2019/09/04

Panentheism - Wikipedia



Panentheism - Wikipedia
Panentheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
Not to be confused with pantheism.
Part of a series on
God

General conceptions[hide]

Agnosticism
Apatheism
Atheism
Deism
Henotheism
Ietsism
Ignosticism
Monotheism
Monism
Dualism
Monolatry
Kathenotheism
Omnism
Pandeism
Panentheism
Pantheism
Polytheism
Theism
Transtheism

Specific conceptions[show]

In particular religions[show]

Attributes[show]


Experiences
Practices[show]

Related topics[show]


v
t
e


Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God")[1] is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time. The term was coined by the German philosopher Karl Krause in 1828 to distinguish the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling(1775–1854) about the relation of God and the universe from the supposed pantheismof Baruch Spinoza.[1] Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.
In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.
While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. Some versions of panentheism suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the Kabbalah concept of tzimtzum. Also much Hindu thought – and consequently Buddhist philosophy – is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3][4] The basic tradition however, on which Krause's concept was built, seems to have been Neoplatonic philosophy and its successors in Western philosophy and Orthodox theology.


Contents
1In philosophy
1.1Ancient Greek philosophy
1.2Modern philosophy

2In religion
2.1Hinduism
2.2Taoism
2.3Buddhism
2.4Christianity
2.4.1Eastern Orthodoxy
2.4.2Panentheism in other Christian confessions
2.5Gnosticism
2.6Judaism
2.7Islam
2.8In Pre-Columbian America
2.9Sikhism
2.10Bahá'í Faith
2.11Konkōkyō

3See also
4References
5Bibliography
6External links

In philosophy[edit]
Ancient Greek philosophy[edit]

The religious beliefs of Neoplatonism can be regarded as panentheistic. Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable transcendent God ("the One", to En, τὸ Ἕν) of which subsequent realities were emanations. From "the One" emanates the Divine Mind (Nous, Νοῦς) and the Cosmic Soul (Psyche, Ψυχή). In Neoplatonism the world itself is God (according to Plato's Timaeus 37). This concept of divinity is associated with that of the Logos (Λόγος), which had originated centuries earlier with Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BC). The Logos pervades the cosmos, whereby all thoughts and all things originate, or as Heraclitus said: "He who hears not me but the Logos will say: All is one." Neoplatonists such as Iamblichus attempted to reconcile this perspective by adding another hypostasisabove the original monad of force or Dunamis (Δύναμις). This new all-pervasive monad encompassed all creation and its original uncreated emanations.


Modern philosophy[edit]

Baruch Spinoza later claimed that "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."[5] "Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner."[6] Though Spinoza has been called the "prophet"[7] and "prince"[8] of pantheism, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[9] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.

According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" (God or Nature) Spinoza did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God's immanence.[10] Furthermore, Martial Guéroult suggested the term "panentheism", rather than "pantheism" to describe Spinoza's view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Yet, American philosopher and self-described panentheist Charles Hartshorne referred to Spinoza's philosophy as "classical pantheism" and distinguished Spinoza's philosophy from panentheism.[11]

In 1828, the German philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832) seeking to reconcile monotheism and pantheism, coined the term panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally "all in god"). This conception of God influenced New England transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. The term was popularized by Charles Hartshorne in his development of process theology and has also been closely identified with the New Thought.[12] The formalization of this term in the West in the 19th century was not new; philosophical treatises had been written on it in the context of Hinduism for millennia.[13]

Philosophers who embraced panentheism have included Thomas Hill Green (1839–1882), James Ward (1843–1925), Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison (1856–1931) and Samuel Alexander (1859–1938).[14] Beginning in the 1940s, Hartshorne examined numerous conceptions of God. He reviewed and discarded pantheism, deism, and pandeism in favor of panentheism, finding that such a "doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations". Hartshorne formulated God as a being who could become "more perfect": He has absolute perfection in categories for which absolute perfection is possible, and relative perfection (i. e., is superior to all others) in categories for which perfection cannot be precisely determined.[15]

In religion[edit]
Hinduism[edit]

Earliest reference to panentheistic thought in Hindu philosophy is in a creation myth contained in the later section of Rig Veda called the Purusha Sukta,[16] which was compiled before 1100 BCE.[17] The Purusha Sukta gives a description of the spiritual unity of the cosmos. It presents the nature of Purusha or the cosmic being as both immanent in the manifested world and yet transcendent to it.[18] From this being the sukta holds, the original creative will proceeds, by which this vast universe is projected in space and time.[19]

The most influential[20] and dominant[21] school of Indian philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, rejects theism and dualism by insisting that "Brahman [ultimate reality] is without parts or attributes...one without a second."[22] Since Brahman has no properties, contains no internal diversity and is identical with the whole reality it cannot be understood as an anthropomorphic personal God.[23] The relationship between Brahman and the creation is often thought to be panentheistic.[24]

Panentheism is also expressed in the Bhagavad Gita.[24] In verse IX.4, Krishna states:


By Me all this universe is pervaded through My unmanifested form.
All beings abide in Me but I do not abide in them.

Many schools of Hindu thought espouse monistic theism, which is thought to be similar to a panentheistic viewpoint. Nimbarka's school of differential monism (Dvaitadvaita), Ramanuja's school of qualified monism (Vishistadvaita) and Saiva Siddhanta and Kashmir Shaivism are all considered to be panentheistic.[25] Caitanya's Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which elucidates the doctrine of Acintya Bheda Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference), is also thought to be panentheistic.[26] In Kashmir Shaivism, all things are believed to be a manifestation of Universal Consciousness (Cit or Brahman).[27] So from the point of view of this school, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Cit).[28] Thus, Kashmir Shaivism is also propounding of theistic monism or panentheism.[29]

Shaktism, or Tantra, is regarded as an Indian prototype of Panentheism.[30] Shakti is considered to be the cosmos itself – she is the embodiment of energy and dynamism, and the motivating force behind all action and existence in the material universe. Shiva is her transcendent masculine aspect, providing the divine ground of all being. "There is no Shiva without Shakti, or Shakti without Shiva. The two ... in themselves are One."[31] Thus, it is She who becomes the time and space, the cosmos, it is She who becomes the five elements, and thus all animate life and inanimate forms. She is the primordial energy that holds all creation and destruction, all cycles of birth and death, all laws of cause and effect within Herself, and yet is greater than the sum total of all these. She is transcendent, but becomes immanent as the cosmos (Mula Prakriti). She, the Primordial Energy, directly becomes Matter.

Taoism[edit]

Taoism says that all is part of the eternal tao, and that all interact through qi. Chapter 6 describes the Tao thus: "The heart of Tao is immortal, the mysterious fertile mother of us all, of heaven and earth, of every thing and not-thing."[32]
Buddhism[edit]

The Reverend Zen Master Soyen Shaku was the first Zen Buddhist Abbot to tour the United States in 1905–6. He wrote a series of essays collected into the book Zen For Americans. In the essay titled "The God Conception of Buddhism" he attempts to explain how a Buddhist looks at the ultimate without an anthropomorphic God figure while still being able to relate to the term God in a Buddhist sense:


At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, "panentheism," according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence.[33]

The essay then goes on to explain first utilizing the term "God" for the American audience to get an initial understanding of what he means by "panentheism," and then discusses the terms that Buddhism uses in place of "God" such as Dharmakaya, Buddha or AdiBuddha, and Tathagata.

Christianity[edit]

Panentheism is also a feature of some Christian philosophical theologies and resonates strongly within the theological tradition of the Orthodox Church.[34] It also appears in process theology. Process theological thinkers are generally regarded in the Christian West as unorthodox. Furthermore, process philosophical thought is widely believed to have paved the way for open theism, a movement that tends to associate itself primarily with the Evangelical branch of Protestantism, but is also generally considered unorthodox by most Evangelicals.

Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
See also: Omnipresence

In Christianity, creation is not considered a literal "part of" God, and divinity is essentially distinct from creation (i.e., transcendent). There is, in other words, an irradicable difference between the uncreated (i.e., God) and the created (i.e., everything else). This does not mean, however, that the creation is wholly separated from God, because the creation exists in and from the divine energies. In Eastern Orthodoxy, these energies or operations are the natural activity of God and are in some sense identifiable with God, but at the same time the creation is wholly distinct from the divine essence.[citation needed] God creates the universe by His will and from His energies. It is, however, not an imprint or emanation of God's own essence (ousia), the essence He shares pre-eternally with His Word and Holy Spirit. Neither is it a directly literal outworking or effulgence of the divine, nor any other process which implies that creation is essentially God or a necessary part of God. The use of the term "panentheism" to describe the divine concept in Orthodox Christian theology is problematic for those who would insist that panentheism requires creation to be "part of" God.

