Although forgiving for selfish reasons do have benefits, it isn’t the right way to approach the situation of forgiveness. God asks for his children to forgive because he forgave them, to love because he loved them first. So even though forgiveness is good for the mind body and soul the way to go is by following God’s almighty will.
Next, I will explain how Lessing tries to reconcile religious beliefs with his humanistic religion through reason and tolerance. Finally, I will demonstrate how such a reconciliation is not practicable and how Lessing’s conception of a universal religion of reason does not answer the questions at the basis of religion. Nathan the Wise appears as a praising of humanity. Lessing insists on the grandeur of man and the scope of his actions. He critics men who associate heroic actions with divine miracles.
Christian worldview’s response to the problem of evil and suffering is a reality because they are born into a broken world in the result of the fall (Hiles & Smith, 2014). Christians understand that “suffering increases our compassion and equips us to comfort others who suffer” (2 Corinthians 1:3-4). Also, Christians understand that Jesus died for humanity to gain eternal life. If people reject the purifying death of Jesus, then they will suffer the consequences of God’ rebellion (Gockel, 2009). This means that God will not save them, nor force them to believe in Him; in which they will be condemning themselves to suffer.
However, if a mind does not have control, then free will becomes attracted to our selfish desires. Reason enables man with the ability to decipher between what is wrong and right. Being that God created man as rational, autonomous beings, they are able to have control over worldly desires. However, God knew that by providing us with free will, we might not always find God’s law appealing and obey him. At times, man will reason to obey God willingly.
Alternatively, if an individual sins, then they are held responsible for their action and must answer to God. While God already knows the path we will take, perhaps suffering consequences for our actions is merely a way of defining right from wrong. While mortals can not experience this on Earth, God’s test may be a form of pattern to demonstrate positive actions to nonbelievers. Outside of Christianity, conflicts between medicine and the law often question moral responsibility. For example, if an individual is schizophrenic, they did not will to be schizophrenic; he/she was genetically predisposed to have it.
It seems most plausible that moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul, because moral value subsists only on the caliber of persons, minds and wills. It is difficult, if not infeasible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow aerially circumnavigating on their own, apart from any persons. But we grant that there are many steps to peregrinate from objective moral values to the Creator of the universe or the triune God of love. There is a prodigious astute distance between them. But these things are compatible in a way that materialism and notion in objective values are not.
There are so many different opinions on how one can define theology and faith. And is there any relation to the two. Are they considered to be one in the same, or they totally different from each other? Let us first get an understanding of the two by definition. Theology is considered to be “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience along with the study of God and God’s relation to the world” (Webster.)
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). Entwistle ended this book by putting us on the right path to a better understanding of the integrated approaches to Psychology and
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.
Tinder's assertion that humans cannot be moral without God appears to be accurate in its conception of human motivation. However, since no man can know what God wants, the compelling parts of his argument ultimately points to the influence of religion as an institution on creating a society with common moral values. This paper will examine Tinder's arguments for the influence of God against enlightenment thinkers such as Kant's ideas of reason to analyze whether reason can have motivation without religion. Arguably, human beings need an incentive to do things. This extends to the attempt to be moral.