scholarly journals Heschel’s View of Religious Diversity

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold Kasimow
Keyword(s):  
Religious Diversity ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Way ◽  
Will Of God

A number of prominent Christian theologians who have contemplated the issue of religious diversity speak of three major models for approaching it: exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist. Claiming that “diversity of religions is the will of God,” Abraham Joshua Heschel was certainly no exclusivist. But he also was neither a pluralist nor an inclusivist in the way these terms are commonly used by Christian theologians. Much like the Dalai Lama’s perspective on Buddhism vis-à -vis other religions, Heschel’s distinctive Jewish approach to religious diversity transcended the categories created by Christian scholars.

scholarly journals Pandangan Al Zamakhshshari Tentang Ayat-Ayat Pluralisme Dalam Tafsir Al-KasshaF

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-60
Author(s):  
Achmad Zainul Arifin ◽  
Wina Valestin Valestin
Keyword(s):  
Good Life ◽  
Religious Diversity ◽  
God's Will ◽  
The World ◽  
The Will ◽  
Will Of God

Pluralism is the most beautiful gift and sunnatullah that must be accepted in this life. In reality a country must have diversity in terms of ethnicity, culture, and even religion and Indonesia is a country with the highest application of pluralism in the world. That the country of Indonesia is a country formed from cultural, ethnic and diverse religious diversity not only one culture or one religion. Creating plurality or diversity is one of God's will, so God also creates various kinds of concepts so that plurality itself does not collide with each other even if there is a clash, then it can be resolved properly. Even in the Qur'an the plurality is highly valued, in the Qur'an there are also many verses that explain plurality. Starting from how pluralism is created, then recognizing the existence of something diferent from what is belived to appreciate any differences that exist. In the Qur'an there are guidelines in living a good life therefore Muslims are encouraged to learn and apply what is in it. Especially in understanding differences that in essence is the will of God. One of Al Zamakhsha>ri>'s opinions in his book, Al Kasyaf's interpretation, says that Allah creates a difference in this life so that people can know each other and not get caught up in their own stupidity then compete in terms of goodness.

scholarly journals Waarom verskil ons so oor wat die wil van God is? Opmerkings oor Christelike morele oordeelsvorming

1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-47
Author(s):  
D. E. De Villiers ◽  
D. J. Smit
Keyword(s):  
Social Ethics ◽  
Moral Disagreement ◽  
Moral Problem ◽  
Moral Issues ◽  
Moral Decisions ◽  
Moral Judgements ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Way ◽  
Will Of God

Why do we differ so much about the will of God? Comments on the formation of Christian moral judgements A better understanding of the way in which moral judgements are made and moral decisions are taken may help to understand why Christians differ so much on moral issues. Protestant ethicists, however, have generally ignored these questions, for a number of reasons. Heinz Eduard Tödt, a former professor in Social Ethics from Heidelberg, Germany, has done more than anyone else to put these issues on the agenda of protestant ethicists. The authors analyse the five most important aspects of his theory. The factors that contribute to moral disagreement among Christians are identified and illustrated with reference to the moral problem of poverty.

Schopenhauer, Buddhism, and Compassion

2020 ◽  
pp. 327-346
Author(s):  
Richard Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Metaphysical Explanation ◽  
Moral Value ◽  
Middle Way ◽  
Perfect Duties ◽  
Kantian View ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Way

The focus of this chapter is Schopenhauer’s On The Basis of Morality (1841). His distinctive views are that compassion marks one’s being as spontaneously motivated to relieve another’s suffering as one’s own and that this requires a metaphysical explanation for how one identifies with another. The author defends these views and shows in some detail how they mirror the Mahayana account of compassion in Shantideva’s The Way of the Bodhisattva. Next, the author outlines Schopenhauer’s case for compassion being the sole basis of moral value and defends this claim against the Kantian view that acting beneficently cannot (rationally) override so-called perfect duties to others. Finally, the author explores how Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings cohere with Schopenhauer’s account of suffering and how mystical consciousness, as represented in Mahayana Buddhism’s “Middle Way,” coheres with Schopenhauer’s asceticism—the “denial of the will”—as the path to overcoming suffering.

