www.tebe-trazim.com

Pusti samosažaljenje kameno, Duh Sveti će nastanit...srce tvoje ranjeno
Sada je 20 stu 2017 18:16

Vrijeme na UTC [LJV]




Započni novu temu Odgovori  [ 706 post(ov)a ]  Idi na stranu Prethodni  1 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71  Sljedeće
Autor Poruka
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 10 pro 2014 19:01 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
Bultmann’s demythologization project is comprehensible against this background. Bultmann sees as mythological (in the tradition of Bousset’s history of religions) ‘that mode of thought in which the unworldly, the divine, appears as worldly, and human, and the other-worldly appears as this-worldly’. But Bultmann takes a different view of the cult. Bousset saw it as at the centre of interest, whereas for Bultmann that position is occupied by proclamation. This gives his presentation a more enlightened aspect. For him mythology is almost the counter-concept of our modern scientific worldview, which according to him operates with a closed context of cause-andeffect, whereas for mythic thought the world is open to the intervention of other-worldly powers. For us today that way of thinking is no longer possible. That does not mean, of course, that Bultmann wants the New Testament kerygma dissolved. He is more concerned to disclose the understanding of existence concealed in the myth, and in that way to reveal the specifi c intention of the biblical writings. Myth shows man as a being who is not in control of himself. In contact with the kerygma of Jesus Christ he attains to a new understanding of existence. The notion of demythologization is not, as far as Bultmann is concerned, the negative formulation of what he sees as the positive meaning of the existential interpretation. It is not intended to dissolve the indispensable content and the scandal of Christian faith (namely, that it is God who is acting in Jesus Christ), but to demonstrate precisely that content and scandal while at the same time freeing the message from false, time-conditioned impedimenta. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 14 pro 2014 11:15 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
A number of his critics think Bultmann is sitting on the fence. Surely, they say, any talk of the decisive action of God in Jesus Christ must also be treated as mythical. Bultmann’s answer is No. ‘For the redemptive event of which we are speaking is not a miraculous, supranatural occurrence; it is historical occurrence in space and time’. Others, and especially K. Jaspers, W. Kamlah, F. Buri and S. Ogden, see that too as a persistent mythological spatialization and chronologization of God. ‘The redemptive event does not consist in... a once and for all saving event in Christ, but in the fact that it is possible for men to understand themselves in their uniqueness just as the myth of Christ expresses it’. In that view, Jesus Christ is the especially impressive manifestation of a possibility man has of being an authentic human being. Christology is the cypher for a specifi c anthropology, a symbol for a successful human existence, a kind of common humanity or a stimulus to a new way of acting that will change the world. In the meantime attempts to demythologize faith in Christ have also gained entry to Catholic circles. Hubertus Halbfas in his Fundamental Catechetics conceives the history of man’s self-discovery as insurpassably expressed in Jesus Christ. The revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth is not ‘something categorically different from exta-biblical revelations’ but the ‘law of evolution fulfi lling itself’. Even more radically, J. Nolte sees in the person of Jesus the Fact, Meaningful Image, True Sign and Bearer of Signifi cance of a freedom determined by love – which does not exclude the possibility of other Facts, Meaningful Images, True Signs, and Bearers of Signifi cance. ‘Accordingly, the Christ-matter has to be radically relativized and seen merely as an intermediate, didactic and symbolic concretion of a permanent truth-value’. ‘God is greater than what is called “God” in the figure of Jesus and in Christianity’. Edward Schillebeeckx is much more careful and reticent. In the Jesus narrative he sees ‘the great parable of God himself and at the same time the paradigm of the humanity of our human being’, ‘a new, unheard of possibility of existence thanks to the God who is intent on humankind’. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 28 pro 2014 20:27 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
Whatever detailed criticism may have to be made of these attempts to demythologize faith in Christ, we must always remember that demythologization is not unjustifiable in its critical or in its positive aspects. There is a time and a place for demythologization. It is undeniable that in generally current ideas of Christianity, Jesus Christ is often thought of more or less as a god descending to earth whose humanity is basically only a kind of clothing behind which God himself speaks and acts. Extreme notions of that kind see God dressed as a Father Christmas, or slipping into human nature like someone putting on dungarees in order to repair the world after a breakdown. The biblical and church doctrine that Jesus was a true and complete man with a human intellect and human freedom, does not seem to prevail in the average Christian head. Therefore demythologization is not only permissible but necessary; precisely in order to disclose the authentic meaning of belief in Christ. Demythologization is also acceptable in its positive aspect, as, that is to say, existential or anthropological interpretation. Relevation uses human language, which only reveals something when it reaches the hearer: when, that is, he understands it. Furthermore, in Jesus Christ human existence as a whole becomes the ‘grammar’ of God’s self-expression. Christological statements: statements about man. Conversely, the knowledge and study of man must give us an initial understanding of what has happened in Jesus Christ. But here, surely, we have only touched on the real problem. We have to ask whether and how far theological discourse and discussion are really possible and meaningful. Perhaps hermeneutically orientated theology is itself mythological. After all, it too contains ‘something’ which in the end cannot be stated or demonstrated. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 31 pro 2014 11:41 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
My answer will be given in stages. The first stage is a description of the problems and diffi culties which have beset the emancipation, enlightenment and demythologization movement of recent years. The Frankfurt school of sociology and social psychology and philosophy offered a detailed critique – or, rather, self-critique – of the modern critical attitude under the general heading of the ‘dialectic of enlightenment’ (Horkheimer and Adorno in, especially, the book of that title). They wished to show that the rational approach ran the risk of succumbing to irrationalism by itself becoming irrational. If man tries to explain, organize and manipulate everything rationally, he is sure to become a victim of that very planning and manipulation. When everything is seen from the angle of profitability, man too becomes a number without human features. That kind of rational mastery of reality is only possible by means of the rationalized and organized cooperation of a large number of people. And that leads, almost inevitably, to the ‘administered world’, and in extreme cases to a totalitarian state. Freedom is caught in the very net that it has cast and made. The sorcerer’s apprentice cannot control the spirits he has summoned up. The dialectic of enlightenment is most clearly evident in that when reason elevates itself into an absolute, it almost always creates a new myth. Then (as Feuerbach noted) politics becomes religion. But surely a man who elevates himself as an absolute (for that is what the foregoing implies) surrenders the title of human being and becomes inhuman? Perhaps politics which has turned into religion must necessarily make totalitarian claims and end in a general deprivation of liberty. The unfortunate consequences of the modern subjectivity principle take us back to the starting-point. The basic premiss of the Enlightenment is to make human reason the yardstick and reference-point for all understanding and all behaviour. The Enlightenment argues from the essentially rational nature of reality as a whole and – since it wants to consider everything in the light of the same rational principles – from the essential similarity of all activity. But if we do follow enlightenment principles and assume the essential similarity and comparability – the sameness – of everything that happens, we not only have to abandon the idea of a specifi c history of salvation, but have to admit that basically there is nothing new under the sun. The primacy of the general and the universal means the subjugation of everything spare, strange and original. The unique and special becomes mere vehicle, function, cypher, symbol, interpretament and, ultimately, the particular instance of a universal. Then Christology too must be a mere vehicle, function, cypher, symbol, interpretament and, ultimately, a particular instance of anthropology. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 01 sij 2015 22:10 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
We cannot turn the clock back. The best way of solving the problem is to take up the theme which explodes the abstract philosophy of equalization from within. That is most effective with the fundamental modern Enlightenment topic: its desire to make human dignity and freedom the ultimate value. Schelling, with characteristic vision, observed that to make freedom the centrepoint of the system meant a more drastic change than with any previous revolution. Freedom denies the primacy of the universal over the particular. Freedom in any real sense is possible only on the premiss that reality as a whole is determined by freedom, for that is the only condition which allows freedom room for action within reality. To conceive reality under the rule of freedom means that reality is to be seen not as an enclosed but as a basically open system with room for the unique, new and original. But surely then the Enlightenment tradition, which denies God in the name of liberty, contradicts itself in the end. How can we conceive reality as existing under the primacy of freedom without a universal guarantee of divine freedom? We are right to ask whether a second Enlightenment (an enlightenment, that is, of the Enlightenment about itself) cannot, though in a new way, reassert belief in God as deciding the very possibility of freedom. These questions take us to the border line between permissible and impermissible demythologization. Demythologization is permissible if it helps us to show Jesus Christ as the location of divine and human freedom. It is impermissible when it cancels the underivable originality and novelty of Jesus Christ, and makes Christology a kind of anthropology. If we cross that barrier between an acceptable anthropological interpretation and an unacceptable anthropological reduction, then demythologization converts dialectically into its opposite and Jesus of Nazareth becomes man mythologized. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 28 vel 2015 11:56 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
CHRISTOLOGY WITH AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL EMPHASIS


