Category: Christianity

Introduction

A child may simply be described as a person who has not attained the age of majority; however, the age limit for one to become a major differs depending on the location. In most cases, minors fall under the age of eighteen in most countries, thus children are generally humans in this age bracket.

Children normally go through different issues in their life, thus it is important to take them through counseling in order to allow them lead an easy life as they head to the age of the majority. The issues children go through may be either severe or simple, but none should be neglected. They should be taken through counseling regularly to enable them be open whenever they have problems and to avoid instances of buildup of negative conditions to a position that may be hard to reverse.

Christian counseling for children strives to facilitate the building of a healthy and loving family for children by basing their teachings on the bible and being deeply rooted to the Christian principles. This is because the family is the foundation of the society and every person in the family may be going through different and difficult challenges. Children may suffer in a family as result of trouble in marriage, death of a parent, relocation of the family or many other issues requiring the attention of a counselor.

The primary counselor to any child is the parent. Therefore, the parent should first be equipped with Christian values in order to be able to deliver to the child. They should first be role models to the children and they should counsel them regularly. Apart from the parent, the church and the learning institutions play a very important role in taking the children through Christian counseling.

These institutions should have professional Christian counselors who can understand the children easily and facilitate a free and open environment where children can share their entire problem without fear. Nevertheless, the parent and the institutional counselors should stay close to the children in order to take the required action in case a child is going through an acute problem.

Raising children in a Christian manner

When Christian parents are raising their children, it is very important to base their endeavors in the word of God. The best example of a role model in the bible to children is Jesus Christ. In Luke 2:52, we are told that, he “grew in wisdom and stature, in favor with God and man” (Bible gateway, 2010). It is the duty of every parent to ensure that he introduces his children in church early enough in order to be taken through Christian teaching because this is the only place the child can imitate the lifestyle of Jesus Christ.

Jesus parents, Mary and Joseph were God-fearing people and they took Jesus to the house of God early enough and this is where he learnt to live a Godly life. Though Jesus was the son of God, his lifestyle was quite a good example to the children and the parents who are after Christian parenting.

The bible says in the book of proverbs that parents should not keep the whip down or should not stop disciplining their children until they are responsible over their lives. This is a good direction for the parents, showing that it is Godly to correct children when they do wrong. However, staying with the whip does not mean that children should be beaten over each and every mistake they make, rather, it means that the parents should not watch over their children doing wrong without cautioning them.

Parents should watch over their children keenly, love them, and ensure that they do the right thing at the right time. Furthermore, it is only important for the parents to do their part while allowing God to do the rest through prayers. This is possible through showing children the importance of Christian teachings right from church, home and even in the society in general (Bible gateway, 2010).

Children grow in stages and parents should understand each stage and the kind of counseling required as at that stage. For instance, the way a parent should handle kids below the age of twelve should be different from that of teenagers as well as for the young adults in their early twenties. Nevertheless, each stage needs attention and counseling because it is associated with its own challenges.

Right from the beginning when the child is young, a Christian parent should facilitate creativity instead of passive consumption. The parents should allow children to come up with something out of some materials provided, instead of providing readymade items. For instance, giving them space to create their own items by offering them items such as paint and paper, empty crates, mud, nails, lumber etc instead of buying them fancy playhouses in the departmental stores.

Still, it is important to introduce the issue of the real world to the children right from the beginning in order for them to understand what is happening around the world. This is because it has been noted that the reason as to why many young adults are unable to change the world is that they know nothing about the world (Sinclair & Stewart, 1992, pg 12).

Children do not remain young forever, but a time comes when they are teenagers, when they can see the reality of life. Parents should cultivate openness with their children right from childhood so that when they enter in to the teenage stage, it can be easy to reason together with them and help them to understand why things have to be the way they are.

The teenage stage is associated with a lot of peer pressure whereby they start comparing their families with those of their friends and may question most of the things they used to adopt easily in the past. At this stage, it becomes very challenging for the teens to balance between their subcultures and that of the church.

In this case, the parent should ensure that there is sufficient communication with the teens to make them understand what it means to be a Christian in the world, and to prevent them from peer influence (Sinclair & Stewart, 1992, pg 17).

How to keep a close relationship with the children

Naturally, parents have a passionate love for their children, which is important and every kid deserves to have parental love. However, parents should be careful on how they express love to their children to ensure that they give them unlimited love while ensuring that they do not overprotect, overindulge, or over control the kids because this is unhealthy (Clinton & Sibcy, 2006).

