More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of religion in politics
Religious influence on society
How does religion affect society interactions
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Years before I become a Christian, I was convinced that the Christian God was not good, and could not possibly exist on account of it. I remember, very clearly, saying to a friend of mine, “if God loves his children so much, how could he send them to hell?” I could not comprehend there being that kind of darkness within the world. I could not wrap my mind around hell, or the fact that mankind could have done anything to deserve such a fate. Some recent comments by atheist and agnostic friends of mine are echoes of my past thoughts: “People who don’t hear the gospel go to hell? That’s just not fair,” along with, “if God is real, then he must be evil, because the world is so screwed up.” It is hard for people to reconcile a perfectly good God …show more content…
Most can agree that in, most circumstances, these actions are evil, so it can be concluded that there are certain things that a person simply ought not to do. This is the foundation of C.S. Lewis’ Moral Law argument for the existence of God. Lewis argues that every person has a sense of right and wrong moral behavior, and this sense presses upon us. This is what he calls the Law of Human nature, or Moral Law. However, unlike other laws like gravity, this law can be disobeyed. In fact, despite the fact that all people are aware of this law, they constantly disobey …show more content…
Well, one has to consider the other option, which would be almost a robotic following of the Lord by humankind. God, being the ultimate good, chooses the ultimate good for his creation, which is free will, a better choices than involuntary obedience. God chooses to be a father to his children, instead of the mastermind behind a well-oiled machine. God creating free will is a perfectly good act. It is what we did with that free will that gave birth to evil. So, if it is by man’s choice itself that there is evil, then should they be justly punished? The most supreme evil, it would seem, is to act in outright defiance against the most supreme good. Well, if that good is eternal, then the punishment for acting against that good cannot be temporary. Thus, the failing of human endeavors and suffering cannot alone be the punishment for acting against the good. The punishment must fit the crime. Eternal crime must mean eternal
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.
In order to understand the truth, people must have solid justified beliefs to prevent diminished autonomy. As humans, we are motivated to practice morally good actions since God provides love. His act of caring is compelling and promotes gratitude.
In his essay, "The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy," Peter van Inwagen alleges a set of reasons that God may have for allowing evil to exist on earth. Inwagen proposes the following story – throughout which there is an implicit assumption that God is all-good (perfectly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient) and deserving of all our love. God created humans in his own likeness and fit for His love. In order to enable humans to return this love, He had to give them the ability to freely choose. That is, Inwagen holds that the ability to love implies free will. By giving humans free will, God was taking a risk. As Inwagen argues, not even an omnipotent being can ensure that "a creature who has a free choice between x and y choose x rather than y" (197)1. (X in Inwagen’s story is ‘to turn its love to God’ and y is ‘to turn its love away from God,’ towards itself or other things.) So it happened that humans did in fact rebel and turn away from God. The first instance of this turning away is referred to as "the Fall." The ruin of the Fall was inherited by all humans to follow and is the source of evil in the world. But God did not leave humans without hope. He has a plan "whose working will one day eventuate in the Atonement (at-one-ment) of His human creatures with Himself," or at least some of His human creatures (198). This plan somehow involves humans realizing the wretchedness of a world without God and turning to God for help.
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
As Confucius states, “To know what is right and wrong, and to not do it is the worst cowardice.” Duty, obligation of one person to another, flows from eons of social culture, philosophy, and religion. Ethics are similar to the mortar that holds the bricks of law and statutes together – without the mortar, the wall would be more prone to collapse. Ethics are different from laws in that they are an unenforceable moral code or set of principles to guide behavior, though there may be regulatory bodies which can act if the ethics have been breached. In the case of Lewis Blackman, the primary ethical principle of non-maleficence was breeched,
This topic is one that has had my curiosity piqued for the last few years and is one I have made a point of discussing with many people over the course of that time. I have heard many different viewpoints, some who have been adamant for God's omniscience and knowledge of the future and others who have presented compelling arguments for free will. Most, however are of a third category who have come to grips with the fact that our mere brains cannot understand the workings of God and are content to wait for an answer until they are able to ask them themselves if/when they get to Heaven. I myself hold this latter idea to be a good fallback, but am restless in my pursuit for an answer. For neither the deterministic nor the liberalist perspective seem to have me convinced for it seems to me like both of these beliefs leave you in a dire catch-22: if you insist on complete freedom, you limit God's knowledge; but if you insist on God's knowledge, then you limit humanity's freedom; neither of which leave my mind at rest in who I know God to be and what His scripture has revealed to us in His creation of humanity.
The cause of how people have chosen evil has been a conceptual issue for thousands of years on many different perspectives. People from a religious point of view believe that the underlining cause of evil is sin and temptation. Half of the time humans can choose good over evil in situations based off the legal system and the moral standards of society. "The interest of work in the common would not hold it together, instinctual ...
A natural law theorist says that actions are right because they are natural and wrong because they
there are evils that exist not as a direct result of human choice. Natural evils
Hick suggests that we shouldn’t view evil as an obstacle; instead evil should be viewed as a tool to achieve moral perfection. In other words, God uses the harshness of life to give us a robust character that wouldn’t be possible to achieve without an imperfect world for good and morally superior actions are only considered “good” in the light of challenges and hardships. While both the above theodicies succeed at explaining why evil exists, both of them fail at explaining why evil is very
C.S. Lewis begins his book, “Mere Christianity”, by introducing the Law of Right and Wrong or the Laws of Nature. This, however, arises a question. What is the Law of Nature? The Law of Nature is the known difference between right and wrong. That is, mans distinction between what is right and what is wrong. “This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it and did not need to be taught it”(18). Lewis relates the law to how we treat others. We treat others the way we want to be treated and if they treat us poorly in return we become agitated and annoyed with them. He states that we become a society of excuses when something goes wrong. He goes on to say that we want to behave in a certain way when in reality we do the opposite of what is right or what is wrong. We are humans and humans have primal instincts. We are all capable of using our instincts to do right or wrong. Lewis uses an example of a drowning man to prove this point. When one sees a man in trouble two desires or instincts kick into play, to save the man or ignore him because the situation at hand could endanger you. However, there in another impulse that says help the man. With this comes a conflict of instincts. Do you run and forget about it or do you jump in and help. Most people will help even if the situation is going to endanger their life. This is just one way of seeing moral law. The right in a situation will mostly always prevail over the wrong. “Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are selfish, nor that they like being unselfish, but they ought to be”(30). We are creatures of habit and logic. Lewis believes that the moral law is not taught to us rather known by us instinctively. He also believes that the law is real. The law is our behaviors in life via good or bad. Lewis states, “there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior”(30). This opens Lewis to believe that the natural law is both alive and active in mans life today. Lewis goes on to say that the law must be something above mans behavior. He begins to relate this to the creation of the world.
While maintaining a open look of this moral law, Lewis presents two objections one would present to the moral law: “The moral law is just herd instinct” and “Morality is just social convention. The moral law is not a herd instinct due to man’s choice to suppress stronger instincts in fa...
I believe laws is what determines what’s wrong and what’s right. Though, there are some people that might not agree with this. For example, a husband is stealing medicine for his sick wife and they’re poor but it’s the only way to save her. The husband still broke the laws but others felt he did right. That’s why there’s a phrase that says, “Sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the right reason”.
The Natural Law stated that humans have a moral knowledge/reason that makes us able to decide what’s right. This has caused various debates on whether people did the right because it was the right thing to do or whether they did it because that’s
the Golden Rule approach. We are told that it is right to be moral. This is an