After reading Romans 1-8, I never would have thought you could find these subjects in these scriptures. I basically saw the subject matter based around the character of how some believers treat other cultures outside of their race. I figured that Paul was just trying to get the Jews straighten out from mistreating the Gentiles, and not allowing them access to salvations, but I know understanding that there was a correlation between what Paul was writing and the subjects at hand. Paul was basically showing us that we had a sinful nature that our identity was in God, which we should have a serving relationship with others outside our race that we should not give into the cultures around us and we should not conform to the civilization that we live in. I fully understand now how these subjects can affect our everyday lives.
This explains why God did not simply step in and save us from the worst effects of our choices. For humans to have a genuine relationship with God it is only possible to do through our own decisions and this requires freewill, and this is supported by Richard Swinburne and Søren Kierkegaard’s example of the King and the peasant. Freewill is a necessary characteristic according to Soren Kierkegaard as he aims to put forward his idea through the tale of the King and the peasant. The parable is that a King falls in love with a peasant girl and does not want to appear to her as a king as she will be fearful and this would not be genuine love, so he decides to disguise himself as a peasant as a way for her get to know him and genuinely fall in love with him. This is similar to the circumstance of God and human freewill.
Secular worldviews often see human relationships as self-serving with an ultimate goal of getting ahead of the other person for bettering on oneself. In contrast, a biblical worldview of human relationships seeks to serve others first and place God above all else. Romans 2:8 speaks on the ultimate fate for the “selfishly ambitious” who do not obey the Word of God. Throughout the Bible, there are several instances of the ultimate human relationship found in Scripture. For example, Mark 12:31 states, “ …’You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’” as Jesus’ proclamation of human relationships with one another and God.
Also that if events such as, seas getting dried up were to happen everyday they wouldn’t be a miracle. Wiles has also said that believing in miracles could be wrong, as if they were done by God then he could have stopped major tragedies, e.g. Auschwitz and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In these examples it limits God and he is seen as not being omnibenevolent. However, in the New Testament God heals and individual who is blind and lets others die.
Also he believes that if you asked someone who doesn’t believe in God what their definition of God was, then it would also be something along the lines of this. He then later goes on to say that even if you don’t believe God to exist, then he must exist through this definition. This is because if God is the greatest being, and an atheist also defines him like this, then in order to be the greatest being he must also exist in reality, as it is greater to exist in reality than just the mind. Anselm then uses an analogy of a painter and a painting to help people understand this concept further. He says that when a painter plans his work before he starts it, then he has an idea in his head of what it will end up looking like, however because he hasn’t painted it yet it doesn’t exist.
When Biblical scholars debate this they lose the true meaning of the text. They become more focused on proving it to be factual rather than looking at the scripture for what it is. The scientific theory is backed by better evidence and is more likely to be true, there is too much evidence to ignore it, and therefore it should be accepted for the most part. Then Genesis can be used as a metaphorical story that allows us to understand more fully who God really is. Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving.
Thus, he believes there is no reason why should you live a moral life rather than for one's self. Fidley asks Seltzer one last question, “what motivation for adopting the moral point of view can you possibly offer without a belief in God and immorality?” which leads us to this quote, “When religion tells us that there is nothing more we can say about morality than that we can’t see the reasons for it, but do it if you know what’s good for you, then I do condemn it. We can do better than that. We can become moral grown-ups. And if there were a God, surely he would approve”.
Hence, it doesn’t exist. Following the above, everything God creates is therefore perfect, hence omnipotent, a quality coherent to the attributes of the god of theism. Again, Augustine attempts to take the blame off God by saying that evil is committed by humanity’s abuse of free will. Yet, God couldn’t have created humans without free will because the point of our existence would be lost, as free will differentiates humans and gives us individuality – it gives our life meaning and purpose. If we were not given free will, the lack of freedom and choice would render us similar to robots.
Christians believe that God created the world and all that is in it. It is believed that humanity is created in the image of God, and that God gave people free will therefore there is good and evil in the world. The Ten Commandments are guidelines received by Moses from God on how adherents can lead good lives. They should not be avoided in fear of punishment, but embraced as a way to be saved from The Fall, where humans make sinful choices. Adherents believe meaning can be found in their response to evil and suffering.
The Free Will Defense In this essay I will talk about why the free will defense is a logical and reasonable solution to the problem of evil. I will first define what the problem of evil is, and then I will define and explain why the free will defense works to solve the problem. I will also bring up and support all criticisms against the free will defense. I will continue by responding to those criticisms, and then conclude by summing up my main ideas. The strongest criticism to the free will defense is that God, being an all-powerful being, should be able to create free agents who make only good choices, freely.