.
Tolerance, cultural broad-mindedness, mutual understanding are the hallmarks of Gandhian view of religion and politics. Mahatma Gandhi was deeply interested in the comparative study of cultures and religions since the days of his youth. The major portion of Gandhi’s life was spent in dialogue between East and West, between the East of his native India and the West of the colonizers. But his dialogue was not merely with words or ideas or theory, as can so easily become the case in our own day of dialogue.
His was a lived dialogue, springing from his love for Truth (Satya) and nonviolence (ahimsa). He once said: “In order to transform others, you have to first transform yourself.” The heart of Gandhi's message is to first look within one self, change oneself and when the world see's a different you, then it automatically change itself. At a more fundamental level Gandhi, speaking out of his own interpretation of Hinduism, could not see nations — or individual people — as isolated entities, one of which might be chosen by God among all others to play a special role in history.
Therefore, Gandhi rarely spoke in terms of linear world history. His goal for every culture (including his own) was the same as his goal for every individual: to find Truth. This was for Gandhi a way to opening the full truth of the person or reality encountered in a direct, immediate way. For Gandhi, himsa — a selfish desire to control others’ behaviors — inevitably prevented us from direct immediate awareness of truth. At a more philosophical level, in Gandhi’s view every culture can and should learn from others.
As such, Gandhi argues that there is truth in every culture but none represents the Absolute Truth. According to Gandhi, “Preservation of one’s own culture does not mean contempt for that of others, but requires assimilation of the best that there may be in all the other culture ''.
Gandhi is very conscious of talking of the idea of equality of cultures without being accused of cultural relativism. Gandhi was not a genuine relativist but he understood that the world was composed of different and inter-related cultures, each with something profound to give, and he tried to form a bridge among them based on common moral principles. Gandhi believed in the toleration of other cultures because he believed that they are crucial aids to understanding and evaluating one's own.
Gandhi is very conscious of talking of the idea of equality of cultures without being accused of cultural relativism. Gandhi was not a genuine relativist but he understood that the world was composed of different and inter-related cultures, each with something profound to give, and he tried to form a bridge among them based on common moral principles. Gandhi believed in the toleration of other cultures because he believed that they are crucial aids to understanding and evaluating one's own. Gandhi always saw other cultures as equal conversational partners and his plea of equality of cultures was based on the paradigm of inter-cultural spirit which was based on a creative interplay of concepts and values. His greatest ideas, like Satyagraha were neither purely Eastern nor purely Western, but came from a process of living in between cultures.
Finally, derstanding in today’s world. Of course, dialogue without listening and leaning is merely a discussion. Therefore, the Gandhian intercultural dialogue is an important step in being able to understand not only other cultures, but to bring different cultures together and to find a common path towards the future. But most of all, intercultural dialogue is about understanding other people and being able to see under the surface of difference. At the same time, through this interaction we also learn how to understand ourselves – who we are, what is important for us and how we want to live in this world of crisis. Mahatma Gandhi once said that “The future depends upon what we do in the present.” Our task today is not to make cultures ready for cultural conformity but to democratize cultural conformity with a true dialogue of cultures.
Thanks for the opportunity !!!What is Gandhi's approach to inter-religious dialogue?Kill them all, let God sort them out.
Yeah, That's Right
The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?
how can we demonize the other countries trying to create the same deterrent system?The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?It's called "nuclear deterance". That means that we maintain our missile systems to the point where it would deter, or prevent any other nation from launching it's missiles at us- the shorthand version:
If you launch at us, we'll launch at you- (and have time to do so before your missiles reach us), and then you're just as dead as we are. So only a fool would want to instigate a nuclear war. It's because "they", (whoever "they" might be), know that if we can strike back with our missiles if they've fired at us- that "they" will suffer the same fate as we will. We also have bombers that are designed like the B-52 or B-1B, designed specifically to destroy incoming missiles BEFORE they could impact the U.S. I am a 1st Lieutenant in the Civil Air Patrol- the official Auxiliary of the United States Air Force.
AND ICBMs ARE WAY MORE THAN MOBILE- THEY CAN BE REPROGRAMMED MID-FLIGHT TO DESTROY ANOTHER TARGET OR TO SPLASHDOWN IN THE OCEAN!