God is not merely Creator of the universe, as His dynamic presence is necessary to sustain the existence of every created thing, small and great, visible and invisible.[35] That is, God's energies maintain the existence of the created order and all created beings, even if those agencies have explicitly rejected him. His love for creation is such that He will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of annihilation, not merely imposing death, but ending existence altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is fundamentally "good" in its very being, and is not innately evil either in whole or in part. This does not deny the existence of spiritual or moral evil in a fallen universe, only the claim that it is an intrinsic property of creation. Sin results from the essential freedom of creatures to operate outside the divine order, not as a necessary consequence of having inherited human nature.

Panentheism in other Christian confessions[edit]

Many Christians who believe in universalism – mainly expressed in the Universalist Church of America, originating, as a fusion of Pietist and Anabaptist influences, from the American colonies of the 18th century – hold panentheistic views of God in conjunction with their belief in apocatastasis, also called universal reconciliation.[citation needed]Panentheistic Christian Universalists often believe that all creation's subsistence in God renders untenable the notion of final and permanent alienation from Him, citing Scriptural passages such as Ephesians 4:6 ("[God] is over all and through all and in all") and Romans 11:36 ("from [God] and through him and to him are all things") to justify both panentheism and universalism.[citation needed] Panentheism was also a major force in the Unitarian church for a long time, based in part on Ralph Waldo Emerson's concept of the Over-soul (from the synonymous essay of 1841).[citation needed]

Panentheistic conceptions of God occur amongst some modern theologians. Process theology and Creation Spirituality, two recent developments in Christian theology, contain panentheistic ideas. Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), who conjoined process theology with panentheism, maintained a lifelong membership in the Methodist church but was also a Unitarian. In later years he joined the Austin, Texas, Unitarian Universalist congregation and was an active participant in that church.[36] Referring to the ideas such as Thomas Oord's ‘theocosmocentrism’ (2010), the soft panentheism of open theism, Keith Ward's comparative theology and John Polkinghorne's critical realism (2009), Raymond Potgieter observes distinctions such as dipolar and bipolar:


The former suggests two poles separated such as God influencing creation and it in turn its creator (Bangert 2006:168), whereas bipolarity completes God’s being implying interdependence between temporal and eternal poles. (Marbaniang 2011:133), in dealing with Whitehead’s approach, does not make this distinction. I use the term bipolar as a generic term to include suggestions of the structural definition of God’s transcendence and immanence; to for instance accommodate a present and future reality into which deity must reasonably fit and function, and yet maintain separation from this world and evil whilst remaining within it.[37]

Some argue that panentheism should also include the notion that God has always been related to some world or another, which denies the idea of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Nazarene Methodist theologian Thomas Jay Oord (* 1965) advocates panentheism, but he uses the word "theocosmocentrism" to highlight the notion that God and some world or another are the primary conceptual starting blocks for eminently fruitful theology. This form of panentheism helps in overcoming the problem of evil and in proposing that God's love for the world is essential to who God is.[38]

The Christian Church International also holds to a panentheist doctrine.

Gnosticism[edit]
Main article: Gnosticism

"Gnosticism" is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems prevalent in the first and second century AD. The teachings of the various gnostic groups were very diverse. In his Dictionary of Gnosticism, Andrew Phillip Smith has written that some branches of Gnosticism taught a panentheistic view of reality,[39] and held to the belief that God exists in the visible world only as sparks of spiritual "light". The goal of human existence is to know the sparks within oneself in order to return to God, who is in the Fullness (or Pleroma).

Gnosticism was panentheistic, believing that the true God is simultaneously both separate from the physical universe and present within it.[citation needed] As Jesus states in the Gospel of Thomas, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all ... . Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."[40] This seemingly contradictory interpretation of gnostic theology is not without controversy, since one interpretation of dualistic theology holds that a perfect God of pure spirit would not manifest himself through the fallen world of matter.

Manichaeism, being another gnostic sect, preached a very different doctrine in positioning the true Manichaean God against matter as well as other deities, that it described as enmeshed with the world, namely the gods of Jews, Christians and pagans.[41]Nevertheless, this dualistic teaching included an elaborate cosmological myth that narrates the defeat of primal man by the powers of darkness that devoured and imprisoned the particles of light.[42]

Valentinian Gnosticism taught that matter came about through emanations of the supreme being, even if to some this event is held to be more accidental than intentional.[citation needed] To other gnostics, these emanations were akin to the Sephirot of the Kabbalists and deliberate manifestations of a transcendent God through a complex system of intermediaries.[citation needed]
Judaism[edit]

While mainstream Rabbinic Judaism is classically monotheistic, and follows in the footsteps of Maimonides (c. 1135–1204), the panentheistic conception of God can be found among certain mystical Jewish traditions. A leading scholar of Kabbalah, Moshe Idel[43] ascribes this doctrine to the kabbalistic system of Moses ben Jacob Cordovero(1522–1570) and in the eighteenth century to the Baal Shem Tov (c. 1700–1760), founder of the Hasidic movement, as well as his contemporaries, Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezeritch (died 1772), and Menahem Mendel, the Maggid of Bar. This may be said of many, if not most, subsequent Hasidic masters. There is some debate as to whether Isaac Luria (1534–1572) and Lurianic Kabbalah, with its doctrine of tzimtzum, can be regarded as panentheistic.

According to Hasidism, the infinite Ein Sof is incorporeal and exists in a state that is both transcendent and immanent. This appears to be the view of non-Hasidic Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, as well. Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification to a transcendent God, via the intellectual articulation of inner dimensions through Kabbalah and with emphasis on the panentheistic divine immanence in everything.[44]

Many scholars would argue that "panentheism" is the best single-word description of the philosophical theology of Baruch Spinoza.[45] It is therefore no surprise, that aspects of panentheism are also evident in the theology of Reconstructionist Judaism as presented in the writings of Mordecai Kaplan (1881–1983), who was strongly influenced by Spinoza.[46]

Islam[edit]
Further information: Tawheed

Several Sufi saints and thinkers, primarily Ibn Arabi, held beliefs that have been considered panentheistic.[47] These notions later took shape in the theory of wahdat ul-wujud (the Unity of All Things). Some Sufi Orders, notably the Bektashis[48] and the Universal Sufi movement, continue to espouse panentheistic beliefs. Nizari Ismaili follow panentheism according to Ismaili doctrine. Nevertheless, some Shia Muslims also do believe in different degrees of Panentheism.

Al-Qayyuum is a Name of God in the Qur'an which translates to "The Self-Existing by Whom all subsist". In Islam the universe can not exist if Allah doesn't exist, and it is only by His power which encompasses everything and which is everywhere that the universe can exist. In Ayaẗ al-Kursii God's throne is described as "extending over the heavens and the earth" and "He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them". This does not mean though that the universe is God, or that a creature (like a tree or an animal) is God, because those would be respectively pantheism, which is a heresy in traditional Islam, and the worst heresy in Islam, shirk (polytheism). God is separated by His creation but His creation can not survive without Him.
In Pre-Columbian America[edit]

The Mesoamerican empires of the Mayas, Aztecs as well as the South American Incas(Tahuatinsuyu) have typically been characterized as polytheistic, with strong male and female deities.[49] According to Charles C. Mann's history book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, only the lower classes of Aztec society were polytheistic. Philosopher James Maffie has argued that Aztec metaphysics was pantheistic rather than panentheistic, since Teotl was considered by Aztec philosophers to be the ultimate all-encompassing yet all-transcending force defined by its inherit duality.[50]

Native American beliefs in North America have been characterized as panentheistic in that there is an emphasis on a single, unified divine spirit that is manifest in each individual entity.[51] (North American Native writers have also translated the word for God as the Great Mystery[52] or as the Sacred Other[53]) This concept is referred to by many as the Great Spirit. Philosopher J. Baird Callicott has described Lakota theology as panentheistic, in that the divine both transcends and is immanent in everything.[54]

One exception can be modern Cherokee who are predominantly monotheistic but apparently not panentheistic;[55] yet in older Cherokee traditions many observe both aspects of pantheism and panentheism, and are often not beholden to exclusivity, encompassing other spiritual traditions without contradiction, a common trait among some tribes in the Americas. In the stories of Keetoowah storytellers Sequoyah Guess and Dennis Sixkiller, God is known as ᎤᏁᎳᏅᎯ, commonly pronounced "unehlanv," and visited earth in prehistoric times, but then left earth and her people to rely on themselves. This shows a parallel to Vaishnava cosmology.

