Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [56]-68).

Thesis (M.C.S.)--Regent College, 2003. / Abstract and vita. Description based on Microfiche version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [144]-153).

Thesis (doctoral)--Bochum, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 463-488).

Thesis (M.C.S.)--Regent College, 2003. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [144]-153).

Evangelische Missionswerk in Deutschland / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Um estudo em antropologia teológico-filosófica que lança algumas características da condição humana na pós-modernidade. A primeira parte inicia com duas abordagens: começa-se analisando a guinada antropológica a partir do hegelianismo de esquerda (FEUERBACH e MARX) e do pensamento aristocrático do filósofo NIETZSCHE, destacando o rompimento com Deus e o acréscimo da confiança do ser humano em suas potencialidades, mesmo redentoras. Dá-se especial atenção para alguns desdobramentos dessa guinada, por exemplo, o enfraquecimento do ser, que acontece no rompimento com as balizas que antes lhe asseguravam dignidade. Termina-se examinando o desenvolvimento do pensamento moderno e seu promissor projeto acerca do progresso da ciência, economia, e do fortalecimento do Estado. Essa primeira parte é finalizada contemplando algumas questões em torno da relação entre Modernidade e Pós-Modernidade, os infortúnios, reforma e (des)continuidade, tratando, brevemente, algumas características da condição humana na chamada Pós-Modernidade. Na segunda parte, abordam-se quatro distintos pensadores contemporâneos: KONRAD LORENZ, PETER SINGER, RICHARD RORTY, e CHARLES MELMAN. Procura-se nestes, contribuições para o estudo proposto, traçando diferentes pensares que brotam diante da pergunta do ser humano pela sua condição existencial. Nos três primeiros pensadores atenta-se para novas compreensões que surgem em torno do ser humano, as quais substituem antigos conceitos (pecado, dignidade e valor da vida, verdade e solidariedade), fundamentos e justificações, dando novos sentidos a estes. Finalizando, é contemplada a análise crítica de MELMAN acerca do ser humano pós-moderno: o homem sem gravidade. No terceiro e último capítulo é abordado o pensamento antropológico de dois teólogos luteranos, GOTTFRIED BRAKEMEIER e EULER WESTPHAL, destacando-se as problemáticas em torno da condição humana na pós-modernidade. Observa-se a ambigüidade da existência humana pós-moderna: ao mesmo tempo em que não é possível demonizar essa nova etapa da história da humanidade, não se pode iludir-se com todos os benefícios que provém das facilidades e descobertas com as quais se é brindado. O trabalho é finalizado abordando algumas características da condição humana na Pós-Modernidade e retomando questões tratadas ao longo do estudo. Nesse contexto, a teologia é caracterizada como ciência crítica que tem a função de lutar pelo resgate e permanência da sacralidade da vida humana e do cosmos. Além disso, a teologia contribui para uma análise antropológica que contempla a dimensão religiosa como constitutivo essencial do ser humano, que tem sua expressão nos elementos de promessa, expectativa messiânica e esperança escatológica; expressões que, tanto na Modernidade como na Pós-Modernidade, são transferidos de Deus para as potencialidades humanas de criar/instaurar, por meio de instituições e da ciência biotecnológica, o Reino dos céus na terra. / This work is an anthropological survey that exposes some features of human condition in postmodernity. The first part begins with two approaches: it starts by analyzing the anthropological lurch after the inception of left Hegelianism (FEURBACH and MARX) and thought of the aristocratic philosopher NIETZSCHE, highlighting the rupture with God and the increase in mans confidence in his potential, even regarding his redemption. Special attention is paid to some of this lurchs later developments, such as the weakening of being, which ensues after the rupture with the buoys that previously ensured its dignity. It concludes by examining the development of modern thought and its promising project for the progress of science and economy and for the strengthening of the state. The first part ends by contemplating some issues regarding the relationship between modernity and postmodernity, the mishaps, reform, and (dis)continuity, briefly touching upon some features of the human condition in the so-called postmodernity. In the second part, four eminent contemporary thinkers are considered: KONRAD LORENZ, PETER SINGER, RICHARD RORTY, and CHARLES MELMAN. Contributions for this survey are sought in their works, tracing different reflections that spring from mans inquiry into his existential condition. The works by the first three are inspected for new understandings that arise about the human being, which have replaced old concepts (sin, dignity and worth of life, truth, and solidarity), as well as foundations and justifications, giving them new meanings. Finally, MELMANs critical analysis on the postmodern man is contemplated: the man without gravity. In the third and last chapter, the anthropological thoughts of two theologians, GOTTFRIED BRAKEMEIER and EULER WESTPHAL, are meditated upon, highlighting the issues on the human condition in postmodernity. The ambiguity of postmodern human existence is evidenced: neither is it possible to demonize this new stage of human history, nor should one be mislead by all the benefits stemming from the conveniences and discoveries with which one is bestowed. The work concludes by reflecting on some features of the human condition in postmodernity and by raising questions that were discussed earlier. In this context, theology is characterized as a critical science whose purpose is to fight for the reclaiming and the preserving of the sacredness of the human life and the cosmos. Furthermore, theology contributes for an anthropological analysis that contemplates the religious dimension as an essential component of man, expressed by promise, messianic expectation and eschatological hope; these expressions, both in modernity and postmodernity, are transferred from God to the human potential of creating/establishing, by means of institutions and the biotechnological science, the kingdom of heavens on earth.

