This research aimed to know the intercultural competency teaching model of Jesus using a parable technique based on Luke 10:25-37 to improve intercultural competence. The authors used a method of diacognitive analysis with three lenses that include dialogue, cognition and position. The results of the study have shown that the application of the parable technique can improve the competence of intercultural students towards people with different cultures, as well as increase the understanding and awareness that love is the basis of (...) intercultural competence, compassion as an internal outcome and must act as an intercultural agent. The teacher's pyramid model of intercultural competence moves from love, attitude, knowledge, skill, internal outcome, external outcome and becomes an intercultural agent.CONTRIBUTION: Research on Luke 10:25-37 has shown that the parable technique can improve students' intercultural competence based on love and compassion. Teachers can apply parable techniques to attract, encourage, and stimulate the student's active involvement to think critically and perform interpretations to discover the real truth in the context of cultural differences. (shrink)

t. 1. Monologion ; Proslogion -- t. 2. Le grammairien ; De la vérité ; La liberté du choix ; La chute du diable -- t. 3. Lettre sur l'incarnation du Verbe ; Pourquoi un Dieu-homme -- t. 4. La conception virginale et le péché originel ; La procession du Saint Esprit ; Lettres sur les sacrements de l'Église ; Du pouvoir et de l'impuissance -- t. 5. Sur l'accord de la prescience, de la prédestination et de la grâce de (...) Dieu avec le libre choix ; Prières et méditations -- t. 6. Lettres 1 à 147 -- t. 9. Histoire des temps nouveaux en Angleterre. Livres I-IV ; Vie de Saint Anselme. (shrink)

Книгата предлага някои оригинални идеи по вечни философски въпроси, които вълнуват човешката мисъл от древността досега.

This article analyzes the encounter story of Paul and Lydia (Acts 16:13-15) as a concrete example of the practice of reciprocal gift exchange. The exchange of “gifts” between the two took place when Paul preached the Christian faith and baptized Lydia, and she reciprocated by giving Paul a ride. This study employs a social science approach by taking a repertoire of gift exchanges from the ancient Greco-Roman world to be applied to this story, and biblical studies for interpretation. From the (...) repertoire of exchanges available, we chose χάρις to apply to this story. The concept of χάρις reflects a reciprocal exchange that involves two actions at once, namely the giving of a “gift” and the receiving of it with gratitude in return. The reciprocal gift exchange between Paul and Lydia shows that a gift demands a response (reciprocity). However, the reciprocal exchange between the two was not exploitative, as it took place within the framework of Christ’s χάρις. Through the gift of Christ’s χάρις, they concretely share χάρις with one another. In this context, Paul and Lydia not only demonstrated their identity as followers of Christ but also strengthened their bonds as brothers and sisters. Abstrak Artikel ini menganalisa kisah pertemuan Paulus dan Lidia (Kis. 16:13-15) sebagai sebuah contoh konkret dari praktik pertukaran hadiah atau pemberian timbal balik. Pertukaran “hadiah” antara keduanya terjadi ketika Paulus mengajarkan iman Kristen dan membaptis Lidia, dan Lidia membalasnya dengan memberikan tumpangan kepada Paulus. Studi ini menggunakan pendekatan ilmu sosial dengan memakai repertoar pertukaran hadiah atau pemberian timbal balik dari tradisi dunia Yunani-Romawi kuno untuk diterapkan dalam penafsiran biblis. Dari repertoar pertukaran yang tersedia, studi ini memilih χάρις untuk diterapkan dalam kisah tersebut. Konsep χάρις mencerminkan pertukaran timbal balik yang melibatkan dua tindakan sekaligus, yakni pemberian “hadiah” dan penerimaan dengan rasa syukur sebagai balasannya. Pertukaran hadiah timbal balik antara Paulus dan Lidia menunjukkan bahwa sejatinya sebuah pemberian menuntut tanggapan (resiprositas). Namun pertukaran timbal balik antara keduanya tidak bersifat eksploitatif, karena terjadi dalam bingkai χάρις Kristus. Melalui pemberian χάρις Kristus, mereka secara konkret berbagi χάρις terhadap satu sama lain. Dalam konteks ini, Paulus dan Lidia tidak hanya menunjukkan identitas mereka sebagai pengikut Kristus, tetapi juga memperkuat ikatan mereka sebagai saudara seiman. Kata-kata kunci: Paul, Lidya, χάρις, pertukaran timbal-balik, Kis 16: 13-15, budaya Yunani-Romawi. (shrink)

