One Earth Many Religions: Multi-faith Dialogue and Global Responsibility.

By: Muhammad Abduh

Religion is very important to many people also religious practices are important of many individual lives. Religion is significant aspect of social live and social dimension is important part of religion. Because of it’s influence upon society and society impact upon religion so that analyze of the dynamical relationship requires examining the interdependence of religion and other aspect of society possible. Making better understanding about religions and making common ground for interfaith dialogue to eliminate truth claim.

Moral motivations meaning certainly religions will and still are tempted to command people in authoritarian way to call for blind obedience and to violate the conscience they so will they can offer convincing moral motivation. To be specific: moral motivations an answer to the question of the meaning of everything of the history and of life. and we can learn more the moral messages in every religions such as an universal values taken example the concept of goodness, justice, religious tolerant etc. Comparative religions always useful in order to seek the meeting point or similarities of religions

One Earth Many Religions: Multi-faith Dialogue and Global Responsibility is one of Paul F. Knitter books. In my mind, this book is very interesting for my study in History of Religions. Therefore, there are some reason why I chose this book for my book resume task of History Religions, especially for chapter 5 by subtitle: “Global Responsibility: Common Ground for Interfaith Dialogue”. In this chapter, I found that it’s a heart of Knitter book, which Knitter showed of basis and goal of his books, its dialogue and global responsibility by common ground for interfaith dialogue. Its also seeks when he showed why shared global responsibility provides the most promising terrain on which religions can discover or fashion the common ground of dialogue. But, Knitter not stay and finished, but he try to give proposal of realization action. According to Knitter, to do this goal, the dialogue will have to be rooted in liberative praxis and will have to provide a preferential place for the voices of victims.

Basis and goal of Dialogue
In this Book Knitter will suggest that the new model for religious people to understanding of other religious be not only “pluralistic and co-relational;” but also “globally responsible or liberative”. This concern represent not a sift in the direction of pluralistic theology of religion but rather a new avenue of approach and more clearly defined destination. The basic religions that will be not only pluralistic but globally responsible, or better, that will be more effectively pluralistic by being global responsibility. Before, in chapter 1 he was painted only the board lines of what a globally responsible dialogue of religion mean. The rest of the book will make the case for its specific content and its value and urgency.
A globally responsible dialogue of religions seeks to draw out the opportunity that is inherent in an experienced necessity. The necessity, according to Knitter is about rooted in what was said earlier about respond to the overwhelming and frightening suffering that is afflicting. Better is being inflicted upon so many people and upon this planet Earth. A liberative Theology and dialogue of religious arises out of the urgency or the moral obligations to respond, as religiou8s people and as Humans, to the suffering Other and to the religions others. For such Religious people, dialogue with others simply can not be divorced from a concern for the suffering Others. More Precisely and more controversially, this means that global responsibility or a concerned effort to promote human and planetary well being can and must be the primary context, or basis, or starting point, or goal of all Interfaith dialogue.
But in this case Knitter wants to say that he not sure which of the terms is most appropriate. Then he said that may be in terminology its become offensive to many scholars today, that the concern for salvation or eco human well being and justice can and must provide the common ground” for inter-religious dialogue in our global village, which has become a threatened village. But what will be say for Knitter is the man message that this book is “dialogue must be globally responsible”
Therefore Knitter, wanted to show that if dialogue is globally responsible, it can be more effective, rewarding and transformative that it has been in the past. This is where the necessity becomes an opportunity. Global responsibility can provide both a theological key to hear and understand the gospel in a more dialogical openness to other religions, and it can provide a hermeneutical key to hear and understand the otherness and genuine differences in other spiritual paths. By this book, Knitter will try to make clear that with liberative perspective, a pluralistic theology can be authentically for religion it self and inter-religious dialogue can be more hermeneneutical sensitive and effective in bridging the gaps of cross-cultural communication.
For realized Knitter Goal of make Global Responsibility by Dialogue, he recent ni proposal that a “global ethic” be made the top item on the agenda for international and inter-religious discussions.
(tentang perbedaan) For example; peace is a religious symbol because one cannot think of peace and the conditions of its possibility without confronting and dialoging about religious issues of humanity living and thinking and being radically different that it is to being and thinking. What is necessary for its realization? These are religious questions, which bond all the religions in a new, common project: to respond to and make real the symbol of peace.

Regarding other religions, Knitter not certainty agrees with pluralist or co relational theology, in the patent and real differences between religious traditions. In their views of the Ultimate, of this world, of life after death, of human conduct, of ritual and worship, religious communities clearly and often incommensurably differ. In inter-religious relationships, the deeper and longer, Writer was involved with another religious person or community, the more evident it becomes that many of our differences are irremovable and that our relationship is as difficult as it is rewarding.

: “Global Responsibility: Common Ground for Interfaith Dialogue”
Before Knitter explores more the Global responsibility, he tries to show the opposite of responsibility, its diversity. In this effort to balance cultural religious diversity with global responsibility, we have to admit, he suggest that the two do not weigh in equally. Responsibility presses upon us more urgently; responsibility is “more real”, or more revealing of the real, than is diversity. Therefore, while we try to be as respectful of diversity as we can, we must transform it from an obstacle into a resource for a genuinely diversified, communal, dialogical responsibility. What seems impossible must still be ventured. He believed that despite the incommensurability and lack of common ground, authentic conversation between utterly different cultures or religions is not only good but necessary. Simple words we must believe that there is dialogue after diversity. ( “There s a will there is a way” Mr. Muhaddes Said)
Many way are the ways in which the scholars affirm and illustrate the possibility of scaling the walls of incommensurability and enabling authentic conversation between diverse cultures or religions. Therefore “common ground” is possible to become bridge of dialogue. Even Knitter said that; Bridges of communication also can be built over the chasms of diversity.
But what are these bridge made of? Knitter said that “necessity is evident”. Any one who attempts the complex task of inter-religious or intercultural dialogue trust in big spirit who broods over the abyss of diversity and make it creative. Therefore, agreement on such guidelines before the dialogue takes of may not constitute common ground for conversation, but without endorsing such guidelines, whatever common ground there might be will never be found.