In his argument, Balmer fails to respond to Matthew 5:31 where Jesus forbids divorce except in cases of abuse. Instead, he focuses on the fact that Christians now “accept” divorce. Does studying divorce rates among Christians truly refute the Biblical position on divorce? If it did, it would mean if a Christian lied or stole, the Bible would support lying and stealing. People cannot evaluate the character of Jesus by a person who claims to follow Jesus as many Christians fall susceptible to sin and deviate from the Bible.
“‘One nation under God’ is indisputably a statement of religious belief. By including it, the government is unconstitutionally using patriotism as a secular cover for advertising that particular belief” (Sherman). When people politely refuse to utter these words, they are often persecuted and considered as citizens lacking in nationalism. They are simply refusing to take part in the recitation of a false statement. The United States is categorized as a secular, free country, and should live up to the expectations that accompany such title.
Although many, including myself, criticize contemporary Christian music as not being truly about the glorification of God, the genre’s main focus is to change how everyone views God and Christianity as a whole. Although, some people like me believe that this shouldn’t be changed due to the possibility of God no longer being the center of the message, the main focus of the genre is to attract Christians and Atheists alike through their music, in the same way that secular Rock sought the attention of all
While virtue ethics has a very similar approach to Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics focuses on more on one’s feelings instead of motives. While one may enjoy the cause he is fighting for, the torture would be for personal gain. From a Christian-principle based perspective, God can use anything, including torture, for His glory and to bring honor to His name, but torture in of itself does not reflect the image of Christ. As believers in Christ, Christians are called to show the love of Jesus to everyone around them, and torturing other people does not reflect that affection. Although the Bible does not speak specifically on the issue of torture, followers of Jesus are called to love one another.
Therefore people will have a different view of what teachings conflicts with the Bible. The last argument that made me not want to vote to convict John Scopes is the argument he made that religion has caused people to have different opinions. But some things should be between an individual , his maker or his God. Darrow says that the constitutional convention should leave the questions of religion between man and what he worships. Questions of religion shouldn’t be brought into the classrooms of
Such thinking appeals to our rationality and can be found in every major world religion most typically summarized in ‘The Golden Rule’ – treat other people as you want to be treated. Since the golden rule does not actually specify what we should do, this vagueness of the golden rule points to the reciprocity of considering people. For example, it would also not make sense for me to criticize someone else for, say, breaking the speed limit if I then went and broke it myself, for Kant, it is a sure sign of its subjectivism, it does not indicate the essence or the content of morality, therefore its inadequacy as a foundation of moral philosophy. In this thesis, I will explicate CI2 expresses Kant’s genuinely universal moral system requires that I do not break speed limit, not because of the psychological concerning or consequences, but I treat others as humanity or ends, not merely means. (See my further discussion in
Another problem with a gay married couple holding a position in the SDA church is the very fact that by being married they are not trying to fix there sin. If they are not trying to fix the problem, what are they doing and do they really have a relationship with God? The bible says in James 4:17 “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t, it is sin for them.” So by being a gay, married, and SDA than it’s a sin for them because they know
In discussions of whether there are double standards in religion when it comes to race, a controversial issue is whether white people use it as a tool to discriminate. While some argue that the Christian World in united between races, others contend that there is a racial divide within the Christian community. Of course, this is not a black and white issue. Both statements are generalizations of a large community of people. It’s impossible to say whether it is one way or the other, however, Baldwin does make an excellent point in saying that, “People, I felt, ought to love The Lord because they loved Him, and not because they were afraid of going to Hell.” (The Fire Next Time pg.
Williams was actually kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for these beliefs. Roger believed in what he called “Soul Liberty” which meant that liberty of conscience was necessary because no one could know for certain which form of religion was the true one God intended. Williams believed that everyone had the right to worship God how they saw fit. Also, he believed that no matter what religion you affiliated with; Quaker, Jew, Catholic, or some other religion, you had the right to think that way, whether he agreed or disagreed with it. Although, for example, he did not like the Puritan ways or beliefs he would tolerate the people who did.
(Tolsma 5)” The three groups consists of those who oppose for Religious beliefs, then there are Self-interest Maximizers and Political Libertarians. The religious opposers claim that vaccinations are against their religions, but the political libertarians believe it goes against their constitutional right to be told what to put in
However, the Church of Latter-day Saints viewed things differently. They believed that the law was unconstitutionally prohibiting its members from following their right to freely practice their religion, ergo they decidedly ignored the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. After a while, whilst efforts were being made at the same time to indict the church’s heads for bigamy, the First Presidency came to an agreement to create a test case to be brought to the united States Supreme Court in order to determine how constitutional the anti-bigamy law was. Reynolds was approached to be this test defendant and provide the attorney with numerous witnesses that could confirm his act of bigamy. The case was, in a brief summary, a decision as to whether or not polygamy could be allowed or dismissed if one was filling their “religious duty.” The ruling was that religious beliefs are not supposed to be governed, as the government reaches actions, not opinions.