LAND DISPOSSESSION AS “ORIGINAL SIN”. CAN CHRISTIAN ORIGINAL SIN TALK BE USED AS DIAGNOSTIC TOOL WITHIN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION
N. Vorster
{"title":"LAND DISPOSSESSION AS “ORIGINAL SIN”. CAN CHRISTIAN ORIGINAL SIN TALK BE USED AS DIAGNOSTIC TOOL WITHIN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?","authors":"N. Vorster","doi":"10.7833/119-2-1763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This contribution considers the descriptive value of original sin talk within the public domain against the background of the South African land reform debate. The first section analyses the employment of “original sin” language within this debate by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the light of the rise of “white privilege” discourse in South Africa. The subsequent section addresses the theological content and logical consistency of Augustine’s version of original sin. It pays particular attention to Paul Ricoeur’s analysis of the historical development of Augustine’s thought on sin in response to Manicheanism and Pelagianism and concludes by identifying possible risks involved in transposing the Augustinian version of original sin talk to the public domain. The third section probes the question: Does Christian sin talk belong in the public domain at all? It examines the disconnections that exist between Christian sin talk and popular public notions of “wrongdoing”. The article then considers the possible strengths of a non-literalist, non-biological version of original sin doctrine when applied to the public domain, while the last section illustrates the diagnostic benefits of the proposed version of original sin with reference to the South African land debate.","PeriodicalId":44409,"journal":{"name":"Scriptura-International Journal of Bible Religion and Theology in Southern Africa","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scriptura-International Journal of Bible Religion and Theology in Southern Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7833/119-2-1763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This contribution considers the descriptive value of original sin talk within the public domain against the background of the South African land reform debate. The first section analyses the employment of “original sin” language within this debate by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the light of the rise of “white privilege” discourse in South Africa. The subsequent section addresses the theological content and logical consistency of Augustine’s version of original sin. It pays particular attention to Paul Ricoeur’s analysis of the historical development of Augustine’s thought on sin in response to Manicheanism and Pelagianism and concludes by identifying possible risks involved in transposing the Augustinian version of original sin talk to the public domain. The third section probes the question: Does Christian sin talk belong in the public domain at all? It examines the disconnections that exist between Christian sin talk and popular public notions of “wrongdoing”. The article then considers the possible strengths of a non-literalist, non-biological version of original sin doctrine when applied to the public domain, while the last section illustrates the diagnostic benefits of the proposed version of original sin with reference to the South African land debate.
土地被剥夺是“原罪”。基督教的原罪论可以作为公共领域的诊断工具吗?
这篇文章考虑了在南非土地改革辩论的背景下,公共领域内原罪谈话的描述性价值。第一部分分析了南非总统西里尔·拉马福萨在南非兴起的“白人特权”话语中使用的“原罪”语言。接下来的部分讨论奥古斯丁原罪论的神学内容和逻辑一致性。它特别关注Paul Ricoeur对奥古斯丁关于罪的思想的历史发展的分析,这是对摩尼教和伯拉纠主义的回应,并通过确定将奥古斯丁关于原罪的观点转移到公共领域的可能风险来总结。第三部分探讨的问题是:基督教的罪论究竟是否属于公共领域?它考察了基督教的罪恶言论与大众对“不法行为”的看法之间存在的脱节。然后,文章考虑了非字面的、非生物版本的原罪教义在应用于公共领域时的可能优势,而最后一节则通过参考南非土地辩论说明了拟议版本的原罪的诊断优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
50.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信