Damis is a character in, and his memoirs the putative source of, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Many scholars have doubted the existence of these memoirs, some the very existence of the man. Against the latter party Graham Anderson has advanced an ingenious argument, which attempts to prove that the Damis whose existence has been doubted is identical with a bearer of the same name to whom existence has hardly ever been ascribed. His evidence comprises: Lucian's dialogue Zeus the (...) Tragedian, in which a certain Damis appears as the Epicurean tormentor of the popular divinities; a tale now extant in mediaeval Persian, in which a philosopher named Dini performs a similar function; the testimony of Origen that Moiragenes numbered among the men seduced by Apollonius ‘the illustrious Euphrates and a certain Epicurean’ . Between these reports he detects the following parallels. (shrink)

Uitleg van het zogenoemde 'ontologisch godsbewijs' van Anselmus van Canterbury (gestorven in 1109).

Biton’s Construction of Machines of War and Catapults describes six machines by five engineers or inventors; the fourth machine is a rolling elevatable scaling ladder, named sambukē, designed by one Damis of Kolophōn. The first sambukē was invented by Herakleides of Taras, in 214 BCE, for the Roman siege of Syracuse. Biton is often dismissed as incomprehensible or preposterous. I here argue that the account of Damis’ device is largely coherent and shows that Biton understood that Damis had built a (...) machine that embodied Archimedean principles. The machine embodies three such principles: (1) the proportionate balancing of the torques on a lever (from Plane Equilibria, an early work); (2) the concept of specific gravity or density (from Floating Bodies, a late work); and (3) the κοχλίας, i.e., a worm drive (invented ca 240 BCE), with the toothed wheel functioning as the horizontal axis of rotation of the elevated ladder. Moreover, the stone-thrower of Isidoros of Abydos (the second machine in Biton) also embodies the κοχλίας. (shrink)

Recently we proposed the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is called quantum language or measurement theory. This theory is valid for both quantum and classical systems. Thus, we think that quantum language is one of the most powerful scientific theories, like statistics, and thus, it is the scientific completion (i.e., the destination) of dualistic idealism. If so, we can introduce the concept “progress” in the dualistic idealism. For example, we can assert that [Plato → Descartes → Kant → (...) Wittgenstein → quantum language], where [“X” → “Y”] means that “Y” is more like quantum language than “X”. In this paper, we will study the problem of universals from the perspective of quantum language (i.e., from the scientific perspective of ignoring any religious perspective). And we can be confident of the progress of both of the two time series [Plato → Anselmus → Thomas Aquinas → quantum language] and [Descartes → Thomas Aquinas → quantum language] in dualistic idealism. The reader may find it surprising that Scholastic philosophy is more scientific than Cartesian-Kantian philosophy. However, this is because Descartes gave up the pursuit of “universals” and presented dualism as a visible “mind-matter dualism” so that it could be familiar to the general public. This made the Cartesian-Kantian philosophy socially successful, but unscientific. The problem of universals has not always been clear in the long history of philosophy. The reader should be convinced that the reason is that the problem of universals has been discussed in an incomplete non-scientific dualism to this day. (shrink)

