Professor Barbara C. Sproul REL 205 Section 001 5 February 2013 Being or Not-Being Paul Tillich’s “Religion as a Dimension in Man’s Spiritual Life” is his argument against two groups of people, the Literal Theologians and Social Scientist. The Literal Theologians believe that Religion is given by God and he does exist as a being. While the Social Scientist argues that Religion is a man made and God is a being who does not exist. Tillich in the middle of this has a side that he supports and that side is neither. Paul Tillich argues against the literal theologians and the social scientists as well.
It also puts limits on God’s power. According to the definition of a theistic God, God is omnipotent. If God is all powerful then he should be able to command whatever he wants but by saying that morality is independent of God would mean that God is subject to the rules of morality (Fisher, 359). All in all the main issues with the Autonomy Thesis are that it would only be reasonable if one was not considering the existence of a theistic
“Expressions of secular humanism reject both the minimal Christian elements of its precursors and essential biblical truths, such as the fact that human beings bear the image of their Creator.” (Text Book The popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics) Meaning/ Purpose: Secular humanists never think about God don’t pray, never worry about what God thinks. So they may devote much more time and attention, and their energy to improving themselves, their relationships, and their environment. Morality: “Secular humanists base their morality and ideas about justice on critical intellect unassisted by Scripture, which Christians rely on for knowledge concerning right and wrong, good and evil.” (secularhumanism.org) Destiny: Secular humanists know that the truth of human experience is that certain virtues, practices, and habits of mind and character make for a better life. “It aims to heal this world and glorify man as the author of his own, progressive salvation.”(secularhumanism.org) Contrast: I was not sure if I would like to do this paper since I do not agree with the beliefs of secular humanism. Before I could consider my Christian response to secular humanism, I had to do my research.
For example, on Damascus Road, Saint Paul’s religious experience transformed his moral outlook. It would appear that all religious experiences demonstrate a revelation of truth, but one could argue that this does not indicate they are true. As Freud would argue that religious experiences are a way of externalising deep, repressed personal truths. In such a view, religious experiences are unverifiable and cannot be thought to prove the existence of God, as they are merely manifestations of the human subconsciousness. A transient experience short, and cannot be sustained for a long duration of time.
In particular, when speaking of Spies, the lines are not as clear as they do not accept the tenets of Christianity but see activities such as prayer or forgiveness as useful to the secular world. Because of this area of debate, the idea of absolutes is not possible. Without absolutes, how can we actually give someone guidance on how and where to go in their lives? Without a spiritual path that is laid out and definite, where does someone with a troubled soul go? I am grateful for the door that the book opens by illustrating how the two worlds of psychology and Christianity can be married yet as in any marriage, there is always areas that are not
Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving. As far as Genesis 1-2 goes, it is more important to understand the scripture, rather than prove it to be factual. “Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavor, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization” (Ferngren, 2). Genesis 1-2 is the cause of much unnecessary tension between the religious and scientific communities. The writers of Genesis 1-2 wrote it in a way that presents the Earth’s creation as a factual account of God creating the heavens and the Earth.
It gives great emphasis to the chronological order of the words of God and takes the written words as a whole, using each and every word literally to support your walk with God. Wesleyan theology, on the other hand, focuses on a more abstract interpretation of the bible. Wesleyans see the bible as an enhancement to the Christian faith. They are more into having great confidence in their faith and using the bible as a reference in order to follow God in a more abstract way. They focus on their relationship with God as a whole and don’t see the bible as a step-by-step manual as Fundamentalists do.
Colonialists place "...the book of God's Word over the book of God's Works, and theology over psychology." (Entwistle, 2010, p. 145). Neutral parties keep psychology and theology separate for fear that one will contaminate the other. And then there are Allies, those who believe that both psychology and theology belong to God and that "all truth is God's truth". They believe in total integration and know and respect the two books of God.
However, it appears that the shift in focus can drastically change the interpretations in the Bible. Ultimately, fundamentalists accept as true the inerrancy of the Bible as rationale. However, Wesleyans tend to take away that “the proof of the gospel resides primarily in its being lived, in transformed life, not in logic and argumentation.” Two entirely different understandings of the same Bible, exemplifies another key contrast among fundamentalists and
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.