The speaker is saying that we can never understand life itself. I think that the first stanza talks about life in general and maybe religion. ‘And when we try to eavesdrop on the great Presences it is rarely… even a phrase entirely,’ the speaker mentions great Presences which suggests that in life there is something or someone of higher power. However, we only ‘eavesdrop’ on this topic and if we look at the big picture, it doesn’t make sense hence it is not ‘even a phrase entirely’. Also, when we eavesdrop on something, we don’t hear the whole conversation sometimes and when we retell what we hear, and as it gets passed from person to person, the story becomes different.
In todays modern day, it is very unlikely for a child to choose to be religious. This maybe because that being religious is seen as being ‘uncool’ in todays world, so a child would not want to risk being bullied and follow what his friends do. Lastly, advances in science have caused a lot of people to doubt religious organisations. For a very long time now, Scientists have been trying to find out how the universe was really created. So with the Big Bang Theory being as popular as it is, also providing a more theoretical explanation to how the universe was created compared to what religion provides, people are choosing not to believe in religious organisations.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
Religion at one time was very touchy subject in many cultures around the globe, as the world progressed more people became open to religion. Theses effects have lead to a society overflowing with religious moderates. Religious moderates are people who aren't fundamentalists and don't interpret their religious scripture in a literal context. They have tolerance for other religions and beliefs and believe that no faith should be forced upon you. Sam Harris discusses religious moderates and their dogmatic views in his article “The First Ten Pages.” Harris argues that they are the “instability” in our society because moderates believe in something without having factual evidence to prove it.
Modern Christians believe that this one god handmade all of the earth and the people in it. Gnostics, however, believe that there are two different Gods. Some Gnostics say that there is a Creator God of the Old Testament who is mean and hateful and full of wrath, and then they say there is the New Testament God who is kind and forgiving (28). Orthodox Christians will argue that there is only one God who brings both joy and pain, but those who believe in the gnostic gospels wonder why such a nice god would create such a terrible world for all humans to live in. To them, if there is a good side to the world and a bad side to the world, then there must be two gods to keep track of it all.
Although the parents of the poor Kara Neumann believed in a religion in which did not believe in hospitals or any healing other than through faith, I still believe that a child’s health is more important than religion. There was even a quote stating, “Jesus never send anyone to a doctor or a hospital…” reading this quote actually kind of hurts me. People who think that Jesus could have or still does tell people to do things I personally believe they are very closed minded. Many people like that believe that their religion is true and all others are fake, but who are they to tell other people that they are wrong in what they believe. Believing that Jesus could “talk” to someone and tell them to go to the hospital is ridiculous because he is unable to actually contact
Most Christians do not follow teachings of Jesus about non violence because they have good reasons. Turn the cheek has made Christians to act cowardly and support injustice. It is said not to refuse evil, but this makes Christians to be disobedient.Going the second mile, is a cliché that makes Christians to join the oppressors. Jesus described this issue as masochistic, impractical and suicidal. In Jesus teachings, he never told Christians to do all those negative actions however, it is said to be a misunderstanding.
The FBI and The Bureau of Tobacco and Fire Arms failed to recognize the nature of millenarian beliefs because David Koresh viewed his delusions as reality of life. I think that the government didn’t think the beliefs are real because the beliefs were bizarre. Also, another reason the government didn’t take the Davidians serious because they were in cult. The ATF contributed that this event was a lot of troubles that caused a lot of people to die for a good purpose. Likewise in the First Amendment people want the government to take religious beliefs very serious in order to not cause another epidemic from happening
No red-blooded theist would accept the wimpy moral intuition underlying the Reckless-objection, and would give God's creation of free persons in both versions as a counterexample. The objection also faces an ad hominem type rebuttal in that no existent person, except for a few gripers, are apt to make it; for if God hadn't elected to roll the dice, they wouldn't even exist, and supposedly, they are glad that they do. Although both versions make the same lack of knowledge excuse available to God, they differ significantly in their epistemological and metaphysical underpinnings, and thus require separate consideration. The outcome of our discussion will be that both versions face formidable objections: the first version, because of its denial of I, renders it anomalous how God is able to create any free persons; and the second version waters down God's omniscience in an unacceptably anthropomorphic
This is probably why Christopher thinks the way he does because you can not really see god, and probably doesn’t see the logic in religion either. It’s ones faith that drives someone to believe in him, while Christopher would not be able to have faith and believe because there would be no solid evidence that God exists and he mostly only believes in what he sees, something that is concrete. To Christopher God might be just another fairytale. “People believe in God because the world is very complicated and they think it is very unlikely that anything as complicated as a flying squirrel or the human eye or a brain could happen by chance. But they should think logically and if they thought logically they would see that they can only ask this question because it had already happened and they exist.