John Duns Scotus offered an alternative perspective to respect on the mystery of salvation by examining the motive behind the incarnation. Scotus believed that salvation is Christocentric: Motive wise, God incarnate is not primarily anthropocentric, which focuses on the sinfulness of humankind, as traditionally understood in the Catholic Scholastic Theology and taught by Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas, but as a total manifestation of His love. Scotus’ Christocentric approach to salvation is in line with his thought on freedom and (...) charity. Scotus believed that God would still have become incarnate even if man had never sinned in the Þ rst place because by taking the form of man, God embodied His love in a total way to His beloved creations.Scotus’ Christocentric salvation is relational because God is involved with the whole creation in person. Consequently, the Cross is not merely the means of redemption, but as manifestation of God’s inÞ nite loveand His self-giving. Through this essay, the author aims to compare those two approaches and to show the unique character of John Duns Scotus’ soteriology. Abstrak Yohanes Duns Scotus menawarkan perspektif alternatif untuk merefleksikan misteri keselamatan dengan mengkaji motif di balik inkarnasi. Dalam refleksi tradisional Teologi Skolastik yang dikembangkan Anselmus Canterbury dan Thomas Aquinas, motif inkarnasi dipahami dalam perspektif antroposentris: keberdosaan manusia menjadi alasan inkarnasi. Bagi Scotus, inkarnasi dan keselamatan bersifat Kristosentris: inkarnasi merupakan manifestasi total kasih Allah. Pendekatan Kristosentris Scotus terkait keselamatan sejalan dengangagasannya tentang kebebasan dan kasih. Scotus percaya bahwa Allah. Kata kunci: Yohanes Duns Scotus, Anselmus Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, soteriologi, inkarnasi, cinta kasih, kebebasan. (shrink)

The first two sections of the paper draw attention to some incompletely interpreted issues within two Romantic dramas: the unclear status of the protagonist in Dziady, Part IV (on the one hand, representing the indefinability of man and, on the other, constituting the illustration of how lightly one may lose consistency and identity), and the ambiguous relationship between Goplana and Grabiec in Balladyna (which can be perceived in terms of the complex relations between ‘the angelic soul and the bluff head’ (...) (dusza anielska i czerep rubaszny). The third section of notes is an encouragement to discuss two topics: ‘From Zygmunt Krasiński’s Leonard to Jerzy Andrzejewski’s Diego de Manente’; ‘From Pierścień Wielkiej-Damy, czyli: Ex-machina-Durejko by Cyprian Norwid to Tango by Sławomir Mrożek’. (shrink)

jild-i 1. Az ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd Kātib (59 Sh.) tā Abū al-Ḥasan Masʻūdī (336 Sh.) -- jild-i 2. Az Abū al-Ḥasan ʻĀmirī (291 Sh.) tā Abū al-Faz̤l Bayhaqī (465 Sh.) -- jild-i 3. Az Nāṣir Khusraw (383 Sh.) tā Sadīd al-Dīn ʻAwfī (616 Sh.) -- jild-i 4. Az Najm al-Dīn Rāzī (553 Sh.) tā Fakhr al-Muḥaqqiqīn (748 Sh.) -- jild-i 5. Az ʻUbayd Zākānī (670 Sh.) tā Jalāl al-Dīn Sayūṭī (884 Sh.) -- jild-i 6. Az Rūzbihān Khunjī (825 Sh.) tā Shaykh (...) Ḥurr ʻĀmilī (1071 Sh.) -- jild-i 7. Az ʻAlāmah Majlisī (1006 Sh.) tā Muḥammad Bāqir Shafaq (1223 Sh.) -- jild-i 8. Az Muḥammad Ṣādiq Marvazī (1147 Sh.) tā Mīrzā Fatḥʻalī Ākhūndzādah (1289 Sh.) -- jild-i 9. Az Mīrzā-yi Shīrāzī Avval (1194 Sh.) tā Ākhūnd Khurāsānī (1290 Sh.) -- jild-i 10. Az ʻAbd Allāh Māzandarānī (1219 Sh.) tā Saʻd Zaghlūl (1306 Sh.) -- jild-i 11. Az ʻImād al-ʻUlamāʼ Khalkhālī (1237 Sh.) tā ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz S̲aʻālibī (1323 Sh.) -- jild-i 12. Az Āyat Allāh Burūjirdī (1254 Sh.) tā Muḥammad Amīn Rasūlʹzādah (1333 Sh.) -- jild-i 13. Az ʻAbd al-Karīm Zanjānī (1263 Sh.) tā Amīn al-Ḥusaynī (1353 Sh.) -- jild-i 14. Az Jamālzādah (1274 Sh.) tā Mahdī Bāzargān (1373) -- jild-i 15. Az Muḥammad Ḥamīd Allāh (1286 Sh.) tā Muṭahharī (1358 Sh.) -- jild-i 16. Az Farīdūn Ādamīyat (1299 Sh.) tā Muṣṭafá Khumaynī (1356 Sh.) -- jild-i 17. Az Samīr Amīn (1310 Sh.) tā Ḥasan Ḥanafī -- jild-i 18. Az Sayyid Muḥammad Bāqir Ṣadr (1314 Sh.) tā Rāshid al-Ghanūshī -- jild-i 19. Az ʻAlī Awmlīl (1321 Sh.) tā Ṭāriq Ramaz̤ān. (shrink)

