The Pro-Kingship and Anti-Kingship Debate The pro-kingship and anti-kingship debate as discussed in 1 Samuel is about the request to Samuel from his people for a king. They feel a king is needed because Samuel's sons don't follow his example and are bad leaders. Samuel follows through with their request by asking God for a king. Samuel was hesitant to do so, but asked God anyway and He followed through with their request. In my opinion, the pro-kingship argument brings up some good points.
The world is your destiny. The community wanted a more fair and equal government. However, the king was not expressing equal freedom fairly. Unfortunately, the king wanted to make all the rules while the whole community had to abide by and follow them without conflict. However, the citizens wanted to make their own rules to follow, sensible and understandable rules.
Also that was one factor why the Filipino friends turned against them. They converted the Filipino women before “mounting” them. In contrast, the Renaissance era, people weren’t really crazy about religion, and people found god less interesting, but they still believed in his existence. But, they were more into using their creative minds to invent new technology, government, philosophy, and art. They realized that there was no new technology being invented in that era so they wanted to make a difference, and they decided to be the other kind of men.
During the time of Paul, Jews were so preoccupied with upholding the Law that their lives where devoted to a strict regimented life. Paul would assert that freedom from sin (or rather the punishment of sin) comes only through Jesus Christ since he was sent from God as fulfillment of the Law1. Jews in the first century saw this as an attempt to throw away that Law, to make it void. It is easy see how the Jews would assume that this radical new idea, being free from sin purely by faith rather than austere adherence to the Law, but that is not entirely what Paul’s message is. In Galatians 3:15-18, Paul argues that a new covenant does not void previously made promises of God.
Which Argument for the Existence of God is the Strongest? Shelly Reynolds PHI 208 November 11, 2013 For decades, individuals have debated the merits of what some have called “The God Question.” There are many competing arguments for God’s existence, and debates have raged among religious types and atheists alike on the existence or non-existence of a deity. This debate has caused many smart people to come up with plausible and persuasive theories to back their side in the argument. This has created a new problem. When one drills down into the guts of this debate, which of the arguments for the existence of God is the most compelling?
Arnaud Marquet Josh Diamond English 106 22 January 2012 The influence of religion on wars! In today’s world, a common misconception is that religion is one of the main reasons for a war to start. I am going to dispute that conventional belief, but not in the ways it is usually challenged by people who identify themselves as religious. I will argue that the real motivation behind so-called religious wars is in fact economic and political, not religious. As the American civil war leader Abraham Lincoln put it almost 150 years ago: "The will of God prevails.
If there is one substantial difference which matter most as utterly irreconcilable that will always cause debate between Christians and Muslims, it is certainly Jesus Christ. Statement of the Problem The problem addressed in this study is to find out the similarities and the differences in the views of Christians and Muslims concerning the identity of Jesus and the impact of his ministry. This has particular reference to the life and teachings of Jesus here on earth particularly enough about his death and resurrection. And also touches his titles or given names in both the Bible and the Qur’an. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to compare the descriptions of both Christians and Muslims’ understanding about the identity of Jesus.
Bibliography A. General Introduction The Bible is a progressive revelation. If we skip the first half of any good book and try to finish it; we will have a hard time understanding the characters, the plot, and the ending. In the same way, the New Testament is only completely understood when it is seen as being built upon the foundation of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament (OT). If we only had the New Testament (NT), we would come to the gospels and not know why the Jews were looking for a Messiah (a Savior King).
War has left a great part of humankind starving, homeless, emotionally and physically unstable. War is an incredibly disastrous act that should only take place when all other alternatives have been exhausted. All nations have a very intricate relationship which entails complicated solutions and negotiation along with many persons who have opposed views and cultures. Wars are ongoing for a variety of reasons ranging from: extended area of land, inner power struggle, natural resource, and religious beliefs. Although religion gives a person meaning to life, it guides people into the right direction, comforts people in times of sadness, and connects people together.
To call such an experience illusory would be close to blasphemy for some. Equally, Saul’s experience on the road to Damascus which led to him becoming one of Christianity’s most important early leaders was a deep religious conversion experience, similar to the modern day example of Nicky Cruz. Christians would find it hard to accept that such a conversion was based on an illusion. Stories such as Moses’ experience with the burning bush would also be taken as certain proof of the existence of religious experiences, based on the fact that such is written in the Bible and must therefore – so some Christians would believe – be entirely true. It is difficult to challenge people who hold this view because to them their belief in the absolute truth of the Bible (or other Holy Book) is so essential to their beliefs about God that to suggest otherwise – perhaps by quoting example of scripture that are particularly unkind, such as views on women and homosexuals – would be considered unthinkable, and contradict their whole belief system.