 |
| Playa Nacascolo, Peninsula Papagayo, Guanacaste, Costa Rica,Travel+Leisure Facebook |
I promised those that assisted me with Doctoral questionnaires and surveys that I would share results and basically the entire PhD, online. Here we are three plus years later and still at it. This is an indication of the mammoth task I was asked to complete and then further complete in revisions. There is no wonder I have no interest in attempting to complete another Doctoral research degree, although I still enjoy academic research, especially in theology, philosophy and Bible.
These posts also provide me with more
opportunity to opine and reflect.
I see there have been only a few posts on
Pattison and Woodward and there are fourteen sections. This reads like seven
posts:
One can always complain in comments. I will
have my secretary deal with it immediately at the complaints department.
Methodology:
Pattison and Woodward 1-2
Stephen
Pattison and James Woodward (2000)(2007) explain in ‘Introduction to Pastoral
and Practical Theology’ in the text, which they serve as editors, The
Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology[1] that although it is difficult to provide a comprehensive and
universal list of the methodology of practical theology,[2]
the list below contains many of the important elements.[3] One, practical theology is a
transformational activity,[4] in
that with both process and outcome, it aims to change the lives of persons, and
create greater understanding in the contemporary world.[5] Theoretical, Philosophical theology from both
conservative and liberal perspectives can also offer an alteration in the
thinking and life of a student of theology,[6]
but in many cases persons will not view doctrine as life changing and need to
understand theoretical, philosophical concepts concerning theodicy clearly in the
practical context,[7] in
order for theology to offer any possibility of impacting his/her life
significantly.[8] Most persons do not receive specialized
theological training and it is therefore reasonable to assume that a strictly
and/or mainly theoretical approach will not significantly assist or impact the
lives of many that attend Christian churches.[9]
Two, practical theology is not only concerned with the propositional, logical, and rational aspects of life and theology.[10] Emotions, even if at times presented in an irrational manner, need to be understood within theological reflection of the human condition.[11] I should point out that emotions need not necessarily be irrational. Emotional reactions to the problem of evil and to theology and philosophy,[12] which deal with theodicy, can be reasonable and should not be automatically discounted as intellectually useless.[13] Understanding human emotions is vital for pastoral theological care,[14] which needs to reason out theology in artistic and imaginative ways.[15] While maintaining theoretical theological propositions,[16] I have no difficulty with examining the problem of evil from emotional perspectives.[17] This should be a natural human reaction for any person studying the problem of evil,[18] whether this person is a professional theologian/philosopher or not. I deduce there is no reason to conclusively assume that theoretical theodicy cannot work hand in hand with emotions.[19] A person can feel and experience evil and suffering,[20] and yet have some understanding of it within a logical and reasonable theodicy.
Two, practical theology is not only concerned with the propositional, logical, and rational aspects of life and theology.[10] Emotions, even if at times presented in an irrational manner, need to be understood within theological reflection of the human condition.[11] I should point out that emotions need not necessarily be irrational. Emotional reactions to the problem of evil and to theology and philosophy,[12] which deal with theodicy, can be reasonable and should not be automatically discounted as intellectually useless.[13] Understanding human emotions is vital for pastoral theological care,[14] which needs to reason out theology in artistic and imaginative ways.[15] While maintaining theoretical theological propositions,[16] I have no difficulty with examining the problem of evil from emotional perspectives.[17] This should be a natural human reaction for any person studying the problem of evil,[18] whether this person is a professional theologian/philosopher or not. I deduce there is no reason to conclusively assume that theoretical theodicy cannot work hand in hand with emotions.[19] A person can feel and experience evil and suffering,[20] and yet have some understanding of it within a logical and reasonable theodicy.
I reason not only that
theological/philosophical theodicy can be complemented by practical and
empirical theology, but also that emotions and suffering under evil does not
necessarily have to lead one to disbelief in theodicy.[21] In contrast, the better the theodicy, the
more it shall assist a suffering person.
A human being is often going to experience evil and suffering on both
emotional and intellectual levels and both should be adequately dealt with by
theology and philosophy. There is no
need to detach emotion from the problem of evil for intellectual purposes.[22]
ANDERSON, RAY S.
(2001) The Shape of Practical Theology,
Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
CARTLEDGE, MARK
J. (2002) Charismatic Glossolalia,
Hants, England,
Ashgate
Publishing Company.
CARTLEDGE, MARK
J. (2003) Practical Theology,
Carlisle, Cumbria, England, Paternoster Press.
COLLINS, GARY R.
(1988) Christian Counseling, London,
Word Publishing.
WOODWARD, JAMES
AND STEPHEN PATTISON (2000)(2007)(eds.), The
Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell
Publishing.
[1] James Woodward and
Stephen Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell
Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
[3] Pattison and Woodward (2000)(2007:
13). In other words, the methodological
approach to doing practical theology and the stages taken in the process. Cartledge (2003: 248).