Doctor Theologiae - DTh / This doctoral thesis comprises a critical comparison of the theme of concursus, the way in which God and humanity interact, in the Pentecostal-Charismatic and Process-Relational traditions. The comparison is literature-based; similarities and differences in the theological literature of each tradition are compared in order to determine the extent of compatibilities and incompatibilities. The hypothesis is that similarities in the literature sufficiently leverage differences. The first chapter includes a statement of the problem, namely that the global expansion of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements necessitates interaction with more academically and philosophically oriented theological traditions such as Process- Relational theology. The second chapter comprises an historical survey of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements, including key dogmas and practices. Chapter three comprises an historical survey of Process-Relational theology, including its philosophical, metaphysical, and scientific orientations. Seminal Process- Relational theists such as Whitehead, Hartshorne, and Cobb are surveyed. Chapter four consists of a broad historical survey of the theological theme of concursus, including the notions of causation, free will, and determinism in both philosophy and theology. Further, the fourth chapter includesa broad historical survey of pneumatology, which is framed as the basis for a comparison of concursus. Chapters five and six comprise surveys of concursus in the Pentecostal- Charismatic and Process-Relational traditions respectively. Chapter seven entails an extensive analysis of differences and synthesis of similarities between the Pentecostal-Charismatic and Process-Relational notions of concursus. Four differences and four similarities are identified. Differences and similarities are ranked and compared for compatibility. Ultimately, the research question is answered affirmatively and conditionally: yes, according to the literature of both traditions, similarities sufficiently leverage differences, but socio-linguistic barriers may obstruct meaningful mutual transformation. Chapter eight concludes with a brief exploration of ecclesial and social implications.

No description available.

This dissertation critically examines the ontological and epistemological significance of the concept of violence in French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s essay “Violence and Metaphysics” (Chapter 1), dialogues between Mennonite philosophical theologians who represent the Radical Reformation and John Milbank’s Radical Orthodoxy (Chapter 2), and the Death and the Displacement of Beauty trilogy by feminist philosopher of religion Grace Jantzen (Chapter 3). Although Derrida, Jantzen, and certain Mennonite philosophical theologians approach the problem of violence with very different concerns and frames of reference, each understand violence to have a distinctly ontological and epistemological character, while also suggesting that ontology and epistemology themselves are profoundly vulnerable to charges of violence. In Derrida’s essay “Violence and Metaphysics” language itself is imbricated in violence, and in their responses to John Milbank, Mennonite philosophical theologians Peter C. Blum and Chris K. Huebner situate their work both with and against Derrida’s supposed “ontology of violence” as they apply Christian pacifism to epistemology and seek to articulate an “ontology of peace.” In her late work in the Death and the Displacement of Beauty project, Grace Jantzen develops an epistemology that is similar to that of Blum and Huebner, while critiquing what she understands to be Derrida’s equivocation of linguistic with physical violence, all as part of her argument that the cultural habitus of the west is founded on an obsession with death that violently displaces natality with mortality. In bringing together these three sources, this dissertation uses “violence” as a diagnostic concept to assess the priorities and values of its users. Considering violence to be defined by the violation of value-laden boundaries, this study of three ontologies of violence interprets and critiques the values that Derrida’s deconstruction, philosophical Mennonite pacifism, and Jantzen’s critique of displacement seek to further and protect against violation. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This dissertation examines the early work of French philosopher Jacques Derrida (Chapter 1), debates between Mennonite philosophical theologians and John Milbank’s Radical Orthodoxy (Chapter 2), and the Death and the Displacement of Beauty trilogy by feminist philosopher of religion Grace M. Jantzen (Chapter 3). For Derrida, Jantzen, and certain Mennonite philosophical theologians the term “violence” is used to name ways of thinking, knowing, and speaking, rather than being restricted to the sphere of physical violations. This dissertation shows how these three sources each consider violence to be something that can inhere in ways of thinking about the world and our relation to it.

