Lewis said that Aslan is, in a sense, Christ. How is the depiction of an imaginary animal meant to convey truths about Christ? Is Lewis successful in this attempt? If one assumes that Lewis had a specific didactic purpose in mind when wrote The Chronicles of Narnia then they are mistaken. Lewis himself claims that he never intended to write a Christian message for children to more coherently understand the Gospel; although, he admits that once Aslan emerged into Narnia, he not only ‘pulled’ the story together, but he also ‘pulled’ the other six stories together simultaneously.
Christians could argue that they believe Jesus was still the Messiah and everything he stood for is what they believe in but maybe the authenticity of miracles today can be questioned as there is no Jesus around to prove them being performed by a Deity just as the definition says there should be. So believing in miracles would be hard to do because there is no proof because Christians just have to believe what the Bible says and can not question it even though there is no proof of miracles other than what the Bible says. It would be hard for Christians to believe in miracles because there is no evidence that supports them… (The Bible can’t be classed as evidence because it has no proof it’s real and could be a fictional book) But Christians would have to believe in them because if they disagree that would be sort of going against the belief of Jesus. I think Christians don’t have a choice and have to believe in miracles otherwise they’re going
This divergence from Christian doctrine and thus universal truth places the effectiveness of the scientific method in doubt as it is subject to human nature and its inherent imperfection. Kim et al. (2012) acknowledge this fact stating, “Over time, human reason essentially replaced God in determining moral laws. For instance, under utilitarianism moral issues were no longer based on God’s Word, or transcendent truth but on practicality” (p. 3). This modification of truth to a form of relativism; however, is not regulated to modern times.
So when we say ’God is good’, we need to know that we are using ’good’ in that sentence. In univocal terms this would be claiming that God is good in some way that humans are, Aquinas rejected this as he believed God to be perfect. Because of this, imperfect humans can’t be good in the same way that God is. In equivocal terms, this would mean that God is good in a totally different way to humans, Aquinas rejected that too. He argued that if people speak equivocally about God, then it cannot profess to know anything about him as it is saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around us, doesn’t apply to God.
Anselm (1033–1109) had opposed an Ontological Argument that one understands God as a being and cannot conceive anything greater because God cannot be understood not to exist. On the other hand, another philosopher named Gaunilo objected Anselm’s Ontological Argument by suggesting that the same style of argument can be used to prove the existence of other entities, such as the idea of a greatest possible island. Although this may be the case, Anselm never got the opportunity to plead his case against Gaunilo’s objection. However, there are numerous biblical evidence to help support Anselm’s argument. Anselm’s Ontological Argument states that one understands that God, as a being, cannot be conceived a greater.
The CE/BCE notation has been adopted by numerous authors and publishers wishing to be neutral or sensitive to non-Christians because it does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as "Christ" and Domin- ("Lord"), which are used in the BC/AD notation, nor does it give implicit expression to the Christian creed that Jesus was the Christ.  Among the reasons given by those who oppose the use of Common Era notation is that it is selective as other aspects of the Western calendar have origins in various belief systems (e.g., January is named for Janus), and claims that its propagation is the result of secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism,
The Case for the Cosmological Argument One of the shortcomings of McCloskey’s case against theism is his accusation that the cosmological and teleological arguments cannot definitively establish the proof of God. McCloskey is completely missing the mark by implying that Christians have to have definitive proof to feel confident about theism. The goal of validating Christianity is not to provide 100% proof that there is a God, yet the objective of believing in theism is to provide conclusive evidence that God exists, in conjunction with faith. Shani Itzkowitz wrote in a Baltimore Jewish Times periodical, “The consensus is that faith in God is a non-scientific matter which can only be spoken of in terms of a leap of faith,’ Rabbi [Yisroel Roll] said.” The study of epistemology shows that providing an unarguable scientific explanation to a question is a very challenging proposition. Justified true belief can be interpreted differently for different individuals.
Another aspect of the anti-kingship argument is that, in the case of the Bible, there should be no king because God had not planned for one. Overall, I feel that in this case, the anti-kingship argument is the best, because it is what follows God's word. God would have have provided for a king to have been named without having to had asked Him for a king. This is another good example of why we should follow God's Word, because if we follow His words,
‘The universe needs no explanation.’ Discuss. (10 marks) Christian philosopher St Thomas Aquinas would have disagreed with this statement as he was the one that put the cosmological argument forward which questions the universe and how it came into existence. Aquinas would have maintained his view as he believes that everything that is in motion has been caused by something else and he believes that this something else is God. He also claims that God is the first cause as he is the one that caused the universe to come into existence and continues to keep it in motion. He would continue to disagree with this statement because he claimed that because everything in the universe is contingent, it must mean that the universe as a whole must have a cause behind it.
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.