[5] Pattison and Woodward (2000)(2007: 13).
[6] My research of theodicy with MPhil and PhD
work has definitely heavily influenced how I evaluate both academic and
personal issues involving evil.
[8] Pattison and
Woodward (2000)(2007: 13). Practical
theology aims to integrate theology with practice in order for the value of
theology to be better understood. The
gap between ‘understanding and explaining’ is sought. Anderson (2001: 26).
[9] In the same way
that a theologian, not heavily educated in another discipline, would not be
impacted significantly in many cases by complex academic work within that other
discipline.
[10] Pattison and Woodward (2000)(2007:
13). Anderson (2001: 26).
[11] Pattison and Woodward (2000)(2007: 13).
[12] The implications
of theology are an important aspect of practical theology. Cartledge (2003: 249).
[15] Pattison and Woodward (2000)(2007: 13).
[17] Gary Collins
admits that emotions can be crippling, but this provides opportunities for
Christian pastoral counseling. Collins
(1988: 16).
[18] This should be natural
for anyone dealing with the suffering of another from a theological
perspective. Pattison and Woodward
(2000)(2007: 13).
[19] Collins (1988:
16). The Christian message can be
presented within the context of one suffering.
[20] Practical theology
should deal with the inner core issues of an individual. Anderson (2001: 28).
[22] Pattison and
Woodward (2000)(2007: 13). Cartledge
(2003: 249). Rather these would be an
aspect of individual life experience which can be theologically analyzed with
the use of data.
Philosophical Question For Readers
A few weeks ago late at night at a break at site, I was in a friendly debate with a Muslim that claimed, for example, Christianity could be disproved by something written in the fourth century by those outside of the New Testament Church community. I stated that the first century documentation, especially Biblical within the New Testament Church community was far more reliable to find the accurate historical events and religious history. This is a common way for Biblical scholars to reason and for historians to reason.
He stated that he would have rather lived two or more hundred years ago because of the moral decay in the world today.
I disagreed, even acknowledging what Scripture and the Book of Revelation state in regard to the coming New Heaven and New Earth. This indicates the requirment for this realm to be replaced and that it may quite possibly become more filled with problems of evil and suffering before God through Christ brings about a new everlasting realm.
I stated I would, since problems of evil and suffering will still exist in this realm, rather live, for example, a thousand years from now, barring that the world did not exist in totalitarianism, because medical advances would be greater, medically related suffering likely less and life span longer.
I am reasoning that when human medical advances can regenerate human tissue and organs, perhaps even blood, I certainly hope not through abortion related embryonic cells, that this would certainly be in many ways a better era to live in.
Would readers philosophically prefer to live in the past, present, or future?
And of course this is purely hypothetical, but the gentleman started the subject. I also reason that as each human being is procreated by a set of parents and each of them by a set of parents each and so on, that one is born only in that sequence. Barring a miraculous creation from God.
Thank you.
Philosophical Question For Readers
A few weeks ago late at night at a break at site, I was in a friendly debate with a Muslim that claimed, for example, Christianity could be disproved by something written in the fourth century by those outside of the New Testament Church community. I stated that the first century documentation, especially Biblical within the New Testament Church community was far more reliable to find the accurate historical events and religious history. This is a common way for Biblical scholars to reason and for historians to reason.
He stated that he would have rather lived two or more hundred years ago because of the moral decay in the world today.
I disagreed, even acknowledging what Scripture and the Book of Revelation state in regard to the coming New Heaven and New Earth. This indicates the requirment for this realm to be replaced and that it may quite possibly become more filled with problems of evil and suffering before God through Christ brings about a new everlasting realm.
I stated I would, since problems of evil and suffering will still exist in this realm, rather live, for example, a thousand years from now, barring that the world did not exist in totalitarianism, because medical advances would be greater, medically related suffering likely less and life span longer.
I am reasoning that when human medical advances can regenerate human tissue and organs, perhaps even blood, I certainly hope not through abortion related embryonic cells, that this would certainly be in many ways a better era to live in.
Would readers philosophically prefer to live in the past, present, or future?
And of course this is purely hypothetical, but the gentleman started the subject. I also reason that as each human being is procreated by a set of parents and each of them by a set of parents each and so on, that one is born only in that sequence. Barring a miraculous creation from God.
Thank you.
 |
| This photo is after my several hour shift @ work. Somewhat puzzling to me is I look more decent after the shift than with the photos I attempted before the shift. I suppose perhaps I do not look as decent when I just got up and that walking many floors two plus times, plus exterior for five to ten miles might assist. This is a shift where an elevator and computer system in part went down, but I was working with a newbie, 'Mr. Luss can fix, he have PhD, and good with computers, me go on patrol' (Likely thought process). |