In the book of Romans, the bible says that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, as they are saved from the sufferings emanating from the sins they committed, more given that every person is a sinner and it is only through repentance that such sins are forgiven. This verse helps the parent to understand that everyone is prone to mistakes and they can be guilty at one point or the other of how they handle their children by wondering whether they are doing it the right way or not.

As the parents relate with their kids, it is important to ask God for guidance by telling him where they need help and relying upon His mercies and grace. They should also pray for your children to lead a Godly life and to change in case they are leading a life that is not worthy. In addition, they should reflect on issues in their life that may be making them express love to their kids in unhealthy way and allow God to shape the lives of their kids (Clinton & Sibcy, 2006).

Parents should avoid overprotecting their children; however, they should allow them to be accountable and responsible over the consequences of their decisions. Often, kids should be left to take care of the tasks they can do, and help with house chores regularly. In addition, parents should not lie about anything to their kids but should encourage them to learn through real-life challenges, solving problems arising from their own issues and learning from disappointments.

Parents should give their children enough freedom while constantly praying for them and asking God for wisdom. Moreover, children should be taught that there is joy from the grace of God, and they should be encouraged to learn the spiritual lessons of the situations they may be going through (Clinton & Sibcy, 2006).

Parents should neither give-in easily to what their kids want, nor should they bribe them to cooperate with them; they should always teach them the value of hard work and teach them to obtain their wants on their own. Kids should know that its good to have wants but a person must not acquire everything he wants. In addition, parents should keenly supervise their kids while maintaining healthy boundaries and ensure that they only praise them when they have worked for it.

This will motivate the kids to word hard and will avoid overindulging them. When making decisions, parents should not only consider what their kids want, but also their own feelings in order to know what and when to compromise. The children should be taught that gifts are privileges but not entitlements, thus they should appreciate whenever they receive as gift (Clinton & Sibcy, 2006).

Most parents are used to acting so formally to their children by constantly lecturing, critiquing, or pushing them. Handling children this way, prevents them from expressing themselves fully to the parents and it may be hard for the parent to know when his children are going through difficulties or stress.

Parents should regularly spend ample time with their children playing and enjoying life while giving them opportunities to explore their own interests in order to merge the distance that may be between them. Furthermore, parents should ask God to nurture their relationship with their children, which will lead to effective and free communication. They should always assure the kids that their love for them is unconditional and should not withhold their love for them when they do wrong.

As parents give their children unlimited love, it is always important to put in place boundaries between them and the child. Boundaries direct the guardian to understand the right time to accept or reject the actions or words of a child in order to hold the child to take control of his/her life as he/she grows up.

This is because children are born without boundaries and if a parent fails to teach them, then they develop the attitude of looking at what parents do for them as their rights or entitlements rather than privileges. However, boundaries should not limit the love of a parent to children but only help to teach the child have good character. This ensures that the child is motivated to live a long righteous life before God and people (Cloud, Townsend & Guest, 1998).

Why children need counseling

Children go through different challenges in life, which require them to be guided through in order to make the right decisions in life. Some people think that childhood is an easy and carefree lifestyle, but children do go through challenges and may have stress at one point or the other in their life.

For instance, during times such as divorce, relocation, death in a family, among others, the child goes through times of confusion that require the attention of a counselor. In this case, Christian counseling plays the most vital role in helping children overcome such issues while basing the idea from the word of God.

When a child goes through major changes, he/she needs time to adjust with the support of the parents and the family in general. Such changes may include parents divorce, death in a family, among other things. The changes may at times be too sudden or severe, thus putting the child in a position that requires the attention of a qualified psychotherapist to try and sort out the problem.

In some cases, some children may find it difficult to share their problems with their parents, relatives or friends because they want to keep the issue as a secret or they may be embarrassed of the situation. In other cases, children may display their problems or stress by acting in manners that cause problems like being violent, being too quiet or withdrawing.

In such situations, it is important to involve professional counselors, as they are able to create ample environment that enables the child to share freely without fear (Karuppaswarmy & Fall, 2010).

There are several reasons that trigger the need for professional counseling for children, some of which are discussed below. The parents or the guardians should keep watch over their children by staying close to them in order to be able to differentiate between the times the child is behaving normally and when he/she is behaving abnormally.

This is possible by showing the child love while maintaining the required boundaries without overprotecting, overindulging, or over controlling. Some of the signs that may require the attention of a professional counselor may include the following.