“I Saw a Kingfisher”: Grace and Ruin in Golding's The Spire

Horizons ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-66
Author(s):  
D. M. Yeager
Keyword(s):  
Apple Tree ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Moral Ambiguity ◽  
William Golding ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Will ◽  
Will Of God

AbstractWilliam Golding, in The Spire, invites us to ask how we may know the will of God, and suggests that what we take to be the will of God is often simply the projection onto history of the disguised image of our private and self-absorbed desires. Though contemporary critics tend to interpret the novel as a sympathetic exploration of moral ambiguity rather than as a compelling condemnation of Jocelin's mortifying and death-dealing sin, the novel turns on the contrast between the drive toward dominion and the capacity for assent. The final salvific discovery, given form in Jocelin's mind by the experience of the apple tree and the kingfisher, is the overthrow of the will, its panicked drowning, in terrified apprehension of implacable glory and squandered gifts.

Belief and the Will

Philosophy ◽  
1972 ◽  
Vol 47 (180) ◽  
pp. 95-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony O'Hear
Keyword(s):  
Long Period ◽  
General Account ◽  
The Will ◽  
Will Power ◽  
The Way

In this article, we will consider how far we might be said to be active in forming our beliefs; in particular, we will ask to what extent we can be said to be free in believing what we want to believe. It is clear that we ought to believe only what is really so, at least in so far as it lies in our power to determine this, but reflection shows that, regrettably, we do not confine our beliefs to what we have evidence for, nor do we always believe in accordance with the evidence we do have. So it is natural to conclude that non-intellectual factors may be at work here; such, at least, was the view of Descartes, who attributed error to the influence of our will in leading us to assent to judgments which go beyond the evidence presented by our infallible intellect. This view has some initial plausibility when we think of cases in which emotional considerations lead people to take up and genuinely believe things they have no evidence for, but it is not a view which has received much support from modern philosophers. So, in Part 1 we will look at criticisms levelled against Descartes' view by J. L. Evans, and in Part 2 we will see how far Descartes can be defended. Our conclusions here will lead us to give in Part 3 a general account of the influence of the will in beliefs. We will suggest that we are always responsible for our explicit beliefs, even though it is not true that we can simply believe what we like. Thus we will reject the idea that a man can consciously know something, and at the same time, by will power, believe the opposite. Belief is not then totally free, but we will argue that people do sometimes form beliefs which go against what they should and could believe, and that this can in a way be put down to the influence of the will. Finally we will consider some of the ways in which it is possible to influence our beliefs by willed acts over a long period of time, though this is not the way that we clami that the will might be said to play a part in every judgment that we make.

The Mystery of Jesus' Teaching about “The Son of Man”

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-80
Author(s):  
Edward A. Beckstrom
Keyword(s):  
Dead Sea Scrolls ◽  
Dead Sea ◽  
High Priest ◽  
The Third ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
Third Person ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Dead ◽  
The Third Person ◽  
Will Of God

For centuries a mystery has surrounded the meaning of Jesus' term “The Son of Man” in his ministry, and today it is often called “The Son of Man Problem.” Studying “Son of Man” in all of its biblical references, and apocryphal usages, together with insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls, I propose a solution that the idiom means “Priest” or “High Priest,” but most especially “Heavenly High Priest” and is framed in the third person by Jesus because it is expressed as his destiny given by God—it is the Will of God. “The Son of Man” is distinct from Jesus own will, but is the destiny he follows. It is also the use of this term that caused Caiaphas to cry “blasphemy” at Jesus' Sanhedrin trial, who then sent him to Pilate for crucifixion, yet asserting that Jesus proclaimed himself “King of the Jews.” Caiaphas, knew, I believe, that “Son of Man” was synonymous with “High Priest.”

Aesthetics

2021 ◽  
pp. 295-308
Author(s):  
William Dyrness ◽  
Christi Wells
Keyword(s):  
Holy Spirit ◽  
Self Disclosure ◽  
Ongoing Work ◽  
The Holy Spirit ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Physical Beauty ◽  
Will Of God

Edwards’s aesthetics grounded in the ongoing work of God communicated in creation, not only lies at the centre of his thought but is increasingly recognized as one of his most original contributions to theology. Edwards’s reflection on God’s beauty emerged in the context of his work as a pastor, which allowed him to frame God’s dynamic presence in dramatic and multi-sensory categories. For Edwards Beauty glimpsed in the form of images formed in the mind reflects a consent of being; the visual beauty of symmetry and proportion is meant to move the heart to consent to the will of God reflected in creation—what Edwards calls respectively secondary and primary beauty. All creatures are types and shadows of spiritual realities; beauty and morality are linked, though only the Holy Spirit allows believers to consent to God’s self-disclosure in creation. Edwards’s neo-platonic framework allowed his reflections on the revivals to affirm physical beauty while subordinating its meaning to the spiritual, enhancing its role as revelation but diminishing its value as an end in itself.