Sikhism[edit]

The Sikh gurus have described God in numerous ways in their hymns included in the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy scripture of Sikhism, but the oneness of the deity is consistently emphasized throughout. God is described in the Mool Mantar, the first passage in the Guru Granth Sahib, and the basic formula of the faith is:


(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1) — ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥


Ik Oankar Satnaam KartaaPurakh Nirbhau Nirvair AkaalMoorat Ajooni Saibhan GurPrasad


One primal being who made the sound (oan) that expanded and created the world. Truth is the name. Creative being personified. Without fear, without hate. Image of the undying. Beyond birth, self existent. By Guru's grace~

Guru Arjan, the fifth guru of Sikhs, says, "God is beyond colour and form, yet His/Her presence is clearly visible" (Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 74), and "Nanak's Lord transcends the world as well as the scriptures of the east and the west, and yet He/She is clearly manifest" (Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 397).

Knowledge of the ultimate Reality is not a matter for reason; it comes by revelation of the ultimate reality through nadar (grace) and by anubhava (mystical experience). Says Guru Nanak; "budhi pathi na paiai bahu chaturaiai bhai milai mani bhane." This translates to "He/She is not accessible through intellect, or through mere scholarship or cleverness at argument; He/She is met, when He/She pleases, through devotion" (GG, 436).

Guru Nanak prefixed the numeral one (ik) to it, making it Ik Oankar or Ek Oankar to stress God's oneness. God is named and known only through his Own immanent nature. The only name which can be said to truly fit God's transcendent state is SatNam ( Sat Sanskrit, Truth), the changeless and timeless Reality. God is transcendent and all-pervasive at the same time. Transcendence and immanence are two aspects of the same single Supreme Reality. The Reality is immanent in the entire creation, but the creation as a whole fails to contain God fully. As says Guru Tegh Bahadur, Nanak IX, "He has himself spread out His/Her Own “maya” (worldly illusion) which He oversees; many different forms He assumes in many colours, yet He stays independent of all" (GG, 537).

Bahá'í Faith[edit]

Further information: God in the Bahá'í Faith

In the Bahá'í Faith, God is described as a single, imperishable God, the creator of all things, including all the creatures and forces in the universe. The connection between God and the world is that of the creator to his creation.[56] God is understood to be independent of his creation, and that creation is dependent and contingent on God. Accordingly, theBahá'í Faith is much more closely aligned with traditions of monotheism than panentheism. God is not seen to be part of creation as he cannot be divided and does not descend to the condition of his creatures. Instead, in the Bahá'í understanding, the world of creation emanates from God, in that all things have been realized by him and have attained to existence.[57] Creation is seen as the expression of God's will in the contingent world,[58] and every created thing is seen as a sign of God's sovereignty, and leading to knowledge of him; the signs of God are most particularly revealed in human beings.[56]
Konkōkyō[edit]

In Konkōkyō, God is named “Tenchi Kane no Kami-Sama” which can mean “Golden spirit of the universe.” Kami(God) is also seen as infinitely loving and powerful.

See also[edit]

Brahman
Christian Universalism
Conceptions of God
Creation Spirituality
Divine simplicity
Double-aspect theory
Essence-Energies distinction
German idealism
Henosis
Kabbalah
Neoplatonism
Neutral monism
Open theism
The Over-Soul(1841), essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson
Orthodox Christian theology
Pantheism
Pandeism

Parabrahman
Paramatman
Philosophy of space and time
Process theology
Subud, a spiritual movement, founded by Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo(1901–1987)
Tawhid, the concept of indivisible oneness in Islam
Universal Sufism

People associated with panentheism:
  • Gregory Palamas(1296–1359), Byzantine theologian
  • Baruch Spinoza(1632–1677), Dutch philosopher of Sephardi-Portuguese origin
  • Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), English mathematician and philosopher
  • Charles Hartshorne(1897–2000), American philosopher
  • Arthur Peacocke(1924–2006), British Anglican theologian and biochemist
  • John B. Cobb (* 1925), American theologian and philosopher
  • Mordechai Nessyahu (1929–1997), Jewish-Israeli political theorist and philosopher of Cosmotheism
  • Sallie McFague (* 1933), American feminist theologian, author of Models of God and The Body of God
  • William Luther Pierce (1933–2002), American political activist and self-proclaimed cosmotheist
  • Jan Assmann (* 1938), German Egyptologist, theorist of Cosmotheism
  • Marcus Borg(1942-2015), American New Testament scholar and theologian. Prominent member of the Jesus Seminar
  • Richard Rohr (* 1943), American Franciscan priest and spiritual writer. Author of Everything Belongs and The Universal Christ
  • Carter Heyward (* 1945), American Episcopal priest and feminist theologian
  • Norman Lowell (* 1946), Maltese writer and politician, self-proclaimed cosmotheist
  • John Philip Newell(* 1953), Canadian-born minister ordained in the Church of Scotland, spiritual writer, author of numerous books including The Rebirthing of God: Christianity's Struggle for New Beginnings
  • John Polkinghorne(* 1960), English theoretical physicist and theologian
  • Michel Weber (* 1963), Belgian philosopher
  • Thomas Jay Oord(* 1965), American theologian and philosopher


References[edit]

