This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds. It’s understood that the act is warranted by the divine and therefore the ethical is no longer in effect. The next term to define is the one that most of us would be familiar with and can relate to. If you’re a religious individual or have some faith in the ultimate, you might consider yourself labeled under this category. As previously stated, in order to be a KoF, you must be willing to nullify the ethical standards you are most accustomed to in order to comply to the declaration of God or any other divine or spiritual medium.
Though Romans says that human nature is that we are sinners. Human beings are slaves to sin and seem to be powerless against it. We understand that we are not righteous at all, and that we need a relationship with God, so that we can be empowered by His righteous. His righteous comes through our faith in Jesus Christ. Only he can redeem, justify, and sanctify us, and we need all three for our salvation.
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.
Surely and all loving (omnibenevolent) God wouldn’t allow this. Human Evil is where people cause harm to others and create chaos. Why would God create a world that consists of evil and cruelty? therefore Mill questions the idea of an omnibenevolent God, however if it is disagreed that God isn’t all loving then it could suggest that God doesn’t know of our suffering and could mean that omniscience cannot possibly be an attribute of God. Mill would say that if God is omniscient then surely he is aware of our suffering and would therefore intervene in the evil as he loves us all.
In Christianity, Divine command theory can be easily observed as too rigid for moral decision, as it is absolutist, and is based purely upon the word of God. According to Divine Command theory, an act is morally right when God says it is, and morally wrong when God specifies so- Right and wrong are therefore solely decided by God’s will and commands. As a result, it is no longer a moral decision- just following the word of God- personal thoughts and emotions, as well as the outcomes of the action God promotes are completely irrelevant- God’s word is to be followed, with no exception. This can be too rigid in many cases, for example in the situation of condemning one person to death in order to save many more- if, in a storm where a ship has sunk, a full lifeboat comes across a struggling member of the crew trying to climb in (risking tipping it and putting everyone in the water), then the Word of God states that, as we should not kill, we should help them in- however, this would mean others dying as a byproduct of this action. The best action would be to leave them in the water, to preserve the most lives- showing that from what we can see so far, and in the case of Divine command theory, the ethical teachings of Christianity are too rigid to be applied universally to moral situations.
They consider the possibility that human beings are controlled by external forces and are not able to exercise free will. The argument that free will and determinism are compatible, is best challenged by soft determinists. This is the idea that our actions are controlled by external forces to a certain extent, but we should still be held accountable for what we choose to do. Finally, predestination claims that a deity is the ultimate cause who determines all human actions. All Christians to a certain extent believe that free will plays an important role in their lives (most commonly seen in their faith and actions).
“The spirit of Gelassenheit expresses itself in obedience, humility, and simplicity. To Amish thinking, obedience to the will of God is the cardinal religious value. Disobedience is dangerous” (Kraybill, 2012). Based upon the principle of Gelassenheit, the use of most modern technology is banned because it violates the Amish belief in separation from society and threatens their life of simplicity. Honoring the principles Gelassenheit involves self-denial, yielding to others, maintaining a quiet spirit, and living life with modesty and
It is founded in God, Who did not only create the Ten Commandments, but He is the standard and the law. God allowed sin to come into the world. He did not create it, yet He created the possibility of it. God cannot sin nor even be tempted by sin. He is so holy, just, and full of grace that He had to send His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for these sins and humans’ depraved condition.
(112) How is it that he can make a reference to one little piece of the Bible and not take a look at the rest? Over and over again in The Holy Bible it mentions forgiveness and mercy. If this is true, then how is it that the wrath of God is right above us, ready to strike without giving us another chance? The Almighty God is there to help and comfort us when we do wrong, not to condemn us the very second we mess up and never offer another opportunity to fix everything we possibly can. Edwards’ mind was so clouded with trying to scare these people witless, that he just contradicted himself.
The author concludes that the person who has no faith in religion could watch religious debates go on and never be affected, either positively or negatively. The other conclusion is that a person who has even the smallest amount of faith in a religion should dive head first into that religion because of the promise of infinite reward. All other religions should be denounced because they are in conflict with his chosen religion. The author did not sufficiently support the premise of disbelief in faith and or religion. He states that if one does not believe in a religion then one can gain nothing from religious debates.