The Divine Command Theory (DCT) explains which actions are moral based on whether or not God commands it. The theory is difficult to support due to its flaws, arbitration, and even due to the essence of God. While Divine Command Theorists may completely support this theory, I will argue why the theory is impractical and cannot dictate what is morally right or wrong. In understanding if this theory holds ground we must question what God commands. Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws.
Some interpreters have seen it as Christian story. We know that Beowulf was actually rewritten (1) since the original copy would not have had any Christian elements because it predates the Catholic missionaries; the new retelling was for the Christian audience (1). This rewriting of Beowulf created some problems within the story as they didn’t want to completely destroy the original aspects of the epic (2). Some of the inconsistencies are Hrothgar
The second point was not only to prove that using the I-Ching made it essential to understand the connection between Gnostics and Christianity. The third point made is how the this novel is not entirely about a deeper meaning tribute to any other work by Dick, and these other novels need to be compared and contrasted individually. The concept brought up is about how the I-Ching keeps up with the Christian tradition. Do people in general have free will or does fate win out and control people? By the end it is made prevalent that we as a human race need to accept out fate, but as well as put work towards it.
The mystery of which is so high that human mind cannot comprehend it, and must accept the truth of what Jesus has said while also rejecting the absurdities, which are “unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ.” For my own reasoning, I find his argument thorough, although at times I was disappointed by his reliance on logic to explain why Christ cannot be two-fold, such as his discussion in the latter section of Christ’s appearance after the resurrection. It seems that Calvin has a propensity to downplay the miraculous outside of his own understanding of grace, which can come across as merely existential, although I know in fact he does not mean it this way. His reliance on the Spirit and his belief that it is an insult to Holy Spirit to refuse to accept the work that She dos in communicating the body and blood to us, is important to my pneumatological understanding. I agree with Calvin that it is of primary importance what we know how the body of Christ has been given up for us and how we partake of him by
Despite of Aquinas 's fifth argument being one of the most prominent argument for the existence of God, there are some limitations to the fifth argument. The expected limitations especially from the atheists can be applied to this argument due to its nature in the fact that it’s inductive, meaning we can never be 100% certain of its correctness. One example that can be used by an
After meticulous testing, scientists still aren’t confident in either the origins of the shroud, or how it was created. Regardless of whether Jesus is divine and part of the holy trinity, the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. To understand
It is for this reason, the researcher contends, that the Church is the main advocator of interreligious dialogue; it might seem that this is an exclusivist claim but the researcher does not aim in stressing the primacy of Christianity. He only aims at pointing out that since Christianity had a closer grasp of the truth- since the Son of God proclaimed it- Christianity might help other religions in understanding better their beliefs. The paper contends that it is due to man’s constrained knowledge that the Semitic religions approach God differently. However, since Christianity though not absolutely perfect, had a closer grasp of
There are a number of arguments and objections to the First Cause but I will argue the success of the objection ‘God is More’ objection which objects to the conclusion of the argument that states that the Christian version of God ,with its attached attributes, exists. The second objection is the ‘Immaterial-Material Causation’ objection which questioned how an immaterial being can be able to cause material existence. The prove of the success of these arguments will therefore weaken the success of The First Cause argument. The First Cause argument states that “for anything at exists, there must have been something else that caused its existence in the past. There cannot be an infinite chain of effects and their causes, going back infinitely into the past.
It wouldn’t be hard to state him as a Calvinist, when we don’t know much about him, but when we research, we can find out how Calvinism doesn’t belong to John Calvin, because there were more contributors, influenced by others and also modern Calvinism is very different. Calvinism was finally made after all the contributors working together, and getting elements of previous theologians points. We can then doubt if Calvinism was actually reformed or not, or if people just thought Calvinism was reformed. There are still few calvinist around the world, but is it right to name then Calvinist? Are they actually a calvinist, or did they just learn it that way.