In J.P. Moreland’s, Christianity and the Nature of Science, he discusses some of the basic presuppositions of science and points out how science alone is unable to explain the universe. 3 Therefor, nonbelievers contradict themselves by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence to support their theory. Moreland seems to wish for a world in which religion and science can completely understand each other, however it might be a detriment to Christian faith if such were true. The majority of the Bible depicts natural occurring events, however the Christian God is capable of miracles and phenomena that should not be understood further than His all-knowing wisdom and power. Therefor, the Christian response to scientific investigation should be to examine and understand to the extent of
Naturalist do not believe in more than just matter, they look at things as if I cannot see it then it is not there. However, as a Christians, I believe in more and I know our God is out there helping us through our lives. Naturalist look at us as machines that all of our emotions and such are just reactions in our brains, but Christians believe that everything we do is the creation of God. Secular humanist and Christians are so different I use my religion to help stay in line. Secular humanist feel that religion is really a negative thing because it gives you rules to follow therefore you never really follow your deepest desires.
Many Christians express their views against Euthanasia because of their belief in the Sanctity of Life, which declares no killing is acceptable or justifiable. On the other hand, due to modern changes in society, many Christians are in line with the belief of the quality of a person’s life rather than the sanctity. Overall, we can see that Euthanasia is indeed compatible with the changes in our modern society but not with the traditional view of the sanctity of life which some Christians still hold. Even though I’m against Euthanasia, the outcome was morally right. I think it was morally right as it put a person out of their misery, and since the court, the doctors and the nurses, and the parents had agreed to the death of Anthony Bland, and then I would allow this case to proceed.
RUNNING HEAD: Luther’s 95 Theses Luther’s 95 Theses HIST 101 Western Civilizations Instructor: Dorothy Slane Leslie Brooks October 2, 2011, Thesis In the 95 Thesis Luther is basically discussing his disappointment with the Catholic Church. He did not approve of the way the pope was granting partial remission of time to be spent in purgatory or any other consequences that may be given to the people because of a sin they have committed. The church was basically practicing in the selling of indulgences when they did not have the right to remit and penance for any sin or guilt. That was the sole job of their God and no one else could produce that right or charge for a right that they do not even possess. Luther was also disappointed in man and felt that they should take the consequences that go with their sins and hope that these lessons could be taught to them before it would become too late.
She did not choose the first or the second option, which fall under this commandment, because she knew the Catholic Church forbids all direct abortion even when the woman's life is in danger, and she knew it was a sin against God. Gianna had to suffer a lot, and make many sacrifices. She taught me that sometimes bad things happen and we need to make decisions. Either good decisions, which brings us closer to God, or bad decisions, which further us away. It is up to us to pick good over evil, for God has given us free will.
Additionally, cloning is found politically wrong too. George W. Bush banned cloning during his presidency. This was because he agreed that cloning was killing potential babies. Later on, congress lifted this this law, but there was still limits put on cloning. This is because they do not want there to be too many tests run on cloning because it is unnecessary and
Although the parents of the poor Kara Neumann believed in a religion in which did not believe in hospitals or any healing other than through faith, I still believe that a child’s health is more important than religion. There was even a quote stating, “Jesus never send anyone to a doctor or a hospital…” reading this quote actually kind of hurts me. People who think that Jesus could have or still does tell people to do things I personally believe they are very closed minded. Many people like that believe that their religion is true and all others are fake, but who are they to tell other people that they are wrong in what they believe. Believing that Jesus could “talk” to someone and tell them to go to the hospital is ridiculous because he is unable to actually contact
The similar objectives they both experience that are heritability entitled for them to feel guilt for, would be, for example, killing a person. It is never acceptable in the United States to commit a crime of killing another human. The legal laws in America would sentence both, Christians or Atheists, to prison if they were to commit such a crime. In extension, Christianity also has in the Ten Commandments telling them, “thy shall not kill.” The legal laws would send a murderer to prison, therefore this punishment would leave both groups remorseful for their actions. Atheist may feel their punishment is complete once they served their sentence, but since Christians believe taking someone’s life is committing a sin; they therefore question the likelihood of their soul entering into heaven.
Pro-lifers believe that from the moment of conception, the embryo must be treated as a person. The ultimate justification of the pro-life position is religion. Abortion is against the Bible, and most religious people believe that an embryo is created by the action of God, therefore we have a moral obligation to preserve it. However, even given these objections, I believe that it is a living person who counts, not a mere potential of the embryo. There are situations where a mother’s body is not prepared for pregnancy, nor delivering a baby.
Although it recognizes that same-sex partners might be committed to one another and even love one another, they do not fit the definition of marriage. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "marriage is the lifelong partnership of mutual and exclusive fidelity between a man and a woman...to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children" (CITE) Because partners in a same-sex union are not able to create children, their relationship cannot be viewed as a marriage in the Church. The Conference of Catholic Bishops does not approve of the wording used in Marriage Equality Act because it changes the historic definition and understanding of the institution of marriage. They have said that, "Redefining marriage has nothing to do with civil rights" and "With respect for the dignity of every person, we proclaim this truth and we will be faithful to its meaning...in all that we say and do" (CITE