The king therefore went down to the village, since the Wise Men's rule did not permit him to spend more than a day with them, but Iarchas said to the messenger, ‘Damis too we consider worthy of the secrets here, so tell him to come, while you look after the others in the village.’ When Damis had come, the Wise Men formed their usual circle and gave Apollonius permission to put questions. So he asked what they thought the universe consisted (...) of, to which they replied, ‘Elements.’ ‘Four, do you think?’ he said. ‘Not four’, said Iarchas, ‘but five.’ ‘What could a fifth one be’, said Apollonius, ‘besides water, air, earth, and fire?’ ‘Ether’, said Iarchas, ‘which we must consider to be the origin (γένεσιν) of the gods. All that breathes air is mortal, but what breathes ether is immortal and divine.’ Next Apollonius asked which of the elements came into existence first. ‘All came together’, said the other, ‘since a living being is not born one piece at a time.’ ‘Am I to consider the universe living?’, asked Apollonius. ‘Yes, if you reason correctly’, said Iarchas, ‘since itself it gives life to everything.’ ‘Should we then call it female’, asked Apollonius, ‘or of the contrary, male sex?’ ‘Of both’, was the answer, ‘since it has intercourse with itself, and performs both the mother's and the father's role with respect to generation. It feels a desire for itself more intense than that of any two other beings, and this joins and unites it, and there is nothing unreasonable about its coalescence. And just as the action of the hands and feet in a living creature comes from mobility and the intelligence (διὰ τὸν ἐκείνου νοῦν) that causes it, so also we must suppose that, because of the intelligence of the universe (κατὰ τὸν ἐκείνου ϕοιτᾷ νοῦν), its parts accommodate themselves to everything that undergoes birth and conception. For instance, the sufferings resulting from drought arise from the mind of the universe, when justice is banished from mankind and treated with dishonor. And this being guides itself not by one hand alone but by many unseen ones that it uses; though too large to be restrained, it moves obediently and tractably.’The doctrine contained in this extract – the only passage ofThe Life of Apollonius of Tyanatreating matters of ‘cosmogony’ – could be summarized in the six following propositions. First, the universe consists of five, not four elements, the fifth being the ether, the γένεσις θεῶν. Just as mortals breathe air, gods breathe ether. Secondly, there is no ‘primordial element’; all five came into being simultaneously. Thirdly, the universe is a living being. In the fourth place, the universe is both male and female at the same time. In the fifth place, as the universe is androgynous it feels desire (ἔρως) towards itself and it is this desire that makes it whole and united. And finally, the passion of the universe for itself is governed by Intelligence (ἐκείνου νοῦς). (shrink)

The first two sections of the paper draw attention to some incompletely interpreted issues within two Romantic dramas: the unclear status of the protagonist in "Dziady, Part IV", and the ambiguous relationship between Goplana and Grabiec in "Balladyna". The third section of notes is an encouragement to discuss two topics: ‘From Zygmunt Krasiński’s Leonard to Jerzy Andrzejewski’s Diego de Manente’; ‘From "Pierścień Wielkiej-Damy, czyli: Ex-machina-Durejko" by Cyprian Norwid to "Tango" by Sławomir Mrożek’.

