We wish to offer our warm and wholehearted greetings to each one of you, the beloved representatives of the major religions, who are distinguished because you have been endowed with minds of the highest calibre, but more so superior hearts,who have gathered here to meet and get to know each other in a more intimate manner and to discuss the problems that emerge because of the coexistence in the world of various religions.  Dialogue and conversation, which is necessary for its being carried out, is a necessary precondition of mutual understanding, and mutual understanding is a precondition of mutual trust as well as of the ability to cooperate and to coexist.  We welcome with a sense of  satisfaction and applaud this initiative for dialogue in itself, as we do the breadth of the participants and the breadth of perspectives of those who invited us here, hoping and being certain that we shall meet their expectations, by having a dialogue of the highest calibre.

The primary issue that we must address is absolutism.  It is well known that every religion asserts that it holds within its belief system the absolute truth concerning God and the world, the latter of which also incorporates humanity.  Furthermore, it is also well known that God is the absolute being, in other words, that to which all pure attributes belong and from which all evil attributes are entirely absent.  We believe that all here present agree with this.

It is also known that God is one, as we all confess, even though we Christians see and confess the One God in Trinity, and the rest in oneness.  All of us, therefore, should have this perception of the one, immutable, and perfect God.  But it is evident that the perception of the adherents of one religion concerning God and the world differs from the perception of the adherent of another faith community.  This can mean nothing other than the fact that we the “observers” of God and of the world differ from one another, in other words each of our perceptions is not simply determined by the object observed (if we can say such a thing about God) but by the condition of the observer.  The variation of opinions, therefore, does not hinge upon the relativity of the true Being and His creation, but upon the relativity of us, the observers.

The admission of this truth incites in each one of us personally the Socratic confession of our ignorance, in other words the humble admission that we speak in absolute terms concerning truths beyond our noetic capabilities.  Because of this, due to our scientific and personal responsibility to the truth, we are obligated to be open, at the very least, to the views of others, in order that we might not arrive to the same conclusion as Witgenstein, which is that we must maintain total silence concerning God who is beyond our noetic capabilities (Tractatus logicofilosoficus).

We most certainly believe and consider it a given that the truth is singular, as is God, that in every occasion only a single sentence expresses the totality of this truth.  We also recognize and believe, however, that this singular sentence has not yet been revealed totally to anyone, even if at any given moment it is repeated by thousands and vociferously.  In other words, this sentence has not been apprehended by anyone in its magnificent fullness, even if it is uncontainable and it fills the universe.  This, we repeat, is due to our own relativity, that is to the limitation of the perceptive abilities of us humble human beings, in whose noetic framework the knowledge of the infinite and absolute God cannot be contained.  To borrow from the Apostle Paul, who was taken up into the third heaven; “At present we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror, but one day we shall see face to face.” (1 Cor. 13:12)

God Himself  has revealed, as it is written in Scripture, which is revered by all,  that “No one shall see my face and live” (Exodus 33:20).  Certainly, Scripture here does not speak literally, but rather metaphorically, because it is not proper to imagine God as being like us, consequently we understand the face of God as being His true nature and His hypostasis.  Therefore, we do not know God, or rather we do not know God in His totality.  However, we know a few things concerning God, and from this our differences result; because someone understands one-thing while another comprehends something else, and many times (we must admit) we confuse our imperfect knowledge by conforming it to our desires and we fashion in ourselves the image of God analogous to our condition, as the ancients also stated.  What is worse is that we occasionally desire to forcedly impose upon our fellow human beings this image of God, that has been refracted through the prism of our personality and deformed, as being the only true and correct one.  Moreover, it is not uncommon that we assert without verification that God blesses our activities, even if this simply expresses our own desires and not the reality.  Or as it states in the Koran, “Some falsely refer to the Lord, knowingly” (Chapter 3:78)

As religious leaders, responsible before God to express divine truth, in whatever degree we are cognitive of it, which means the conscious rejection of projecting of our personal tastes as being the will of God, we are obligated to humbly accept that respect on our part which allows our fellow human beings to traverse their own personal path to God is necessary and the command of God.

This respect on the part of one person toward the religious life of the another is a foundational responsibility of each of us and a fundamental presupposition of peaceful coexistence and good cooperation between people.  Moreover, we are able to assert that we do not have evidence from which the idea that God is pleased by the forced or deceptive means of acquiring faithful emerges.  If this were the case, then He had the ability to keep everyone with Him as he maintains the universe.  On the contrary, from the Bible, the idea that emerges is of the human being, who is created by God in His image and after His likeness, adorned with the divine characteristic of personal free will, for it would be contradictory for us to accept that, on the one hand, God endowed us with a freedom of conscience, and on the other hand, to accept that he is pleased by the forced or deceptive strangulation of it.

Consequently, whatever the modern, and for the most part secularized, human person projects as his cultural achievement, in relation to the inviolability of the religious consciousness, and faith, is in essence a result of the teaching of the three major religions, which are conversing here today.

Dialogue between these religions, but initially personal dialogue between those who, as Moses, seek the true face of God, is the only God-pleasing path to transmit the truth from the adherent of one religion to the adherent of the other.  “Truth emanates from God” (Koran 3:60) and it is revealed to the saints according to the degree of their capacity.  Each one of us is communicates to the one who asks for a word concerning hope in himself, his faith and his faith experience, or that of the friends of God whom he trusts.  This announcement and dialogue upon it is, we believe, the method most pleasing to God to transmit the faith.  We read in the Koran, “Say: Truth emanates from your God, he who so desires, let him believe; he who does not so desire, let him remain in faithlessness” (Koran 18:29)  We read in the Gospel; “Whoever wishes to come follow me” (Matthew 16:24).  And we read in the Bible; “When in the beginning God created the human race, he left them free to make their own decisions” (Sirach 15:19).  How can we overturn all these things by imposing our faith on others?

Dialogue is the only path pleasing to God.  This is because God always and in many ways dialogues with us, seeking the free offering of our heart and not our forced presentation before Him.  Let us offer our hearts to Him and not the hearts of others.  Amen.