Emmanuel Lévinas maternité-Konzeption und ihre biblischen Grundlagen
The biblical topic of God’s womb – the article analyses it on the basis of Isaiah 46:3f. and Hosea 11 – and the radical nature of Emanuel Lévinas’ «maternité» conception put the bias of male and manageable notions of God into question. It proposes on one side the full ability of female metaphors for...
| Publié dans: | Lectio difficilior |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Allemand |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Univ.
[2013]
|
| Dans: |
Lectio difficilior
Année: 2013, Numéro: 2, Pages: 1-9 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Lévinas, Emmanuel 1906-1995
/ Image de Dieu
/ Maternité
B Bibel. Jesaja 46,3-4 / Bibel. Hosea 11 / Exégèse féministe / Image de Dieu |
| RelBib Classification: | HB Ancien Testament NBC Dieu VA Philosophie |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | The biblical topic of God’s womb – the article analyses it on the basis of Isaiah 46:3f. and Hosea 11 – and the radical nature of Emanuel Lévinas’ «maternité» conception put the bias of male and manageable notions of God into question. It proposes on one side the full ability of female metaphors for notions of God and on the other side that the whole richness of biblical metaphors has to be considered. The consequences of this wide and open view are a non-uniform notion of God, characterised by disharmony, non-conformance and self-opposition. Furthermore, if Lévinas’ «maternité» conception is adapted to the discourse about God, humans position before God is put into another complexion: God has radically and inescapably to bear responsibility for humans. God’s «maternité» stands for his unalienable responsibility. Possible follow-up questions to Lévinas’ radical not gender-related and non-biological «maternité» conception are: Would God not depend on humans in a radical way? Can God at all be imagined without his human counterpart? And in an eschatological perspective: Can God sometime disengage oneself from his suffering from humans? |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1661-3317 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Lectio difficilior
|