A kid may display long periods of sadness, whereby attempts to distract the sadness or to make him/her happy do not yield results. In most cases, children do not talk about being sad but they may be acting in a way suggesting that they are sad. For instance, the kid may be crying over small and big issues for long periods without being able to stop. This is a sign that there is something that is wrong with the child that needs to be sorted out (Karuppaswarmy & Fall, 2010).

When the child is not able to move from a past event, it may be a sign that the child requires a little more attention. When a negative scenario takes place and affects the life of a child, it is understandable if the child talks about it for a while immediately it takes place.

However, if the child persists on remembering past events, then the guardian should take the required measures to help the child go through that without so much effect in his/her life. For instance, the child may keep on talking about issue that took place along time ago e.g. Separation of the parent, death of a loved one like a parent or a sibling, a better lifestyle they had in the past, a place they relocated from among others.

The child should be provided with an opportunity to avoid thinking about the past occurrences or events and always think about the present situation or future prospects. If such scenarios persist, it is important to take the child through professional Christian counseling to ensure that he/she faces the reality and forgets about the past (Karuppaswarmy & Fall, 2010).

Withdrawn behavior is another sign that a child is going through a stressing moment, which he/she may not be able to express verbally. This is evident when the child does not show interest in playing with other children or getting involved in taking part in activities that involve many people. The children may seem not to enjoy anything they may be doing, they do not laugh, joke or relax, while in some cases, they seem to stay alone all the time and rarely talk to the other children or the adults (Karuppaswarmy & Fall, 2010).

If a child was used to saying goodbye to the parents every time before they parted and then changes suddenly, there may be a problem that needs urgent attention. This is evident when a child suddenly changes and starts finding it difficult to saying goodbye, parting with the parent or he/she want to be with the parent all the time.

The child may refuse to go to school, and if he/she is in a boarding school; he/she may demand to be taken to a day school or may have problems with the parents going for work. And if they have to part, the child keeps asking about the parent many times as the day goes-by or before they meet again. In addition, if they are staying far apart, the child may fake reasons of going to see the parent.

In other cases, the child may have problems concentrating in class or in any other activity, he/she may be undertaking. The child seems to forget easily or to get distracted from the jobs assigned to them. Their class performance may deteriorate drastically; they may be unable to complete class work and may not be able to follow instructions well.

There are times when the child may break from the routine behavior and seem to demonstrate some uncommon practices; for example a child may go back to his/her younger behavior like soiling him/herself, whereas he/she has been toilet trained, sucking the thumb finger, or wanting to be carried whereas they can walk.

At times, it gets difficult to predict what and when a child may do something. A child may start oversleeping or may have problems in sleep coupled with nightmares. She may also have problems with eating or start overfeeding. When children change their normal routine, then it is evident that there may be something wrong happening in their lives that is far beyond their ability to manage.

Conclusion

Children are gifts from God and may at times be a challenge to their parents. In Corinthians 12:21, the bible encourages the parents to live with them as they are, as they help them through life through counseling. Raising children in Christian manner is equally not easy in the secular world today.

However, the bible says in the book of proverbs 22:6 that ‘Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it’ (Bible gateway, 2010). A Christian parent has the ability to ensure that children are not overwhelmed by the pleasures of the world but have grown in faith. This is only possible through God, without ever ceasing to read the word of God and being a good example to them (Csahm, 2010).

References

Bible Gateway. (2010). New International Version. Web.

Clinton, T. & Sibcy, G. (2006). Loving Your Child Too Much: How to Keep a Close Relationship with Your Child without Overindulging, Overprotecting, or over controlling. Integrity publishers. Web.

Cloud, H., Townsend, J. & Guest, L. (1998). Boundaries with kids: When to Say Yes, When to Say No to Help Your Children Gain Control of Their Lives. CA: Zondervan.

Csahm. (2010). Challenges of Raising Christian Children. Web.

Karuppaswarmy, N. & Fall, J. (2010). Does the Child Need Counseling? Web.

Sinclair, D. & Stewart, Y. (1992). Christian parenting: raising children in the real world. Ontario: Westminster.

Introduction

A worldview is an implicit factor that impacts a person’s beliefs, morality, and the way they approach decision-making. It defines how individuals answer the questions about the world around them and bout their purpose. This paper reflects on the issue of worldview and the foundations of the Christian worldview.

Biblical Worldview

I would define a biblical worldview as the way any person sees the world around them.

The foundation or authority of a Biblical worldview is the Bible since it reflects the main values and moral standards. Through the Scriptures, God communicated the basis of the Christian worldview to the people (“Reading & study,” n.d.). A Liberty University student can go about developing a better Biblical worldview outside of class by learning more about the foundations from this worldview and how different people interpret it or use it to make decisions in their day-to-day lives.