^ Jump up to:a b John Culp (2013): “Panentheism”, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
^ Jump up to:a b Erwin Fahlbusch; Geoffrey William Bromiley; David B. Barrett (2005). The Encyclopedia of Christianity. 4. William B. Eerdmans. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-8028-2416-5.
^ “Pantheism and Panentheism in non-Western cultures”, in: Britannica.
^ Whiting, Robert. Religions for Today. Stanley Thomes, London 1991, p. viii. ISBN 0-7487-0586-4.
^ Ethics, part I, prop. 15.
^ Ethics, part I, prop. 25S.
^ Picton, J. Allanson, "Pantheism: Its Story and Significance", 1905.
^ Fraser, Alexander Campbell, "Philosophy of Theism", William Blackwood and Sons, 1895, p. 163.
^ Correspondence of Benedict de Spinoza, Wilder Publications, 2009, ISBN 978-1-60459-156-9, letter 73.
^ Karl Jaspers, Spinoza (Great Philosophers), Harvest Books, 1974, ISBN 978-0-15-684730-8, pp. 14 and 95.
^ Charles Hartshorne and William Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, Humanity Books, 1953, ch. 4.
^ Smith, David L. (2014). Theologies of the 21st Century: Trends in Contemporary Theology. Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock. p. 228. ISBN 978-1625648648. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
^ Southgate, Christopher (2005). God, Humanity and the Cosmos: A Companion to the Science-Religion Debate. London: T&T Clark. pp. 246–47. ISBN 978-0567030160. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
^ John W. Cooper Panentheism, the other God of the philosophers: from Plato to the presentBaker Academic, 2006, ISBN 0-8010-2724-1.
^ Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1964) ISBN 0-208-00498-X p. 348; cf. Michel Weber, Whitehead’s Pancreativism. The Basics. Foreword by Nicholas Rescher, Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt am Main and Paris, 2006.
^ Nigal, Sahebrao Genu (2009). Vedic Philosophy of Values. New Delhi: Northern Book Centre. p. 81. ISBN 978-8172112806. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
^ Oberlies (1998:155) gives an estimate of 1100 BC for the youngest hymns in book 10. Estimates for a terminus post quem of the earliest hymns are more uncertain. Oberlies (p. 158) based on 'cumulative evidence' sets wide range of 1700–1100
^ The Purusha Sukta in Daily Invocations by Swami Krishnananda
^ Krishnananda, Swami. A Short History of Religious and Philosophic Thought in India. Divine Life Society. P. 19
^ "Consciousness in Advaita Vedānta ," By William M. Indich, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1995, ISBN 81-208-1251-4.
^ "Gandhi And Mahayana Buddhism". Class.uidaho.edu. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
^ Wainwright, William. "Concepts of God". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
^ Wainwright, William, "Concepts of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
^ Jump up to:a b Southgate, Christopher. God, Humanity, and the Cosmos. T&T Clark Int'l, New York. P. 246. ISBN 0567030164.
^ Sherma, Rita DasGupta; Sharma Arvind. Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons. Springer, 2008 edition (December 1, 2010). P. 192. ISBN 9048178002.
^ Caitanya Caritamrita, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
^ The Doctrine of Vibration: An Analysis of Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism, By Mark S. G. Dyczkowski, p.44
^ Ksemaraja, trans. by Jaidev Singh, Spanda Karikas: The Divine Creative Pulsation, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p.119
^ The Trika Śaivism of Kashmir, Moti Lal Pandit
^ Vitsaxis, Vassilis. Thought and Faith: The concept of divinity. Somerset Hall Press. P. 167. ISBN 978-1-935244-03-5.
^ Subramanian, V. K., Saundaryalahari of Sankaracarya: Sanskrit Text in Devanagari with Roman Transliteration, English Translation, Explanatory Notes, Yantric Diagrams and Index. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi, 1977; 6th ed. 1998). P. ix.
^ "Tao Te Ching (Daodejing) (translated Brian Browne Walker)". Retrieved 2018-12-12.
^ Zen For Americans by Soyen Shaku, translated by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, 1906, pages 25–26. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm
^ Nesteruk, Alexei V. (2004). "The Universe as Hypostaic Inherence in the logos of God: Panentheism in the Eastern Orthodox Perspective", in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Robert Peacocke. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 169–83. ISBN 978-0802809780. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
^ St. Symeon in Practical & Theological Discourses, 1.1: “When men search for God with their bodily eyes they find Him nowhere, for He is invisible. But for those who ponder in the Spirit He is present everywhere. He is in all, yet beyond all.”
^ About Charles Hartshorne Archived 2007-11-14 at the Wayback Machine.
^ Potgieter, R., 2013, ‘Keith Ward’s soft panentheism’, In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi 47(1), Art. #581, 9 pages. https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ ids.v47i1.581
^ Baker, Vaughn W. (2013). Evangelism and the Openness of God: The Implications of Relational Theism. Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock. pp. 242–43. ISBN 9781620320471. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
^ Smith, Andrew Phillip (2014). A Dictionary of Gnosticism. Wheaton IL: Quest Books. p. 186. ISBN 9780835608695. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
^ Gospel of Thomas, saying 77.
^ “Now, he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the priests he says is the archont of Darkness, and the Christians, Jews, and pagans (ethnic) are one and the same, as they revere the same god. For in his aspirations he seduces them, as he is not the god of truth. And so therefore all those who put their hope in the god who spoke with Moses and the prophets have (this in store for themselves, namely) to be bound with him, because they did not put their hope in the god of truth. For that one spoke with them (only) according to their own aspirations.” And elsewhere: “Now God has no part in this cosmos nor does he rejoice over it.” Classical Texts: Acta Archelai, p. 76 ([www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Manicheism/Manicheism_II_Texts.pdf pdf online]). Cf. The Mystica an Dualism.
^ "But the blessed One [...] sent, through his beneficent Spirit and his great mercy, a helper to Adam, luminous Epinoia which comes out of him, who is called Life. [...] And the luminous Epinoia was hidden in Adam, in order that the archons might not know her, but that the Epinoia might be a correction of the deficiency of the mother. And the man came forth because of the shadow of the light which is in him. [...] And they took counsel with the whole array of archons and angels. [...] And they brought him (Adam) into the shadow of death, in order that they might form (him) again from earth [...] This is the tomb of the newly-formed body with which the robbers had clothed the man, the bond of forgetfulness; and he became a mortal man. [...] But the Epinoia of the light which was in him, she is the one who was to awaken his thinking. ([1])
^ Hasidism: Between Ecstacy and Magic, SUNY, 1995, p. 17 f.
^ Ariel, David S. (2006). Kabbalah: The Mystic Quest in Judaism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 184–85. ISBN 978-0742545649. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ Diller, Jeanine and Asa Kasher (2013). Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 425–26. ISBN 978-94-007-5218-4. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
^ Scult, Mel (2013). The Radical American Judaism of Mordecai M. Kaplan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0-253-01075-9. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
^ Minai, Asghar Talaye (2003). Mysticism, aesthetics, and cosmic consciousness: a post-modern worldview of unity of being. N.Y.: Global Academic Pub. p. 250. ISBN 978-1586842499.
^ Abiva, Huseyin. "Bektashi Thought & Practice". Bektashi Order of Dervishes. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
^ Murphy, John (2014). Gods & Goddesses of the Inca, Maya, and Aztec Civilizations. New York: Rosen Education Service. ISBN 978-1622753963. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ Maffie, James (2013). Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. ISBN 9781607322238. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ Solomon, Robert C. and Kathleen M. Higgins (2003). From Africa to Zen: An Invitation to World Philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 51–54. ISBN 978-0742513495. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ Russell Means, Where White Men Fear To Tread (Macmillan, 1993), pp. 3–4, 15, 17.
^ George Tinker, Spirit and Resistance: Political Theology and American Indian Liberation, 2004, p. 89. He defines the Sacred Other as "the Deep Mystery which creates and sustains all Creation".
^ Earth's Insights: A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1994. p. 122. ISBN 9780520085602. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ The Peoples of the World Foundation. Education for and about Indigenous Peoples: The Cherokee People, retrieved 2008-03-24.
^ Jump up to:a b Smith, Peter (2000). "God". A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-85168-184-6.
^ `Abdu'l-Bahá (1981) [1904–06]. Some Answered Questions. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. pp. 202–203. ISBN 978-0-87743-190-9.
^ Smith, Peter (2000). "creation". A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-1-85168-184-6.
Bibliography[edit]
Ankur Barua, "God’s Body at Work: Rāmānuja and Panentheism," in: International Journal of Hindu Studies, 14,1 (2010), pp. 1–30.
Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacock (eds.), In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being; Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, Eerdmans (2004)
Bangert, B.C. (2006). Consenting to God and nature: Toward a theocentric, naturalistic, theological ethics, Princeton theological monograph ser. 55, Pickwick Publications, Eugene.
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica articlePanentheism.

Cooper, John W. (2006). Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers, Baker Academic ISBN 9780801027246
Thomas Jay Oord (2010). The Nature of Love: A Theology ISBN 978-0-8272-0828-5.
Joseph Bracken, "Panentheism in the context of the theology and science dialogue", in: Open Theology, 1 (2014), 1–11 (online).
Marbaniang, Domenic (2011). Epistemics of Divine Reality. POD. ISBN 9781105160776.

Philip Clayton / Cheap-Library.com



Philip Clayton / Cheap-Library.com




Philip Clayton




Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness
Philip Clayton (Author)

$7.44


God and contemporary science
Philip Clayton

$8.52




The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy, and Faith
Philip Clayton, Steven Knapp

$5.22


Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective
Philip Clayton, Jeffrey Schloss

$5.4


The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion
Philip Clayton, Paul Davies

$21.5



Religion and science : the basics
Clayton, Philip

$4.69

“인간화 실현된 세계야말로 예수의 하느님나라” : 종교 : 사회 : 뉴스 : 한겨레



“인간화 실현된 세계야말로 예수의 하느님나라” : 종교 : 사회 : 뉴스 : 한겨레




“인간화 실현된 세계야말로 예수의 하느님나라”

등록 :2019-06-05

인터뷰 | 원로 신학자 송기득 교수 인터뷰
---------------------------
‘예수 안 믿으면 지옥 간다’는 미신
십일조 목매는 한국 기독교 낳아
예수가 대신 속죄한다는 ‘대속론’
희생양 바친 유대교 제사에서 유래
인간을 비주체적 노예로 전락시켜

자유·평등·평화·정의 구현하는
인간 회복이 곧 하느님나라 만들기
예수는 로마 압제에 저항한 정치범


중학 시절 설교 듣고 평생 목사 결심
더 좋은 목자 되려 대학은 철학과로
류영모 강연 듣고는 더 넓은 세계로
늦깎이 교수 되곤 토착신학 길 개척
먼저 간 아내에게 쓴 편지 10권 출간


송기득 교수 앞에 그가 매일 산책길에서 주워 병상의 부인에게 선물했다는 솔방울이 놓여 있다.
------

지난달 24일 전남 순천시 봉화산 기슭에 머물고 있는 송기득(88) 교수를 찾았다. 봉화는 공동체의 위기에 타오른다. 그는 봉화다. 그러나 송 교수는 자신을 다 타버린 숯인 양 “이제 죽을 준비를 하고 있는 사람에게 어인 발걸음이냐”고 했다. 대학을 정년 은퇴한 뒤 2001년부터 계간지 <신학비평>을 내고 이어 낸 <신학비평너머>마저 지난해 말로 폐간시켰으니 허언만은 아니다.


