Imperialism means one country extends control and power over another, not necessarily through settlement (effects of social Darwinism). Imperialism was justified by Social Darwinism because social Darwinism was the view that the strongest race would survive and the weaker would eventually die off. Imperialism justified that the weaker the country was struggling the "greater country" could force its customs on the other country. Imperialism benefits a small, favored group but never the nation as a whole. Social Darwinist believed that Imperialism was the expected expansion and an accomplishment of a well-evolved culture and the expansion would help remove or perfect an underperforming cultures.
Social Darwinism started in Britain in 1870. Social Darwinism is basically a collection of theories that promotes the idea that that humans compete for existence and those that are more “fit” survive life. They based their theories on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Some Darwinists believed that the government shouldn’t change human nature by regulating economy or attempting to solve social problems. They promoted competition because they believed that some people, nations, or races were better fit to survive.
What deists mean is that a man can be evil and he is still right. It also seems to mean that It does not matter whether or not a person is sinful, he can still go to Heaven. Catholics believe that evil is not only not right, it destroys who a person was meant to be. Catholics also believe that God is a just God, therefore, those who are evil will be punished and the good will be rewarded. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, “The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and
Since 1970 the use of the social sciences has played an increasingly prominent role in Gospel studies. “Early efforts concentrated on applying specific sociological theories to biblical studies, but more recent research has drawn from a wider range of social-scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines, including anthropology, peasant studies, political science, economics and Mediterranean sociology.” It furthers
Luther thought the Catholic Church and their popes were out of hand and should not control the people as much as they did. The Church created indulgences for the people involved with the church can use when they sin. Instead of doing penance they would take indulgences and give money to the church instead of praying. The popes and the church does not have the decisions between on who goes to purgatory or not. Gender roles of Europe changed because of the Protestant Reformation.
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. Calvin’s augmented relations with the clergy are further aggrieved by their ability to allow the glory of God to be dishonoured by ‘blasphemies’. They don’t attempt to halt such sacrilegious remarks about God. They refuse to intervene because they ought not want those to questions the primacy of the church. The clergy preach for the significance of mass, pilgrimage and express the intention of purgatory but they cannot prove these aspects from the word of God.
“It’s the view that the only kind of ‘obligation’ there could possibly be is the kind that is disciplined by promise of reward or threat of punishment,” Antony claims. She believes that a Christians’ motivation comes from fear of punishment. Unfortunately, She dismisses the fact that motivation to do good out of fear of judgment may have value. For example, history teaches us that individuals who committed heinous crimes (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong) have rejected the idea that their actions may produce judgment. Furthermore, besides fear of punishment, Christians have a higher motivation.
One person, other than Martin Luther, who opposed the churches actions, was John Wycliffe. He was against the churches giving out indulgences. John Wycliffe “emphasized the spiritual freedom of the individual. He argued that every person—priest or layman— held an equal place in the eyes of God. He believed the Pope should not be adorned with riches but rather with poverty.
Evil is relative. As humans, we are not strictly good or evil. A response should not define a person, especially when society has the final say on whether a person is “good” or “bad”. People resort to evil to describe something they cannot rationalize. There is no reason for it, so many people turn to God, saying that evil was a form of punishment for sin.
More finds that creating strict regulations and limiting men’s freedom will result in a happy and successful society. Paine opposes this theory, suggesting that limitations ought to be placed on the government before they are imposed on the people. Thus, though they agree on the nature of man and the necessity of community, More and Paine would be hard-pressed to find common ground on the issue of
Malthus believed in the laissez-faire effect like Adam Smith, and David Ricardo. They opposed the government’s effort to assist the poor workers. I think the importance of what he did was needed. He tried to get the government to get rid of minimum wage and to not make better working conditions. Malthus believed that it would upset the free market system, lower profits, and undermine the production of wealth in
Eugenics: Addressing the Line Between Utopia and Dystopia Many biologists/geneticists are in favor of eugenics due to the possibility of advancing the human race, limiting disease, and decreasing the occurrence of negative mutations, while others believe eugenic practices are unethical, useless, and have more potential for harm. Eugenic practices have proven to be extremely controversial, so I will focus on discussing the potential impacts of eugenics on the human body, society, and morality. Modern eugenic practices consist of two types of gene alteration: negative genetic engineering, which is the process of removing genes to combat disease, and gene therapy, which improves one 's genetic make-up (Hix, 2009, para. 4). Both methods of eugenics are equally controversial and equally promising.
Karl Marx believed that religion arose out of oppressive conditions and supported the status quo by justifying inequality, consoling the downtrodden, and dulling the pains of daily life. To Marx, religion was fundamentally conservative in that it confirms and reinforces existing social arrangements. It justifies laws that limit people’s freedoms, it validates the rule of the powerful and oppression of the weak and it makes sense of economic inequality and other forms of social disparity. In so doing, religion also suppresses people’s resistance to oppressive systems. To serve these purposes, religion need not take any specific form, posit a god or supernatural beings or embody particular practices.
He didn’t think we should trade our constitutional rights and civil liberties for illusion of security. He wants the best for America. Some say having a socialist leader is the worst decision we can make. Bernie Sanders being a socialist means that he believes in having an equal form of government. So that not one has more power over the other and allows less conflict.
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