The Disguised Truth About American Christianity In “The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong,” Bill Mckibben argues that the way Americans view the messages and teachings Christianity displays are far from what the Gospels of the Bible actually say and teach. McKibben points out how our nation is the most outspoken when it comes to Christianity. However, he later goes on to claim that as the most outspoken of the Christian nations our actions and decisions do not reflect what we preach. It is this contradiction that McKibben insists is the paradox of our Christianity in America. According to a statistic laid out by McKibben, seventy-five percent of the American population is under the belief that “God helps those who
Christianity is under attack not only by those within Christianity, but also by those in cults and other faiths. C.S. Lewis, who was one of the best-known apologists of the 20th century, said, To be ignorant and simple now--not to be able to meet the enemies on their [1]ground--would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered (The Weight of Glory, 50). 2 EXPERIENTIAL APOLOGETICS One form of apologetics is called “Experiential Apologetics”.
Best of all, there are those who see it as the only saving truth. Yet, even within the Christian culture it is seen in varied ways. Others confess, “Jesus is the Way”, yet, in the same breath say, “but the Bible is outdated and not necessarily intended for these times”. Others believe that they can still live how they want, and, act as if saying “I am a Christian” is some kind of pass. Moral rejections come from what a person thinks should be right within Christianity.
Why Is There Evil And Suffering In The World? The curious as well as the critics of Christianity ask this question. If God is all-powerful and all loving, then why does He permit evil and suffering in the world? Various answers have been given but permanently settling the issue is impossible because so many of our answers raise further questions. Nevertheless, our lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions.
Scripture compels us to care for the weakest among us and in fact, the weak may be in a position to experience a relationship with Christ more intimately than the person distracted by the wealth of the material world. In this paper the author will summarize the major tenants of the Liberation Theology worldview, critically analyze the flaws of this theology, describe how one might share evangelical christianity with a proponent of this worldview and in conclusion, provide a lingering challenge to evangelicals everywhere. Liberation Theology offers a lens for looking at how Christian religion meets changing political and social climates. It is contextual and correcting. Jesus is not only a savior, but also a liberator.
Some of these will include a compare/contrast of Christianity and other forms of study such as Epistemology, Metaphysics and Philosophical Anthropology. Entwistle also describes five different disciplinary relationships: enemies, spies, colonialists, neutral parties, and allies (Entwistle, 2010). This is for the purposes of understanding the nature of how these relationship contribute to the understanding of the integration of psychology and Christianity. Antagonists, or enemies are secular or Christian because both hold an opposing the view that there is no integration of psychology and Christianity. Members of the Christian faith who have a background in psychology would be the Spies who are only interested in the “benefits of their own religious system” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 182).
Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist. This proves problematic as it then brings into question the traditional theist’s view of God. However, no traditional theist would accept Hume’s conclusions because it denies God of His perfection. There are ways of sidestepping this issue such as, atheism, deism and polytheism, but none are accepted by traditional theists, and are therefore not a true solution to the problem. A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering.
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.
He based his argument on the statement “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because it is willed by God?” There are two ‘horns’ to this argument which stem from the statement; these both critiques of the link between religion and morality. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
The core of this school of thought was that non-Christians needed not to be forced to accept the religion or should they be physically humiliated for having a different faith apart from Christianity. This was opposed to another opinion which was less common that vengeance was a response to the injuries coming from the denial of the Christian faith, the Christian government or the opportunity of a justified forced conversion to Christianity. Taking part in such a war by the crusaders was seen as a form of penance that could remit one’s sins which is not a representative of a Christian worldview. This was one of the biggest motivations of the crusaders as affirmed by Riley-Smith, (2009). CRUSADES TIMELINE The timeline of the crusades is very important and significant because it helps in portraying the motivations that the crusaders had at that time that led to the emergence of various crusades during different periods.