This thesis argues that a close reading of Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) and Emmanuel Levinas reveals a common phenomenological and ethical interest in the embodied human person. Attention is also given to points of disagreement that are theological in character. Despite different religious commitments, their treatment of the body provides the basis for an overlooked dialogue in which both emphasise the giftedness of the embodied human subject, the ‘other’. In the postmodern context, the body is a key theme and the focus of much debate, yet little has been said of observations made by both Wojtyla and Levinas about each other’s work, or how this relates to their own development. This is surprising given their huge contribution to philosophy, ethics and theology in the 20th century. Levinas' mature philosophical works build on his ongoing interest in phenomenology, but the body remains problematical. For him, incarnation is questionable, because he refuses an incarnational avatar. There is no escape from commitment or responsibility and the theme of alterity is absolute. Yet, communio is the necessary objective of the human situation, in which bodies do not simply make incarnate presence possible, but are fragile, wounded and vulnerable. This is crucial: bodies can be violated and even crucified. Wojtyla addressed this paradox in his Wednesday audiences in what became known as his ‘theology of the body’, which in turn shaped his principle paradigm of alterity, the nuptial mystery. There is an irreconcilable difference in these two views of the body, in which Wojtyla’s nuptial mystery contrasts strongly with Levinas’ alterity. With this important variation in mind, it is demonstrated that the thread of agreement between Levinas and Wojtyla is the logic of the gift; that the body speaks a language of gift-exchange that is fundamentally ethical and theological.

In Christian contexts, the meal is usually connected to the sacrament of the Eucharist. In this essay, the aim is to explore the everyday meal in which people gather, both at home and in church settings. What are the theological meanings of a meal, and what are people experiencing around the table? The essay poses the question Which theological meanings are expressed concerning the meal in Christian contexts? To answer this question, the essay has two theoretical frameworks, which are “body theology” and “lived religion”. The method used in the essay is a two-part analysis. The first part is a content analysis, with focus on the writers’ emotions and experiences. The second part is a dialogue with Norman Wirzba. The material contains primary and secondary material, which are books by Kendall Vanderslice, Lina Mattebo (red.), and Norman Wirzba.   This essay concludes that the meal in Christian contexts has many different, mostly positive, meanings. The most prominent meanings of the meal are community and relationship building, identity, spiritual exercise, and a strong sense of the significance of the body. Many of the authors express a feeling of connection to God in the meal, even in the everyday situation. The concept of “exile” is also explored. For future research it would be interesting to aim focus towards meals in non-Western countries, and to investigate the effects of gender and what power dynamics that meals may have.

This dissertation has multiple goals. First to analyze self-destructive behavior and its relations to ethics. Secondly to evaluate four different ethical perspectives regarding self-destructiveness from a certain position of human nature. The third goal is to construct a position that deals with self-destructive behavior in a way that is improved and well-managed compared to the four ethical perspectives analyzed earlier. The first goal is met by comparing and evaluating different theories concerning self-destructive behavior and discussing the ethical implications surrounding them. Self-destructive behavior is seen as a way of communicating, which puts a moral pressure on both the self-destructive person and the society around her. The four ethical perspectives represented by Robert Nozick and Thomas Szasz, two neoliberals, James B Nelson, a body theologian inspired by Paul Tillich, Gail Weiss, a body feminist and Mary Timothy Prokes, a catholic body theologian, are hence met by the problem of self-destruct, analyzed and critically evaluated. In the final chapter the author constructs an improved ethical perspective concerned with self-destructiveness, based on altruism, responsibility and broad-mindedness.