To have a goal, or a set of goals in one’s mind is of concern in Tillich’s mind. Outside itself, the concern must not have any goods to make this “ultimate”. God alone can be the ultimate desire of the human soul because God alone is permanent and absolute according to St. Augustine. Temporary and changing are contracted by the objects of creation. Therefore, essences are identical to God’s existence.
Johnson (2010) was influenced by Spilka (1987), who maintained that Christians should view science as an ally to theology because it provides evidence for God’s design. Entwistle (2015) expounds upon the Allies model in more detail, revealing that it is not only the mere unity of psychology and Christianity, but that Allies presents all truth as God’s truth. The Allies model asserts that God is sovereign over both psychology and Christianity, and both are to be used in ways that glorify Him (Entwistle, 2015). Another characteristic of the Allies model that makes it unique from many of the other models, is its view of the Two
He states that Saint Anselm’s argument is impossible for the mind to grasp, and that imaging up anything to perfection can be done on anything, and the example he used was a tropical island. Saint Anselm counter argues back at Gaunilon that there is no perfect definition of what a tropical island could be unlike God. God does have a perfect definition and is not imagined as lacking any perfection. In God’s perfection he must exist in reality and not just in the mind in order to be the most perfect of all. This topic is a bit over my head for the fact that I never though this complex before about God.
Calvin combats the idea that the church gives Scripture its authority because he believes that the Bible offers “as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things of their taste” (31). He was constantly searching for ways to prove the consistency of the Bible, so he could further establish how authoritative it was. Calvin and Luther did not agree on the sacraments or the use of the law, but both were very influential theological figures of the Protestant Reformation and they both claimed that Scripture, not the church, was the true
It is interesting how Nash presents this. Nash eloquently presents this book in a way that it is easy to understand these terms. He says that there are three answers to the question “Is Jesus the Only Savior?” Either your answer is “yes period”, “yes but”, or “no.” Nash sets the stage of his argument by pointed out these three beliefs. However, the one of focus in the paper would be the belief of pluralism. In this book Nash highlighted the inconsistency of the pluralistic argument, while he maintains a Christian worldview.
Although the Force can have some characteristics in common with the Holy Spirit, nothing and no one can ever compare to Him. Others state that “the Force is not a personal God to whom one prays, it is not omnibenevolent or ‘all good’. There is a ‘dark side’ to the force, it is not just for good guys., bad guys use it and apparently use it more powerfully than the good guys” (Marshall, 2014). The Holy Spirit is for everyone, not just a select few; it is a relationship rather than a gift. “According to the Merriam- Webster Dictionary, religion is typically defined in three ways; the belief in a god or a group of gods, an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods, and an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person of group” (Asher-Perrin, 2014).
It’s all based on the allegiance to concept of being one. In full, the scripture is, “We are one in all and all in one. There are no men but only the great WE, One, indivisible and forever” (Rand 14). In the Pledge of Allegiance they pledge under god, but there is nothing to pledge under in this society. Ultimately, someone holds the power, but the idea projected by the society’s existence itself is unquestionable equality.
However if the original thing is what is, and the resulting being is also what is, then nothing has actually come into being and so therefor no change has occurred. Carrying on with this point brings us to the idea of if the original thing is what is not, then according to Parmenides himself this is an impossibility because “nothing comes from nothingness.” “The first of those who studied philosophy were misled in their search for truth and the nature of things by their inexperience, which as it were thrust them into another path. So they say that none of the things that are either comes to be or passes out of existence, because what comes to be must do so either from what is or from what is not, both of which are impossible. For what is cannot come to be (because it is already), and from what is not nothing could have come to be (because something must be underlying).” (Aristotle 191a25) And at the base of Aristotle’s response to Parmenides’ argument are two
The philosophical arguments: 1. Cosmological Argument (Psalm 19:1-6) Naturalistic argument in which the existence of God is deduced or inferred as highly probable from facts concerning causation, change, or motion. (Plato and then Aristotle were associated with this argument) William Lane Craig is a contemporary defender of this argument. city, house, etc. cause: builder, human and effect universe-earth - cause: creator, God and effect (This doesn’t argue for omnipotent power but it does argue for a very powerful force) 2.