Pascal pointed out that Aquinas’ made the assumption that the uncaused cause, which is necessary for the Cosmological Argument, was the Christian God. As there is no empirical or scientific evidence for this to be the case then his argument does have little value for religious faith. For this reason, I agree with this claim. Karen Armstrong also criticises the Cosmological Argument as she says that Christians do not need to find reason, as Aquinas is trying to do, in order to debate with science. In her book “The Case for God” she writes that religion requires leaps of faith and should accept that there is no scientific proof for the existence of God.
The purpose of the resurrection was not to prove that Christ was who He claimed to be rather it was necessary. A sign like raising Lazarus was not for any purpose except to help those who doubted as Thomas did to believe. [1]The apostle Paul went so far in emphasis as to argue that if there is no resurrection, there is no Gospel. All that we teach and preach today would be pointless if it had not been for the resurrection, unlike a “sign” that was not necessary for our salvation. I am not saying this because of the importance of Christianity, I am simply pointing out a fact of the difference in the two.
If there were no government, there would be absolute chaos, and even more horrible things would go on because there would also be no consequences. Government keeps order and is a good thing to obey, but is there ever a time we should disobey? We should disobey the government when it goes against Gods law. God is the Almighty, and when someone goes against him, the Christians should not follow that example but should create their own.
This means that the Galatians should allow their whole life to be controlled or regulated by the Holy Spirit opposed to the law.’’ Law is culturally or divinely prescribed regulations for living. The regulations always carry a punishment for disobedience. From this, we can see the how the biblical audience of that time interpreted Paul’s message to mean the grace of God is not found under the bondage of law, but under the guidance of his indwelling spirit. The Galatians were heavily influenced by teachers who sought to diminish Paul’s authority, insisting that he had no right to deviate from the Jerusalem practice. These teachers urged the Galatians to add to their faith in Christ by adding the law to it, particularly circumcision.
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.
The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was one of the early founders of existentialism. Although Kierkegaard was a devout Christian, he rejected the Christian Church due to its legalistic nature and the false relationship that people were receiving with God as a result. Kierkegaard believed that the key relationship of an individual was with God. He argued that God has given people freedom to make their own decisions and therefore our decisions are not determined. He thought that our existence is not something determined rationally or part of an on-going process but that it is something specific which is created through the choices we make.
• Jehovah’s witnesses differ from other religious groups by their belief in the leader in the church or religion. Jehovah’s witnesses have no human leader. They have a high value on moral living. Also, they do not take part in gambling, anal sex, oral sex, over drinking, abortions, and wars for they believe it is part of sin. Jehovah’s witnesses believe in the bible like many other religious groups.
When you look at the views today, many people are believing today that we don’t need God, and he’s not who everyone thought he was. The society we live in each person has a different view on religion and God, and they assume that people will make fun of them for what they believe in. One person should not care what other people think about them if you believe in God and what he says makes you feel good about yourself don’t let anyone get in the way of that. God will always be there for you and for the people what want to make fun 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.
Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” I would agree with St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all." Martin Luther King brings up examples of how Christians broke the law when it went against the laws of the church and pertains it to the situation that he is in. Dr. King’s main argument to those who have written to him is that they do not really understand the situation. From their view, it seems as though he is being radical with his actions when he leads demonstrations or sit-ins or other things of that nature. Dr. King explains that they are not there witnessing the injustices that are taking place, not only against him, but also against all people who share his color.