Well no matter how a Christian is defined, the golden rule supports every human being deserves the same manner of respect desired. This could suggest some sort of tolerance for non-believers, or the secular world. However a Christian is to remain unique in showing the world how God desires His creation to live and in what manner He desires them to commune with Him. WHAT IS CHRISTIAN PLURALISM? Christian pluralism is the belief that all other religions are all true ways to God, as well as Christianity, with the exception of Jesus Christ being the only way.
Omniscience refers to God’s unlimited knowledge which includes the knowledge of the past, present and future. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe claim that omniscience is a coherent concept, believing that God is omniscient alongside the belief that humans are morally responsible for some of their actions at the least. They believe that people have a free choice as to what they do when faced with a dilemma; that God does not force them into a certain decision but leaves humans to choose, which in turn leaves humans alone responsible for their actions. Thomas Aquinas suggested that the knowledge God possessed was not physical, he argued that humans gain knowledge through their bodies, such as taste, but this does not mean that knowledge itself is physical. We are able to know that the square root of 9 is 3, but a square root is not a physical thing, we cannot hold it, this however does not stop us from knowing what a square root is.
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.
Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education. He says that all decisions by man are a result of the values which man has received from god and without these values we would be left to a life full of disorder. Religion indirectly affects the state through mores which are described as “the whole moral and intellectual state of a people.”(287) These mores are what prevents democracies from being engulfed by the dangers which are products of tyranny and despotism. In a state without religion “each man gets into the way of having nothing but confused and changing notions about the matters of greatest importance to himself and his fellows”(444) and when combating materialism, the presence of religion “places the
If God breaks this, then he is not being omnibenevolent (all good), which is another of his attributes. However lust is far from morally right, so God cannot experience it. Leading on from that, since God is confined to being morally perfect, he has no choice whether he is or not, he can’t be omnipotent. Another aspect of this argument is can God fear? We are either scared of the unknown (e.g death) or something more powerful than ourselves (e.g lions).
He basically degrades the entire Bible by saying that there is no fact in the world and everything is an interpretation. He claims the truth is unnecessary to be spoken because it is only necessary to speak the truth when the untruth is so false that it can be detected. Nietzsche shares his belief that a human’s life is 100% controlled by the individual and all success should be credited to that individual. Then he disrespects all Christians by claiming they are a species of weak failures looking for pity that shall parish to the strong-willed all-powerful being. I strongly disagree with almost everything Fredrick Nietzsche writes about in this section of the reading.
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. Philosophers have always had a debate between this. Some say that a statement of God is non-cognitive, statements not subject to true of falsity. This led to a strong trial and tribulation to religious faith and its believers. Some such as Mortiz Schlick claim that religious belief is literally meaningless; religious statements are nonsense and should not be the basis of philosophical discussion.
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 wished for man to exercise his will. Augustine and Pelagius both agreed on some of the basic tenets of the faith like whether or not man has a free will. However, they had differing views on things like original sin and the power of sin over our free will. Human Sin You can overcome sin but how? Augustine Augustine believed you could overcome sin only by relying on faith and receiving salvation through Jesus Christ.
The Shepherd insists that the revelation of the truth will result in destruction, “I will be destroyed even more if I do talk” (line 1184). The Shepherd’s fear in this line embodies his rationality and foreshadows the inevitability of tragedy in this scene. The Shepherd continually stalls during his dialogue with Oedipus, but Oedipus’s overbearingness overpowers his resistance, and thus the Shepherd resorts to pleading to the King, “By the gods, master, do not inquire further!” (line 1190). The Shepherd’s futile resistance displays his determination to protect the kingdom and himself, and only when threatened with death did the Shepherd succumb to cowardly behavior and reveal the reality of Oedipus’s fate. Oedipus’s desire to continuously inquire despite the