Made available in DSpace on 2016-07-27T13:48:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ROGERIO REGIS DE AZEVEDO.pdf: 775898 bytes, checksum: 2dc864d88845eb2a4b16a22fd3d49839 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-11-22 / This work was done in an attempt to introduce other paths to salvation, beyond salvation from the Christian point of view, considering the plurality of beliefs and the growing understanding that the dialogue between religions needs to be broaden as a means towards world peace. Religion is a human manifestation that interpellates for its origin and its destination, and is present in all places and cultures. Thus, religious plurality is in the world, and everybody hopes to, somehow, feel good already in this life, and, for those who believe, there is hope for a peaceful life after death. This dissertation certainly does not intend to provide a complete treatment on the theological and philosophical issues raised by religious pluralism, nor does it present a historical overview of the attitudes adopted by Christians and non-Christians, but it focuses on the current debate around the arguments for and against the salvific possibilities presented by the great religious traditions of the world. Therefore, we seek the most important contemporary thinkers to compose our bibliographic list that could produce a dialectic enters the theoretical principles of religious pluralism. / Este trabalho foi realizado na tentativa de apresentar outros caminhos de salvação, além da salvação do ponto de vista cristão, tendo em vista a pluralidade de crenças e o crescente entendimento de que é preciso ampliar o diálogo entre as religiões em busca da paz mundial. A religião é uma manifestação humana que interpela por sua origem e por seu destino e está em todos os lugares e culturas. Dessa forma, a pluralidade religiosa está no mundo e todos esperam, de alguma forma, sentirem-se bem já nesta vida e, para os que crêem, há esperança de uma vida de paz depois da morte. Esta dissertação certamente não pretende oferecer um tratamento completo sobre as questões teológicas e filosóficas suscitadas pelo pluralismo religioso, tampouco faz um panorama histórico das atitudes adotadas por cristãos e não-cristãos, mas está voltada para o debate atual em torno dos argumentos favoráveis e contrários às possibilidades salvíficas apresentadas pelas grandes tradições religiosas do mundo. Para tanto, buscamos os principais pensadores contemporâneos para compor nosso rol bibliográfico que pudesse produzir uma dialética entre os princípios teóricos do pluralismo religioso.

Denna uppsats syftar till att analysera den klassiska, den objektiva och den subjektivaförsoningsläran och se hur dessa förhåller sig till den pluralistiska och inklusivistiskareligionssynen. Uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka huruvida synen på Jesus som vägen till frälsning ide tre försoningslärorna förändras om samma försoningslära ställs emot pluralismen respektiveinklusivismen. I en koherensanalys undersöks huruvida någon av försoningslärorna inte är koherentmed pluralismen eller inklusivismen. Genom denna undersökning följer resultatet attsanningsbegreppet inte används på samma sätt i de olika religionssynerna och försoningslärornavilket leder till problem främst mellan den klassiska respektive den objektiva försoningsläran ochpluralismen. Det framkommer även att en viss form av pluralism - den restriktiva - är mer koherentmed försoningslärorna än andra former. Alla former av inklusivism och dess sanningsbegrepp ärmer lättförenliga med den klassiska och den objektiva försoningsläran än med den subjektiva. Ifallet med den subjektiva försoningsläran kan motiveringen för ett inklusivistisk synsätt ifrågasättasvilket gör den mer koherent med pluralism än med inklusivism. / In this essay the coherence between three theories of atonement are analysed with religiouspluralism and religious inclusivism. The atonement theories analysed are the classical, theobjective, and the subjective theory. The result shows if the role of Jesus as saviour in the Passionchanges if the specific theory of atonement is combined with religious pluralism or religiousinclusivism. Through an analysis of the coherence between the three theories of atonement andpluralism and inclusivism, it is made clear that the notion of truth is not viewed in the same waywithin the theories of atonement and religious pluralism and inclusivism. The classical and theobjective theory meets problems when combined with religious pluralism because of this. Only oneform of religious pluralism, the restrictive pluralism, is compatible with theese two theories ofatonement. All forms of religious inclusivism are coherent with the classical and the objectivetheory but not with the subjective theory wich is much more compatible with religious pluralism.

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

Thesis (DTh (Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology))--University of Stellenbosch, 2008. / This study offers an overview and critique of the growing movement in American evangelicalism of what is popularly known as “inclusivism.” The mounting uneasiness expressed in many evangelical circles in North America concerning the fate of the unevangelised, and how that may square with the traditional evangelical view of their lostness, has produced a vigorous Soteriology which means to address what is viewed as inadequacies in the traditional model of salvation found in the American evangelical community.