A worldview affects a person’s understanding of their purpose because it is a blueprint of their values. For example, Christians respect other people and will choose to live their life in a way, which is consistent with what is said in the Scriptures, unlike atheists. For me, some of the goals of my school life are to develop a more cohesive understanding of the world and myself through learning. Having a Biblical worldview can positively impact these goals by providing a framework for achieving them. Moreover, my Biblical worldview shapes my purpose for pursuing education by encouraging me to get a comprehension of Christianity and the way it views the world.

Based on the “Diversity at Liberty” video, culture is what shapes a person’s way of life. People from different cultures may have varied beliefs and traditions that impact the way they live their lives or approach decision-making (“Diversity and global awareness,” n.d.). However, one can work with people from different cultures by accepting that different viewpoint exist. A Biblical worldview can further propel this since the Bible clearly outlines that all people are a reflection of the image of God. This means that they should be respected and treated with respect. To effectively engage with others, it is vital to use Christian values.

Conclusion

Overall, this paper reflects on some of the aspects of a Biblical worldview. From the textbook reading, this assignment, and the videos, I learned about the impact that a worldview has on every aspect of a person’s life – their way of making decisions, understanding of purpose, and interactions with others.

References

Diversity and global awareness. (n.d.). Web.

Reading & study. (n.d.). Web.

Introduction

For all the people who have had an interest in theology, especially in the field of Protestantism, the name Karl Barth will be seen as a light in the perception of the preaching of the gospel. Many of his thoughts expressed in his writings portray edges that offer a point of thought for anyone who reads them. According to Busch, et al (2004, 3), the thoughts of Barth give an insight into the reexamination of Christianity and mostly Protestantism.

In his works, Barth brings in a new position and point of focus as regards Christian theology in all the aspects of human life and domains including the social, economic, and political spheres. In his works, written conversationally, Barth gives his views on the prevalent and basic topics of Christian systematic theology. He touches on areas like Israel and Christology, revelation’s nature, the predestination doctrine, the trinity, gospel in relation to law, religion’s problems, the Holy Spirit, creation, salvation, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

Basing on the fact that Christian life is based on two conflicting sides, Barth had the same insight and that is why he brought out this issue of the desire to do good as conflicting with the other part of the body that wanted to do evil. In addition, his work showed freedom not only to act but also to express his views by writing them down in his own way and point of view.

It is from his refocused and re-conceptualized approach of the Christian views and his actions and their contribution on the Protestant platform that this paper will try to establish exactly why Karl Barth is considered one of the greatest thinkers in the field of theology and how his approach to Christianity affected the established protestant traditions. The paper will finally conclude the topic and point out what I have learned as a writer of this topic.

Barth’s Life

Before plunging into Barth’s exploits, it is important to understand his nature and approach to life generally. From his life as a child, Barth was a person who believed in himself and always considered himself right at all times. Having been brought up in a purely Christian background, Barth started to acquire radical ideas from Nietzsche making him deviate from his family’s positivism into a more liberal approach to life’s subject.

One conspicuous thing about Barth was his love belief in the two sides of life that always contested and intercrossed each yearning for superiority and dominance. This made him ensure that whenever he was, the portraits of Calvin and Mozart hung at the same level expressing the mentioned stand in his life. Above all, Barth believed in uprightness and truth a reason why he had an interest in trees. In one of his works he wrote that he loved trees because their principal aim was always to be upright (Busch 2004, 6).

One of the verses in the bible that always gave him strength was James 4:17 which said, “When we know what it is right to do, and do not do it, for us it is sin.” This was his basis in all his theological approaches. In addition, he wanted to work through strengthening, beseeching, pressing, and inviting the church to emulate the Baptist by all means. This he did through both encouraging and criticizing (Busch 2004, 7).

The Controversy

The first controversial position of Barth about the church’s point of view was the interpretation of the bible. In his approach, Barth has his focus defined within the teachings and systematic theology as those of the Calvinist reformation. His teachings were puritan and had a strong adherence to sola scriptura and sola fide. To Barth, the only standard to “dogmatic truth and Christian practice” is the bible.

This position was completely in opposition to the church which approached the Holy Scripture with a provision for consensus fidelium and consensus patricum. In his argument, Barth believes that the bible should be read and applied to every generation freshly without being subjected to sectarian traditions as molded by the church authority (Dorrien 1999, 15). This was contrary to the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church that had their teachings impaired by the ecclesiastical practices brought up by the creeds councils and fathers (Chandler 2009, para. 3).

