This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger. The Problem of Evil The problem of evil takes into account three defining features of God: all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful and questions whether such a God would permit evil and not interfere. Sinnott-Armstrong discusses his stance by countering responses he coins as the Glorious Response, the Modest Response, and the Overriding Response.
Some if not all people wonder where the Holy Spirit came from. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all one God, but they are not all the same. They all have an individual personal property and relationship to each other. The Bible does not say that the Holy Spirit was begotten by the Father and not that He was begotten by Christ. If begotten were to be used, it would have meant that the Spirit would have been a brother of Christ or the grandson of the Father (Palmer; pg.
The bible can be interpreted differently with eisegetical and exegetical approaches. The concept of pluralism for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because in christianity there cannot be more than one reality true or valid at the same time. The concept of relativism for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because there is a defined moral law based on God. The concept of exclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, supported because if you don 't believe than you wont get the benefits of believing. The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven.
Meditation 5 is on the essence of material things and the existence of God once more. In which Descartes finally sums up his thought of God’s presence. He then is able to explain his audience the importance of God in his philosophical theory. Descartes consider how truth can be found by analyzing example of things, not paying much attention of if those examples exist. Descartes’s way of warning his audience about his proof of God’s existence is that just because we imagine God that does not mean God’s presence relies upon our thinking about this.
Introduction The encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3) offered divergent biblical interpretations with regards to the development of Christian baptism. There have been dissimilar interpretations for and against a reference to Christian baptism in John 3. Basically, the paper seeks to explore the encounter in John 3 and its importance for the understanding of Christian baptism. Though the paper affirms references and exact meaning to Christian baptism as presented in John 3, there will also be a presentation of arguments against such assertions. These arguments which are contrary to references of Christian baptism in John 3 are presented to help outline their flaws and misconceptions.
In other words, the Law was given “in order that sin might be recognized as sin” (Romans 7:13, NIV, cf. Romans 3:20). Second, the Law was given to point people to Jesus Christ: “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24, NIV). Clowney (2013) clarifies that the Law “shows what God’s righteousness requires, and therefore show us that we cannot satisfy God’s just demands. We need Christ to save us from the curse of the law by bearing its penalty for us (Gal.
This paper will be an analysis of David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and will provide the readers with an interpretation of various arguments made against Philo’s initial argument that was made to show that it is not reasonable to believe in the existence of God. Philo initially suggests that God is just a being that has been regarded in the Christian religion. Provided will be a more in depth analysis of this argument. Then, there will be an interpretation of Demea’s response to this argument, and Cleanthes’ criticism of this response. After the aforementioned argument and criticism, Cleanthes’ response to Philo’s initial argument will be provided, as well as Philo’s criticism of said response.
First, faith is placing existence before essence. If we are to live into our beliefs about God, we must seek to encounter Him on a more than intellectual level. A Christian who merely gives intellectual assent to certain doctrines about Christ has not yet attained to faith. Sartre says that existence precedes essence; regarding faith, real encounter precedes theological apprehension. Faith is believing for that encounter, and living in such a way as to expect it.
This then, is the point of the gospels that Wright is trying to get at: Jesus came to reestablish his kingdom. Wright begins by clearly stating the problem that he has with certain interpretations or ways of observing the gospels. His problem is that the Christian creeds do not seem to do a decent job of integrating both the ends and the
But man shrewdly and knavishly invented a new kind of Christianity [...] what Christianity wants is the following of Christ. What man does not want is suffering […] so he dispenses with "following," and consequently with suffering' -, as well as on the level of attacking a false understanding of which shape the ideal informing and inspiring such social practices should take - 'when what has to be attained by preaching and teaching Christianity is an agreeable, a pleasurable life in a position of prestige, then the picture of Christ must be altered considerably [...] the severity which is inseparable from the seriousness of eternity, that must go. Christ thus becomes a languishing figure, the impersonation of insipid human kindliness’ – this, discloses a depth of irony's action which Lear does not explictly acknowledge. In this sense, Kierkegaard's attack upon Christendom is an attempt at direct communication in that it is directly communicating the information that those who are born within Christendom are not to be automatically considered as Christian because of this. Notwithstanding its directness, such communicative effort is no less ironically charged than any of Kierkegaard's indirect efforts.
Henry F. Lazenby’s, “The Mythical Use of the Bible by Evangelicals,” examines both mythology and de-mythology as used by evangelicals and nonevangelicals in their interpretation of the bible. He discusses how the use of myth provides empirical and non-empirical validity of the Bible. Significant is how God’s actions in the empirical are juxtaposed against man’s non-empirical reality. He reflects on the differing perceptions and points of view with regards to the human reality in the physical world and the elements in God’s sacred world. He suggests these differences call for a demythologizing within some stories found in the Bible.
I would personally not say that if something exists that it is changed as to how it was before, whereas a trait such as colour changes the objects form. Referring back to Kant’s argument, he therefore suggests that if existence is not a trait (or existing in reality is better than not), then it is not possible to compare an existing God with a non existing God, because they are completely different concepts [Schonfeld 2000: 297]. Furthermore, Kant goes on to offer further criticism through stating God’s
The enforced observance of God in the Pledge of Allegiance is an enforcement of religion and to reenact an appeal of what is to be considered truthful. There is a tendency through some Americans stating how they have the right to freedom of religion, which is true, but they tend to forget that there are other people in this world than justness of a world of one god. The first amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. . .” Which explicitly states that Congress is not allowed to do something mandatory, that is, towards the statement of any religion or none of.
An ethical relativist believes that the statement “Such and such a particular act (x) is right” can be expressed as “I like x as much as any alternative to it.” An absolutist analysis does not include egocentric expressions, implies that statements can be consistent or inconsistent and that true or false. Beings which are actual or hypothetical are dispositional and would react to something
Decision are not made in advance. Therefore, free will is possible under an omniscient God. Response to Objections While Lewis made a valid argument in defense of Theological Fatalism, he has failed to recognize that predestination, in any form, still warrants that one’s actions will be predetermined. Opponents of Lewis’ argument would argue that even though god exists in an timeless realm, we still can not act out of free will. The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary.