David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Christian Bioethics 4 (3):284-304 (1998)
Schmidt and Egler's critique of Christianity's exclusivist claim to truth rests on two suppositions: (a) that inter-religious pastoral care for dying patients requires a respect for their cultural backgrounds which necessitates accepting the equal validity of their respective (non-Christian) religions, and (b) that exclusivism is incompatible with the Christian love-of-neighbor commandment. In opposition to this critique, (a) the authors' own “pluralist” understanding of Christianity is refuted on two levels. First, it leads to inconsistencies in the authors' own (and very adequate) understanding of pastoral care, especially with regard to their notion of intolerance, and second, it is irreconcilable with explicit New and Old Testament claims to absoluteness. In addition, (b) the authors' understanding of the way in which “exclusivism” justifies intolerance and missionary violence is shown to rest, first, on a secularized reduction of Christianity, i.e., of Christians' own “religious identity” as well as of the Christian way of “helping those in need,” and second, on a merely theoretical (rather than also practical) view of Christians' commitment to God. As a corollary to that refutation, a reconsideration of the truly Christian sources of obedience and charity is recommended
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
K. W. Schmidt & G. Egler (1998). A Christian for the Christians, a Muslim for the Muslims? Reflections on a Protestant View of Pastoral Care for All Religions. Christian Bioethics 4 (3):239-256.
Thomas Talbott (2008). Why Christians Should Not Be Determinists. Faith and Philosophy 25 (3):300-316.
John Hill (1981). Christian Moral Education. Journal of Religious Ethics 9 (1):103 - 117.
Gilbert Meilaender (1989). The Singularity of Christian Ethics. Journal of Religious Ethics 17 (2):95-120.
Corinna Delkeskamp-Hayes (2007). Sin and Disease in a Post-Christian Culture: An Introduction. Christian Bioethics 13 (1):1-5.
Stephen R. L. Clark (2000). Biology and Christian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Douglas Walton (1993). Introduction to 'Philosophy and Argumentum Ad Hominem'. Inquiry 12 (3-4):24-24.
Henry W. Johnstone (1996). Locke and Whately on the Argumentum Ad Hominem. Argumentation 10 (1):89-97.
Mark J. Cherry (2007). Traditional Christian Norms and the Shaping of Public Moral Life: How Should Christians Engage in Bioethical Debate Within the Public Forum? Christian Bioethics 13 (2):129-138.
Richard Davis (2000). James Fodor's Christian Theory of Truth: Is It Christian? Heythrop Journal 41 (4):436–448.
Kyle Swan (2007). Law, Liberty, and Christian Morality. Religious Studies 43 (4):395-415.
C. Delkeskamp-Hayes (2001). Christian Credentials for Roman Catholic Health Care: Medicine Versus the Healing Mission of the Church. Christian Bioethics 7 (1):117-150.
C. Delkeskamp-Hayes (2008). Is Europe, Along with its Bioethics, Still Christian? Or Already Post-Christian? Reflections on Traditional and Post-Enlightenment Christianities and Their Bioethics. Christian Bioethics 14 (1):1-28.
Michael Martin (2000). Christianity and the Rationality of the Resurrection. Philo 3 (1):52-62.
James A. Keller (1988). Reflections on a Methodology for Christian Philosophers. Faith and Philosophy 5 (2):144-158.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads9 ( #292,164 of 1,780,775 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #290,888 of 1,780,775 )
How can I increase my downloads?