Barth in his argument makes a clear difference between God, the Bible, and the Church. Barth believes that the Bible is the word of God and that no human form is capable of signifying the word of God or conveying the revelation of the word of God. He purports that all church traditions are human ideologies and principles and therefore human constructs. And this is just philosophy whose main aim is making man’s word be God’s word.

Therefore, the view of Barth is the divorce of God’s intentions from human history which has contributed to the formation of ecclesiastical traditions (Dorrien 1999, 87). Barth differs from the 18th Century theologians who have a deep-rooted belief in educational philosophy. At this point in time, the scientific knowledge had taken a better part of theologians who became adherents of the theory of goodness of humanity. This was meant to bring nature to an easier understanding from the human perspective (Barth 2002, 356). The result was the manipulation of theology to fit human reason.

Anthropocentric theology is another aspect of theology that Barth had contributed to. This form of theology took the center stage during the enlightenment and later had its zenith during romanticism. In this theology, absolutism was the center of focus. This school of thought had as its core arguments the self-confidence which manifested itself in the teachings that man had to some extend, an identity between himself and God. This argument later formed the basis of philosophical teachings as most of the states became more and more obsessed with the importance of a human will.

This was enhanced by the growth experienced by science during the 19th Century. It was aimed at making theology friendlier with science. This effort by man to make theology friendlier and more scientific thus brought with it alterations to the real intention of God. With science refuting claims of miracles and the existence of a supernatural being that was not within the visible and felt human experiences. According to Barth the theories of absolutism simply gave a man a lordship role and tried to extinct the issues of mysteries (Barth 2002, 150).

Barth on his part acknowledges the success of the theory on other aspects of human life but according to him, this does not work well within theological circles. In his position, several questions and answers in this field could not be answered by the humanity approach except for the belief in a more powerful authority above the human race.

Barth has shown in his views of theology the existence of good and bad. He believed that two sides in life tried to compete with each other for dominance and superiority. This was characterized by his love for hanging the picture of Mozart and Calvin at the same level on the wall. This showed that Barth believed that despite the struggle by the theologians to show only the good side of human nature, the truth was that there existed the dark side and there was a competition between these two sides (Barth 2002, 237).

At this point, most of the theologists were trying to avoid touching on the principle of evil. This is characterized by Goethe who accused Kant of having smeared his cloak of philosophy with a “shameful stain of radical evil.” This avoidance of the evil principle was exactly what was taking place during the 18th Century’s “Pelagian” program whose main aim was getting rid of the old ages’ corruptions and evils while trying to promote humanity’s “essential innocence.”

Finally, Barth has a point of view concerning the relationship between the State and Christianity. As pointed out earlier, the ultimate source and standards of Christian faith and practice were purely the word of God and that it should be read based on certain standards. Any addition of context translates to human philosophy and creation (Dorrien 1999, 15). This position contradicts the theological perspectives that existed then. Friedrich Schleiermacher who is also referred to as the provenance of modern theology had his views going against Barth’s position. In his point of view, faith is founded on the knowledge of the immediate awareness of man and his feelings concerning God.

This according to Barth was teaching based on human education and therefore human creation and philosophy. Most of the teachings of Schleiermacher were based on the possibility of peace in nations. According to him, nations could live together in peace because every conflict could be resolved if well approached. Barth feels that these teachings, therefore, subject the church to be answerable to the State. This to Barth is not the way things are supposed to be. The only phenomena that can dictate the beliefs and practices of the church are the word of God.

Barth’s greatest contribution and influence on Protestantism was his refocusing from the usual view of human nature as innocent to the view that human beings have two sides that are competing for dominance. The church learned to realize the dark side and therefore focused on repentance and basing their lives on the word of God as it is given in the bible and not as it is explained by scholars and philosophers who simply are influenced by their human nature.

What I have Learnt

Writing this paper has opened a new understanding of the word of God in me. Although most of my understanding was based on what I had learned from the church, I have come to understand that there is a different perspective that I can approach the gospel. Unlike basing my understanding of the word of God through the church teachings only as I initially, I now know that there could be chances of human manipulation as a result of modernism and other social and economic factors. This marks a tough choice because both have a concrete basis.

On one hand, I could choose to read the word without basing my knowledge on human interpretations and thus avoid contextual manipulations or, base my understanding of the word of God on a normal day-to-day life of man and thus put into consideration the human feelings and nature.

The greatest lesson I have learned is that for me to understand the word of God, it will call for the direction of the Holy Spirit. This is the only way out because using human interpretation can lead to misinterpretation.

