The Doctrine Of God According To Athanasius And Al-Ash'ari: Comparing A Christian Theologian And A Muslim Theologian

1991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Hoover
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 189
Author(s):  
Sebastian Gäb

When we were on the subway back from his lecture, I said to Robin: “I’m not sure there actually are any religious fictionalists.” We keep talking about them in papers and lectures, acting as if fictionalism in religion is a real possibility, but to be honest, I haven’t been able to spot one in the wild so far. The only potential candidate who comes to mind is Don Cupitt, who wrote things like: “I still pray and love God, even though I fully acknowledge that no God actually exists.”[1] Perhaps this is as fictionalist as it gets. But then again, Cupitt never explicitly declared himself a fictionalist (at least to my knowledge). Moreover, on other occasions he sounds more like an expressivist than a fictionalist, e.g. when he says: “The Christian doctrine of God just is Christian spirituality in coded form.”[2] So, if there are any actual fictionalists out there, please step forward.[1] Don Cupitt, After God: The Future of Religion (Basic Books, 1997), 85.[2] Don Cupitt, Taking leave of God (SCM Press, 1980), 14.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 161-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Ventimiglia
Keyword(s):  

The aims of my paper are (i) to set out Aquinas’s arguments in favour of the thesis of God as Subsistent Being itself; (ii) set out the arguments against; and (iii) propose a fresh reading of that thesis that takes into account both Thomistic doctrine and the criticisms of it. In this way, I shall proceed as in a medieval quaestio, with arguments in favour, sed contra and respondeo.


1947 ◽  
Vol 44 (20) ◽  
pp. 558
Author(s):  
James Gutmann ◽  
Russell Warren Stine
Keyword(s):  

Exchange ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-155
Author(s):  
Susanne Hennecke

AbstractThis contribution deals with the thinking of the Buddhist philosopher and Christian theologian Katsumi Takizawa (1909-1984) on incarnation. Firstly, it gives a short biographical and theological introduction to Takizawa, who was influenced not only by the "father" of the so-called dialectical theology, Karl Barth, but also by one of the famous figures of the Kyoto-school, the philosopher Kitaro Nishida.This contribution concentrates, secondly, on Takizawa's the-anthropological re-interpretation of the incarnation. It is argued that for Takizawa incarnation has to be seen as an awakening of the historical Jesus (or other historical phenomena) to what he calls the original fact: the eternal relationship between God and man.Thirdly, this contribution discusses the the-anthropological thinking of Takizawa about incarnation in five short points. Apart from the positive challenges of Takizawa's thinking especially for the theology of Karl Barth, it marks clearly the most thrilling point between Takizawa's thinking on the one side and that of scholars in Barthian theology on the other side. The open question that comes up is if incarnation really can be thought without a historical mediation or mediator, as Takizawa seems to claim.


1910 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
William W. Fenn

It is related that Dr. Everett was once asked by the professor of systematics in another institution what subjects he found it possible to discuss in a non-denominational school of theology. The question was a silly one, for it assumed that in such a school no teacher gives utterance to the particular views which determine his own denominational affiliations, whereas, in Harvard at any rate, each instructor expresses without hesitation or reserve his entire thought, not seeking to present a composite picture but trusting that his instruction will blend with that of his colleagues to impress upon the minds of his students, whatever distinctive features they may finally adopt, the deep common lines of Christian faith. Characteristically, however, Dr. Everett did not point out the false presupposition of the question, but mentioned some of the principal topics considered in his lectures,—the nature of religion, the thought of God as Absolute Spirit, and the like,—to which the inquirer replied in some surprise, Why, we take all those things for granted. Dr. Everett answered mildly, I wish we could. It was a thoroughly characteristic remark not only because of the humor of its gentle rebuke, so gentle that probably the victim did not realize that his head was off, but also on account of its utter fidelity to his own theory and practice. He did not take fundamental things for granted; hence it was that while students in other theological schools were articulating a body of divinity, Dr. Everett's pupils were searching into the deep things of the spirit. For he was, first of all, a philosopher whose religious nature made him a theologian. The twenty-fifth chapter, of the thirty-five which make up the recently published volume upon Theism and the Christian Faith, begins with the words, “It may seem as though we were only now beginning our examination of the content of Christian faith.” Doubtless it would have seemed so to most of his contemporaries in theological chairs, but it was precisely in the relation between the Christian faith, as he conceived it, and the profound metaphysics of the preceding chapters, that Dr. Everett found the supreme worth of Christianity and the assurance of its absoluteness. The heart of a worshipper made the mind of a philosopher that of a Christian theologian.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document