Eugene IV and the First Dissolution of the Council of Basle

1967 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loy Bilderback
Keyword(s):  
Holy Spirit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Essential Singularity ◽  
The Holy Spirit ◽  
Prime Determinant ◽  
The Will ◽  
Great Schism ◽  
The Church ◽  
Will Of God ◽  
Divine Guidance

The Council of Basle was officially charged with three basic concerns: the reform of the Church in head and members; the extirpation of heresy, particularly Bohemian Hussitism; and the attainment of peace among Christian Princes. Yet, the Council was most absorbed by, and is most remembered for, a fourth, unscheduled concern. From its outset, the prime determinant of the actions and decisions of the Council proved to be the problem of living and working with the Papacy. In retrospect it is easy to see that this problem was insoluble. One could not expect the efficient functioning of the Church if there was doubt or confusion about the will of God, and the presence of such doubt and confusion was certain so long as even two agencies could gain support for their contentions that they were directly recipient to the Holy Spirit. Singularity of headship was absolutely necessary to the orderly processes of the Church. Yet the contradiction of this essential singularity was implicit at Constance in the accommodation, by one another of the curialists, the protagonists of an absolute, papal monarchy, and the conciliarists, who sought divine guidance through periodic General Councils. This accommodation, in turn, was necessary if the doubt and confusion engendered by the Great Schism was to be resolved. At Basle, this contradiction was wrought into a conflict which attracted a variety of opportunists who could further their ancillary or extraneous ends through a posture of service to one side or the other, and in so doing they obfuscated the issues and prolonged the struggle.

scholarly journals The Problem of Eternity of the World in the Philosophical-Theological Theory of Grigor Tatevatsi

wisdom ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Seyran ZAKARYAN
Keyword(s):  
Necessary Being ◽  
The World ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Providence Of God ◽  
Do So ◽  
Will Of God

The famous Armenian theologian and philosopher Grigor Tatevatsi (1346-1409) in his teaching tries to compare the biblical truth of creation with the philosophical postulate regarding the eternity of the world. Principally, being a creationist thinker, he criticized the theories that made the Materia co-eternal to God, meanwhile, he proposed the following arguments regarding the eternity of the world: a) before the creation the world existed actually by influence in the providence of God as an immaterial paradigm; b) the world is eternal because it is linked to eternity; c) the God is the eternal and always actual being, therefore the world was created eternal and the eternal is the necessary being which never can become none-being; d) the will of God is unchangeable, He cannot make the created world become non-being otherwise His will would change; e) the God does not make the world become non-being not because He is unable to do so but due to the boundless goodness; f. the world is eternal because the four elements and qualities that are the basis of it, are eternal. Therefore, even though the arguments proposed by Tatevatsi are based on and contain typical ideas of Neoplatonism, one has to take into account that he speaks of the eternity of the created world rather than co-existence of world with the God.

scholarly journals Evangelical Responses to the Question of Religious Pluralism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Cecily May Worsfold
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Religious Pluralism ◽  
Core Beliefs ◽  
Major Work ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
The Will ◽  
Evangelical Movement ◽  
Will Of God

<p>The relatively recent rise of religious pluralism has significantly affected the evangelical movement, the roots of which are traceable to the sixteenth century Reformation. In particular, the theological implications of religious pluralism have led to debate concerning the nature of core beliefs of evangelicalism and how these should be interpreted in the contemporary world. While evangelicals continue to articulate a genuine undergirding desire to “honour the authority of Scripture”, differing frameworks and ideals have led to a certain level of fracturing between schools of evangelical thought. This research focuses on the work of three evangelical theologians – Harold Netland, John Sanders and Clark Pinnock – and their responses to the question of religious pluralism. In assessing the ideas put forward in their major work relevant to religious pluralism this thesis reveals something of the contestation and diversity within the evangelical tradition. The authors' respective theological opinions demonstrate that there is basic agreement on some doctrines. Others are being revisited, however, in the search for answers to the tension between two notions that evangelicals commonly affirm: the eternal destiny of the unevangelised; and the will of God that all humankind should obtain salvation. Evangelicals are deeply divided on this matter, and the problem of containing seemingly incompatible views within the confines of “evangelical belief” remains. This ongoing division highlights the difficulty of defining evangelicalism in purely theological terms.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document