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.
James speaks against these in his teaching. He exhorts them to remain true to the teachings and practices of the faith. James’ teachings are often compared to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, which would be logical due to him being brought up in the same environment as Jesus. The book of James is a protest against hypocrisy. Some have criticized James in that they thought he was teaching that salvation was by works alone, but in reality he is complementing Paul’s teaching of salvation by faith.
We will take a specific and focused look on his understanding of Revelation as Doctrine and skim over some of the strengths of the other models. One can see that the evangelical view is broader than what Dulles presents and understands it to be and it actually incorporates some of the very strengths of the other views. When Dulles presents revelation as doctrine, it is clear that it is not his own view, but his interpretation and understanding of the conservative evangelical view. The Revelation as Doctrine model is associated with names such as B.B. Warfield, Gordon Clark, J.I.
Religious language discusses religious and spiritual concepts. It is cognitive and conveys knowledge of what is really there. Religious language offers a correspondence theory of truth if it is thought of as being able to point to the reality that it is trying to convey. It is the language of worship – it is performative and prescriptive. 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.
This may also be a problem for Christian thinkers as, if the conscience is not the voice of God it gives moral authority to something outside of God. The existence of a conscience outside of God also strongly contradicts God’s omnipotence, although a Christian thinker may argue against this criticism with the idea that God’s omnipotence may have created a moral guide within ourselves which is no longer ‘God’s voice’ but leads us into making moral decisions. An argument may also be had about the existence of a ‘conscience’, however for the purpose of this essay, the conscience exists as a moral guide. Several philosophers have discussed conscience at great length, including; Newman, Butler and Aquinas. These men all have very different views about the origin of the conscience, however they also have some prominent similarities, for example Newman’s illative sense and Aquinas’ ideas on Synderesis, Conscientia and Phronesis.
There are many reasons for why Christians believe in God. Firstly, some Christians believe that the Bible itself is from God, from himself and it is the revealed word of God. Christians believe that what is in the Bible must be true as it is there in the first place. Some, Christians are literalists who take what is in the Bible word for word, however, some are liberalists and understand what is in the Bible as a metaphor, however, still proves that God exists. Additionally, some Christians believe in the ontological argument by St Anselm, which suggests that God cannot not exist and so that it is logical to believe.
In spite of this and many other obvious flaws in the belief system of Biblical Fundamentalism it continues to appeal, and in fact hold sway with a significant minority of Christians. It has done so to varying degrees since translation from the Latin and education of the masses has allowed common access to The Word. Why? The great conundrum of academia is that it requires a thoughtful, and to some extent logical approach be applied to all areas of consideration. Without these fundamental precepts as a basis for discussion would be nature of fundamentalist Christianity does not in effect have to concern itself with scholarly concepts such as authenticity, consistency validity or accuracy.
3. Biblical criticism must be considered and can provide valuable insights concerning the Bible's historical context and the meaning of the text itself. However, it cannot be an exclusive guide since many of its insights rely upon educated speculation. One must struggle with scripture, sifting its eternal truths from their time-bound expressions, and understanding these truths through faith and with the heart. 4.
Man was created with moral and spiritual capacities, among other things, from God so that we may understand our identity as His creation. “Theists believe that the purpose of mankind is to know God” (Weider & Gutierrez, 2011, p. 60). The Bible, according to Christians, is just one tool through which God speaks to man. In John 17:3 and Leviticus 19:37 we see just a few examples of God’s purpose for mankind. God also has standards for man regarding morality and/or ethics.
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.