Karl Rahner has done us an immense service in showing how Christology can be pursued in a new way on the presuppositions (not the conditions) of the modern movement. He has opened a new road to Christian belief for a great number of people and has established a bridgehead between Catholic theology and the hermeneutical discussion of recent years. Rahner invokes the permissible aspect of demythologization and usually starts with an unrelenting attack on the common mythological idea of what belief in Christ entails. That misunderstanding reduces human nature to a mere uniform, and degrades the mediator to a means. Rahner sees that a non-mythological understanding of Christ is only possible if Jesus’ humanity is thought of as a real symbol of God. In his later works Rahner calls that a ‘Christology from below’. This approach wishes to show that the divine Incarnation takes away nothing of man’s autonomy and originality, but is the unique highest instance of the essential realization of human reality. Therefore it starts from a seeking and anonymous Christology which man practises whenever he absolutely recognizes and wholly accepts his humanness. Christology from below can appeal to the other and ask him whether what he is looking for in his life in the most profound sense isn’t something which has already been fulfilled in Jesus, who has the words of eternal life, and who is the only one to whom we can turn (Jn 6.5,8). Rahner’s Christology from below extends the approach of what has always been a transcendental Christology. That approach is often misunderstood, as if Rahner wished to derive the content of Christology a priori from human thought and from human existence as it is lived. But Rahner’s transcendental method may not be made to approximate to Kant’s. Rahner in fact warns us against the illusion that a transcendental Christology could be made to work by methodological abstraction from the historical Jesus Christ. Only as a second step does he consider the transcendental conditions of this perception, and then as a third step reveals the Christ-idea as the objective correlative of the transcendental structure of man and his knowledge. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 02 ožu 2015 19:05 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
On such premisses, then, Rahner develops his transcendental Christology from below in three steps:

