“First, the Holy Spirit is not a “force” or energy or an “it,” but He’s a person.” “He’s intelligent and has an intellect, He has feelings, and He has a will” (Living, 2012). One source stated that “many Christians have found this celluloid deity unnerving. The Force is too eastern, they complain, and cannot therefore teach Christians anything theologically. Some even believe it to be a ‘mythology … perfectly adapted to the spiritual confusion of post-modern America’ that constitutes an advert for post Christian neo-paganism” (McDowell, 2007). Although the Force can have some characteristics in common with the Holy Spirit, nothing and no one can ever compare to Him.
As a result, Lucretius’ writings were likely not well received by the audience. Prior to Lucretius, it was generally accepted that the Gods created everything. To suggest that divinity played no role in the formation of matter may have been considered offensive to many readers at the time, regardless of intellectual
He strongly believes that “the scientific method is our only source of knowledge” (58). I disagree with his belief because people also possess their own sense of knowledge. They gain this knowledge through the different obstacles they come across in their lives, which indicates that not all knowledge comes from scientific method. Freud describes “the teachings of Jesus as “psychologically impossible and useless for our lives” (38). I cannot agree with his statement because there are people who study and believe in Jesus because Jesus gives them an optimistic view to life.
This occurrence is what keeps us from having the same dull emotions at the characters in this book. Modern day society does not have the same rules and regulations as Lowry describes. In a dystopian community, the citizens are lied to and know nothing, so they have no idea of their full potential. Although, present day society is not perfect, we are not blind to the reality of how the world operates unlike the people in The Giver. If modern society were to try to function as a Utopia, the result is clear that it could not be
This is because none of those who subscribe to extremist and violent views on religion have ever gone through the necessary mental and spiritual labour to appreciate what faith truly means — that much is self-evident. If their reasons are not outright material or political, they are fallacious and twisted, and based on either complete ignorance or little knowledge, which is equally dangerous if not more. People were surprised when one of the individuals behind the Safoora massacre was seen to have had such a ‘normal’ upbringing and education from all the ‘good’ schools and colleges but an education in business is merely vocational training. It does not teach you how to grapple with the complexity of the religious experience, which is a very human thing and thus requires some philosophical introspection and
I am by no means a religious person, the religious context was also underplayed for lack of a better term. There was no great light, there was nothing that could cause a 180-degree turn from a life of sin to a life of faith and righteousness. There was simply a man who had experienced tragedies distantly and had to return to his normal life as if all of that never happened. Taking the changes in ones mind and deep down into the very fiber of ones being, and not being able to make sense of things is something that most if not everyone should have experienced. Even if it is not as dramatically occurred to us all, there are still many tribulations that we all must navigate our way through.
By comparing himself to them he says that he does not have any interest in corrupting youth, because money are meaningless. Furthermore, Socrates asked audience to prove his corruption, but there was no one who could gave any examples (33d-34b). Socrates was a victim of society, who did not understand the idea of education by questioning. To conclude with, Socrates was not liked among citizens, because he used his knowledge to show the weaknesses and simplicity of peoples thinking and their vanity of life. His all accusations were related to the issues of morality which never was defined by one explanation.
Modern scholarship and the scholarship of the high Renaissance are vastly different, though both western in thought. Regardless, this argument of realism versus idealism does not take into account any sort of multi-culturalism. An idealist organization may lend a hand and call for donations to a nation in need, thinking they are doing good but ultimately do next to nothing when they barely have money left over after paying taxes and fees and paying off any terrorist organizations that may stand in the way of their charity. A realist may shrug their shoulders and refuse to even humor the idea of helping a nation in need because they deem it not worth their time due to the likely consequences. Machiavelli also emphasized the glorious but violent means of achieving his ideal republic while “tearing away the Stoical and humanitarian masks hiding the power politics of Rome” (201).
Specifically, he says that “unless the state takes some new measures for the publick defence, the natural habits of the people render them altogether incapable of defending themselves (698).” Yet, Smith does not define what “natural habits” are, or where they stem from. He does not explain if these habits are inherit in every man, or just those from a particular society or nation, and he does not explain what these habits are to begin with. He does say previously that citizens of wealthy, mercantile nations are “unwarlike,” this being the case, these aforementioned habits may be the organic, nonviolent absence of action he seem to think are inherit in these people. But, people as a whole do not fit easily into this box Smith has constructed. Because a nation is wealthy, the wealthy can participate in expensive and time consuming leisure activities, such as shooting and hunting.
HAVE YOU EVER FELT LIKE A FOOL BEFORE? Sounds strange, isn 't it? To ask if you 've ever felt like a fool before. Have you ever felt so disheartening with your heart splitting into pieces or shred into fragments over a situation you can 't explain how it came about? You see others do all the wrong things but have amazing results to show for it yet with all your goodness and apparels of integrity, there is no evidence to show you have the backing of providence.
Boswell in this controversial article argues that homosexuality is not a term that is regularly used in scripture, and the use of scripture cannot be used to assert that homosexuality is morally wrong. Paul three different times in his writings condemns what most contemporary scholars see as homosexuality, but Boswell points out that the term “homosexuality” was never a term “before the late nineteenth century” (Boswell 262). This would assert that Paul never directly condemns the act of homosexuality, and that anyone who interprets Paul as saying these things is not correctly reading scripture. I do not agree with this exegesis, and while I can see that this man is very well read and well learned in the Bible, he seems to have already answered
The motivations of the crusaders whose names have been largely forgotten is much more uncertain. As mentioned in an earlier paragraph Urban made appeals that listed both secular and religious reasons to join. Some have argued that since most of the crusaders made no money from the crusade that they were not motivated by a desire for material goods when they joined. This argument is supported by the fact that most of the crusader army returned to Europe rather than staying in the new crusader states which indicates that they didn 't join in order to gain land. However just because the crusaders made no money doesn 't prove that greed didn 't inspire people to join.
However it was inconceivable that God had sent Tribulation, because he was unsatisfied by The Old People ways. God accepts our ways no matter what he would not discriminate how we look there was no “God image” in the bible. In addition, I wasn 't convinced that people
Did the Holocaust really happen? How are the Nazi’s let alone anyone else capable of this amount of this amount of trouble? A lot of people don 't think that the holocaust even really happened, personally I believe that it did. There are many different reasons on why the holocaust supposedly never happened but the most consistent, well believed one is that no human being is capable of causing this much torture and pain onto another person. You have probably learnt about The Holocaust from either books or in your history classes in school, but what they probably didn 't tell you that some people believe that The Holocaust never even happen.