Nietzsche considére les notions fondamentales sur lesquelles repose la connaissance humaine comme des fictions. Plutót que de souligner une novelle fois cette conclusion de sa pensée épistémologique, nous táchons dans cet article d'éclairer le cheminement qui l'y a conduit. En effet, lorsque Nietzsche caractérise les «vérités de l'homme» comme autant d'«erreurs irréfutables de l'homme», il adopte manifestement un double point de vue sur la vérité dont il importe de comprendre la logique. Cette double perspective doit selon nous être rapportée à (...) une réception du message de Kant dans la Critique de la raison pure. Nietzsche l'interprète comme une forme extrème de scepticisme aux termes de laquelle les conditions a priori de la possibilité de l'expérience n'ont pas d'auture légitimité, justement, que de rendre possible l'expérience, et de conserver ainsi l'étre contingent qu'est l'homme. En se présentant comme un défenseur de notre science des phénoménes, Kant aurait done reculé devant les conséquences transcendantales de sa critique, pour se replier dans une attitude simplement pragmatique. C'est dés lors une démarche plus radicale, et done plus probe, qui permet à Nietzsche d'élaborer la notion de volonté de puissance.Für Nietzsche sind die Grundbegriffe des menschlichen Wissens Fiktionen. Der Aufsatz will zeigen, wie Nietzsche zu dieser Auffassung kam. Wenn Nietzsche die 'menschelich Warheit' mit einem 'unvermeidlichen Irrtum des Menschen' verbindet, so bezieht er offensichtlich einen doppelten Standpunkt hinsichtlich der Wahrheit, dessen Logik aufgezeigt werden muss. Ich denke, diese doppelte Perspektive muss als eine Antword auf Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft angeschen werden: Nietzsche interpretiert Kants Lehre als eine extreme Form des Skeptizismus, nach welcher die apriorischen Bedingungen möglicher Erfahrung nur eine Rechtfertigung haben, nämlich Erfahrung möglich zu machen, und damit den Menschen als ein kontingentes Wesen zu bestätigen. Kant erwies sich als Meister der phänomenalen Wissenschaft. Aber asl solcher hat er, für Nietzsche, gerade nicht die transzendentalen Konsequenzen seiner eigenen Fragestellung gezogen, sondern bloß eine pragmatische Antowrt gegeben. Eine rakikalerer und dami redlicher Ansatz wird Nietzsche dazu füren, den Begriff des Willens zur Macht zu entwicklen. (shrink)

De apostel Paulus spreekt in één van zijn brieven over ‘de verduistering van het verstand’ — een verduistering die het gevolg is van zonde.1 In het werk van een groot aantal filosofen uit de westerse filosofische traditie heeft dit woord van Paulus op een of andere wijze weerklank gevonden. Bij Augustinus, Anselmus, Thomas van Aquino, Jonathan Edwards, Kierkegaard, John Henry Newman en Franz von Baader bijvoorbeeld, en in ons land bij Abraham Kuyper en Herman Dooyeweerd, vindt men reflecties over (...) de noëtische gevolgen van de zonde.2 Deze denkers hebben de noëtische doorwerking van de zonde onder meer aangewezen in de volgende verschijnselen: dat mensen allerlei onware gedachten hebben dat onze kenvermogens lang niet altijd naar behoren functioneren, zoals onder andere blijkt uit geheugenzwakte, misperceptie en foutief redeneren dat mensen het vaak onderling oneens zijn. (shrink)

Poging tot logische weerlegging van het zogenoemde 'ontologisch godsbewijs' van Anselmus van Canterbury (gestorven in 1109).

