Why is the question of Nick’s honesty significant? I think that Nick refers to his honesty towards himself when he thinks this statement. He creates of temperament or restraint that keeps his feelings from being hurt. For example, right before he thinks this, he states that for a brief moment he thought he loved Jordan, but then quickly brings himself back under control. “But I am slow-thinking and full of interior rules that act as brakes on my desires…” (Fitzgerald) One thing that does cause me to question his honesty is him not telling his beloved second cousin that Tom secretly has a
Like the Puritans, he planned to combat natural inclinations by building a life of strong moral preservation. While Franklin did not have as devoted a belief in God as the Puritans, he did believe in God and believed in the importance of good deeds and services. He also believed that all crimes were punishable, like the Puritans, who believed that God gave punishments to all wrongs. Franklin listed out virtues and sought to accomplish each in a specific order. His notion of virtues differed, however, from the Puritans who believed that being close to God was most virtuous and focused on reading scripture and prayers instead of being good citizens.
Then he presented two set of statements as under:- 1. The pious are loved by God because they are pious. 2. They are pious because they are loved by God. These dialogues have a philosophical effect as because it makes us stand even today in front of a burning issue which leads us nowhere.
He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect. McCloskey touches on faith in his article. It is defined by Tillich: as the state of being ultimately concerned as claiming truth for concern, and is involving commitment, courage, and the taking of risk. Theists have faith in God, and treat Him as the most important person in their lives. To have faith in someone on past knowledge, according to McCloskey, is reasonable however; it is unreasonable to have faith in God as we have no past knowledge of God.
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.
God faring people accept the teachings of God and the best way to live. Euthyphro dilemma was “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right” (Rachel’s and 50-53)? The problem with this dilemma is that God is always right and what isn’t right is wrong according to God. Which makes Euthyphro confused because he isn’t sure anymore what is right and what is wrong. The concept of morality is mysterious is saying that just because god says its right to slap a child doesn’t really make it right.
Gimpel is a man of tremendous character and unwavering spirituality. His character is exhibited when stays with Elka despite her adulterous and treacherous ways. Gimpel’s unconditional love for children that he did not father is possible because of his staunch religious beliefs. In Gimpel’s words, "In the first place, everything is possible, as it is written in the Wisdom of the Fathers (Singer)." It is evident that Gimpel chooses believe what people tell him because he has faith in them just as he has faith in God.
Comparison: Everyman and The Second Shepherd’s Play Everyman and The Second Shepherds' Play both deal with the idea of redemption. They remind the reader that good deeds are important. They also reinforce the idea that we must shun material concerns to be redeemed. The world is imperfect, and the only way we can make ourselves perfect and worthy of redemption is by not worrying about our material well being and performing good deeds. Everyman places his faith in material things, his friends, relatives and goods.
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.
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? And Given that God is unlike anything or anyone that we can actually experience? Hence, if language applied to God is univocal, it has the effect of bringing God down to an anthropomorphic level. In contrast with this, to use equivocal language, the problem raised here is that God is ‘holy,’ it means that when applying to something else, so I can never know what a word means when it is applied to God. Using these different types of language demonstrates a difficulty; assuming that when we speak of God, we are speaking cognitively- assuming that our statement is something that is either true or false and that it is able to describe an extinct being, God.