In chapter seven of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins discusses morality is not, in fact, rooted in religion, rather a part of a “changing moral Zeitgeist,” as the chapter title suggests. Throughout the chapter, Dawkins provides evidence from the New and Old Testaments to show the immorality of religion and how it is impossible that morals were a result of religion. Though constructive, Dawkins’ arguments fall weak to some extent. Firstly, he fails to define morality clearly, as it can be subjective. In addition, he narrows the scope of the argument by constructing a diatribe exclusively regarding Abrahamic religions mainly Judaism and Christianity.
Here is where the Igbo and Christian religions differ. The Ibo believed in multiple of gods, whereas the Christians focus on one. They also disagree on the feelings towards their creator. Later into their conversation Mr. Brown says to Akunna, “You are afraid of Chukwu. In my religion Chukwu is a loving father and need not be feared by those who do his will” (Achebe 110).
Firstly Christian worldview and western worldview see traditional healers and traditional healing method as unscientific methods of healing and methods that God does not approve. Giving reference from the bible in (John 14:6) the bible state “I am the way, the Truth and the life, no one can come to the father except through me. Reasoning from the above reference I will say that for people in the Christian worldview to communicate and seek help in ancient Israel followers of God dealt directly with God not through traditional healers who are in contact with the ancestors therefore it is also noted in the New Testament that the power of God exceed all other supernatural powers in addition this proves that this world view condemn African traditional healers in South Africa. Secondly in terms of health Christian firstly consult with pastors or God as their savior and turn to consult western doctors as they believe that scientific medicines are the only source of healing. In addition in this view it is evident that it does not support nor cater for traditional healers and traditional healing methods to be integrated in the Western methods of healing or to be recognised as major role player in the society.
The immediate reaction is yes, God only commands us to accomplish virtuous acts. His commandments include to love thy neighbor, God prohibits stealing and murder, all of the commandments are good. I can conclude that God would never command us to murder or commit adultery because that is not just. However, this is exactly where Euthyphro’s dilemma comes to terms. Saying God would not command something because it is not good is claiming that God is not the one dictating what is right, instead, the act is dictating what God orders.
Any term or jargon that would cast a negative light onto God must not be used. Negative language about God results in idolatry and a minimizing of God and His attributes. Along with the positive insights of Pantheism, there are also some negative criticisms that one must consider. First the Pantheists believe that man does not truly exist as a separate being from God. The Pantheists believe that God exists but man does not truly exist.
Introduction It would be incomplete to evaluate Christian doctrine without examining sin. Modern philosophy rebuts the actuality of sin, but such a denial is living in falsehood. It is difficult to challenge or controvert the complete denial of sin. Nonetheless, the Bible declares the existence of sin, and human nature naturally displays it. Evidently, sin is a fact; it is not a myth nor a figment of our imagination.
3-4 then remind them of the form of the preacher and his preaching, which bears the same character as the message itself ‘weakness.’ In this ‘weakness’ the power of God is at work, now expressed in terms of the Spirit. A final purpose clause in v. 5 gives the reason for all this, that their faith might be of God and in God alone and not in human wisdom. Paul shows that his preaching among the Corinthians has been done, not with the eloquent wisdom of Greek and Roman orators or philosophers but with the inspiration of God’s Spirit. He did not come among them as one of the contemporary Sophists or as someone wise in the ways of the world. Paul’s messages were the gospel about Christ and his crucified (1:23a).
Darwin was known for trying his best to present his scientific ideas in a way that it did not offend any believer or even in some perspectives were compatible with God. But his theory has been manipulated by both supporters and opposes of his work. Many people from a religious perspective believe that Darwin's theory undermines the fundamental beliefs that they hold, almost as an attack to their values (Dennett, 1995). Darwin's theory is that humans have evolved over time from other organisms, this is almost a slap-in-the-face for one of Christianity's core beliefs. Which is that God made us in His image when He made Adam and Eve; this means that above any other creature on the planet humanity has a special relationship with God.
However, Biblical character Peter clearly states in 2 Peter 1:20 to “ know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.” By the same token, if one still chooses to interpret these religious statements, why must they do so in such an immoral manner? Why must Christianity be the antagonist behind domestic conflict if an individual uses it content to falsely support wicked acts, such as slavery? American history tells its audience that Christian interpretation affected the perspective in which Americans saw social and political principles even though the gospels of Christianity have yet to deviate thus far. One can see large scale ideas such as Manifest Destiny exist in history where Americans claimed it was both inevitable and their god given right to expand westward despite the Bible ever truthfully saying so. Manifest Destiny was an unethical principle created to wrongly accumulate land following the Mexican-American War.