(Darwall 's Philosophical Ethics p. 44). 3) God is superior to us, therefore we should follow God 's command. The problem with this answer is the same as that in the previous question, namely that the fact that we should follow the commands of our superiors appears to be a norm that exists outside of God 's command. (Darwall 's Philosophical Ethics p. 45). All these answers can be taken to have the genralized form “God is/has X, therefore we should follow his command”, where X is a particular quality, however, all these answers also lead to the conclusion that “We should follow the command of anything that is/has X”, which implies a norm that exists independent of God
Their hope and confidence in the only true God and Jesus Christ has resulted in a number of Calvinists beaten by rods, captured in bonds and tortured. Their beliefs cause them to endure ‘the greatest indignity’ and lacerated by slanders. Calvin insinuates that the priesthood manipulates others to ply ‘their enmity’ against Calvin. The true religion which is outlined in scripture is ignorantly ignored by the priesthood and by others. The priesthood doesn’t explore men’s beliefs in Christ and God and are not concerned on the matter, provided that the man submits to the judgement of the church in a concept the clergy profess as implicit faith.
He explains that change can seem overwhelming and even threatening at times, which is why he wants Christians to have deep roots and dive in deeper into the grace of the gospel. Piper’s thesis is to show that the bloodlines of race do not matter when compared to the deep bloodline of Christ (227). He points out a pivotal problem that humans are alienated from God, and in doing so, are alienated from each other (227). A key way of looking at this is remembering that when people fail to love God, they fail to love others which causes disharmony, pride, and
In general, we don’t know for sure that something as God or any higher power of such has ever lived or existed, but it gives people hope and therefore religious knowledge systems still incorporate and effectively uses suspension of disbelief. Willing suspension of disbelief is still used in religion since this is the only way that mankind believes in something and does not lose hope or faith. The idea of suspension of disbelief is that you don’t use any kind of rationalization to explain the impossible, so what if you could explain religious belief with logic? Can you rationalize faith, although by definition it is not rational? According to John Cottingham, who is an English philosopher, argues there is absolutely nothing to rationalize since religion is “all about one's feeling of absolute dependence and commitment” ("Religious Faith [...]”).
Christians ought to avoid escaping reality. Unlike Buddhism, Hinduism, and other worldviews, Christianity is not a religion of isolation but one in which the eternal Logos engages humans becoming one of us (John 1:1,14). We should do no less. Christians ought not to isolate from the world but neither accommodate evil.
He particularly suffers when he an ought-in the normal order of things-to have share in this good and does not have it. Thus in a Christian view, the reality of suffering is explained through evil, which always, in some way refer to good. Suffering is the process of undergoing a painful experience and also we can say that it is the result of evil. The problem of evil and suffering always creates objections for God’s goodness and His omnipotence. Yet, from Christian point of view, these questions lead man to see suffering in a positive way rather than negative.
Fear & Trembling – Essay Topic 1 Kierkegaard (Silentio) heavily emphasized the individuality of truth and its inherent subjectivity in the perception of the person who seeks to explore it. He believed that faith above all else is a personal endeavor and a unique struggle and consequently faith at its core is incompatible with religion. Furthermore, he firmly denies the idea, that one can attain faith through performance of religious duties and receiving faith as a reward. Consequently, this uniqueness of faith results in its incommunicability, He illustrates this point through by distinguishing between communication of knowledge and communication of capability. Knowledge’s capacity to be relatively easily interpreted through language provides
While both Luther and Erasmus are seeking to expose the necessity of reform in religious intuitions, both have their own distinct methods of doing so. In fact they are quite opposite to one another in their methods. Luther’s tactics of focusing on improving the faith on conscience of everyday Christians is more direct approach that directly defies the church. Erasmus’ tactic of buttering up his worries with the church in a comedic story makes for a much more subtle move that keeps the church from attacking him outright and slowly plants the idea of church reform in his audience’s minds. Luther focuses on a direct approach to reforming Christianity.
As opposed to the Grandmothers constant change of morals to favor certain situations, the Misfit has morals that are set in stone and adhere to his past, present and future. As the two characters converse, religion sparks an interest in the Misfit because it is something he is interested in understanding but knowing it must not be true. He believes that he must see it with his own eyes to prove the existence. His concept of reality also relates himself to Jesus, so much so as to believe he is a realistic representation of Him. He goes on to tell that the only difference is between the crimes committed and the proof held against him.
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
You are confusing the definitions of apologists and scholars. The apologists only goal is to defend his opinion. Not to pass on knowledge that I believe is an evangelist 's job. No, you are confusing a term with its application; a Christian apologist is first and foremost an evangelist. Your analogy is also slightly off track.