Religious Studies 34 (2):165-175 (1998)
|Abstract||I take up Richard Swinburne's point, in his "Responsibility and Atonement," Ch. 5, that although the past cannot be changed, wrongdoers may change its significance by 'disowning' their actions through atonement, just as their victims may do so through forgiveness. I argue that the point can and should be pressed much more strongly than it is by Swinburne within the terms of his own discussion; and that it has a much wider significance, transcending that discussion, for there is a constant interplay between events, human actions, and our retrospective assessment of the past. Finally, I look tentatively at the question in an eschatological perspective|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard Cross (2001). Atonement Without Satisfaction. Religious Studies 37 (4):397-416.
Linda Radzik (2009). Making Amends: Atonement in Morality, Law, and Politics. Oxford University Press.
Peter B. M. Vranas (2005). Do Cry Over Spilt Milk: Possibly You Can Change the Past. The Monist 88 (3):370 - 387.
Alvin Plantinga (1986). On Ockham's Way Out. Faith and Philosophy 3 (3):235-269.
Giacomo Bonanno (2003). Memory of Past Beliefs and Actions. Studia Logica 75 (1):7 - 30.
Ben Bradley (2011). Narrativity, Freedom, and Redeeming the Past. Social Theory and Practice 37 (1):47-62.
Peter Vallentyne (1988). Teleology, Consequentialism, and the Past. Journal of Value Inquiry 22 (2):89-101.
Richard Swinburne (1989). Responsibility and Atonement. Oxford University Press.
Bruce R. Reichenbach (1999). Inclusivism and the Atonement. Faith and Philosophy 16 (1):43-54.
Steven S. Aspenson (1996). Swinburne on Atonement. Religious Studies 32 (2):187 - 204.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #188,845 of 722,780 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?