are strongly in-line with Natural Law. Many Christians adopt deontological positions and think we should act according to God's design or purpose for our lives. They may be less influenced by Aquinas in this, and Protestants tend to be less sure about moral absolutes. However, there is still a strong sense of following rules within most Christian denominations. Aquinas said: “Consequently, law must needs concern itself mainly with the order that is in beatitude.” From this we can see that the Bible played a big part in the development of Natural Law; this proves that Christians make moral decisions through a multiple of different ways.
Part III: Presuppositions * The author assumes that the readers have a preconceived idea of how to properly define justice. * The author assumes that the readers will agree with him about the book’s validity on the topic of justice and the authenticity and accuracy of scripture. * The author assumes that his readers are not in need of generous justice themselves. * The author assumes that the readers have a basic understanding of the gospel of Christ. Part IV: Book Summary The idea of justice in the world today is often misconstrued; the most commonly accepted definition of justice is giving someone what the rightly deserve.
“Explain what Fletcher understands by ‘Christian love’ and its role in the moral decision-making process of situation ethics” Situational ethics is an ethical theory that was created by an Anglican priest named Joseph Fletcher. This ethical system believed that all humans should make moral decisions based on what is the most loving thing to do. Fletcher didn’t mean any random type of love, he meant the love that is unconditional that divine authorities such as Jesus have displayed. Love that isn’t romantic or sexual but can be from one stranger to another as well as love between two people who know eachother. Situation ethics does have rules and principles to abide by.
Some however may question, how do you name a conscience if it is not a physical matter and one cannot distinguish where it originates from? One of the two main philosophers to support that conscience is the voice of reason is Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas believed the conscience primarily to be a substance of reason; a moral guide that has been placed in us by God in order to make us more inclined to do his will here on earth. He believed that at conception or at some later stage, God gives each person a conscience to be able to discern morally right and wrong. Does this mean then that people who do not have faith or a believe in God are consciousness?
Critically assess the claim that conscience is the voice of reason (35) There are a number of views on whether conscience is the voice of reason and where this voice comes from; is it from God, do we acquire it or is it innate. Aquinas thought conscience was the natural ability of people to understand the difference between right and wrong. He believed that all people aim for what is good and try to avoid the bad (synderesis rule). Aquinas argued that although people should always follow their conscience he understood that people make wrong choices. He defined conscience in this way as “the mind of man making moral judgements” and defined it as having two parts- synderesis and conscientia (decision leading to a particular action).
It guides them to make the correct ethical decisions in life fulfilling their role as Christians. Ethics is the decision between right and wrong influenced heavily by beliefs and responsibilities of an adherent. Through the Bible, teachings by Jesus through parables such as the ‘Good Samaritan’ educate them on the way they should behave in everyday situations. In this parable, a man is neglected by a priest and a Levite but is helped by a Samaritan, a person who was disliked in that time. It shows Christians that they should help everyone who is in need, leaving no one behind.
Even in contemporary society, we tend to associate morality with some kind of divine will, but through the Euthyphro, Socrates seems to suggesting we think along another line altogether. Is something moral because God commands it? Does morality depend on religious belief? A common view among religious, and even some secular, philosophers is that just as conventional laws require lawmakers, morals also require some ultimate source. The Divine Command Theory is the view that moral actions are those that conform to God's will.
In making sure that the secular psychology principles align with biblical thinking the biological issues seem to be forgotten. While it is optimal that every human’s make up consist of all the right parts, not every personality will come to counseling complete due to external circumstances and life’s path in general. Hawkin’s model implies that every human beings make-up contains a complete personality and the core is influenced by the Holy Spirit. This is a weakness because only a Christian’s core has the ability to be influenced by the Holy Spirit. It is more reasonable to lean towards Crabb’s model in this area because he discusses the development of maturity in the Christian walk.
Colonialists place "...the book of God's Word over the book of God's Works, and theology over psychology." (Entwistle, 2010, p. 145). Neutral parties keep psychology and theology separate for fear that one will contaminate the other. And then there are Allies, those who believe that both psychology and theology belong to God and that "all truth is God's truth". They believe in total integration and know and respect the two books of God.
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.