그런 그가 끝내 놓지 않는 단 하나의 글이 있다. ‘아내 정순애에게 보내는 편지’다. 그의 아내는 2016년 7월22일 96살을 일기로 ‘몸옷’을 벗었다. 대학생 때 여순사건으로 졸지에 남편을 잃고 전도사로 살며 아이 셋을 키우던, 11살 연상의 아내를 만나 그는 63년을 해로했다. 아내가 떠난 뒤 그는 매일처럼 870통의 편지를 써 10권째 책을 냈다. 별난 사랑이다. 아내는 63년을 살면서 늘 따뜻한 미소를 짓고, 한번도 화를 낸 적이 없었다고 한다. 그래서 쌍둥이 큰딸들에게 물었다. ‘너희들 어릴 때도 엄마가 그랬느냐’고. 그중 한 딸은 어린 시절 너무 배가 고파 남의 집 고구마를 훔쳤는데, 그때 딱 한 번 어머니에게 매를 맞았다고 했다. 그때 고구마 주인이 집에 쫓아와 “전도사 딸도 남의 고구마를 훔치느냐”고 힐난하자 평생 말대답을 삼가던 어머니가 “전도사 딸은 사람이 아니다요?”라고 했단다. 인근 요양원에 사는 81살의 그 딸이 거동도 힘겨운 노구를 이끌고 점심때가 되면 어김없이 찾아와 수양아버지의 식사를 챙겨준다.

누구도 대신할 수 없는 ‘인간 송기득’만의 삶은 ‘특별한 사랑’에만 한정되지 않는다. 그는 해창만이 바라다보이는 전남 고흥의 빈농에서 5남매 중 장남으로 태어났다. 일곱 식구 끼니가 어려운 집안 형편상 중학교 진학은 어렵다는 부모 몰래 연락선을 타고 여수로 가서 수산중학교에 합격하며 그의 신산한 삶이 시작됐다. 선산에서 소나무 몇 그루를 베어 판 돈으로 입학금을 내고 한 달에 쌀 한 말, 된장 한 단지, 간장 한 병 이외 더 이상 지원은 요구하지 않는다는 조건으로 겨우 진학은 했으나 불도 때지 않는 토굴 같은 방에서 한겨울을 지내며 굶기를 밥 먹듯 했다. 그나마 수산중학교 1학년 때 1등을 하자 고향 수협의 추천으로 수산청에서 수산대학 졸업 때까지 장학금을 주겠다고 해 고생을 면할 만하자 그는 순천 매산중학교로 전학을 단행했다. 고향 교회에 봉사하러 왔던 여수 손양원 목사의 설교를 듣고는 ‘나도 목사가 되어야겠다’고 한 결심을 실행하기 위해 인근에 하나뿐이던 ‘미션스쿨’로 간 것이다.

또 그는 음으로 양으로 돌봐주던 보이열 선교사가 형편상 등록금이 싼 지방국립대를 가라고 하는데도 기어코 ‘미션스쿨’인 연세대에 합격했고, 연세대에 가려면 신학과를 가라는 요구도 거절하고 ‘무식한 목사가 안 되려면 철학을 공부해야 한다’며 철학과 진학을 결행했다. 그는 철학과 수석을 놓치지 않아 전 학년에서 한 명만 주는 전액 장학생으로 형편이 좀 나아지는 듯했으나 4학년 때 폐결핵으로 무려 3년 반이나 사투를 벌였다. 당시 광주 동광원에서 요양하면서 수양회 강연을 온 류영모의 강연을 들은 그는 “기독교 외엔 무지했고 알 필요도 없다고 여겼던 ‘좁은 우물’에서 나와 그리스도교만이 아닌 드넓은 보편 세계에 눈을 떴다”고 한다.



송기득 교수와 부인 정순애씨의 다정했던 모습
------

.투병 뒤 그를 너무도 아낀 교수들의 천거로 학부 졸업생임에도 연세대 문과대 전임조교가 됐으나 5·16 쿠데타가 터져 군 미필자를 몰아냈다. 폐결핵을 앓다가 군대를 못 간 처지도 받아들여지지 않았다. 국토건설단에 지원해 강원도 정선 탄광에서 1년간 중노동으로 군복무를 마쳤지만 복직을 시켜주지 않았다. 그는 그때 2개월 동안 무일푼으로 거지 행각을 하며 민초 구원자들을 만났다.

그는 폐결핵을 치료해주던 여의사 여성숙 선생이 시작한 목포의 한산촌에 내려가 불모지에서 폐병 환자 수용소를 짓기 시작했다. 여 선생의 친구로 한산촌에 자주 내려와 글을 쓰던 민중신학자 안병무와 인연을 맺은 것도 그때였다. 가난한 폐병 환자였던 그는 한산촌이 갈 곳 없는 폐결핵 환자들의 안식처로 계속 남기를 희망하며 헌신했다. 그러나 한산촌에 디아코니아수도회를 설립하기를 원했던 안병무·여성숙 선생에 의해 하루아침에 쫓겨나는 신세가 됐다. 그로부터 53살에야 목원대에 안착할 때까지 10여년을 보따리 강사로 지내야 했다. 그는 목원대에서도 늦깎이 교수로 머물지 않고 민중신학과 여성신학, 한국신학을 개설해 토착신학의 길을 개척해갔다.

그는 “‘예수 믿지 않으면 지옥 간다’는 미신이 그저 성서와 찬송가를 끼고 교회만 가고, 찬송하고 기도하고, 십일조만 바치면 복 받는다는 수준의 ‘한국 기독교’를 만들었다”고 한탄한다. 그는 둘째가라면 서러워할 외골수 보수 기독교인에서 ‘탈신학’까지 치열히 고군분투하며 변신한 결과, 지금 ‘정통’이라는 이름의 기독교가 말하는 그리스도는 ‘역사적 예수’가 아니라고 한다.

“당시 로마의 법은 신성에 대한 죄는 돌로 내려쳐 죽이고, 십자가형은 정치범에게만 하는 것이었다. 예수가 성전을 뒤엎은 날도 이스라엘이 이집트에서 해방된 유월절이다. 예수는 로마 압제에 저항하다 정치범으로 죽임을 당한 것이다.”

그는 기독교의 핵심 진리인 ‘대속자 그리스도’는 예수 이전 구시대의 유물이라고 한다. 즉 ‘자신이 저지른 죄를 예수가 대신 받아 자신의 죄를 사함 받는다는 대속론은 양이나 소, 순결한 처녀 같은 가엾은 희생제물을 바친 유대교의 제사 전통에서 유래했다’는 것이다. 송 교수는 “예수는 ‘사람은 안식일(모든 것)의 주인’이라며 주인됨과 주체성을 천명했는데 대속론은 인간을 비주체적인 노예로 전락시킨다”고 지적했다. 노학자의 대미는 ‘인간’으로 귀결되었다.

“예수의 하느님나라 운동은 로마의 지배세력과 헤로데의 독재권력, 그리고 예루살렘 성전 체제의 집권자들이 일삼은 탄압과 착취로부터 이스라엘 민중이 해방되어 사람으로 살아갈 수 있는 세계를 실현하기 위한 인간 회복 운동이었다. 실제 예수는 하느님의 나라를 이 역사 안에 실현하기 위해서 온 삶을 다해 살다 처형당했다. 해방과 자유, 평등과 평화, 정의와 구원으로 사람이 사람답게 살 수 있게 하는 인간화가 실현된 세계가 예수의 하느님나라다.”

그와 아내는 가정에서부터, 또 한산촌에서, 대학에서 그런 삶을 구현했다. 병상의 아내에게 산책길에서 주워 매일 선물했다는 솔방울을 보는 노신학자의 눈이 촉촉했다.

