Skip to main content
Log in

A problem for radical (onto-theos) pluralism

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hans Kung, et al.,Christianity and World Religions: Paths to Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Doubleday. 1986. p. xviii

  2. Gavin D'Costa,Theology and Religious Pluralism The Challenge of Other Religions. Basil Blackwell. 1986. p. 22.

  3. For a succinct review of the current literature, see Francis X. Clooney, ‘Christianity and World Religions: Religion, Reason, and Pluralism’.Religious Studies Review. Vol 15, No 3, 1989. pp. 197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Despite methodological and theoretical problems, this commitment, which regurgitates the old humanist, soteriocentric, and orthopraxic views, becomes the urge for ‘carrying on the conversation’. Cf. Paul Knitter, ‘Making Sense of the Many’,Religious Studies Review Vol 15, No 3, 1989, pp. 204–207.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cf Pauk Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes towards the World Religions. Orbis. 1985, p. 217f. See also Clooney, op. cit p. 200.

    Google Scholar 

  6. This a parody on an example from Hans Küng, “Response to Francis Cook is It Just This? Different Paradigms of Ultimate Reality in Buddhism”. InBuddhist-Christian Studies 9. 1989. pp. 142–156. p. 142.

  7. Hans Kung ibid “Response to Francis Cook Is It Just This? Different Paradigms of Ultimate Reality in Buddhism”. InBuddhist-Christian Studies 9. 1989 p. 151.

  8. Jacques Derride, “The Supplement of the Copula”, in Josué Harari (ed.)Textual Stretegies, in Post-Structuralist Criticism. Cornell University Press. 1979. p. 109.

  9. SeeDeconstruction and Theology. Thomas J J. Altizer, Jr, et al, Crossroads, 1982; Mark C Taylor,Deconstructing Theology. Scholars Press, 1982;’Erring: A Postmodern A/theology. University of Chicago Press, 1984; Altarity. University of Chicago Press, 1987. Charles E Winquist,Epiphanies of Darkness: Deconstruction in Theology. Fortress Press. 1986.

  10. Mark Taylor,op. cit,Deconstructing Theology. Scholars Press, (1982) p. 100; cf (1984) pp. 100–111.

  11. Robert Scharlemann,Inscriptions and Reflections Essays in Philosophical Theology. University Press of Virginia. 1989. p. 37, 43

  12. Thomas JJ Altizer Jr, “History as Apocalypse”. InDeconstriction and Theology, p. 176.

  13. Dietrich Bonhoeffer,Prisoner for God: Letters and Papers from Prison. (Edited by Eberhard Bethge). The Macmillan Company. 1953.

  14. Robert S Gall, “Of/From Theology and Deconstruction.”Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Fall 1990 Vol LVIII No 3. pp. 413–437. p. 426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. For a more balanced approach to the problematic of interpretation in pluralism see David Tracy,Plurality and Ambiguity Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope. Harper & Row. 1987. pp. 78f.

  16. Leonard Swidler (ed.),Towards a Universal Theology of Religion. Orbis, 1987, 7–13. Curiously, most theologs, like W C Smith, John Hick et al, who are eager to develop a ‘universal theology’ do often begin by asserting the plurality of disparate, localised and historically distinct religious experiences. Cf. Stephen Neill,Christian Faith and Other Faiths The Christian Dialogue with Other Religions. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press 1970.

  17. I am indepted to Francis Clooney for this insight,op. cit. Leonard Swidler (ed.),Towards a Universal Theology of Religion. Orbis, 1987. p. 200.

  18. On Husserl's own confidence of the spiritual telos of European Manvis-à-vis the Asiatic and “primitive” people who are partakers on different levels in the “Spiritual Image of Europe”, see Edmund Husserl,Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy (trans. by Quentin Lauer). Harper and Row. 1965. pp. 155–158.

  19. Bimal K Matilal,The Central Philosophy of Jainism (Anekānta-vāda). L D Institute of Indology (Ahmedabad), 1981, p. 55.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bilimoria, P. A problem for radical (onto-theos) pluralism. SOPH 30, 21–33 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02772501

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02772501

Keywords

Navigation