That thought pattern is rooted in sin and rebellion because the gospel message is centered on repentance of sin and accepting Jesus as Lord. It is not centered on people living as they like and expecting God to adjust his precepts to us in that spiritual state. 2. This culture has become so morally loose until morality is almost non-existent. To live a moral life according to the gospel message is perceived as being too restrictive to a large number of the populace.
Some philosophers such as Aquinas believe that it is possible to talk meaningfully, truthfully and factually about God whereas others like Ayer believe this to be impossible. Philosophers have suggested that there are four ways that religious language might make truth claims about the reality of God and whether it can succeed in doing this – Via Negativa, Analogy, and Myth. The ‘via negativa’ or negative way is an attempt to prevent people from misrepresenting God. It claims that the only way we can talk about God is by saying what God is not. God is so beyond our ability to understand that the only way of seeing the reality of God is to continue saying what God is not, God is more than anything we can say of him.
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.
Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language when talking about God. Religious language often attempts to describe the attributes or qualities of God. This is hard because God is generally not something we have direct experience of, whereas most of the things that language refers to are things that we can experience e.g. love, walking, hair. So when we say ’God is good’, we need to know that we are using ’good’ in that sentence.
McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God. He is reminding atheists the reasons they believe that there is no God. He feels atheism is superior to theism; however; I find that his opinions only strengthen my belief that there is a God. Proof, as he states, carries no weight for a theist. He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect.
If God did create the difference between right and wrong then that means that for God, initially, there wasn’t a difference between to two. With that being said, it follows that it is not possible to say whether God is good or not. This is due to the fact that if right and wrong were God’s creation, then prior to his conception of the two ideas, they did not exist or apply to him. The writer then determines that it is unreasonable to assume that God has any relation to the creation of right and wrong while also saying that God is good. If God is assumed to be good, then all of his actions are good, and this would include the creation of right and wrong.
It’s important to address this danger, and although faith can certainly create the benefits described in How God Changes Your Brain, it’s irresponsible to ignore that faith, being a psychological tool, can be used for both positive and negative means. A good part of How God Changes Your Brain is the author’s respect for people who do not share their beliefs. The book is more an explanation for why people like religion, rather than an argument for religion’s existence. Changes Your Brain doesn’t use literary prowess to emphasize a strong tone, but rather keeps a level and clear voice throughout the book, it has the opposite the tone of a preacher. I wish that the book addressed why some people firmly reject or accept faith, on a psychological basis.
• Jung states that we can never know whether or not God exists. We can never know if a religious experience is real or whether it is created by the mind. However, Jung accepts science which bases conclusions on empirical evidence without worrying about whether the data is a figment of a person’s imagination. If there is empirical evidence for a religious experience, why can’t we accept that it is true? • The Theory of Archetypes - Geza Roheim argues that the theory of archetypes is unnecessary.
Comparison: Everyman and The Second Shepherd’s Play Everyman and The Second Shepherds' Play both deal with the idea of redemption. They remind the reader that good deeds are important. They also reinforce the idea that we must shun material concerns to be redeemed. The world is imperfect, and the only way we can make ourselves perfect and worthy of redemption is by not worrying about our material well being and performing good deeds. Everyman places his faith in material things, his friends, relatives and goods.
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.