순천/글·사진 조현 종교전문기자 cho@hani.co.kr



원문보기:
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/religious/896702.html#csidx69d5e8e5cebf9c29f3d42d83b968e32

알라딘: 탈신학 에세이 by 송기득



알라딘: 탈신학 에세이 by 송기득




탈신학 에세이
송기득 (지은이)신학비평사2019-05-30







정가
15,000원
판매가
14,250원 (5%, 750원 할인)

366쪽
152*223mm (A5신)
512g
ISBN : 9791196708405



목차


첫머리에

제1장 아직도 신학인가
제2장 예수는 어떤 하느님을 믿었는가
제3장 예수는 부활을 어떻게 생각했을까
제4장 예수는 사람을 어떻게 보았을까
제5장 민중신학과 맨사람 예수
제6장 맨사람 예수가 바라던 세상
제7장 예수의 '하느님나라'와 동학의 '사람나라'
제8장 그리스도를 넘어서, 예수를 넘어서 다중에게로
제9장 신은 인간의 구원을 보장하는가: 신 없는 인간의 구원을 위하여

제10장 대속론은 허구이다
제11장 어머니 하느님, 대모신
제12장 성령을 따르는 영성의 삶: 퀘이커 형제들에게 전한 설교
제13장 오늘의 믿음과 내일의 믿음
제14장 나는 대들 신이 없어 외롭다
제15장 하느님과 함께 노닐며 살았으면
제16장 "목사들이여, '하느님놀이'를 멈춰라" : 『뉴스엔조이』와의 대담(2017. 9. 2.)
제17장 죽음맞이
제18장 아, 좋다! : 나의 마지막 설교(2019. 3. 31.)



저자 및 역자소개
송기득 (지은이)
저자파일
최고의 작품 투표
신간알림 신청

연세대학교에서 철학과 신학을 공부하고, 목원대학교 신학과 조직신학 교수로서 은퇴했다.(1999) 은퇴 이후 계간지 『신학비평』을 창간(2001)하고 주간으로 있으면서 사람다움을 지향하는 인간화 신학을 펼치고 있다. 그는 지금까지 인간화를 틀로 삼아 그리스도교를 비판하고 있으며, 역사의 예수에게서 사람다움의 길을 모색하고 있다.

지은 책
하느님 없이 하느님과 함께 - 나의 신학평전 3』 (2015)
『하느님 없이 하느님과 함께 - 나의 신학평전 4』 (2012)
『역사의 예수 : 그는 누구이며, 우리에게 무엇인가?... 더보기


최근작 : <탈신학 에세이>,<사람살이가 구도의 방랑길입니다>,<사람, 아직 멀었다> … 총

2019/09/03

육상원융(六相圓融) - 한국민족문화대백과사전





육상원융(六相圓融) - 한국민족문화대백과사전







육상원융(六相圓融)





불교개념용어



『화엄경』의 총상·별상·동상·이상·성상·괴상으로, 모든 존재의 연관성과 조화 원리를 의미하는 불교교리.

-------------------------

분야불교유형개념용어

정의

『화엄경』의 총상·별상·동상·이상·성상·괴상으로, 모든 존재의 연관성과 조화 원리를 의미하는 불교교리.



내용

육상원융의 도리를 『화엄경』에서는 체계적으로 설명하지 않았으나 우리 나라 및 중국의 화엄종 승려들은 이를 최고의 원리로 받아들여 깊이 연구하였다.

『화엄경』에는 총상(總相)·별상(別相)·동상(同相)·이상(異相)·성상(成相)·괴상(壞相) 등 육상(六相)의 명칭만 열거되어 있지만, 법계무진연기나 “하나 속에 일체가 있고 일체 속에 하나가 있으며, 하나가 곧 일체요 일체가 곧 하나(一中一切 一切中一 一卽一切 一切卽一)”라는 등의 가르침을 통하여 육상원융의 사상을 일관되게 설명하고 있다.

육상원융은 후대의 화엄사상가들이 개발한 참신한 대원리이다. 육상을 도표로 표현하면 [그림]과 같다. 이 원칙은 다수의 개별적 존재들로 구성된 전체가 시간적으로나 공간적으로 끊임없는 연기(緣起)의 존재로 있으며, 그 연기가 무애(無礙)한 경우에 있게 마련인 뚜렷한 원칙을 의미한다. 이 원리는 한 개인, 한 집안, 한 단체, 한 사회, 한 국가, 한 민족, 인류 전체, 우주 전체에 이르기까지 적용된다.

이 원칙은 이 우주 전체가 하나의 통일적 유기적 화합체라는 전제를 바탕으로 한다. 총상·동상·성상의 삼상은 그 통일성, 유기적 동질성, 완전성의 양상들이고, 별상·이상·괴상의 삼상은 각각 위의 삼상에 대응하는 것으로서, 그 모든 구성분자들이 갖는 개별성·특이성 및 자족적인 겸허성의 양상들이다. 위의 것을 원융문(圓融門), 밑의 것은 항포문(行布門)이라고 한다. 이 원융문과 항포문의 각 상들은 서로서로 의존하는 관계가 이루어지게 되어 있는 것이 우주 법계의 실상이다.

그러나 본연의 이상적 우주 법계의 실상은 타락한 인간 심성의 오염으로 말미암아 욕계(欲界)·색계(色界)·무색계(無色界)라는 삼계(三界)의 전락된 양상을 띠는 일이 많으므로, 그와 같은 관점에서 이 육상은 수행상의 기준이 되기도 하였다.

육상의 상호 의존관계는 일즉일체·일체즉일의 즉(卽)의 관계와 일중일체·일체중일의 중(中)의 관계로 표현되기도 하며, 그 실현은 무엇보다도 인간들 자신의 깊은 정신적 자각에서 이루어진다고 보고 있다.

“마음이 맑으면 국토가 맑아지고 마음이 더러우면 국토가 더러워진다.”라고 할 때, 맑은 국토는 육상의 원융관계가 충족된 것을 말하며, 그때의 맑은 마음이란 바로 이 즉과 중의 관계를 자연스럽게 이룩하는 마음을 두고 한 말이다.

이 육상의 원리를 통하여 인간의식 속에 깊숙이 침투하여 있는 개인주의적 사고방식을 극복할 수 있고, 훌륭한 개성적 인간이 전체의 동질성에 있어 매우 중요하다는 사실을 인식할 수 있으며, 전체의 통일성 달성의 필수조건이 개개인 또는 개개의 구성분자들이 어떤 종류의 소외도 당함이 없이 완전히 존경받게 해야 한다는 사실을 강조하고 있다. 또한, 이 원융문과 항포문이 원융하게 귀일하는 곳에 대법계(大法界)의 진리가 활연히 나타남을 가르치고 있다.

참고문헌







한국화엄사상연구 (불교문화연구소, 동국대학교 출판부, 1982)

집필자

집필 (1997년)김상현

2019/09/02

Deconstructing Jesus - Kindle edition by Robert M. Price. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.



Deconstructing Jesus - Kindle edition by Robert M. Price. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.




Deconstructing Jesus Kindle Edition
by Robert M. Price (Author)

4.1 out of 5 stars 18 customer reviews

See all 4 formats and editions

Kindle
$12.63Read with Our Free App
Length: 284 pages Word Wise: Enabled


Read reviews that mention
historical jesus robert price burton mack new testamentbiblical criticism ancient world deconstructing jesus jesus of nazarethmany jesus evidence scholars gospel christianity christianfigure whether jewish later important paul




Showing 1-8 of 18 reviews
Top Reviews

Steven H Propp

TOP 50 REVIEWER
5.0 out of 5 starsA "JESUS AGNOSTIC" NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLAR LOOKS AT THE GOSPEL EVIDENCEJuly 30, 2013
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase

Robert McNair Price (born 1954) is a former Baptist minister who teaches philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, is professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and was the editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism from 1994 until it ceased publication in 2003. He is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, notwithstanding his doubts about the historical existence of Jesus. He has written other books such as Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?,Jesus Is Dead,The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul,The Case Against The Case For Christ, etc.

