Browse results
The aim of Currents of Encounter is to stimulate discussion and reflection on its theme from various presuppositional and methodological points of view. The underlying assumption of this aim is that the interdisciplinary avenue - neither an exclusively positivist nor a purely normative theological approach - provides the best means of access to a better understanding of the problems and potentialities inherent in the encounter between Christianity and the world of which it is a part.
Philosophy and Religion is a special series in the Value Inquiry Book Series.
Philosophy and Religion is cosponsored by The Centre for the Study of Philosophy and Religion, Cape Breton University, Nova Scotia, Canada.
This book brings together a variety of religious and non-religious perspectives on religious pluralism. It explores the key philosophical and legal issues associated with religious freedom and social harmony. Freedom of Religion and Religious Pluralism intends to serve as a valuable resource for scholars specialising in religion, citizenship, and migration studies. It will also act as a reference for courses on law, religion, and human rights.
This book brings together a variety of religious and non-religious perspectives on religious pluralism. It explores the key philosophical and legal issues associated with religious freedom and social harmony. Freedom of Religion and Religious Pluralism intends to serve as a valuable resource for scholars specialising in religion, citizenship, and migration studies. It will also act as a reference for courses on law, religion, and human rights.
Abstract
It is commonly acknowledged that blindness and seeing play an important role in the theology of the Gospel of Mark. Typically, readers interpret “spiritual blindness” as the moral thrust of the discipleship discourse in Mark 8:22–10:52. While the disciples fail to see their teacher as the Christ, blind Bartimaeus appears to identify Jesus as the “Son of David” (10:46–52). However, centering blindness-as-vice not only plays on an unfortunate ableist binary but also renders Mark’s more marginal characters as insignificant. Research on blindness in antiquity demonstrates how socioeconomic status was a leading factor in determining social perceptions of the blind. This article contends that Mark’s Bartimaeus pericope should be read accordingly. Instead of serving as a metaphor for “spiritual blindness,” physically blind characters are raised to the status of insider as a condemnation of mistreatment of the poor—a motif found within the broader terrain of Mark’s moral landscape (6:30–44; 8:1–10; 12:38–44; 14:1–11).