Religious diversity largely defines the present religious situation; comparative theology adaptively responds to this situation by comparing influential theological hypotheses from different contexts and developing theological hypotheses from that inquiry. The popularity and sophistication of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Fourth Gospel make these scriptures excellent comparative candidates. This dissertation situates these scriptures, interprets them, compares them, and constructs a philosophical theology from the comparison. Part I follows J.A.B. van Buitenen, Angelika Malinar, and Emily Hudson by situating the Bhagavad-Gītā in its original epic context, the Mahābhārata, and philosophical context: Sāṅkhya and Vedānta darśanas. It follows Robert Hill and George MacRae by situating “John” against its dual first-century backgrounds: Judaism and Hellenism. Part II provides an original interpretation of the scriptures. With Śaṅkara, Abhinavagupta, and Hudson, the dissertation interprets the Bhagavad-Gītā as reorienting Arjuna to see the subtlety of karma and dharma and to realize non-duality with Kṛṣṇa/Ātman/Brahman in the devotee’s heart. With Bultmann, Eckhart, Hill, and Neville, the dissertation interprets John as anti-gnostically affirming the cosmos as God’s Logos expression, which elicits love as the appropriate response to the Logos. Part III compares the scriptures in respect to ultimate reality and human existence, the main comparative categories. Ultimate reality comprises four subcategories: (1) cosmic scope and nature, (2) cosmological metaphysics, (3) ontology, and (4) avatāra/incarnation. Despite notable differences, both scriptures emphasize the non- duality of the cosmos with its indeterminate (nirguṇa/ἀόρατος) ontological ground. Existence comprises four subcategories: obligation, comportment, engagement, and life’s meaning. Realizing nonduality with Brahman, seeing everything as the expression of the Logos, provides ecstatic freedom, and the courage to be. Part IV develops a philosophical theology from the comparison. Einstein’s relativity theories weigh the probability that the cosmos pulsates or dies. Evolutionary theory shows that consciousness emerges as an adaptation to environments, not environments for consciousness’s pleasure. After distinguishing physical cosmology from cosmological metaphysics, the dissertation dialectically argues that the cosmos is real, but contingent on the ontological one, which is indeterminate (empty/nothing) apart from its shining forth in the cosmological many. Although this theological hypothesis requires greater breadth for stabilization, it remains tentatively viable for today’s religious situation. / 2024-09-06T00:00:00Z

While the (re)conquest of Arabia as manifest in 2003 Iraq, and 2006 Lebanon, were respectively Act I and II accenting sovereign figures exercising necropower by adjudicating (il)legal doctrines (i.e., pre-emptive defense strategy) legalizing extrajudicial techniques of violence founded on discursive technologies of racism, I argue that the “Islamist Winter” – temporarily dubbed the “Arab Spring” in 2011 – is Act III reifying similar legal doctrines (i.e., Bethlehem Legal Principles) and a (secular) linear temporal perception of time seeking to implement a New Middle East (NME) that is no longer “resistant to Latin-European modernity” but amenable to such inclusive exclusion historicist telos. The importance of “creative anarchy” as a positivist legal technique in producing chaotic developments such as carnage and a “crisis” or “emergency” of displacement – with sovereign members of jus gentium authorizing agents of terror (i.e., death squads/war-machines) – is that it reveals the deadly technologies of racism and relations of enmity inherent in sovereignty as a positivist juridical concept endowing sovereign figures with the power to formulate legal doctrines that ultimately subjugate Arab life to the power of death (necropower). Therefore, one of the main questions orbiting the writing of this dissertation is interested in deconstructing and critiquing jus gentium – by adopting a Third World Approach to International Law (TWAIL) in tandem with necropolitics and biopolitics as paradigms of analysis – to disclose that it is because jus gentium valorizes positivist jurisprudent scholastics postulating an unbridgeable cultural gap between an Athenian mode of Being as a universal sovereign subject, and a Madīnian mode of Being as the particular object denied sovereignty, that leads ratiocinative sovereign figures to legally exercise necropower on the Arab body. Therefore, the following chapters seek to go beyond the limited (post-colonial) idea asserting that the problem with international law is that it is primarily “Eurocentric” since the simple solution to such a claim would be to include the non-European body in International Law. Rather, the primary question constellating this monograph is: what are the experienced consequences of being temporally included and what are the experienced consequences of being temporally excluded from a legal regime (i.e., jus gentium) reifying a Latin-European philosophical theology universalizing a particular set of liberal-secular cultural mores as a “cultural benchmark” (i.e., purity-metric) in order to be-come imagined as temporally “inside” jus gentium? / Thesis / Doctor of Social Science