Introduction: What is evil and how can we understand it? -- The theology of evil -- Theodicies -- The privation theodicy -- The free will theodicy -- The Iraenean theodicy -- The totality theodicy -- History as secular theodicy -- Job's insight-the theodicy of the hereafter -- Anthropology of evil -- Are people good or evil? -- The typologies of evil -- Demonic evil -- Evil for evil's sake -- Evil's aesthetic seduction -- Sadism -- Schadenfreude -- Subjective and objective (...) evil -- Kant and instrumental evil -- The impossibility of a "devilish" will -- The paradox of evil -- Moral rebirth -- The evil is the other-idealistic evil -- "Us" vs. "them" -- Violent individuals -- Arendt and stupid evil -- The evil and the stupid -- Radical and banal evil -- Eichmann, Hoss, and Stangl -- Normal people and extreme evil -- Thinking as opposition -- Evil people -- The problem of evil -- Theory and praxis -- Ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility -- Politics and violence -- Evil as a concrete problem. (shrink)

The idea of the genetic unity of all mankind is an integral part of Christian teaching. The purpose of this brief survey is to illustrate its role within the Greek patristic tradition, and then to point to a few examples from modern science which lend support to this ancient idea.

A V Conferência de Aparecida é um momento eclesial marcante no caminhar da Igreja na América Latina no horizonte do eixo Medellín-Puebla-Santo Domingo, por ser estas as três Conferências do Celam que marcaram o período pós-conciliar na tentativa de aplicar a renovação proposta pelo Concílio Vaticano II no contexto eclesial latino-americano. A nossa reflexão quer ter presente a memória histórica da Igreja latino-americana como referencial para uma leitura, compreensão e interpretação das propostas do Documento de Participação. A chave de leitura (...) será orientada a partir da expressão avançar-retroceder como mediação para se traçar um paralelo entre o conteúdo do DP e a tradição da Igreja na América Latina. (shrink)

Some recent Christian thinkers have made attempts to harmonize Christianity and science by trying to show a positive correlation between current cosmologyand a literal reading of the account of creation in Genesis. This essay argues that this approach is mistaken since it misunderstands the practices of scienceand hermeneutics. Instead it is argued that Scripture and tradition make only very broad claims about the nature of creation which must be respected when thinking about the universe. Those broad claims are decribed here.

As variants of the Christian tradition have emerged through the centuries they have given rise to distinct versions of Christian metaphysics with divergent cosmological commitments. In the early Church, the Cappodocian fathers constructed a theological framework which focuses on the “personal” nature of reality. The personal nature of reality is central not only to understanding key theological doctrines, such as the Trinity, but also the cosmos itself. This essay explores the Cappodocian conception of the cosmos as personal both in its (...) origin and as a medium for an interpersonal relationship between God and creatures. (shrink)

As variants of the Christian tradition have emerged through the centuries they have given rise to distinct versions of Christian metaphysics with divergent cosmological commitments. In the early Church, the Cappodocian fathers constructed a theological framework which focuses on the “personal” nature of reality. The personal nature of reality is central not only to understanding key theological doctrines, such as the Trinity, but also the cosmos itself. This essay explores the Cappodocian conception of the cosmos as personal both in its (...) origin and as a medium for an interpersonal relationship between God and creatures. (shrink)

Russian Orthodoxy during the twentieth century presented a rich and varied body of thought about the nature of humanity and the human condition. This article surveys the major thinkers within this tradition, beginning with its background in the Slavophile movement and culminating in the work of more recent Orthodox thinkers such as Sergei Bulgakov, Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, and Alexander Schmemann.

The author criticizes the essays in this issue by Waters, Erickson, Trotter and Verhey for not placing an adequate Christology at the center of their definitions what is Christian bioethics.