“1950’li yıllarda dönemin büyük felsefecileri arasında dinsel inancı savunan bir kişi bile yoktu. 1990’lı yıllarda Yale’den UCLA’ya, Oxford’dan Heidelberg’e kadar birçok yerde insanın manevi yanını savunan ve geliştiren yüzlerce kitap yazılacak, sel olup akacaktı. Aradaki 40 yıllık süre zarfındaysa sadece ve sadece Alvin Plantinga vardı.” Kelly James Clark Tanrı’nın veya tanrıların varlığı sorusu felsefenin ezeli sorularından biri olagelmişse de Nietzsche’nin Tanrı’nın ölümünü ilan ettiği günden bu yana onu doğrularcasına yaşanan acılar, savaşlar, kötülükler bu konudaki tartışmaların sesini uzun süre bastırdı. Ama (...) özellikle yüzyılın ikinci yarısından sonra palazlanan analitik felsefede meydana gelen “metafiziğe dönüş”, dine yakınlık duyan, en azından dinle ilgilenen filozofların tekrar Yahudi-Hıristiyan ve İslam geleneklerinde anlaşıldığı şekliyle Tanrı’nın varlığına duyulan inancın gerekçelerini yeniden değerlendirmelerine, konuya yeni bir bakış ve araçlarla bakmalarına vesile oldu. Alvin Plantinga’nın bu kitabı, yayımlandığı tarihten itibaren “analitik din felsefesi” alanının da en önemli ve sarsıcı eserlerinden biri hâline geldi ve Tanrı’nın ölmediğini ilan etti. Anselmus’tan Hume’a, Kant ve pozitivistlerden John Mackie gibi modern ateologlara kadar felsefe geleneğiyle hesaplaşan Plantinga, bu abidevi çalışmasında ontolojik, kozmolojik ve teleolojik tanrı kanıtlamalarının eski ve yeni biçimlerinin çıkmazlarını, meziyetlerini ve sunduğu imkânları değerlendiriyor. Tanrı’nın varlığına duyulan inanç ile diğer insanların varlığına ve zihinlerine duyulan inanç arasındaki şaşırtıcı ve sarsıcı bağlantıyı ortaya koyuyor. (shrink)

Tarihte herhalde çok az soru Tanrı’nın varlığı sorusu kadar sık sorulmuş, çok yanıtlanmış ve verilen birbirinden farklı onca yanıta rağmen kesin bir sonuca ulaştırılamayıp tartışılmaya devam etmiştir. Yine de geçmişe dönüp baktığımızda bu soruya verilen farklı yanıtların farklı uygarlıkların inşa edilmesine, bazılarının yıkılmasına, acımasız çatışmalara ve her şeye rağmen kucaklaşmalara da vesile olduğunu görüyoruz. Tanrı var mı? Varsa onu nasıl bilebiliriz? Tanrı yoksa her şey mubah mı? İnsan aklı ilahi olanı kavrayabilir mi? Tanrı’nın varlığı ahlaklı olmanın şartı mı? Evren akıllı (...) bir tasarımcının imzasını taşıyor mu? Bu kitapta felsefeci William David Beck, bu sorulara tarihte verilen yanıtları ve bu konudaki tartışmaları ele alarak meselenin genel ve tarihsel bir tablosunu bize sunuyor. Platon, Aristoteles, Marcus Aurelius gibi Eski Yunan ve Roma düşünürlerinden Anselmus, Thomas Aquinas, Augustinus ve Yahudi-Hıristiyan geleneğine, Doğu’nun bilgelerine, İbni Rüşd, Fârâbî ve Gazzâlî gibi İslam düşünürlerinden Alvin Plantinga, Graham Oppy, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Max Tegmark gibi Batılı modern ilahiyatçılara, bilim insanlarına ve Yeni Ateizm hareketine kadar uzanan bir çizgide “Tanrı var mı?” sorusuna verilen çeşitli yanıtları ve bu yanıtlara sunulan akılcı gerekçeleri ortaya koyarak soruya felsefece bir yanıt vermenin nasıl bir iş olduğunu da gösteriyor. (shrink)