1. Man experiences himself in every categorical act of cognition and freedom as referred beyond himself and every categorical object to an inconceivable mystery. It is only possible to recognize that the finite is finite if one has a preconception of an infinite; and freedom is possible only when that is the case. By his nature, then, man is a self-realizing but undefined, incomplete but gradually self-comprehending reference to a mystery of fulness.
2. In his most daring moments, man hopes that mystery does not bear and support existence merely as the asymptotically orientated guarantee of an unending movement which remains forever in the finite world. He hopes instead that the mystery offers itself as the fulfilment of human existence. But that kind of divine self-communication has to be historically mediated, which brings in the concept of the absolute redemptive event and the absolute Redeemer in whom man experiences his nature as truly acknowledged and confirmed by God through his absolute and irreversible self-surrender. God’s self-communication presupposes man’s free acceptance.
3. The foregoing takes us to the very principle of the Incarnation, towards which – by virtue of his human nature – man is always on his way. But when Rahner says that the Incarnation is therefore the unique, highest instance of the realization of the essential nature of human reality, he does not mean that such a possibility is to be realized in every man. Man’s transcendence produces his openness to the self-communication of absolute mystery. We cannot conclude however that a fulfilment of that kind is necessary. The problem is not that something like that does in fact happen, but how, where and when the One is present of whom all that can be asserted.

