Christians have values and beliefs based on their relationship... ... middle of paper ... ...framework for my opinion that humans are naturally cooperative and good. In conclusion, as an apathetic agnostic, I do not care if God exists or not. Rather than base my values on a religious doctrine, I base my values on my internal feelings and emotions in situations in which I have to act or make moral decisions. As an apathetic agnostic, I do not care how we came to be, but rather about the fact that we are here and how we conduct ourselves. Finally, I do not subscribe to the concept that humans are good or evil by nature, but rather that we are selfish or cooperative by nature.
(“Ontological”) It shows that there is existence of God that is impeccable in every way, but it does not demonstrate much about the relationship of God and us. The rest of this argument shows us less about what God is and his attributes but how he relates to us. (“Existence...”... ... middle of paper ... ...things. That is the paramount point. 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.
I must first begin by saying I do believe that God has one, universal church, the church of God. “The Church of God in Name Only,” is an effort to criticize those who profess a high claim, yet fall very short in living to that claim. In my estimation many who profess to be God's holy people are not, because the scripture deems such individuals unholy. Such people are not the Church of God. In order to comprehend the reasoning behind such a subject one must already have a general idea of the Church of God's standard.
No moral properties are ascribable and so what it considered appropriate behaviour with respect to it is suspect (Plantinga, 2000). The same applies to distinguishing religious experience as opposed to any other experience as an appropriate response to the Real, as causal properties are not attributable (Yandell, 1999). In response to Plantinga’s point on morality Hick argues he is ‘seeking a religious interpretation of religion globally, an interpretation which starts from the conviction that there is a transcendent reality of limitless importance to us.’ (Hick, 2004: xxv). In addition, to this, he says we should also apply critical trust to the other great religions and only doubt religious experience when we have good reason to. These religious experiences are judged based on their moral and spiritual impact and are best explained by moving from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness (Hick, 2004).
Picturing the electrivcal cords, each wire can either go positive or negative but not both just how we can either be obedient to God’s laws or disobedient. However, dualism cofused structure and direction. Someone who has a dualistic view tends to assume that life has two distinct realms. Many have the dualistic view in where they split two relas, one more important than the other, and one more pleasing to God than the other. The problem is, that many of us as Christian do not engage in our daily tasks
Therefore, there is no right or wrong in terms of spirituality. On the contrary, religion is not open to change and expects one to follow a specific path or believe in a specific being, which suggests religions are bias. Religious leaders will tweak a religion to justify their religious views in order to push onto others why one should live life thinking a certain way. Spirituality is a choice and isn’t forced upon a person like religion is in many cases. Thus, religion is a voluntary methodology while spirituality is involuntary.
Right out of the gate he expressed his feelings toward the subject by saying, “Jesus is not God’s only word.” This reflects that Godsey believed that God was not only a Christian but also spoke of other religions. He continues on to discuss how God also spoke true of other religious and historical people who were not associated to Christianity but are directly linked to God’s word. He mentioned people such as Muhammad, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr specifically along with others that are similar. Godsey explains why he believes that Christians assume that God is a Christian and he places the blame on people’s self-centered nature. Godsey wrote, “It is a form of myopic self-centeredness that presumes to place ourselves-our vision and our understanding- at the center of God’s universe.” He further supports his theory by saying, “We Christians should know that this kind of self-centered “if you are not with us, you are against us” thinking actually seems to be precisely the sort of religious thinking that Jesus was trying to get people beyond.” In other words, Godsey is certain that humans, especially Christians, when it comes to faith are extremely self-centered which results in them thinking that God is Christian and nothing more.
Kierkegaard believes that the majority of Christians are inauthentic because they need assurance to for what is right and wrong. For example, they go to church to hear the word of God and they apply those rules to their daily life. For one to achieve higher goals, one must suspend what is right and what is wrong. James’ theory of Pragmatism is the belief that a claim is true, as long as it is useful. Truth is an event, not an objective characteristic.
Language used to describe these experiences is often linked with the sense such as 'seeing' and 'meeting' God; this is to show that the experience is personal and shows that you have e... ... middle of paper ... ...a spiritual experience. Believers do not think that this is a major criticism, however, because they argue this simply proves that God designed humans with an ability to receive religious experiences. The argument that the existence of God can be proved by religious experience relies on the assumption that the experience itself can give some sort of guarantee that you are right. In conclusion, I believe that is hard to believe in an argument that does not and cannot distinguish between feeling that something is right and actually being right. This is emphasised even more when we consider that nearly every human has, at one point in their life, been sure about something and then they have consequently been proved wrong.
If we can find meaning in things that cannot be verified by empirical evidence then it may well be possible to experience God and use these experiences to prove gods nature and existence. Experiences of god are not regular and universal like ordinary experiences. Religious experiences often accompanies existing belief i.e. takes place with those who are already believers. God is believed first via faith which means that by having a basic framework it'll make you accept religious experiences.