In addition, I have learned that the church at some points has failed to acknowledge the real foundation of its existence who is Jesus Christ. It is Jesus who created the church and therefore it is himself who will sustain it. As Busch, et al (2002, 248) explains, that the church has its foundation in Christ and he is the only one that reigns over it. Therefore, the church cannot think for itself instead it should be subjected to Christ’s plan.

As a result, some of the doctrines that the church puts up are completely human conceptions and creations. By no means should the church go beyond the boundaries of the dictates of the word for the sake of embracing modernity? To this extend, I believe that Barth was correct to some point but also, it is difficult to believe in mysteries without putting the immediate human nature and feelings into consideration. This means that the other philosophers were also right.

To some extent, I feel that the threat to the growth and spread of the word of God could be attributed to men themselves. With such deviations and beliefs, some Christians will feel that there is no truth at all. And thus backslide. And finally, I am made to believe that science and religion cannot match. There are points that they have to go in conflict.

References

Barth, Karl. Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002.

Busch, Eberhard, Darren Guder, Geoffrey Bromiley and Judith Guder. The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barth’s Theology. Michigan: Eardmans, 2004.

Chandler, Canon. “Barthian Neo-Protestantism.” Philorthodox. 2008. Web.

Dorrien, Gary. The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology. Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.

Hamilton, Barry. “Review of Protestant Theology in the 19^th Century.” 2003. Web.

Williams, Rowan. “Not Being Serious: Thomas Merton and Karl Barth.” 2008. Web.

Introduction

Healthcare represents a unique institution that helps to manage and treat illnesses and predict diseases. Church and religion play a crucial role on ethical and moral; principles followed by medical professionals and social workers. The Catholic lay associations the church chose to execute its policies are not as submissive as it probably expected. Quite often, they object to serve merely as tools of the healthcare, insisting upon their own interpretations of what action is needed in given cases.

They tend to develop their own identity. In other situations they are suppressed by governments¹. Occasionally, the church finds it impossible to preserve the strictly Catholic character of an organization, for instance a labor union or a cooperative. Many times the religion has to come to terms with the fact that its monopoly of dealing with diseases and illnesses ceases, so that Catholic and non-Catholic agencies begin to cooperate on a secular plane more than the church finds necessary.

Catholic principles

Following Lammers and Verhey (1998) underline that the medical agencies enable an individual to be simultaneously a faithful member of the universal religion and a good citizen in regional political processes². They are a good channel to political power in nations where a party system prevails. In the Third World, all too often parties represent merely narrow elites so that the usefulness of Catholic or Christian Democratic parties are severely limited.

As, moreover, Catholic principles are in many respects conservative while other parties are more progressive and aggressive, many Catholic followers could give their votes to these secular parties without betraying their Catholic moral principles. Sometimes, on the contrary, the failure of the church in many social institutions to dissolve alliances with the most conservative sections of the ruling groups, a Catholic conscience would drive followers and believers to secular radical parties as better qualified to produce social change than the Catholic principles. This, in turn, adds the difficulty from the standpoint of the church that the leaders of these parties disagreed with the church.

They built their own power base within the party, ignoring or even rejecting suggestions coming from the church. Another major agency is Catholic Action. It has had a checkered career in regard both to its nature and its relationship with the church. It started out during the nineteenth century as one of the many Catholic associations of the most diverse kind which proliferated when political and social conditions in Europe facilitated the growth of nongovernmental organizations and associations.

Christian moral principles applied to healthcare filed vary in character from place to place and over time. The one stable factor, whether they are political parties, workers’ associations, educational institutions, charitable organizations, or social clubs, was their Catholic orientation³.

Even this ranged from overemphasis and exclusiveness to under emphasis and openness regarding Catholic membership. Gradually, Catholic Action outgrow other organizations in importance and become something like an umbrella organization with a presence in almost all parts of the world. The church singles it out as of great usefulness and gives it special attention. It plays a significant role in the attempt to apply social doctrine in all aspects of healthcare life. It is, like all other executive agencies of the religion, composed exclusively of laypersons⁴.

Morality of medicine

Following Lammers and Verhey (1998) medicine should be moral. Greater morality in medical sphere and healthcare are unquestionably desirable⁵. The call for community, solidarity, and the socially responsible use of private property with a simultaneous rejection of those socialist features most likely to achieve these ends, appears puzzling, even to churchmen. It appears all the more puzzling as many of the ends suggested in recent encyclicals coincide with those suggested by socialism.

