Stephen P. Greggo: A Brief Summary

It is amazing that in this book, the topics addressed which for many; perhaps they will not have much sense. Nevertheless, instead for those who for some reason their field of work is what being refers to the integration of psychology with theology, this book becomes an immeasurable help. Although some are not in agreement with the principle of integration of these two sciences, it is interesting what Entwistle mention in his book when he says that: “…if we are to study this mystery as Christian scholars, then we must unapologetically admit that a Christian worldview informs our understanding of persons and our approach to the discipline of psychology.” (Entwistle, 2010, pp. 220-221)

Several fields have studied the relationship between creator and creation. The most significant aspect of this research considers the difference between nature and nurture. Sociologists, psychologists, scientists, and other professionals have tried to pin down the exact distinctions between these two types of upbringings. In literature, the same questions have been asked and studied using fictional characters, most famously in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, in 1667, and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, in 1818. The complexity of the characters in these texts creates the theme of nature versus nurture before they diverge and arrive at differing conclusions.

The purpose of this essay is to illuminate the various elements of research methods that are used in the discipline of psychology. Aspects that are covered encompass several research designs as reflected through the biblical figures of Adam, Noah, Daniel, and Melzar. In addition, the notion of the program evaluation model of CIPP is also discussed through the personhood of Jethro, whose fame had mainly come through being the father-in-law of Moses. Comprised within the concluding remarks of this paper, the author not only provides a description of the impact that the analysis of these selected passages has made on her in performing this task in

This paper will be reviewing the book “Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: an introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations and models of integration, by David N. Entwistle. As the title states, this book discusses how to integrate psychology and theology. It also dives into to why it is so important to be able to integrate the two. Entwistle explains that just because the two are different does not mean they should be separated and that we have to use both our worldviews. “Weaving together perspectives from psychology and Christian theology can help us understand and appreciate humanity more fully than we could either perspective alone.” (p.3)

Purpose Throughout the Apology, Socrates explains how God chose him to explore the unexamined life. “God appointed me as I supposed and believed, to the duty of leading the philosophic life, examining myself and others…” (Apology 28e) He compares himself to a Gadfly that goes around annoying people in order for them to assess their flaws. Most believe that their purpose in life is to achieve the highest good prioritize, summum bonum.

The purpose of this Developmental and Analysis paper is to share the view of the developmental themes and issues of the conversation through the human and faith developmental theory. By reflecting on the personal interview, which was done on April 14, 2016 has helped gain a deeper understanding and insight on the developmental theory. Through an agreed interview Lydia Estrella has shared her life stories and experiences. The goal is to gain a better understanding of where she is in her human and faith development. A Biopsychosocial/spiritual assessment, genogram and echomap will provide a clear and concise understanding of Lydia Estrella and her history. Erik Erickson will be used as the human development theorist and he believed each

Throughout Tillich theology he sought out to setting up a systematic theology that is at the same time seemed to be apologetic. His goal was to prove that the Christian message of man’s existence, salvation and destiny in Christ was valid. It is impossible to understand Tillich’s conception of God without a prior knowledge of his ontology as a whole, since it is his ultimate position that “God is being-itself.” To attempt to understand Tillich’s conception of God with- out an understanding of his conception of being is like trying to understand the humanistic conception of God without understanding its conception of man. So we may well begin our study with a discussion of Tillich’s ontological position.

1. The on-going debate Nature vs. Nurture addresses the following questions: Are we born with

I grew up with a Catholic family and went to church every Sunday and I was taught everyone had a soul and it was the basis for every human being. The soul is what makes someone a person and it’s what separates us from non-living beings. As I grew up, I started to be less religious and started believing in science and factual based knowledge yet I still always believed in the soul. When you grow up your whole life being told a certain thing it’s hard to shake the idea of it not being true. It wasn’t until we started to talk about the different views of the self that I started to think maybe the soul isn’t what makes a person a person. It can’t be seen, it can’t be touched and we can’t tell if anyone even has a soul. There is no evidence

When it comes to personal identity and survival of the self, it is difficult to say what defines a person throughout time. The three arguments are for the body, soul, and brain. These theories argue that each respective component of a person, must remain the same throughout time in order for a person to be unchanged. The brain theory is more plausible than its counterparts. To prove this, first, I will describe the soul and body theories, which I oppose, and then present an argument based on the brain transplant theory. A criticism for this is Perry’s third night argument that states the body donor is the surviving factor. My rebuttal for his counterargument uses Cohen and Miller’s Conventionalist Argument to support my original statement.

In speaking of the biblical teachings of theodicy, we need to ask ourselves a series of vital questions in what scripture has to say on the topic: God and His connection to creation; the nature of humanity; God’s connection to sin; Man’s connection to sin; and the final outcome and defeat of sin. These considerations we need to ask are key to defining God’s power, goodness and the presence of sin.

In the days of Plato’s existence, the soul was a living, non-material entity that was created before the person and would continue on after the person was no more, unlike contemporary concepts of the soul, this concept was not based on religion or religious views as it didn’t exist then (Stevenson, Haberman, & Matthews Wright, 2013). Plato believed that one must endeavour to take care of their soul as it is eternal and more important than the body (Stevenson, Haberman, & Matthews Wright, 2013). Plato’s tripartite theory of the mind, is one of the most notable ancient theories of the soul in the fourth century, as well as in contemporary philosophical study (Lorenz, 2009). It focusses around the idea that the mind or soul - both terms are used interchangeably - is divided into three parts which are appetite, reason and spirit (Lorenz, 2009; Stevenson, Haberman, & Matthews Wright, 2013). Since Plato, there have been other similar concepts, especially in modern psychology, formed around the idea that an individual is subject to multiple divisions of oneself, the most memorable being Sigmund Freud’s notion of the conscious and subconscious with the Id, ego and superego (Stevenson, Haberman, & Matthews Wright, 2013). The notions of weakness of will and self-control can be explained through the exploration of Plato’s tripartite theory, as they can be seen as a representation of unbalance and balance between appetite, spirit and reason. Throughout this essay, I will explain the

Navigation helps individuals arrive to a given destination, but the human life also requires of such navigation. Some individuals unconsciously seek directions when challenged with a given issue and know which way to steer because of their moral compass. Furthermore, the moral compass is the soul that guides the personal self, but it is also the non-material aspect of a human being that is immortal. Although, the soul’s existence is in question, there is evidence that validates that the soul is real. Such evidence includes Plato’s theory of the tripartite soul and Sigmund Freud’s psychodynamic theory, which reevaluates Plato’s theory. Both theories address that the soul’s existence is the personality of a human being.

When this notion of disposition is applied to human generation it leads to the conclusion that the material element of the human being that is given by the parents in procreation must be ready to receive a rational soul before it can actually receive it. Remember, the parents themselves do not give the child his form (the spiritual soul) because they only contribute something material, namely a

“We have no “essence” waiting to unfold itself but are instead remarkably malleable creatures whose capacities and dispositions are formed and reformed in the various spheres of life in which we are placed and place ourselves.” Critically evaluate this statement.