Religious diversity is the inevitable corollary of globalization and with it comes the challenge and opportunities of greatly increased interaction with religious Others. The United States was founded on an Anglo-Saxon Protestant basis but has now become "the world’s most religiously diverse nation" according to one Harvard religious studies scholar. To deal with this development, American thinkers, mainly Christians, have devoted a good deal of scholarship in the past three to four decades construing strategies how to meet and interact with the religious Other. During the 70’s and 80’s, a typology of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism was developed by Christians as a response to religious diversity. Many see today that it is a necessity to find an alternative to hostility and violence and therefore dialogue is the order of the day. Since Christians are still by far the largest faith-group, and the US has economic resources, US Christians have a natural predominance in dialogue. Is that good or bad from the stand point of the minority Other? One such minority is a major sub-division of Hinduism, namely Vaishnavism. Christian-Vaishnava dialogue in the US is a new phenomenon in the past two decades and an emerging minority representative is a globalized Vaishnava organization ISKCON, popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement, which has its Western roots in the counter-culture of the 1960’s. While ISKCON struggled for legitimacy in the 70’s and ‘80’s, it has in recent decades become a major factor in Hindu and especially Vaisnava representation. How American Christians respond today to Vaishnava dialogue and how this typology arose and functions as a theoretical basis for the on-going development of Christian-Vaishnava dialogue is the subject of this action-research minor field study.

Submitted by isabela.moljf@hotmail.com (isabela.moljf@hotmail.com) on 2017-07-31T13:17:13Z No. of bitstreams: 1 rogeriosantosbebber.pdf: 1821298 bytes, checksum: ebc7e8dd85d21302b8f0f06ce4cd5e7b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2017-08-08T18:27:21Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 rogeriosantosbebber.pdf: 1821298 bytes, checksum: ebc7e8dd85d21302b8f0f06ce4cd5e7b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-08T18:27:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 rogeriosantosbebber.pdf: 1821298 bytes, checksum: ebc7e8dd85d21302b8f0f06ce4cd5e7b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-08-28 / Uma questão atual para a teologia das religiões é como articular o cristocentrismo da fé católica com o pluralismo religioso de princípio. Jacques Dupuis responde propondo, por meio de uma cristologia trinitária e do Espírito, uma consideração mais ampla da salvação que garanta a constitutividade do evento-Cristo, mas integre as economias do Lógos ásarkos e do Espírito no único desígnio salvífico. Ao desvelar a dimensão teocêntrica do inclusivismo Dupuis abre-o à relacionalidade e à complementaridade interreligiosa, bem como reconhece às tradições religiosas a “mediação” da salvação para os seus fieis. A ortodoxia reage reafirmando a doutrina tradicional da Igreja. O modelo teológico de Dupuis, ao mesmo tempo em que prenuncia uma nova possibilidade de configuração histórica para o cristocentrismo, vitaliza o debate teológico. Em torno destas questões gira esta dissertação. / A current issue for theology of religions is to articulate the christ-centrism of catholic faith with religious pluralism of principle. Jacques Dupuis responds by proposing, through a Trinitarian spirit Christology, a wider consideration of salvation that guarantees the constitutivity of Christ event, but integrates the economies of the Lógos ásarkos and the Spirit in the only plan salvation. Bay revealing the scale of theocentric inclusivism Dupuis opens them to relationality and complementarity interfaith as well as recognizes from religious traditions the "mediation" of salvation for the faithful. Orthodoxy reacts by reaffirming the traditional doctrine of the Church. The theological model of Dupuis at the same time that portends the possibility of a new historical configuration to christ-centrism vitalizes the theological debate. This thesis revolves around these issues.

I begin this thesis with a brief account of my meetings with popular South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba (1926- ) and very brief a discussion of recent fraud and sexual abuse allegations that have been made against him. I note that one of the key factors involved in this, also accountable for his extraordinary popularity, is his divine persona-especially his self-proclaimed identity as "the avatar"-and I review previous academic studies pertaining to this. In contrast to most previous studies of Sathya Sai Baba, which align him primarily with Śaiva traditions and with the "Sai Baba movement", I note a strong (and long running) affinity in his ideas for Vaiṣṇava traditions (especially the Bhagavad-Gītā and the Bhāgavata-Purāṇa), and I add that his background as a member of a traditionally highly regarded bardic caste may have contributed to his divine persona. I further investigate this persona via a history of potentially parallel traditional and modern avatar ideas. I show something of the manner in which many of the avatar concepts and myths to which Sathya Sai Baba refers originated and developed, especially invoking the episteme of "resemblance", posited by Brian Smith, the idea of "inclusivism"-which I adapt from the work of Paul Hacker and Wilhelm Halbfass-and traditional (Sāṁkhya) processes of "distinction", "categorization", and "enumeration". In addition to these, I much refer to Max Weber's analysis of "pure types" of authority-traditional, charismatic, and rational-showing that Sathya Sai Baba draws upon all of these in legitimating his claim to be "the avatar". I also show that his divine persona draws upon a strong affinity that he exhibits for advaita ("non-dualism"), especially that of Śaṅkara, and that his personal history of intense devotional and ecstatic/yogic spiritual practices was likely important in the formative stages of this persona. I further suggest that the history of his geographic locale, in which there are strong themes of sacred kingship and ecstatic/advaitic/poetic/devotional sainthood, may have contributed to the production and reception of his persona. On top of this, I note that the influence of a number of modern avatar figures, especially Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and Aurobindo, is patent in his avatar teachings, and I compare and contrast him with a number of other significant modern figures. Based upon all of this, I consider the question of whether Sathya Sai Baba ought to be regarded as a "traditionalist", both vis-à-vis modernity ("Neo-Hinduism", as defined especially by Paul Hacker) and "innovation". I conclude that, in contrast to most previous scholarly characterizations, he is certainly innovative, but that he ought not to be considered a "Neo-Hindu"-most appearances to the contrary being due to his borrowing or extrapolating ideas in a very traditional manner from typical Neo-Hindu thinkers (especially Vivekananda), as if these ideas, and those that framed them, were thoroughly traditional. Finally, I outline a couple of major themes in his avatar teachings: an ambivalent attitude to his role as an exemplar, which I note to accord with earlier and parallel avatar ideas; and strong docetic tendencies, which similarly, in contrast to some scholarly characterizations, find parallels in popular portrayals of other avatar figures.

Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2016-01-25T10:09:29Z No. of bitstreams: 1 suelyribeirobarra.pdf: 2001060 bytes, checksum: 59c074b121f0c32254269f7f3e9f006d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2016-01-25T18:57:32Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 suelyribeirobarra.pdf: 2001060 bytes, checksum: 59c074b121f0c32254269f7f3e9f006d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-01-25T18:57:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 suelyribeirobarra.pdf: 2001060 bytes, checksum: 59c074b121f0c32254269f7f3e9f006d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-09-18 / O presente estudo procura descrever a trajetória teológica de John H. Hick, filósofo e teólogo inglês que se notabilizou por defender, ao que se refere ao diálogo inter-religioso, uma posição pluralista de acolhimento igualitário a todas as religiões. Escritor prolixo publicou inúmeros livros e artigos defendendo a sua hipótese pluralista em confronto com posições tradicionais do Cristianismo. Neste trabalho seus principais textos são apresentados e discutidos comparando-os com as demais posições nas diversas tradições religiosas com respeito à soteriologia humana tendo em vista o entendimento entre elas. / The present research try to describes the theological trajectory of John H. Hick, English philosopher and theologian who become well-know distinguished himself by defending, a pluralistic position regarding an equal treatment for all religions in religious dialogue. Wordy writer has published numerous books and articles advocating its pluralistic hypothesis in comparison with traditional positions of Christianity. In this work its main texts are presented and discussed by comparing them to other positions in the various religious traditions with respect to human soteriology in view of the understanding between them.

The contemporary debate concerning the Christian theology of religions has been profoundly shaped by Alan Race’s three-fold typology of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. Although the insufficiency of this typology’s descriptive and critical capacity has become increasingly acknowledged within the field, widespread agreement about its replacement remains elusive. This thesis argues that a replacement can be found in Hans Frei’s five-fold typology of Christian theology, which differentiates between a range of approaches to theology, from theology as philosophical discourse (Type 1) to theology as quarantined, Christian self-description (Type 5). It is suggested that the more basic question posed by Frei’s typology of how Christian theology is understood in relation to philosophy and other external discourses, provides a better means of accounting for the different positions in the Christian theology of religions within 20th century ecumenical movements. It is shown how Frei’s typology emerges from his emphasis on both the limitations and the significance of external discourses for Christian theology, an emphasis which results from his construal of the mystery of Christ’s universal presence as a function of the particular incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth. Chapter one considers the philosophical foundations upon which Race’s typology is constructed, with particular emphasis on Troeltsch’s historicism, Hick’s epistemology of religious experience and WC Smith’s phenomenological hermeneutic, concluding that they determine the typology’s apologetic approach. It is shown how these commitments lead Race’s typology to differentiate between types of Christian theology primarily in relation to the philosophical viability, as Race understands it, of their Christology. Chapter two focuses first on the theology of Hans Frei and his analysis of the relationship between Christology and historicism, epistemology, and hermeneutics. It is suggested that Frei’s focus on the ordering of the relationship between Christian theology and external discourses, while undermining Race’s approach, affirms the possibility of a theologically valuable relationship between Christian theology and external discourses. Moreover, unlike Race, Frei’s emphasis on the significance of external discourses for Christian theology is derived in light of, and not in spite of, a faith in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Chapter three looks at Frei’s fivefold typology as a better means of accounting for the differences Race posits between exclusivists, inclusivists and pluralists. It is argued that in following Frei’s typological logic and the historical, epistemological and hermeneutical considerations characteristic of a Christian theology between types three and four, an approach to the theology of religions emerges which addresses the question of the universality of divine revelation – the central concern of Race’s typology – while also showing the inadequacy of Race’s typology and its prioritisation of philosophy. This will be shown by applying Frei’s typology to 20th century ecumenical movements and the positions on the theological significance of non-Christian religions that have emerged therein. Though Frei did not directly take up the issue of the Christian theology of religions, chapter three will demonstrate how his typology of Christian theology is of particular importance for this discussion. For his typology highlights the central question driving the theology of religions – how the ‘internal’ discourse of Christian self-description in reference to the gospels’ history-like witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ relates to the historically contingent, public world outside the church. The conclusion will point toward a constructive proposal for a theology of evangelism and interfaith dialogue in pluralist societies of the 21st century, drawing on the ecumenical discussion viewed in relation to the theological and typological insights of Hans Frei.