Equally puzzling appears the resistance of the church to governments holding the better promise for changes in sinful structures than many of those, especially in the Third World, with whom the official church is in collusion⁶. That the church could do little more than aim at conversion of sinful people, provide guidance for highly moral behavior, and call on states to help it achieve its aims rested in the nature of its traditional doctrine, organization, and means.

But since it has now chosen to enter into some very detailed analyses of social evils, it can hardly avoid a corresponding duty to suggest its social structures designed to eliminate the evils it found. The least one might expect is that it give free rein to those who are trying to bring about change in the spirit of Catholicism. The Liberation theologians have shown that more than appeals, some activism in conformity with the Bible is possible⁷.

The broader question is whether the undefined structural changes demanded by the church can be brought about by states now controlled by the very people against whom the changes are directed. The erection of new structures preventing sinful people from continuing their sinful behavior might better be left to those now suffering from the sinful structures. Nowhere, however, does the church discuss specific means beyond education by which those intended to benefit most from the changes could participate in their own liberation⁸. The paternalism characteristic of the age of alms still influences the thinking of the official church.

The broader question is whether the undefined structural changes demanded by the church can be brought about by states now controlled by the very people against whom the changes are directed. The erection of new structures preventing sinful people from continuing their sinful behavior might better be left to those now suffering from the wicked structures⁹.

Promoting healthcare education

There is a widespread and general concern to promote healthcare education for personal and professional benefit. The church lent help by suggesting education of the clergy in social affairs. It was felt that the lack of educational opportunities for the workers facilitated their exploitation. Education, so the argument ran, would make the workers aware of their rights, their own strength, their ability to participate in politics and their entitlement to share in government¹⁰.

Consequently, many of those who agreed used every political device to provide education for the workers. A dilemma was envisaged, however. Raising the status of the workers in a capitalist system might sharpen class conflict. Yet violence was condemned as un-Christian. The alternative was to be mediation by the church, a proposal which also had approval from Christian Socialists.

The role of private property was an inevitable subject in a discussion of capitalism. It apparently created no difficulty among those evaluating the Social Question from the Catholic standpoint. They took for granted that property was a gift from God and had to be used in conformity with His will. With the arrival of the twentieth century, the Social Question moved into the background¹¹. The worst results of industrialization were being overcome.

During the first half of the century social legislation was progressing. The problem of poverty was handled by governments and political parties (including Catholic parties) Theology could and did devote itself to other social problems. The appalling condition of the poor in colonial areas and Latin America were practically ignored by theologians. The lower clergy and missionaries took care of the poor with customary charity and education¹².

They developed an intense activity in establishing new organizations, study and research groups, educational associations, and, most important, political parties. These activities were useful. But they reached relatively small sections of the population, relative, that is, to secular movements of the time–foremost socialism and socialist organizations.

These activities were not based on an inspiring social doctrine that could have competed successfully with the appeals of Marxism and, later, other sociopolitical ideologies and activities. The Christian social movement lacked a great theorist who could formulate Christian principles to attract the society at large, it did not lack the principles for the correction of the capitalist abuses.

Because of the novelty and complexity and multifaceted and legalistic character of all these problems it is very difficult for ordinary people in the community to come to grips with them. Again, these issues cannot be discussed fruitfully in the political hurly-burly of parliamentary debate. The tendency has therefore been to set up expert committees or commissions to consider the issues in the hope that they will be able to put them into some kind of perspective, reach a consensus about them and then make recommendations to government and policymakers.

In one sense this is a Platonic or elitist idea in that it assumes that most of the life and death issues we have been discussing cannot be settled by general community debate or in the political forum¹³. Again, there is always the danger that governmental committees will, rather like the media, engage in a certain amount of self-censorship. Members of such committees usually find it easy to discern what result the minister or the governmental authority to whom one reports, would like the committee to reach. There is then, a difficulty in reconciling the need for some degree of expertise in discussing and deciding about novel and complex bioethical issues with the need for community consultation and input¹⁴.

From the fact that a majority of people is opposed to a certain development in biotechnology we cannot conclude that it is therefore morally wrong; nor, vice versa, can we argue from the fact that a majority of people accepts a practice that it is therefore morally right. People’s beliefs and attitudes are, of course, extremely relevant to determining the kind of legal control one might wish to put in place–it is, for example futile to have strict and severe laws against surrogate motherhood if most people in the community think that surrogate motherhood, duly regulated, is acceptable. But on the other hand, majority beliefs and attitudes do not settle the ethical question¹⁵.

