No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In this essay I examine the relation between religious non-realism and religious pluralism. Religious pluralism is celebrated by it's adherents, to be benevolent and tolerant towards other religions truth claims and practices. Religious non-realism is also, by its adherents, praised for its including way to look upon truth claims and differing opinions about reality. When it comes to questions like what there is and what is not, does God exist or does he not etc. the religious non-realist is prone to less dogmatism and definite answers than metaphysical realists. Or at least so does the non-realists themselves like to think. What I examine in this essay is whether religious non-realism pragmatically implies religious pluralism, or if a non-realist judiciously can dismiss religious pluralism and instead adopt a form of confessional view of a specifik religion. Religious exclusivism, like the one Alvin Plantinga defends, rejects the possibility of x being both true and false. If a religious claim is taken to be true then incompatible claims have to be considered false according to this view. This fits poorly whith religious non-realism since the latter does not embrace a correspondance theory of truth. Religious pluralism is strongly criticized, among others for leaving “God” or other religious entities empty and whithout characteristics or content. This, because if God is litterally indescribable and unreachable, we would have no reason to believe that God has the chatacteristics we think he has. If religious pluralism cannot answer to the criticism, and if non-realism can not help pluralism evade the problems, then we are in need of a religious inclusivism that does not depend on metaphysical realism. I propose, what I have called, a pragmatic non-realistic inclusivism as an answer to the problem. This is a non-realistic theory that evades metaphysical realism and reductionism of religion, but nevertheless can prefere one religion before others. Not because one religion is concidered to have metaphysical and objective truth while others do not, but because one could prefere a specific religious language and consider that religion to be the most adequate response to human life

Classification systems constitute important tools within the field of knowledge organisation. The following bachelor thesis addresses Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and discusses the potential of bias in the religion class. Prior to this essay, DDC has been criticised for its biased representations, and for conveying an ethnocentric conception of the world. In this era of globalization, there is a want of classification systems that reflect multicultural societies – in other words, classification systems that consist of pluralistic (world)views. This thesis focuses on the 200’s of DDC, with the purpose of illuminating the degree of religious pluralism therein; more specifically, the thesis answers the following questions: 1) what discourse(s) dominates the religion section of DDC 23?, and 2) which groups and perspectives are being marginalized as a consequence of the dominating discourse(s) within the religion section of DDC 23? In order to answer the questions stated above, the analysis is carried out by means of the theoretical framework by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe regarding discourses. In addition to the discourse analysis, a quantitative content analysis is also performed. This mixed methods approach outlines the frequencies and discursive formations of terms occurring in the 200’s, and accordingly generates the following implications: 1) the religion section of DDC 23 is dominated by a Christian discourse, and 2) the groups and perspectives that are being marginalized consists of all religions other than Christianity. Hence, the degree of pluralism within the religion section of DDC 23 is considered to be low.

<p>The purpose of this dissertation is to understand the complexity of the preaching event as communication from a theological point of view in order to increase the awareness of this complexity. I see theology of preaching as a way of reducing the complexity, to making the complexity visible.</p><p>I study the contemporary preaching theologies that Eberhard Jüngel, Mary Catherine Hilkert, W. Paul Jones and Rebecca S. Chopp construct. They reduce the complexity of the preaching event to understand it better, and by doing so they make the complexity visible.</p><p>In the introduction I discuss some factors that make the preaching event complex:- the complexity of human interactive communication in general; that preaching is thought to be an event in which God communicates and the ambigous use of signs for the purpose of communication. I give a brief background to this homiletical situation, by describing some patterns in the linguistic and postmodern turns.</p><p>The method of this study is a reduction of the complexity of the preaching theologies that I present. To do this I use the words situation (the human situation in the preaching situation), event (the salvatory event that the preaching event is thought to be a part of) and function ( the function of the sermon) and their interrelationship. The sermon is thought to get it´s function in the situation as a part of the event. I also discuss some consequenses of the specific theology of preaching and the view of the preacher; the church and liturgy; the Biblical texts; and the language, form and content of the sermon.</p><p>The main part of the study consists of the anlysis of the four reductions of complexity, and their different prespectives on preaching, where Jüngel uses the doctrine of justification by faith to give structure to thought, Hilkert uses sacramental and dialectic imagination, Jones uses a typology of five theological worlds and Chopp use the metaphor text/margin to give structure to thought.</p><p>I present the four theologies of preaching as a polyphonic voice, that makes us aware of the complexity of the preaching event. They constribute to the important theological conversation about preaching in our complex reality.</p>

The purpose of this dissertation is to understand the complexity of the preaching event as communication from a theological point of view in order to increase the awareness of this complexity. I see theology of preaching as a way of reducing the complexity, to making the complexity visible. I study the contemporary preaching theologies that Eberhard Jüngel, Mary Catherine Hilkert, W. Paul Jones and Rebecca S. Chopp construct. They reduce the complexity of the preaching event to understand it better, and by doing so they make the complexity visible. In the introduction I discuss some factors that make the preaching event complex:- the complexity of human interactive communication in general; that preaching is thought to be an event in which God communicates and the ambigous use of signs for the purpose of communication. I give a brief background to this homiletical situation, by describing some patterns in the linguistic and postmodern turns. The method of this study is a reduction of the complexity of the preaching theologies that I present. To do this I use the words situation (the human situation in the preaching situation), event (the salvatory event that the preaching event is thought to be a part of) and function ( the function of the sermon) and their interrelationship. The sermon is thought to get it´s function in the situation as a part of the event. I also discuss some consequenses of the specific theology of preaching and the view of the preacher; the church and liturgy; the Biblical texts; and the language, form and content of the sermon. The main part of the study consists of the anlysis of the four reductions of complexity, and their different prespectives on preaching, where Jüngel uses the doctrine of justification by faith to give structure to thought, Hilkert uses sacramental and dialectic imagination, Jones uses a typology of five theological worlds and Chopp use the metaphor text/margin to give structure to thought. I present the four theologies of preaching as a polyphonic voice, that makes us aware of the complexity of the preaching event. They constribute to the important theological conversation about preaching in our complex reality.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Duke University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.