Im Kontext der Krise des Theismus stellt Bernhard Nitsche in diesem Band seine Theorie einer dreifachen Strukturierung menschlicher Transzendenzbezüge vor Theologen und Philosophen unterschiedlicher Fachdisziplinen zur Debatte. Angesichts einer fluiden, fragilen und fragmentarischen Identitätskonstruktion der modernen, selbstermächtigten Subjekte verlieren klassische Containerbegriffe (Theismus versus Deismus, Pantheismus) allein und für sich genommen ihre analytische Kraft. Es bedarf einer veränderten Typologie der spirituellen Strukturmuster, religiösen Formenkreise und der Bezugnahmen auf religiöse Transzendenz. Kann die anthropologische Unterscheidung von Selbstbezug, Sozialbezug und Weltbezug bzw. die Unterscheidung (...) von kosmischen, sozial-relationalen und bewusstseinsbestimmten Zugängen auch für eine Komparative Theologie fruchtbar sein? (shrink)

ZusammenfassungRichard Schaeffler gehört zu den bedeutenden katholischen Religionsphilosophen der Gegenwart. Seine dreibändige Summe versteht er bewusst als »Philosophische Einübung in die Theologie«, nicht als deren »Grundlegung«. In einer meisterhaften Re-Vision seiner Methodologie arbeitet Schaeffler die traditionelle Lehre vom »vierfachen Schriftsinn« zu einer transzendental-hermeneutischen Kriteriologie der religiösen Erfahrung aus. Mit dieser werden alle klassisch fundamentaltheologischen Themen rekonstruierbar. Die Glaubensgeschichte Israels wird als »Schule des Glaubens« verständlich, welche entscheidende Kriterien für eine angemessene oder unangemessene Transzendenzbeziehung ausbildet. Israels Erfahrungsgeschichte ist deshalb konstitutiv für (...) das Verständnis der Fülle des Heils in Christus wie für das Selbstverständnis kirchlicher Zeugenschaft.SummaryRichard Schaeffler stands in the forefront of distinguished Catholic religious philosophers of the present time. He deliberately understands his new compendium in three volumes as “philosophical practise in theology” and not as “basics”. By a masterly re-vision of his methodology Schaeffler elaborates the traditional doctrine of the “fourfold meaning of scripture”. In his transcendental and hermeneutical reflection he points out criterias for an objective understanding of religious experience by which all fundamental theological subjects are reconstructable. The history of the faith of Israel can be comprehended as a “school of belief” that forms decisive criteria for an adequate or inadequate relation to God. Thus, the history experienced by Israel is constitutive for a proper understanding of the repletion of salvation in Christ as well as for the self-conception of the ecclesiastic testimony. (shrink)

Abstractabstract:This article explores the specific profiles of the understanding of ultimate reality in Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism to ask whether there are points of contact between the Christian-Muslim and the Christian-Buddhist conception of divine reality. Thereby, the soteriological interest of Christian trinitarian thinking and the differences to the apophatic thinking in Islam but also the personal understanding of divine reality and the transnumeric unity of God come into view. Moreover, there are Muslim positions that assign the instances of divine Word (...) and divine Spirit as eternal prestige and attributive to the essence of God, whereby a new basis for discussion could be gained. On the other hand, the differences between Buddhist thinking of emptiness and Christian apophatism boil down to the question of whether nirvāṇa as the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) of transcendent reality (lokottara) as a notborn (ajātaṁ), a not-brought-to-being (abhūtaṁ), a not-conditioned (asaṇkhataṁ) may be understood as a reality that is not separate from, but distinct from saṃsāra. Then emptiness or "śūnyatā is non-śūnyatā (aśūnyatā); therefore, it is ultimate śūnyatā (atyanta-śūnyatā)" (Abe). In this way, Buddhist thinking of emptiness can come into conversation with Christian thinking of self-emptying (kenosis). Muslim and Buddhist thinking on the subject of transcendence invite Christians to accentuate the apophatic side of the divine, and to locate the Trinitarian differentiation both within the divine and in the history of salvation in a cataphatic movement. With these indications, the difference between the Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist galaxies of thinking ultimate reality is not abolished, but points of contact and possible mutual suggestions become visible, which allow a further and deepening conversation. (shrink)

Is there a language of transcendence which does not fall under the well-worn categories of monism, theism, pantheism, biblical or pagan monotheism, personal or tripersonal God, or an impersonal absolute, conceived as immanent and/or transcendent? The present set of studies from different fields of research centers on the question whether it is possible to speak at all of transcendence or a divinity, and if it is, under what limitations does such speech proceed. In current discussion in theology and in philosophy (...) of religion, there is a pervasive awareness that the inherited terms and alternatives, developed in the western tradition, no longer facilitate an adequate understanding of the divine. Increasing familiarity with the languages of 'immanence' and 'transcendence' (under erasure) in Hindu and Buddhist thought has further jumbled our coordinates, while holding out the promise of a more subtle and vital engagement with the matter itself of religious inquiry. A further long-established distinction, between 'personal' and 'impersonal, ' also takes on rich new hues in Asian contexts, where the very notion of 'person' may undergo unsettling critiques. Transgressing the categories of 'personal' and 'impersonal' points to the mystical depth of religious traditions, emphasizes their openness and reintegrates essential elements of both perspectives. Advancing with curiosity and caution, all the contributors take seriously the diversity of historical religious traditions, while nevertheless searching for a fresh language that may connect these traditions and provide a common ground of understanding. (shrink)