Unlike the case for science, there is a unanimous agreement between Christians that the Bible is the fundamental source of religious authority. To Christians, the Bible is the word of God, and it is beyond the logic of verification and falsification; it is a matter of faith. Moreover, the authority of a religious dogma is absolute: two different dogmas cannot coexist in a single religion. For instance, Christianity split into the Catholic church and the Protestant church over indulgence, and Islam split into Shi'ism and Sunnism over the next Khalifa. These historical events show that maintenance of religious purity is a vital condition, otherwise possibly resulting in a bloody
What Darrow meant in his statement is using the Bible as an argument of why evolution shouldn’t be thought to the children in Tennessee schools doesn’t make sense because the Bible is about religion not science. The next argument Darrow makes is the law does not specify what can be taught but the law does say that you cannot teach anything that conflicts with the Bible. Darrow argues that not everyone who reads the Bible is going to have the same concept of the Bible. Everybody has their own understanding of the Bible and its meaning. Therefore people will have a different view of what teachings conflicts with the Bible.
Religion is a part of people’s culture. It is an identity that can be shared with in a culture, which makes it a common conflict in all cultures no matter which religion one may identify with. In the United States 83% are Christian, according to a survey conducted by ABC news, but the United States is a melting pot of cultures, this mean one culture or religion should not have leverage over the affairs of the government. This is why in the US there exists the separation of church and state but the extent of said separation is unclear, causing religion to be the bases of people arguments regarding politics. In the government these arguments should be seen as invalid because church and state are no longer completely separated causing one culture to be placed above the others.
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.
Exclusivism argues there is only one religious view that allows for salvation (Merino 243). While inclusivism claims there can be truth in many faiths, it concurs with exclusivism that there is only one faith that perfects these truths (Merino 234). The concept of exclusivism is a source of restricted religious tolerance towards non-Christians in the United States. Christianity promotes salvation through the belief in Jesus and the profession of sin, it sees no other way for salvation to be achieved. From my observation, exclusivist ideas are geared specifically toward Islam and Hinduism, whose names have been associated with terrorism and inequality.
I think that Secular Humanism should be considered as a religion because religion is a fundamental set of beliefs and practices, so you necessary have to believe in god/gods to be in a religion. If all religions have special rights then Secular Humanism should have special rights as well, just because they don 't believe in god/gods doesn 't mean they should be treated any different than other religions. Every person has different beliefs, they might not be the same as yours but should still treat them with
The founders understood the messy history of other countries that did not have this separation. If there was no divide, many secular laws might be compromised by the Church because of its moral beliefs and regulations. Even with our country’s separation, there are still battles today on the subject. Some people believe that because the country was founded on Christian principles that Christians should have preference over other religions. Recently some political candidates argued that Syrian refugees should not be allowed in the country unless they pass a religious test.
On the surface, relativism allows people from various backgrounds from disagreeing on serious issues. In actuality, however, this is impossible. Thirdly, societal pressure often draws people towards an acceptance of moral relativism. Modern society ridicules those who oppose relativism; instead of encouraging individuals hold firm to their beliefs, society called moral objectivists bigots, backward, and close-minded. Young adolescents, especially, are susceptible to societal pressures.
In spite of the knowledge one might have regarding the chemical and physical properties of water that make it impossible to walk on, that followers of the Christian religion still believe this to be possible. In doing so, Christians are pushing the boundaries of the suspension of disbelief as a term that is isolated to the confines of performance arts and into the area of religion. This exemplifies the necessity of suspension of disbelief extending beyond the boundaries of performance arts due to the fact that as a religious individual experiences the conflict between their observed knowledge of the real world and what is written in religious scripture as truth, as the two may come in conflict. This conflict between what is real and what is written ultimately leads to followers of religion suspending their knowledge of the real world in order to remain a devout follower and maintain their sense of religious
Conservatives protest or disregard policies that they feel goes against natural law: homosexuality, abortion, etc. Other Christians argue against this behavior on the basis of Romans 13: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except which God has established” (Romans 13:1). Part of being a Christian in the political world is having to find consensus between these two arguments, each individual finding themselves somewhere unique on the
Although many, including myself, criticize contemporary Christian music as not being truly about the glorification of God, the genre’s main focus is to change how everyone views God and Christianity as a whole. Although, some people like me believe that this shouldn’t be changed due to the possibility of God no longer being the center of the message, the main focus of the genre is to attract Christians and Atheists alike through their music, in the same way that secular Rock sought the attention of all
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.
“no religious outlook or Weltanschauung, can enjoy a privileged status, let alone be adopted as the official view of the state” I found this passage noteworthy because it demands that no religious outlook be put before another, but that is exactly what happens and has been happening, all these years. I would like to say that I think the reason there is such a lack of equality with different countries and “cultures” and why we are in constant war is because of this exact reason; religion. Most religious people always think their religion is better than another persons and this causes conflict. The countries laws reflect their religious views in the morals that they choose to have. If religion wasn 't such a big concept would we find peace between different cultures and countires?