Believers practicing loving God with all their mind would be a witness to this world and even a way of reaching out in compassion and gentleness we have left behind by burying our arguments in our Bibles and not engaging the questions raised by the lost. Understanding where Evangelicals have fallen intellectually will help foster obedience to Christ’s command to love God with all of our mind. The major arguments held by critics Richard Hofstadter, George M. Marsden, and Alister McGrath, declare modern Evangelicalism anti-intellectual. Some of the main reasons for this are the average Evangelicals fear of defending their faith, the separation of the spiritual and secular, and the slothfulness Evangelicals have to
James speaks against these in his teaching. He exhorts them to remain true to the teachings and practices of the faith. James’ teachings are often compared to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, which would be logical due to him being brought up in the same environment as Jesus. The book of James is a protest against hypocrisy. Some have criticized James in that they thought he was teaching that salvation was by works alone, but in reality he is complementing Paul’s teaching of salvation by faith.
It’s important to address this danger, and although faith can certainly create the benefits described in How God Changes Your Brain, it’s irresponsible to ignore that faith, being a psychological tool, can be used for both positive and negative means. A good part of How God Changes Your Brain is the author’s respect for people who do not share their beliefs. The book is more an explanation for why people like religion, rather than an argument for religion’s existence. Changes Your Brain doesn’t use literary prowess to emphasize a strong tone, but rather keeps a level and clear voice throughout the book, it has the opposite the tone of a preacher. I wish that the book addressed why some people firmly reject or accept faith, on a psychological basis.
But also Absolutism does not take other situation into consideration, things change and people change, so should the rules change as well? Personally, I think that they need to be amended; this could cause even worse conflicts than they are in this day and age, although it might be necessary, Common sense isn’t that common. An example of the Absolute theory is the Divine law theory; this is all stated in the bible, it dictates what’s good and what’s bad, according to the will of God. Everything we do, has the question behind it: Does it follow the will of God? This is the question absolutes ask before making any decisions.
The Falsification Principle is a similar principle to the verification principle as both states that statements are only meaningful if it can be proven true or false, verified or falsified. The falsification principle however if more focused on the idea of falsifying statements, as the name would suggest, and says that religious statements are meaningless because people(believers) will let nothing count against them no matter what the evidence. For example believers may have the belief that 'God is loving' and no matter how strong or how much evidence I could provide to show the opposite the believers would still have reasons why, in spite of everything, God continues to be loving. This was the point Anthony Flew was trying to make when he applied the falsification principle to religious statements and concluded that they were meaningless as he deemed it they died a 'death by a thousand qualifications'. There will never be anything believers will accept that could challenge what they believe because they will always come up with other ways of qualifying it.
(Radmacher, Allen, and House,2004, p. 503) Jeremiah was told by God that, "Before I made you in your mother's womb, I chose you. Before you were born, I set you apart for a special work. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (NCV, Jeremiah 1: 4-5) The people of Judah once had an affinity with God until they began having an unfaithfulness to the covenant and live idolatry. The once loved and sought after love of God from the people of Judah was no more, they began to worship other Gods, trees, and rocks.
For the last century, philosophers have focused on problems concerning religious language. After understanding that language is the way that we communicate concept, trying to describe concepts that no one physically sees and hears, such as God became a massive dilemma. Religious believers have to use language to make statements about God and his being and aspects known to be able to express human understanding. How do the meanings of words change when applied to God? To use univocal or universal language for God raises the problem being that if we argue God is ‘all loving,’ we would also be able to describe a loved one as such, thus demining his almighty status as a supreme being, so how can we use words to accurately describe God?
But it seems as though Russell feels he can rule that Christianity is not only one of its kind and that it is not true. We will see that his epistemological basics as well as his good credentials are narrow and we are doubtful of both his arrogant rationalism and his spiritual ability to defeat the Biblical and historical testimony to Jesus Christ. In addition, we will see that most of his believed logical refutations of arguments for God do not work (Britannica). Bertrand Russell thought that religious belief came from culture and fantasy. He thought that people believe in God because they have been taught as a baby to believe.
I personally think people should be allowed to have their own opinions and views on religion. I do not think people should have been imprisoned by not living by Calvinism. I also personally do not believe God has already chosen who will be saved from sin. Ignatius of Loyola believed through self-discipline and good actions people would be saved. Loyola created the religion belief known as Society of Jesus.
INTRODUCTION The book Truth and Tolerance by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is one that captures and tackles the tensions that arise from rival claims to ‘the truth’ by different religions of the world. It is a response to the criticisms by modern society and non-Christian cultures against the (Catholic) Christian claim on the “Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church”. How can Christianity insist it is true in the face of other religions and philosophies making competing claims? Is Christianity not being religiously arrogant by imposing its teaching, and thus intolerant to other religions of the world? As such, central to this thesis is the theme of truth- truth in the Christian religion expressed in the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church which Ratzinger sets out to address together with the questions above.