Ethical Dilemmas: The Great Philosopher Baruch Spinoza

The Divine Command Theory (DCT) explains which actions are moral based on whether or not God commands it. The theory is difficult to support due to its flaws, arbitration, and even due to the essence of God. While Divine Command Theorists may completely support this theory, I will argue why the theory is impractical and cannot dictate what is morally right or wrong. In understanding if this theory holds ground we must question what God commands. Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws.

This part of the argument I would agree with the most, as when you try to prove that something indescribable exists you will fail as it cannot be described and instead are required to have faith. Let me explain what I mean: The whole purpose of these arguments is to prove that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, and according to the Judeo-Christian belief this God is also indescribable. Something that cannot be described cannot be fully proven to exists; therefore, in order to believe that God exists it will take a ‘leap of faith.’ The greatest strength of this argument is also its greatest weakness, as this leap of faith cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove that God

They may surely love Christ, but in spite of their sincere love, Christological apologies of Mark Jones look to be certainly reasonable and irrefutable. I believe that one of the crucial points of Jones’ for Antinomian is that even Christ also depended on the Holy Spirit and needed assurance. The second Adam obviously showed how Christian should live and should be sanctified. Comprehension about this human nature of Christ may encourage a fallen believer to love and believe our Lord Christ because Christ also felt what we feel and struggled what we struggle, but finally He accomplished what we cannot do instead of

Moreover the Dualists could basically contend that we don't yet know enough about how the universe functions so as to comprehend this collaboration. Additionally, they might basically endeavor to express that this thinking substance is a reality and trust it through confidence. On the other hand, by then they are essentially trusting in religion as opposed to honing science. Just expressing that dualism is right in light of the fact that they trust it is, or the book of scriptures says we have souls, is a deadlock and can prompt no new data or

As stated, God has created all of nature and thus His truth should be able to be found through it. Because of this, Christians should also understand that knowledge gained from nature can be true even if it is not outlined in the Bible. As a sinful people discerning God’s truth from nature, it is necessary for there to be a lot of wisdom and self-reflection on the Christian’s part. In understanding psychology and theology, we as Christians must first understand intellectual humility. Entwistle said this about intellectual humility, “Humility as an intellectual virtue involves our recognition of our intellectual abilities and liabilities.

"(Lackey 493) From this statement one can suggest that Huckleberry's morals were spoken into fruition by God, thus why he claim it is wrong to loot and maltreat others, which is against the bible, yet with prejudice, based on his own feeling, he ultimately does not betray Jim. Although Huckleberry

He thought this because he believed it involved that the elect that salvation that the elect could get could also be gained by the non elect person as a result of their own effort to salvation. Which I believe from my religion to not be true. I believe that anyone has the open and free will to receive salvation it's not only given to a specific group of people. But Calvin did not believe this to be true he believed that the reprobate are the people that God intentionally chooses to neglect, I don't believe that God neglects anyone that does not neglect him. John Calvin believed firmly in election and predestination and he backed his beliefs with biblical statements.

Furthermore, if we will describe essence in to our own perspective it is the importance of a certain things but Kierkegaard pointed out that the essence of a person is having a good relationship or being devoted to his or to her Divine Being. The idea of the movement from essence to existence arises when he actually challenged the idea of Hegel. He actually disagree to thought of Hegel that individual can achieve persistence and completion through involving themselves in the public where this accentuates on being entangled of that a whole can be related to secular or faithful life, for he believed that “faith is purely inward and private affair, and that everybody stands alone before God”. This means that achieving, fulfilling and having a good relationship to our demigod is impossible to be in groups as this is an innermost and personal affair of each one of us to our Supreme One. Kierkegaard also insinuates that it is not achievable by an individual to apprehend and converse with another individual.

Thomas Paine is the author of “Common Sense” and “The Age of Reason.” Paine was a believer in one God, he hopes for happiness beyond this life, and he believes in equality among man. Paine also believes religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and to make fellow creatures happy. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man. Paine argues against “special revelation.” He did not believe that God revealed himself through supernatural means. Paine says that he did not see the angel himself, therefore he had a right to not to believe.

The mystery of which is so high that human mind cannot comprehend it, and must accept the truth of what Jesus has said while also rejecting the absurdities, which are “unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ.” For my own reasoning, I find his argument thorough, although at times I was disappointed by his reliance on logic to explain why Christ cannot be two-fold, such as his discussion in the latter section of Christ’s appearance after the resurrection. It seems that Calvin has a propensity to downplay the miraculous outside of his own understanding of grace, which can come across as merely existential, although I know in fact he does not mean it this way. His reliance on the Spirit and his belief that it is an insult to Holy Spirit to refuse to accept the work that She dos in communicating the body and blood to us, is important to my pneumatological understanding. I agree with Calvin that it is of primary importance what we know how the body of Christ has been given up for us and how we partake of him by

In which case, introducing God adds nothing. Lets say your motivation for obeying is not purely moral. E.g Punishment or reward from God. It simply becomes prudent to do it. It is either God adds nothing or he adds the wrong type of motivation.

He said that the reason he dose not believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason is because the argument that Aquinas made was a failure. Hume had a lot to say about the cosmological argument and he had some critiques about it as well. David Hume spoke his peace on the argument and he also had some critiques about it. He questioned how is it really possible to make guesses on how the world works and what is causing things to happen. He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument.

Christianity is more believable because we have the resources to deal with the theoretical problem, not just talk about it (Nash, 1992). We do not sit back and watch the evil world spin around us, we attempt to save this world through telling them about Jesus. Materialism does not offer such a solution. While they do understand there is a problem of evil in this world, they do not have a solution because, more often, they do not see it because it is not material and right in front of them. To me, having a real solution(Jesus, the Bible, faith) to a real problem(evil), makes the Christian worldview the most believable, most applicable, and better way to live than

58). Aurelius used this in order to show how we can make our own decisions. In this case, he talks about how neither God nor our spirit will overpower any decision that we make because no one can force us to do something but ourselves. Although we have the power to have free will, we also have to see the effects and consequences that our actions cause. For example, the author uses, “Everything derives from it-that universal mind-either as effect or consequence.” (Pg.