He criticized Christianity because it promoted suffering and belittled the value of earthly life. Not only were Christians expected to accept suffering as the means to salvation (“Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin” (1 Peter 4:1)), but the Christian God accepted pain and allowed it to occur. Nietzsche saw this approach to “life” as a means of self-deception, since one is upholding a divine being who is responsible for this pain (and who may well not even exist) and one is disguising pain as happiness: “Rejoice that you participate in the suffering of Christ” (1 Peter 4:13). To him, Christianity was a “dangerous narcotic” (Genealogy of Morals, 3rd Essay, Section 17). With the formation of the Christian congregation, a community formed (which was, according to Nietzsche, implemented by the ascetic priest) that taught social equality.
Rarely in City of God is there a discussion that does not have divine elements or references, and his discussion of justice is no exception. For Augustine, justice seems to be the combination of two things: recognition by man of his place in the world below God, and strict (or as strict as possible by a mortal) observance of God’s laws. The second part is actually the easier one of the two to examine. Man is simply supposed to follow the teachings professed in Christianity’s religious texts to the best of his ability. The interpretation of the correct ways to follow those laws is another matter, but one that Augustine pays little attention to.
While Voltaire respected and saw value in Christianity, in Treatise on Tolerance, he challenged Christians to embrace love and equality instead of judgment and rituals. Voltaire’s evident belief in God in Treatise on Tolerance was one way that he treated religion seriously. If Voltaire thought religion was a joke, then he would not have admitted to believing in the existence of God. In the document, he often talked about God using plural first person. He referred to God as, “our Creator and Father” (HR, p. 161).
He believed that religion should not be a matter of thinking or concepts, it should be about feelings and our love and devotion to God. Schleiermacher thought that it doesn’t matter about the complications of how our devotion to God came to be, just that God does exist and we do love and worship him. His views contrast with the radical Enlightenment because Schleiermacher believed that no matter what happens, faith will persist and continue to exist because it isn’t based around logic but feelings. However, even though he did feel this way, he perceived that the radical Enlightenment posed a threat to the very basis of religion (Handout #1). Schleiermacher saw religion positively since he viewed it as being more emotional and sensory which would not be agreed upon by Kant.
They are thought to be lustful (love one another), sinful, immoral and vile creatures of society who follow a cult that practices inhumane and cruel acts for their god. They were thought to have drunk human blood, beaten up dogs cruelly for sacrifice, held secret meetings and ate babies to be saved, etc. Christianity is often misunderstood and is not given the chance to explain their belief and their opinion to others. In those times, when you were a Christian you will be sentenced to die without a chance to defend yourself. “There is full liberty given to answer the charge and to cross-question, since it is unlawful for men to be condemned without defense or without a hearing.
The turmoil that stood as a result of the “church vs state” tension also gave me a purpose to learn more about how the present separation of Church and State began. Making the right decisions has not always been my best quality, and knowing that I am not alone, I evaluated Pope Clement X... ... middle of paper ... ... a level of peace in Freemasonry. Did they try to achieve peace? It seems that within religion, they did not try very hard to achieve peace, instead, they legally were forced to follow Pope Clement’s, Bull in Eminenti. Not only did the interest between Freemasonry and Christianity create questions, but my emerging uncertainty from the beginning towards Pope Clement XII’s decision created several questions.
The philosophical question of this case is not the importance of the question of God, but rather how does our answer to this question affect the way we live. The supporting arguments for Jillette are that belief in God ... ... middle of paper ... ...enn Jillette is content in the evaluation of God’s existence that he has arrived upon which leads to dismissiveness rather than engagement with faith. As Christians we are called to constantly engage with people in what they believe in order to fit the message into their framework of understanding. His final point within this argument of relativism is that his not believing in God allows him to be proven wrong. Anyone whose only area to be proven wrong in is there faith is severely shallow and pathetic.
Complete separation of faith and politics has consequences (both positive and negative). Government that is separated from faith can be efficient, but very inhumane and controlling. Complete integration of faith and politics is influenced by God and the Bible, but it can be just as controlling as complete separation. Multiple disagreements in the Christian doctrine would also cause more challenges in the government. Having a middle ground where only some aspects of the government are influenced by religion can pose problems in certain areas.
He wanted to remove religion from the high Church and place it back into the lives of the common people. Dickens believed Christianity was demonstrated through good works and the teachings of the stories, instead of debating dogma. Dickens was a devoutly religious man who used his medium to express not only his views of Christianity, but also his profound belief in its rehabilitating function in society. He used his novels as a didactic platform to promote what he felt to be the proper moral solutions to social ills. He believed the church had lost the masses but that fiction could recapture them, thus leading the way to what he believed was the moral and upright path.
Spies are religious systems that seem to take on the information of psychology. Colonialist are different from domestic spies they represent the true revelation of God to human kind about the human condition and God’s plan of salvation. The neutral parties allows for a level of collaboration that seems not to be present in enemies model. This model is not like any other model due to the fact that it encourages the exploration of the exceptional content of both the methodologies that they employ. The allies’ model tends to agree with the spies model that good psychology can be found in religion, but it also rejects that religion is only valuable as a vehicle to express psychological truth and psychological benefits (Entwistle, 2010).