We (the United States) dropped 2 nuclear weapons on Japan.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the 2 cities that we destroyed. 11 million people died in 4 days.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?
Because we are the United States. We are powerful and they aren't. We do not want them gaining power over us in any way.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?We feel we have the power to say what is and isn't right.
We don't respect other countries enough to make their own decisions and so we take it upon ourselves to police and control the world.
It is this grandiosity that has led to our status of most hated nation.
First of all we have far more than 200 ICBMs available.
Also it is called deterrence. Besides, who would rather have all that firepower? Iran?
NOTE:
ICBMs can be mobile. Ever heard of the Peacekeeper MX and ALL ICBMs on submarines are mobile by definition.
I am a former US army missile and nuclear weapons officer.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?I'm sorry. Who have we threatened with them?
What entire people have we threatened to eliminate? Any?
**
In fact, what entire people has any of the major nuclear powers threatened to eliminate?
ah -- the difference is that we've demonstrated over decades that we won't use those weapons unless the other guy uses them first.
Britain had the opportunity during the Falklands War to use nukes in a far away place where the fallout would all have landed in the ocean. Demonstrating that they are civilized, they did not use them.
**
No one, afaik, seriously believes that India is going to first attack anyone. Ever.
The same can't be said for Iran or North Korea.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?
Because we can see that the only reason Iran and North Korea would want ICBMs is for Offense.
Iran is an aggressive little nation, they do not need better weapons. They need to pull their craniums from their rectums and realize that they do not hold all the cards.
we need those weapons.because we are hated so bad throughout the rest of the world.if we demobilize our nuclear weapons.all the countries that hate us will surely come and take over this country for sure.and we can thank our fine outstanding politicians who can;t learn to mind there own damn business.we all have to suffer because of their mingling in other peoples affairs.and trying to push our way of thinking on them.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?
we have them because we have the ability and technology to have them. pretty simple isn't it?
would you seriously want Iran to have nuclear weapons? the crackpot they have running the place would probably use them. even though it's very remote that they would win, would you want to convert to Islam in a nuclear wasteland?
That's why US is able to dance and fool others around the world boasting superpower status!
Because we developed it during the arms race with the soviet union. This was the ability that we had was called mutually assured destruction. In other words any attack on the us would be met with a counterstrike in fact killing everything on earth.
because we need to defend ourselfs dud
Good Question. America is the only country that ever dropped a nuclear bomb killing more than 100,000 civilians, America has killed more people on the planet than any country in recent history.. and by recent I mean the last 400 years. America has no right to tell any free country what to do or what they can or cannot have. plain and simple. America is a terrorist state if ther e ever was one... there has not been more than 30 years between America's wars at any time. America has to create an enemy or else there would be no justification for spending 1/3 of its GDP on the military weapons. IT has already been proven that all their so-called military superiority is a joke F-111s being shot down by WWII era shoulder fired rocket launchers, getting their butts kicked by a rag tag group of teen agers in Iraq. who are equipped with little more than an a A-k47 and a crude pipe bomb. I am not advocating the death f any one.. ever.. But as long as America keeps trying to rule the world then there will always been countries willing to risk attack from U.S bombers to build a bomb! Not to attack America or even Israel with,, but to show the world just how evil American politicians really are.. And one day the entire world will tire of it.. and we all remember what happend to Hitler..
The whole Nuclear cababilitiy between the 9 nations that possess nuclear weapons is just a pointless club. Nowadays The U.S or the U.K would only attack another with a nuke if that other country had attacked first, with it's own nuclear weapon- If that was the case, then there would literally be no victor- it is impossible to win a nuclear war, a true enemy with nuclear capabilities cannot be defeated- the world would not longer be inhabitable. How would any country win a nuclear war with russia? it has over 19000 nuclear warheads, the US has over 10000? The whole deterent arguement by some is just some dumb stalemate- and a bankrupt arguement.