This transcendental Christology leads Rahner to formulate Christology as a self-transcendent anthropology, and that anthropology in its turn as a deficient Christology. This might well be termed the basic formula of all Rahnerian theology, and the one on which he grounds his theory of the anonymous Christian. If Christology represents the unique fulfilment of anthropology, it follows that everyone who fully accepts his life as a human being has thereby also implicitly accepted the Son of man. Hence, according to Rahner, such an individual has already encountered Jesus Christ without knowing however that he had met with the person whom Christians justly call Jesus of Nazareth. With his theory of anonymous Christianity, Rahner is able to make the universality of belief in Christ and the salvation offered by Jesus Christ theologically comprehensible in a new way, and without demythologizing historical Christianity to the point of almost nothingness. Nevertheless, at this point (which is so characteristic of Rahnerian theology) the critical questions really stand out. We have to ask whether, if we adopt so anthropologically orientated a theology and Christology, we are not unilaterally ‘metaphysicizing’ historical Christianity, and cancelling by philosophical speculation the scandal of its specific reference. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 12 ožu 2015 21:17 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
The criticism most often directed against Rahner is that his approach to human subjectivity means an attenuation of intersubjectivity as a phenomenon. There is no such thing as ‘man’ pure and simple; there are men who exist only and always within the network of I-you-we relations. Man exists so to speak only as a plurale tantum. A child’s consciousness is awakened with its mother’s smile; the freedom of the individual arises from an encounter with the freedom of other individuals. The clearest sign of this intersubjectivity is the phenomenon of human language, the medium in which all spiritual and intellectual processes happen and are fulfilled. That means that being addressed, being approached, being asked to respond comes first, and not – as Rahner suggests – questioning. Even the finely-nuanced transcendental problematics of modern philosophy is not a ‘self-evident’ starting-point, for it is mediated through the entire history of western philosophy and the history of Christianity. In his later writings, Rahner examines that historical mediation and tries to define the reciprocal influence of transcendentality and history. He shows that a stronger emphasis on intersubjectivity and history would not necessarily destroy his transcendental approach as such. It is essentially true that man exists only in and through language; it is also true that language and the condition of being addressed presuppose a susceptibility and receptivity to being addressed. It is not the transcendental approach as such which deserves criticism but the fact that Rahner plays down the formal nature of that approach. In his later writings, history is essentially the categorical material in and through which transcendental freedom is realized. Rahner takes too little notice of the fact that the true reality of history implies a determination of the transcendental conditions affecting the possibility of understanding. It is a determination which is not derivable from and not wholly conceivable in terms of those conditions. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 10 tra 2015 10:47 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
This constitutive tension between historical reality and transcendental possibility discloses the basic problem of Rahner’s approach. We might put it in thesis form by saying that Rahner’s approach is still largely within the bounds of the idealistic philosophy of identity and its identifi cation of being and consciousness. Hence he argues directly from the undoubted openness of the human spirit to the infinite to the reality of that infinite. But surely a distinction has to be made here? In his reaching out to infinity – precisely, indeed, in that – man remains finite. Is it really possible for him as a finite being to conceive the infinite? Surely his way of knowing it must deny its true nature? Can he have more than a negative notion of the infinite? Isn’t that the point where man touches on the ultimate ground of his existence, and therefore comes up against an inevitable mystery? What that infinite really is remains open, ambiguous and ambivalent. It can be interpreted in numberless ways. We can call it the pantheistic ground of all reality; but we can also understand it as the expression of an ultimate absurdity of existence. We can interpret it sceptically and we can practise due self-restraint in revering in it that which resists exploration. We can also understand it theistically. Each of these approaches implies an option. The ultimate ground of our human being means an inescapable tension between being and consciousness. It implies that in his questioning, thinking and longing, man is on the one hand greater than reality, because in questioning, thinking and longing he overreaches reality. On the other hand reality is demonstrably greater than man; ultimately man cannot overtake reality. Man therefore is faced with an irremovable mystery. He himself, in fact, is an impenetrable mystery of that very kind. The lines of his being and nature cannot be seized in words. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Ateizam
PostPostano: 11 tra 2015 10:49 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 28 kol 2009 11:42
Postovi: 1980
Lokacija: Zagreb
Podijelio: 10 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 56 zahvala
Fran26 napisao:
This constitutive tension between historical reality and transcendental possibility discloses the basic problem of Rahner’s approach. We might put it in thesis form by saying that Rahner’s approach is still largely within the bounds of the idealistic philosophy of identity and its identifi cation of being and consciousness. Hence he argues directly from the undoubted openness of the human spirit to the infinite to the reality of that infinite. But surely a distinction has to be made here? In his reaching out to infinity – precisely, indeed, in that – man remains finite. Is it really possible for him as a finite being to conceive the infinite? Surely his way of knowing it must deny its true nature? Can he have more than a negative notion of the infinite? Isn’t that the point where man touches on the ultimate ground of his existence, and therefore comes up against an inevitable mystery? What that infinite really is remains open, ambiguous and ambivalent. It can be interpreted in numberless ways. We can call it the pantheistic ground of all reality; but we can also understand it as the expression of an ultimate absurdity of existence. We can interpret it sceptically and we can practise due self-restraint in revering in it that which resists exploration. We can also understand it theistically. Each of these approaches implies an option. The ultimate ground of our human being means an inescapable tension between being and consciousness. It implies that in his questioning, thinking and longing, man is on the one hand greater than reality, because in questioning, thinking and longing he overreaches reality. On the other hand reality is demonstrably greater than man; ultimately man cannot overtake reality. Man therefore is faced with an irremovable mystery. He himself, in fact, is an impenetrable mystery of that very kind. The lines of his being and nature cannot be seized in words. Walter Kasper "Jesus the Christ"


Još si na Kasperu, kolko to sad već dugo traje...
Valjda će biti gotovo do sljedeće Sinode o oibtelji.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
Prikaz prethodnih postova:  Sortiraj po  
Započni novu temu Odgovori  [ 706 post(ov)a ]  Idi na stranu Prethodni  1 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71  Sljedeće

Vrijeme na UTC [LJV]


Tko je online

Nema registriranih korisnika pregledava forum i 5 gostiju


Ne možeš započinjati nove teme.
Ne možeš odgovarati na postove.
Ne možeš uređivati svoje postove.
Ne možeš izbrisati svoje postove.
Ne možeš postati privitke.

Traži prema:
Idi na:  
Pokreće phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
phpbb.com.hr