Dalam pembacaan saya, karya yang sedang saya timang-timang ini tidak berlebihan jika diberi tajuk, “Belajar Mencipta Refleksi Ilmiah Teologis dari Joas Adiprasetya.” Oleh karena itu, pada tempat pertama, kepada Joas Adiprasetya saya menyampaikan proficiat atas dipublikasikannya hasil studi yang memahkotai ikhtiar menimba ilmu di School of Theology, Boston University, Massachusetts (USA), pada 2009 yang lalu. Studi formal Joas Adiprasetya bukan hanya sekedar selesai asal selesai, melainkan dengan kualifikasi maxima cum laude. Hal ini dapat ditilik dan dibuktikan dengan opus magnum yang (...) sedang kita bicarakan hic et nunc. Bagaimana tidak? Karya ini mengangkat ke permukaan dua tema besar, yang kemudian dijadikan fokus kajian dan perhatiannya. Kedua tema itu berkenaan dengan Trinitas dan Teologi Agama-Agama. Di satu pihak, mengulas Trinitas tak ubahnya bagaikan mengawali perjalanan dalam kegelapan dan mengakhirinya dalam kegelapan. Pembicaraan tentang Trinitas mengesankan tidak semakin memperjelas pemahaman pembicara tentang Trinitas, apalagi memperjelas Trinitas pada dirinya sendiri. Trinitas tetap Trinitas. Titik. Ia tetap misteri. Di lain pihak, manusia yang percaya telah (sedang dan akan) mengalami siapakah Trinitas dalam peri hidupnya. Jadi, ada semacam lubang yang memungkinkan manusia dalam keterbatasannya scapato via (lepas, melejit, melarikan diri) mencapai gugus tertinggi dalam puncak-puncak sekelebatan sinar yang barang kali imaginatif. Akan tetapi kedua “kebenaran” itu sah. Artinya, dapat diverifikasikan dan dapat pula dipertanggungjawabkan secara ilmiah. Oleh karena itu, sangat besar kekeliruan UU No. 12 Tahun 2012 tentang Pendidikan Tinggi yang membuat kategorisasi baru, yang sangat bertentangan dengan akal sehat dan kebiasaan ilmiah, yakni memasukkan (ilmu) Teologi dalam rumpun ilmu Agama. Namun, apa mau dikata, para pengambil kebijakan di negeri ini akhir-akhir ini seakan tidak pernah belajar dari ilmu, kecuali bagaimana mengakali agar kepentingan kelompok diakomodasi dengan imbalan uang. Justru, studi dan karya Joas Adiprasetya ini, di mata saya, dapat memperlihatkan kekeliruan dan kerancuan berpikir para anggota parlemen sekaligus Kementerian Agama Republik Indonesia. Coba simak saja kajian Joas Adiprasetya dan lihat sendiri bagaimana tema teologis ini tidak bersangkut paut dengan “rumpun ilmu agama,” sebab studi ini bersifat keilmuan, “metapraksis” yang melampaui premis-premis agama sebagai suatu lembaga, yang tentu saja telah dibuktikan di Indonesia dapat dipolitisasi. Dalam studi Joas Adiprasetya ini, tak terbilang jumlah tokoh besar (dalam sejarah doktrin Kristen) yang mengulas, merefleksikan, meneliti, serta menulis dengan ketelitian yang mengagumkan dan ketajaman yang memukau, akan tetapi pada akhirnya sama gelapnya, dan yang lebih menakjubkan adalah jumlah orang percaya dan oleh karena itu mengalami tidak berkurang, bahkan sebaliknya. Itulah sebabnya Anselmus Canterburry menyatakan Credo ut intelligam; artinya, saya percaya supaya dengan itulah saya memahami............ Joas Adiprasetya pun, dalam bidikan saya, menyenggol paradigma teologi tentang agama-agama di bawah istilah eksklusivisme, inklusivisme, and pluralisme. Seiring dengan perkembangan waktu, yang memperlihatkan bahwa teologi pun menganut asas semper reformanda et reformata sicut signum temporis (senantiasa membarui dan diperbarui seturut tanda zaman), maka dipopulerkan era pasca pluralisme. Dengan terminologi pasca pluralisme, sejumlah peristilahan yang pernah dikecam seperti sinkretisme, kafir (baca: bukan kita), murtad, proselitisme, dan lain sebagainya perlu ditinjau kembali. Di sini, Joas Adiprasetya melihat tersedianya lahan untuk berdialog, juga tentang Trinitas. Tentu hal ini merupakan tantangan tersendiri jika “minoritas”—seperti Joas Adiprasetya—menawarkan kepada publik sebuah keterkaitan “niscaya” antara teologi tentang Trinitas dengan teologi tentang agama-agama. Ternyata Joas Adiprasetya yang kreatif berhasil menyingkapkan kata kunci yang dapat berlaku umum, yaitu sosial untuk kemudian masuk dalam the great design, yakni misteri perichoresis. Tidak tanggung-tanggung, Joas Adiprasetya menyihir para pembaca dengan ungkapan magis yang diturunkan dari Leonardo Boff, “The holy Trinity is our social program” (Nicolas Federov dikutip oleh Boff dalam “Trinity” dalam Systematic Theology: Perspectives from Liberation Theology, hlm. 78). Meski demikian, hal itu tidak berarti Saudara Joas Adiprasetya sedang tidak menyimpan bom waktu, sebab relasi sosial yang diterapkan dalam signifikansi perichoresis dapat melahirkan suatu cara pandang yang menyamakan saja antara Sang Alpha dan Omega dengan makhluk ciptaan; dan hal ini salah satu butir notasi tentang Teologi Pembebasan, yang sepenuhnya didukung oleh Leonardo Boff. Sekali lagi, dengan memanfaatkan senjata pamungkas dari para teolog kenamaan tersebut (Raimundo Panikkar, Gavin D’Costa, Mark Heim, yang masing-masing menggunakan person-, nature-, reality-perichoresis), Joas Adiprasetya berhasil mengeksplorasi dan menemukan seberkas cahaya terang, yang ternyata sejalan dengan penemuan Richard Kearney (Allah yang mungkin ada) dan Jürgen Moltmann (Trinitas terbuka). Sampai di sini, Joas Adiprasetya dapat menawarkan temuannya sebagai suatu bentuk teologi Indonesia! Akhirnya, karya ini tidak sesederhana, tidak sesingkat Daftar Isi (hlm. vii), sebab penelusuran Joas Adiprasetya mengalir sampai jauh, sampai saling merasuki pribadi-pribadi tanpa melebur menjadi satu, tanpa menghilangkan identitas, justru karena prinsip perichoretik itu bersatu tanpa saling meniadakan. Karya Ketua Sekolah Tinggi Teologia Jakarta ini merupakan salah satu model unggul berteologi dalam konteks dan ranah multipluralisme, yang diakui dan dipuji di Indonesia, namun tidak banyak dipraktikkan. (A. Eddy Kristiyanto, Program Studi Teologi, Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Jakarta). (shrink)

Modal ontolojik argüman, Tanrı’nın varlığını sadece bilfiil gerçek olan bu dünyada değil, bütün mümkün dünyalarda göstermeye yönelik bir argümandır. Anselm’in (1033-1109) Proslogion adlı eserinin 3. bölümünde “kendisinden daha büyüğü düşünülemeyen” şeklinde tanımlanan; Tanrı’nın var olmamasının da düşünülemeyeceğini, bu yüzden de varolmamasının imkansızlığı üzerinde kurulu yeni bir argüman bulunduğunu öne süren bazı araştırmacılar, bu argümanı mümkün dünyalar semantiği yardımıyla formüle edip, “modal ontolojik argüman” şeklinde adlandırmışlardır. Çok farklı şekillerde formüle edilmiş bu argüman kabaca Tanrı’nın mümkünse zorunlu olması, dolayısıyla bilfiil gerçek olan (...) bu dünyada da var olması gerektiğini savunur. (shrink)