He wrote in the Introduction to this 2000 book, "this book treats of the historical Jesus and whether we can know anything about him, whether even there is anyone to know about!... I intend to deconstruct 'Jesus Christ' on a deeper level, one underlying believers' imaginary relationships with their Savior... What I do not propose to do is what an increasing ocean of books endeavor, namely reconstructing a historical Jesus from what scanty evidence remains to us... Generations of Rationalists and freethinkers have held that Jesus Christ corresponds to no historical character: There never was a Jesus of Nazareth... What I am describing is someting different, a 'Jesus agnosticism.' There may have been a Jesus on earth in the past, but the state of the evidence is so ambiguous that we can never be sure what this figure was like or, indeed, whether there was such a person." (Pg. 9,12,17)

He points out, "The power of Burton Mack's case ] is such that he has managed to convince the great proponent of the Christ-Myth in our day, George A. Wells, to abandon the ground he defended for so long. Wells now significantly qualifies his own argument to the effect that, while there was a Cynic-style sage named Jesus underlying Q1, this shadowy figure did not give rise to the full-blown mythic Christ of the gospels... And Mack would agree." (Pg. 115)

He argues, "Let me hasten to point out that a multiple-root origin theory for Christianity would not automatically mean there had been no original historical Jesus. Indeed, Mack certainly holds for... at least one historical Jesus, the sage whose sayings have been collected for our edification in Q1. But I wonder if Mack's work does not set loose implications that he himself does not yet appreciate... Q1, far from allowing us access for the first time to the historical Jesus, is instead inconsistent with a historical Jesus." (Pg. 150)

He concludes, "Traditionally, Christ-Myth theorists have argued that one finds a purely mythic conception of Jesus in the epistles and that the life of Jesus the historical teacher and healer as we read it in the gospels is a later historicization. This may indeed be so, but it is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last. In the gospels the degree of historicization is actually quite minimal, mainly consisting of the addition of the layer derived from contemporary messiahs and prophets... One does not need to repair to the epistles to find a mythic Jesus." (Pg. 260)

Price is an unusual figure (not many Jesus skeptics are also New Testament scholars), but his books are important reading for anyone studying the historical evidence for Jesus.
Read less

5 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

Kindle Customer

5.0 out of 5 starsWell-researchedApril 19, 2017
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

Price has done amazing research of extra-biblical sources to cast doubt on the traditional view of Jesus' uniqueness. Virtually nothing he said was not said by others, whether the Cynics or even much-maligned Jews of the first century who were teaching the same things. Even the uniqueness of the crucifixion and resurrection was preceded by identical myths or even novels of the time. Price is sympathetic, as he came from an Evangelical background and you can see an evolution of thought in his writings. After exposing the idea of originality in the gospels he reaches a point of agnosticism about whether we can know that there ever was a man named Jesus of Nazareth at all.

2 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

Rick Theis

5.0 out of 5 starsWonderful DeconstructionJanuary 13, 2016
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

I can only say, "he's done it again!" It's another really good read, and recommended to anyone looking to put another lid on the discussion. Well done, and written in a way I like to see reasoned arguments. You either wind up agreeing or disagreeing, although the latter would be unreasonable. Highly readable, highly recommended, and another in a lineup of good books to consider for your bookshelf.

2 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

KJ

5.0 out of 5 starsWill make you thinkOctober 11, 2011
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase

Robert M. Price has a knack for coming up with intriguing hypotheses when it comes to Biblical criticism. He makes no claims to have all the answers, and presents a whole load of interesting material from the ancient world that will at the very least throw some much needed doubt onto the field of historical Jesus research. I wouldn't say that this book is aimed at the average layman, but rather at those who have done a fair amount of reading on this topic already. There are a few long portions of the book that present the traditions of Jesus from non-biblical sources and I could imagine that the average reader would become disinterested. For those looking to expand their knowledge on the historical Jesus I recommend this book very highly.

3 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

George N. Wells

5.0 out of 5 starsJesus, Jesus, wherefore art thou Jesus?May 11, 2000
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase

I guess it all started with the pre millennium madness. More and more biblical scholars are following the footsteps of scholars who have attempted to find the actual person behind the gospel accounts.
"Deconstructing Jesus" isn't an easy read. Unless you have been diligently studying in this field you will find many references to authors you have never heard about. The field is rife with people studying this question.
Bottom line, as I understand it, is that the Jesus that contemporary Christianity follows is a multi-layered construction that has evolved over time to fit the needs of the current culture and political climate. The roots of this construction are all over the first century Middle East and various philosophies. From Cynic, to Gnostic, through Zealot, and everything in between has been woven into the picture that we get of "The Man From Nazareth" (or, was he a Nasserite or Nasorean?).
For the serious student of Christology or church history this book is an excellent criticism of all the current thinking in this area of scholarship. I doubt that the average pew-sitting Christian will be overjoyed with this book but the scholarship will, eventually, be the stuff of many homilies.
Will you find the historical Jesus in this book? No. But you will find an early Church struggling with a polyglot of beliefs attempting to blend them into a cohesive fabric of faith. Perhaps it is that dynamic that has kept "The Church" alive for two millennia. Mysticism and Gnostic thinking are on the rise again and "The Church" on the eve of another evolutionary move -- here's the first map of the territory ahead.
Read less

123 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

T. K. Mikkelsen

4.0 out of 5 starsAn Different Look at JesusJune 20, 2013
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase

I believe this is one of the first books where Robert M. Price touches on the subject of the historicity of Jesus. Price does a very good walk through the different aspects of evidence for a historical Jesus and shows how all the evidence slowly fades away. He does not yet come to the conclusion that Jesus is pure myth in this book, the is for later books, but he does say that we can know next to nothing about the historical Jesus from the evidence we have.


HelpfulComment Report abuse

See all 18 reviews

Amazon.com: When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome (9780156013154): Richard E. Rubenstein: Books



Amazon.com: When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome (9780156013154): Richard E. Rubenstein: Books




When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome First Edition
by Richard E. Rubenstein (Author)
4.5 out of 5 stars 215 customer reviews







ISBN-13: 978-0156013154
ISBN-10: 0156013150Why is ISBN important?
----------------------


Editorial Reviews

Review



"[Rubenstein] has taken one of the major religious controversies of the early Christian church, a controversy that consumed its energies for most of the fourth century, and turned it into a flesh-and-blood encounter of real people that reads like an adventure story."-The Christian Science Monitor
"A splendidly dramatic story . . . Rubenstein has turned one of the great fights of history into an engrossing story."-Jack Miles, The Boston Globe; author of God: A Biography



About the Author



RICHARD E. RUBENSTEIN is professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University and an expert on religious conflict. A graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, he was a Rhodes Scholar and studied at Oxford University. He lives in Fairfax, Virginia.




Product details

Paperback: 288 pages
Publisher: Mariner Books; First edition (July 10, 2000)
Language: English
More about the author
Visit Amazon's Richard E. Rubenstein Page


215 customer reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars
4.5 out of 5 stars

Showing 1-8 of 215 reviews

Top Reviews

Dr. Terrence McGartyTop Contributor: Photography

5.0 out of 5 stars

Excellent Retelling of the Nicene Creed ControversiesDecember 23, 2018
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase


The book by Rubenstein is exceptionally well written and approachable by the lay reader. It addresses the topic of Christology, namely just what was Jesus Christ, man, God, both, and are there three Gods, one, a blend. This has been a major issue in Christianity. It is a monotheistic religion, namely one God, but in the Gospel writing we see Jesus as Son of God, but equal to the Father, and then the Holy Spirit, somehow a third entity acting upon the Apostles. Add to this mix the background of many in Greek philosophy and Greek philosophical terms. Finally add the ascension of Constantine, the "first" Christian emperor in Constantinople who see a cacophony of voices with opinions on this "Trinity" of Gods, yet being just one God. Rubenstein notes that battles would ensure at bakers, merchants, sailors, bar keeps as to what Jesus and the three really were. To Constantine he needed unity not dissension.

The battle was between, at this time, Arians and non-Arians. Arians saw Jesus as Son of God with all that such a relationship brings. The non-Arians are those who saw unity in the Trinity, unity and equality.

Enter Greek, its words, its meanings, its philosophical underpinnings. Enter also the collection of egos acting as Bishops fighting viciously against opposing sides, seeking the approval of Constantine with execution being the adversarial tactic.

The book takes you from before Nicaea to during the Council to many of the events proximate to its ending. It covers the theological issues, the political intrigues, and the religious infighting. There were Councils after this which settled a few issues but not all.

A key set of observations that the author opines on are:

1. The dominant role of Constantine, who at this point is frankly not even a Christian not having been baptized until just before his death.

2. The lack of almost any role by the Bishop of Rome, now the Pope in the Catholic Church. It would not be until the beginning of the next millennium that the concept of a powerful Pope would evolve.

3. The sustaining of a multiplicity of views in the context of deadly conflict.


In the end Rubenstein alludes to the fact that Mohammed and his interpretation had but one God, the Father if you will, and that Jesus was a prophet, as was Moses and in turn as was Mohammed. This simplicity Rubenstein argues was what the Muslim faith spread so rapidly, it simplified so much of the extreme complexity of the Christology. Yet I would argue that this was but one of the many reasons for its spread. One must remember that Muslim faith spread from about 625 onwards whereas the events in this tale are surrounding the period of Nicaea, 325, three hundred years earlier. I would argue that it also was the oppression of the Emperors in Constantinople, the wars with the Persians, the influx of Germanic tribes and a conflux of many other factors.