Does this 200 include those on the subs? There are some great comments here, but very worried about all the demonising of Iran. This follows the pattern from 1776. Britain, the "special" relationship, was No 1 enemy for many years. Spain, France, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Korea, Russia, China, Vietnam all followed. Let us not forget the indigenous population of North America, they were demonised and 13 million of them paid for that. Countries must not be demonised, they in the main are populated by innocents who wish to live a life in peace, have shelter, food and water. A job would be nice as well. But peace comes high on the list. It is politicians, business people and bored military high-ups who cause the problem. There is no deterence in nuclear weapons, it is an expensive dead end. How our world would be changed if the wasted money was spent on real problems. Of course, if we had no demonic nations, there is still the threat of (whisper softly) ALIENS. We gotta keep them just in case!!
If you launch at us, we'll launch at you- (and have time to do so before your missiles reach us), and then you're just as dead as we are. So only a fool would want to instigate a nuclear war. It's because "they", (whoever "they" might be), know that if we can strike back with our missiles if they've fired at us- that "they" will suffer the same fate as we will. We also have bombers that are designed like the B-52 or B-1B, designed specifically to destroy incoming missiles BEFORE they could impact the U.S. I am a 1st Lieutenant in the Civil Air Patrol- the official Auxiliary of the United States Air Force.
AND ICBMs ARE WAY MORE THAN MOBILE- THEY CAN BE REPROGRAMMED MID-FLIGHT TO DESTROY ANOTHER TARGET OR TO SPLASHDOWN IN THE OCEAN!
We (the United States) dropped 2 nuclear weapons on Japan.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the 2 cities that we destroyed. 11 million people died in 4 days.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?
Because we are the United States. We are powerful and they aren't. We do not want them gaining power over us in any way.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?We feel we have the power to say what is and isn't right.
We don't respect other countries enough to make their own decisions and so we take it upon ourselves to police and control the world.
It is this grandiosity that has led to our status of most hated nation.
First of all we have far more than 200 ICBMs available.
Also it is called deterrence. Besides, who would rather have all that firepower? Iran?
NOTE:
ICBMs can be mobile. Ever heard of the Peacekeeper MX and ALL ICBMs on submarines are mobile by definition.
I am a former US army missile and nuclear weapons officer.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?I'm sorry. Who have we threatened with them?
What entire people have we threatened to eliminate? Any?
**
In fact, what entire people has any of the major nuclear powers threatened to eliminate?
ah -- the difference is that we've demonstrated over decades that we won't use those weapons unless the other guy uses them first.
Britain had the opportunity during the Falklands War to use nukes in a far away place where the fallout would all have landed in the ocean. Demonstrating that they are civilized, they did not use them.
**
No one, afaik, seriously believes that India is going to first attack anyone. Ever.
The same can't be said for Iran or North Korea.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?
Because we can see that the only reason Iran and North Korea would want ICBMs is for Offense.
Iran is an aggressive little nation, they do not need better weapons. They need to pull their craniums from their rectums and realize that they do not hold all the cards.
we need those weapons.because we are hated so bad throughout the rest of the world.if we demobilize our nuclear weapons.all the countries that hate us will surely come and take over this country for sure.and we can thank our fine outstanding politicians who can;t learn to mind there own damn business.we all have to suffer because of their mingling in other peoples affairs.and trying to push our way of thinking on them.The united states has over 200 inter continental ballistic missiles with up to 10 nuc war heads apiece. why?
we have them because we have the ability and technology to have them. pretty simple isn't it?
would you seriously want Iran to have nuclear weapons? the crackpot they have running the place would probably use them. even though it's very remote that they would win, would you want to convert to Islam in a nuclear wasteland?
That's why US is able to dance and fool others around the world boasting superpower status!
Because we developed it during the arms race with the soviet union. This was the ability that we had was called mutually assured destruction. In other words any attack on the us would be met with a counterstrike in fact killing everything on earth.
because we need to defend ourselfs dud
Good Question. America is the only country that ever dropped a nuclear bomb killing more than 100,000 civilians, America has killed more people on the planet than any country in recent history.. and by recent I mean the last 400 years. America has no right to tell any free country what to do or what they can or cannot have. plain and simple. America is a terrorist state if ther e ever was one... there has not been more than 30 years between America's wars at any time. America has to create an enemy or else there would be no justification for spending 1/3 of its GDP on the military weapons. IT has already been proven that all their so-called military superiority is a joke F-111s being shot down by WWII era shoulder fired rocket launchers, getting their butts kicked by a rag tag group of teen agers in Iraq. who are equipped with little more than an a A-k47 and a crude pipe bomb. I am not advocating the death f any one.. ever.. But as long as America keeps trying to rule the world then there will always been countries willing to risk attack from U.S bombers to build a bomb! Not to attack America or even Israel with,, but to show the world just how evil American politicians really are.. And one day the entire world will tire of it.. and we all remember what happend to Hitler..
