Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ... middle of paper ... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.
This is how true forgiveness should be carried out. But different people have different ideas of what forgiveness is. Some people believe they can offend a person and easily ask for forgiveness from that person later. This is not how forgiveness should be look... ... middle of paper ... ...Talking to another person about the situation and getting their insight on the whole incident might help with the negative feelings. As humans, one tends to easily over react when situations happen.
The ideal doctrine of religion adjusts itself to the imperfect world in ways that some times do not command respect. The actual practice of the doctrine allows flexibility, which is often abused. In Dom Casmurro, Bento and Jose Dias imagine that a journey to see the Pope will undo Dona Gloria's promise to God. Eventually they settle the matter much more conveniently by resorting to the local church. As shown in Escobar's speech, the characters are constantly manipulating with the power of the religious authorities: "Consult the protonotary about it and if he hesitates, we'll speak to the bishop" (171).
We need to let go of the concept of always having to be right; it’s OK to say we ‘don’t know’ or to admit we’re wrong even though that may go against all we’ve been taught. If we admit when we’re wrong or when we’ve made a mistake, other people will actually begin to trust us. They’ll recognise that we’re being honest and that we have integrity. This concept can be hard to take on board particularly in a world, or environment, where failure is considered a bad thing. Failure is not a bad thing unless we don’t learn from it.
Is the idea of doctrinal development compatible with belief in the abiding truth of Christianity? The problem that the development of doctrine presents to the church is simple. On the one hand, Christianity is presented as containing the lasting and eternal truth of salvation and eternal life, and on the other hand, when the history of the church is studied, the details within which this truth is presented, have quite clearly changed. This problem is particularly exacerbated for those involved in ecumenical dialogue, and for theologians within the Roman Catholic church. For ecumenical dialogue, one must either try and hammer out those doctrines which are true and which aren’t, an approach that won’t get very far, or learn to live together despite having different doctrines, that is, to say that what the other side says is wrong, but that can be accepted.
They do so however in ways that do not subtract from the overall point they are trying to prove. Though they handle their situations differently they ultimately strive for the same goal in making those who are of higher power and those who are everyday people see their wrong doings in following these laws. Thoreau said, “Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” These men want people to realize that just because “majority rules” does not mean majority is right. Both Dr.King and Henry Thoreau were protesting against similar things. Both men were working
As a part of our thinking process, we think more as compared to act. Hence, taking things to heart and getting too disappointed when things are done in the wrong way. This weakness is found in a person with sensitivity. Such person has extreme fear of getting rejected. Here I want to elaborate my personal example of
With knowing what you want to achieve comes the next component. Do not get mad, get even. Complaining has its ups and downs through the process. Your opponent might say something that offends you, or upsets you, before or even while you are complaining. Getting angry can result in complaining without thinking through what you want to say in advance.
People may already know what is right, wrong, good, and bad, but may choose to be obedient just as a way of upholding their faithfulness and honor towards another. And last, a person may be obedient just because they were threated, which leaves them no choice but to carry on the dreadful act. So in the display of these aspects, why is it important that people still practice disobedience? For one, it’s important because not everyone has good intentions. Obedience towards an authority figure with bad intentions isn’t a new aspect, but there’s also evidence of how an ordinary everyday person can be dangerous to others withou... ... middle of paper ... ...ant and uncooperative” (Stuart).
These statements are likely to impede the interviewee, and by “by judging others, we put them on guard because we communicate the message, ‘“I don’t approve of this aspect of you”’ (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2018). This could affect the interviewer’s goal of obtaining data about the subject because of their angst to reveal information. Instead, the interviewer could use an effective response such as an open-ended question. These types of questions keep the interview flowing, and as a result, can reveal deeper information to better understand the interviewee. An example of an open-ended question in this context would be, “What’s your occupational history like?” This enables the conversation to continue in a two-way process and not come to a