There is also the maintaining of the Arian faith amongst the newcomers such as the Lombards which lasts well into the 7th Century. There is the detailed theological work using Aristotle by Aquinas in the 13th century and finally the abandonment of this by Ockham in the 14th century, reverting to faith rather than reason.

The greatest challenge in a book of this type is setting the stage for Greek words and meanings circa the 4th century. Such terms as person, essence, substance, and so forth, have meanings in Greek at the time which were modified from Aristotle and his followers, and then as we get to the Scholastics, modified again, and frankly read today may have no nexus to the reality of the time and place of these arguments. I would like to have seen some discussion of this issue, one which I have struggled with in trying to understand early 7th century works. Add to this the complexity of meanings as one crosses the Mediterranean, from Constantinople to Alexandria, then to Syria and beyond.

Overall Rubenstein does a great job for a book of this type. The writing is clear, focused, organized. The explanation and very reasonable and the interplay with the Greek is included. For anyone interested in the battle with Christology this is a superb beginning.

Creeds and their enforcement are sensitive issues. The Eastern Orthodox Church still has core differences, and even amongst Western churches there are material discrepancies. Thus public shows of reciting one Creed or another can and do often result in conflicts, often based upon gross ignorance of the underlying issues. Rubenstein adds to our understanding greatly.

13 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

ta

4.0 out of 5 starsinterestingJanuary 29, 2018
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
This book is a history of the Arian controversy. Rubenstein presents the history mostly from a political perspective instead of a theological perspective — probably because the controversy was much more political than theological. That is, the Trinity Doctrine was finally adopted as a result of politics (force) instead of theology (persuasive Scriptural argument). For a discussion of the theological and philosophical development of the Trinity Doctrine, see First Three Centuries: Or, Notices of the Lives and Opinions of Some of the Early Fathers, With Special Reference to The Doctrine of the Trinity by Alvan Lamson. Rubenstein’s history shows that, for the most part, Christians did not act much like “Christians” during the Arian controversy. Most preferred traveling the easy road of imposing their view by force, with “a winner take all” attitude, than taking the arduous road of persuasion.

12 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse

Clay GarnerTop Contributor: Philosophy

TOP 1000 REVIEWER
5.0 out of 5 stars'Tradespeople felt perfectly competent to debate abstract theological issues and to arrive at their own conclusions'October 11, 2017
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
“In a sermon delivered at his church in Constantinople [381], Gregory . . .

“If in this city you ask a shopkeeper for change,” he complained, “he will argue with you about whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you inquire about the quality of bread, the baker will answer, ‘The Father is greater, the Son is less.’ And if you ask the bath attendant to draw your bath, he will tell you that the Son was created ex nihilo [out of nothing].” (6)

Key issue - Son created or eternal?

“Gregory’s wry comment is fascinating both for what it says and what it implies. It suggests that ordinary tradespeople and workers felt perfectly competent—perhaps even driven—to debate abstract theological issues and to arrive at their own conclusions.’’ (6)

This seems. . .different to the modern ear. Analysis, meditation, careful reasoning - what a thought!

“It reveals that disputes among Christians, specifically arguments about the relationship of Jesus Christ the Son to God the Father, had become as intense as the centuries-old conflict between Christians and pagans.’’ (6)

“And it implies that Arianism, which orthodox Christians now consider the archetypal heresy, was once at least as popular as the doctrine that Jesus is God.’’ (6)

“Gregory’s shopkeeper questions whether Jesus Christ is “begotten or unbegotten”—that is, whether he is a creation of God or the Creator Himself. The bath attendant says that he was created “from nothing,” meaning that he was brought into existence like the rest of God’s creatures. And the baker asserts that Christ is separate from and lesser than God. All these are Arian positions, so called because they were developed in sharpest form by an Alexandrian priest named Arius. The ill-fated George was also an Arian: one who believed that Jesus Christ was, indeed, the holiest person who ever lived, but not the Eternal God of Israel walking the earth in the form of a man.’’ (6)

Rubenstein writing as a historian, not a theologian. Hence, although explaining the doctrinal, Biblical, religious ideas carefully and clearly, most of the focus is the political, personal, military, economic influences.

Arias and his fundamental arguments likewise are drawn quickly but throughly. For example. . .

“Was Christ, then, to be considered human? In one sense, the answer was yes. Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, not some divine apparition or mask of God. But his moral genius and the importance of his mission raised him high above even the greatest prophets. The Savior was sui generis. Many Arians believed that the Eternal had somehow conceived him (or conceived of him) before time began, and used him as an instrument to create the rest of the universe.’’

Jesus vital in god’s purpose. Nevertheless. . .

“Even so, they insisted, he could not possibly be God Himself. How could an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Creator experience temptation, learn wisdom, and grow in virtue? How could he suffer on the Cross and die the death of a human being? Surely, when Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” he was not talking to himself! When he admitted that nobody knows the day and hour of Judgment, “not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only,” he was not just being modest. And when he told his disciples that “the Father is greater than I,” he meant exactly what he said. (6)

This presentation is countered with clear explanation offered by Athanasius. . .

“Yet he had to be both fully human and fully divine, argued Athanasius. Could the death of a mere human being redeem our sins, grant us immortality, and, eventually, resurrect our physical bodies? Of course not! But could Omnipotent God, the Beginning and the End, suffer for our sake without becoming human? The answer was equally plain. Therefore, whether or not it seemed “reasonable” to people schooled in Greek philosophy, Jesus Christ was both true man and true God. Hosius would surely have found this exposition convincing. His people—the people of western Europe—would not accept a Jesus who was too much like them. They knew they were feeble sinners, struggling to survive in a hostile environment. The Christ they wanted and needed was a High God who could save them by His grace and comfort them through the ministrations of His Church.’’

This was one objection. In fact, many Christians still accept this. There was another. . .

“In fact, Arian theology implicitly reduced the role of the institutional Church. If Jesus’ life and character were supposed to serve ordinary Christians as a usable model of behavior, the principal mission of the clergy would be to help people transform themselves, not maintain theological and political unity throughout the empire. This was another reason Constantine would probably favor the doctrine of Alexander and Athanasius. The Church he needed was one that would help him keep order among ordinary folk: people who would never become immortal unless God decided for reasons of His own to save them.’’ (62)

Desire for power, control, authority, was probably decisive.

Wow!

Contents -

An Incident in Alexandria
The Silence of Apollo
A Quarrel in God’s House
The Great and Holy Council
Sins of the Body, Passions of the Mind
The Broken Chalice
Death in Constantinople
East against West
The Arian Empire
Old Gods and New
When Jesus Became God

Principal Characters

Rubenstein’s sociological foundation shows here . . .

“One underlying question was this: To what extent were the values and customs of the ancient world still valid guides to thinking and action in a Christian empire? Some Christians, among them Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, had a stronger sense of historical continuity than others. Those whose ideas and social relationships were still shaped to a large extent by the optimistic ideals and tolerant practices of pagan society, and for whom Christianity seemed a natural extension of and improvement on Judaism, tended to be Arians of one sort or another.’’ (73)

‘Christianity as extension of Judaism’ is obvious. Jesus was a Jew!

“By contrast, the strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be “updated” by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.’’

‘Update Jesus!’ What???

“From the perspective of our own time, it may seem strange to think of Arian “heretics” as conservatives, but emphasizing Jesus’ humanity and God’s transcendent otherness had never seemed heretical in the East. On the contrary, subordinating the Son to the Father was a rational way of maintaining one’s belief in a largely unknowable, utterly singular First Cause while picturing Christ as a usable model of human moral development. For young militants like Athanasius, however, ancient modes of thought and cultural values were increasingly irrelevant. Greek humanism and rationalism were shallow; Judaism was an offensive, anti-Christian faith.’’ (73)

The key issue, the decisive idea, was to turn eyes away from the human messiah. Why? Focusing on a mystery, an incomprehensible puzzle, left priests and the church to intercede. Power is good, more is better.

Along with the exposition of the ideas, Rubenstein devotes many pages to analysis of the personalities. Constantine, Arius, Athanasius, Eusebius, etc.,etc.. Outstanding!

Includes a list at the end. Lists about forty names. Excellent!

Two-hundred fifty nine notes. One map. No photographs. Eleven page index (links worked great).

About the author -

“RIchard E. Rubenstein is professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University and an expert on religious conflict. A graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, he was a Rhodes Scholar and studied at Oxford University.’’

18 people found this helpful

HelpfulComment Report abuse