The whole Nuclear cababilitiy between the 9 nations that possess nuclear weapons is just a pointless club. Nowadays The U.S or the U.K would only attack another with a nuke if that other country had attacked first, with it's own nuclear weapon- If that was the case, then there would literally be no victor- it is impossible to win a nuclear war, a true enemy with nuclear capabilities cannot be defeated- the world would not longer be inhabitable. How would any country win a nuclear war with russia? it has over 19000 nuclear warheads, the US has over 10000? The whole deterent arguement by some is just some dumb stalemate- and a bankrupt arguement.
Does this 200 include those on the subs? There are some great comments here, but very worried about all the demonising of Iran. This follows the pattern from 1776. Britain, the "special" relationship, was No 1 enemy for many years. Spain, France, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Korea, Russia, China, Vietnam all followed. Let us not forget the indigenous population of North America, they were demonised and 13 million of them paid for that. Countries must not be demonised, they in the main are populated by innocents who wish to live a life in peace, have shelter, food and water. A job would be nice as well. But peace comes high on the list. It is politicians, business people and bored military high-ups who cause the problem. There is no deterence in nuclear weapons, it is an expensive dead end. How our world would be changed if the wasted money was spent on real problems. Of course, if we had no demonic nations, there is still the threat of (whisper softly) ALIENS. We gotta keep them just in case!!
Do you know any friendly inter dimensional travels personally?
Absolutely. We get drinks every other weekend.vegetarian times
How do you deal with inter-conflict?
Are there times when you just want to kick your own a** for something that may or may not have been your fault?How do you deal with inter-conflict?I dont have inner-conflict... yes you do.. no I dont, Oh yes, you really do..
I wish all these people would get outta my head.. no you dont..How do you deal with inter-conflict?nooo.....................
congratulate me cuz it is my birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!How do you deal with inter-conflict?i dont know
I wish all these people would get outta my head.. no you dont..How do you deal with inter-conflict?nooo.....................
congratulate me cuz it is my birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!How do you deal with inter-conflict?i dont know
Where can i watch the second leg of the manchester united vs inter milan game in U.S.A?
will it be on espn like the first leg? because ive been hearing rumors that it wont be.Where can i watch the second leg of the manchester united vs inter milan game in U.S.A?live streaming links-
http://livewcfootball.blogspot.com
http://live-sportsports.blogspot.comWhere can i watch the second leg of the manchester united vs inter milan game in U.S.A?Well in the UK it is on skysports which you have to pay. I will be watching it on myp2p.eu onliine for free since i do not have the channel. Since you are in the us try setanta sports us, fox sports, fox soccer espn.Where can i watch the second leg of the manchester united vs inter milan game in U.S.A?The first leg was on ESPN2... the second leg will be on ESPN Classic. I'm not fortunate enough to have Classic so I'm heading to a local pub that televises the Champs League games, should be a packed house, and a great gameWhere can i watch the second leg of the manchester united vs inter milan game in U.S.A?
try this one: you are so gonna love it:
http://tv.indonewyork.com
they stream every single man utd match
http://livewcfootball.blogspot.com
http://live-sportsports.blogspot.comWhere can i watch the second leg of the manchester united vs inter milan game in U.S.A?Well in the UK it is on skysports which you have to pay. I will be watching it on myp2p.eu onliine for free since i do not have the channel. Since you are in the us try setanta sports us, fox sports, fox soccer espn.Where can i watch the second leg of the manchester united vs inter milan game in U.S.A?The first leg was on ESPN2... the second leg will be on ESPN Classic. I'm not fortunate enough to have Classic so I'm heading to a local pub that televises the Champs League games, should be a packed house, and a great gameWhere can i watch the second leg of the manchester united vs inter milan game in U.S.A?
try this one: you are so gonna love it:
http://tv.indonewyork.com
they stream every single man utd match
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)