John 1:1 States that “[I]n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This statement is one of a few that Trinitarians believe to prove their belief in the idea of the Trinity. The Trinity is a belief that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one being. The dogmatic “doctrine” of the trinity is not taught in the bible, there are only a few passages that were wrongly interpreted that these claims are based from. The bible itself disproves the theory that the three entities, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings, operating together to bring the will of God to the world.
Isaiah 53 When studying the bible, you can find that there is not place in all the Old Testament is it so plainly and fully prophesied. That Christ would have to suffer, and then to enter into his glory, as in this chapter. But to this day few discern, or will acknowledge, that Divine power which goes with the word. The authentic and most important report of salvation for sinners, through the Son of God, is disregarded. The low condition he submitted to, and his appearance in the world, were not agreeable to the ideas the Jews had formed of the Messiah.
But what exactly does it mean to have a religious belief? In my own definition, it means to have a strong belief in a higher power that controls human destiny and is directly linked to faith. The higher power in Christianity, for example, is portrayed as a God, who is mentioned in the Bible. The members of this religious knowledge system have never actually seen God, their knowledge and beliefs are singularly based on what is written in the Bible. Although there is no visual proof of a supernatural power such as God, believers are motivated by universal beliefs in things we cannot see.
He is also, unsurprisingly stunned by the inconsistent description of the “All loving, yet rage-filled God”. “How can the All-loving, and caring God mandate one of his followers to kill his only son?” Dawkins desires the reader to understand that the Bible is just “a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed, historically inaccurate documents”. He claims that believers use a two-edged sword when only taking certain sections of the Bible literally. “It is as much a pick-and-mix philosophy”. According to his text, God is simply an illusion that does not exist.
They sound so phony when they talk,” (Salinger 100). This shows how Holden is associating religion with phoniness. He doesn’t think that religion can be authentic, just related to faith. Holden wants that faith and connection, which he demonstrates by saying that he wants to pray, just a page before. However, the idea of an organized religion seems fake to Holden.
In his criticism of Anselm’s argument, Aquinas disagrees with the use of the word “God” and argues only some who hear the word “God” understands what it means (Himma, 4). For example, there are religions which view God as a physical object or as one that has a body. Therefore, Aquinas observes that Anselm’s definition can only work with those who define God in one way. Secondly, he observes that even if all people were to understand the meaning of the word “God”, it would then only subsist in people’s imagination and not physically. However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God.
"2 They disagreed on the idea of Christ's presence during the Lord's Supper. Luther believed in Christ's literal presence at the Lord's Supper, and Zwingli thought otherwise. Because of this disunity, "Luther said Zwingli was of the devil and that he was nothing but a wormy nut. "3 This disagreement prohibited the uniting of Zwingli and Luther, and therefore the German and Swiss reform movements. Luther also overshadowed Zwingli with his ninety-five theses.
He makes a mention about how the Romanists are the sole interpreters of the bible. He strongly disagrees with this saying that “it is a wicked base invention, for which they cannot adduce title of evidence in support”. This clearly shows Luther’s view on this. He believes that interpreting the bible should be for everyone rather than for a select few who could be infected with the devil. It also gives the impression that the clergy are interpreting the bible in a way that benefits themselves and the church rather than focusing on the spiritual needs of the greater
Being unable to access both of their articles individually, one could look at Surratt’s brief view into Rosenthal’s critique of the novel and support it. After all, it is Elder and Theodore Wieland’s isolation in their beliefs that results in their respective downfalls. Watts’ analysis of Brown critiquing Elder Wieland’s sectarianism is also valid, as it is his conviction to a peculiar sect of Christianity that leads him to his doom, but the novel does not support a critique of orthodox Christianity, so I can’t say I’d agree with his article in its
It isn’t enough to pray to the Dark Lord for something...you must also put forth some effort on your end; It is a popular belief that Satanists do not believe in the Christian God. Atheistic Satanists (LaVeyan Satanists) do not believe in God, they do not even believe in Satan as a real entity. To believe in Satan, you must believe in God, and visa versa. As much as the Dark Lord despises the Christian God, Jehovah, he will tell you that he is the true Creator. Satan cannot produce life.
He particularly uses the fictional religion of Bokononism and again the quote “Call me Jonah….They called me John” to highlight the fallacy in the belief, following and creation of religion as well as the saving grace which religion possesses. The name of John may be intended to echo that of two Biblical prophets, John the Baptist and John of Patmos. The former foretold the coming of Christ and ended up dead for his troubles. The latter saw elaborate visions of the end of the world but did not truly understand them. The John of Cat’s Cradle is also a prophet of the latter type as he does not truly understand the end of the world.