查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 後自由神學對宗教對話理論的批判性考察
- 我即花--試疏解基督宗教神學人對佛教事事無礙思維模式的疑惑
- 邁向開放的社會--對話教學法的實踐
- 從創新導向之本土化觀點論經典教育的意義--大學基進經典教育論綱
- 整合學習共同體於差異化教學的改革
- 運動員自我對話功能與相關研究分析
- Conversation Analysis of Taiwanese Senior High School Students' Casual Talk and Class Discussion: A Focus on Gendered Differences
- 由跨文化觀點探討外籍勞工人力資源管理與績效關係之研究
- Broadening the Concepts of Moore's Transactional Distance Theory in the Light of Relevant Adult Education Theories and the New Telecommunications Technologies
- 後現代主義教育哲學及其對教育之啟示
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 後自由神學對宗教對話理論的批判性考察=Plurality and Difference-Postiberal Theology on Religious Dialogue |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 曾慶豹; | 書刊名 | 中原學報 |
卷期 | 29:4 2001.12[民90.12] |
頁次 | 頁439-455 |
分類號 | 210.111 |
關鍵詞 | 多元主義; 對話; 差異; 信仰社群; Pluralism; Dialogue; Difference; Faith community; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 宗教或意識形態間的對話已成為一個必然的趨勢,然而,卻不意味著說我們已經對「對話」做出了深刻的反省。晚近宗教學者都困陷於多元主義者所設計的對話理論中: 排他主義、包容主義和多元主義,然而,這三種類型的區別是否恰當已遭到7質疑。本文將根據對話所引發的種種問題,首先一般性地批判多元主義對話理論框架中的「語言觀念」分別指出它的三項意識形態:範式的迷思、形式主義和情感主義。 不同於多元主義者的「語言觀念論J'後自由神學取徑於「符號互動論」以社群的方式理解基督宗教及其教義語言。以不可共量|生為前提,指陳後自由神學如何看待所謂的排他主義和多元主義,在後現代的多元文化中走出多元主義宗教對話理論的「範式的迷思」為一種「非基礎式」的排他性、差異性做辯護。 「後自由」不是一種「主義」後自由反對基礎主義並不等於非理性主義,也不是傳統教條式的排他主義,正如林買克所言:「後自由主張的可理解性是來自技巧而不是理論,可信性來自出色的實行而不是堅持獨立制定的標準」。所以,一種後自由的批判神學才真正擺脫形式主義的對話理論,以認同、識別和實踐為基督教非基礎式的排他主義辯護,並邁向以基督教真理言說的實踐性做反思。 本文所主張的後自由神學,必定是批判的,不是對傳教的批判,而是對護教學與基礎的批判。後自由在方法論上既不堅持教條的排他主義(福音派),也不主張討好的多元主義(自由派),它反對流行時俏,反對把當前的經驗看作啟示,反對將教義語言抽象化,反對信仰的非實踐化。通過後自由神學,我們看到了多元主義的對話理論正危害著基督教與其他宗教真有識別作用的差異性,也弱化著基督教教義語言的認同感,當失去了這一切賴以生存的資源後,基督教不僅不再有(非排他主義)特色,甚至還將喪失其社群性的實踐力。 後自由神學與多元主義者之間是「差異或同化」、「社群或個人」、「實踐或認知」、「文本內或文本外」、「批判或理解」等之爭。本文一方面說明後自由神學面對多元文化的回應和態度,一方面則根據其立論對多元主義做出批判。 |
英文摘要 | Itseems an overwhelming trend that dia10gues between religion and ideology happening today. However, this does not mean that we had a1readydeeply inspect on “dia1ogue"itself. In recent years, scholars on religious studies often fa11 into dialogue theories which designed by the pluralists: exclusivism, inc1usivism and pluralism. Nevertheless, it is questionable that whether the distinctions between those three types is appropriate. This artic1e first generally criticizes the “linguisticidealism" in thedialogue theoretical schema of plura1ism, which rises from the problems provoked by dia1ogues. Threeideologies are pointed out here: paradigm's myth, forma1ism and expressivism. Different from the “linguisticidealism", postliberal theology utilize “symbolicinteraction" to recognize Christian faith and the language of Christian doctrine from the aspect of sociality. Incommensurability as a premise to describe how postlibera1 theology treats so-ca1led exclusivism and pluralism, and how to release from the “paradigm'smyth" of pluralism religious dialoguetheory in the postmodem multi-culture world. The method of postlibera1 theology does not insist doctrinal exclusivism (evangelism), and it does not assert to toadyish plura1ism (liberalism).Postlibera1 did not accept prepresent experiences as revelation, as wel1 as not agree to make language of doctrine abstract or non-practice of the faith. Dialogue theory of plura1ism is damaging distinguishable differences between Christianity and other religion, meanwhile pluralism is weakening the rea1m of identity by Christian doctrine. Ifal1 sources which is essentia1 to keep alive are lost, Christianity willlose there praxis with the character of the faith community. This article means to responses and criticize plura1ism according to its theoretical foundations, with the situation of postlibera1 theology in the IÎlulticultura1world. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。