There is therefore a good deal of pressure on these committees or commissions to come up with some kind of unanimous report which will provide clear and unambiguous answers even on issues where there is public controversy and divided opinion, and which will provide the basis for governmental implementation and action. Within these moral principles also there is a very strong tendency to seek unanimity so that their views will be more persuasive to those outside¹⁶.

One can understand the wish to achieve consensus among the members of a bioethics committee or commission if that is at all possible; no one wants disagreement just for the sake of disagreement and these committees are set up with practical ends in view; they cannot be debating societies or academic seminars in which all possible points of view are given an airing and no practical guidance for decision-making is indicated.

Again, there is the fear that a lack of unanimity in a report will give policymakers who wish to maintain the status quo a good excuse for doing nothing. Nevertheless, it is wholly to be expected that on the difficult and complex moral and social and legal issues posed by the new biotechnology there will be deep differences of view among even the most informed and rational people. People who argue for such a public morality in our society usually attack the excesses of individualism according to which everyone is free to pursue their own lives in their own way, so that the notion of any kind of common moral consensus or common good almost vanishes¹⁷.

Translating love through charity

The medial professionals are asking the religion to live up to her demands for social and economic changes. This emphatic request is not tantamount to reducing the Gospel to a purely “earthly principles,” but merely reminding the church to practice what she is preaching. Possible political risks are of no great relevance to them. Most of them find political action desirable and inevitable, as well as a part of salvation history.

Charity is not considered equal to alms giving. Alms giving is described as inadequate because it does not cover many aspects of poverty, because it is provided on an individual basis and does not touch the social root of the evil. What is needed, the theologians say, is social charity: charity referring to a person in the economic, social, cultural, racial environment. When so interpreted, charity cannot be accomplished by conversion alone, certainly not when it is restricted to alms giving. Catholics and their church are committed to more comprehensive action. This broader kind of charity requires a committed love that translates into the preferential option for the poor. Reaching this goal requires action to eliminate the broadly conceived poverty and this, in turn, requires changes in the society.

The views of the Liberation theologians on private property are determined by the role it plays in sustaining those aspects of the system they believe need change. Very few not very prominent theologians favor the abolition of private property altogether. Most subscribe to the proposition of the late encyclicals that private property must be used in a socially responsible way and that there is a social mortgage on it¹⁸.

Conclusion

In sum, healthcare should be based on moral principles and dogmas followed by the church. The use of healthcare philosophers in public sphere concerned with bioethical issues has been an unusual and, to philosophers at any rate, a welcome development over the last years. In the past, university philosophers, at least in the Anglo-American world, have been considered to be rather ‘remote and ineffectual’ and, apart from some notable exceptions, have not been seen as having much to offer in the discussion of healthcare public issues nor in the formulation of policy about those issues.

Bibliography

Lammers, S. E., Verhey, A. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives In Medical Ethics 2nd. Ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Jones, L. Gregory. “A Pathology of Medical Ethics: Economic Medical Rationing in a Morally Incoherent Society.” Linacre Quarterly 57, no. 2 (1990): 59–67.

Pence, G. Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 5 edition, 2007.

Veatch, R. M. Basics of Bioethics, The (2nd Edition). Prentice Hall; 2 edition, 2002.

Footnotes

1. Pence, G. Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics. (McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 5 edition, 2007), 43.
2. Lammers, S. E., Verhey, A. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives In Medical Ethics 2nd. Ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans (Publishing Company, 1998), 947.
3. Lammers, S. E., Verhey, A. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives In Medical Ethics 2nd. Ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans (Publishing Company, 1998), 950.
4. Pence, G. Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics. (McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 5 edition, 2007),65.
5. Veatch, R. M. Basics of Bioethics, The (2nd Edition). (Prentice Hall; 2 edition, 2002), 51.
6. Pence, G. Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics. (McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 5 edition, 2007), 59.
7. Lammers, S. E., Verhey, A. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives In Medical Ethics 2nd. Ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans (Publishing Company, 1998),960.
8. Lammers, S. E., Verhey, A. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives In Medical Ethics 2nd. Ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans (Publishing Company, 1998), 958.
9. Pence, G. Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics. (McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 5 edition, 2007), 98.
10. Veatch, R. M. Basics of Bioethics, The (2nd Edition). (Prentice Hall; 2 edition, 2002), 66.
11. Pence, G. Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics. (McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 5 edition, 2007), 102.
12. Jones, L. Gregory. “A Pathology of Medical Ethics: Economic Medical Rationing in a Morally Incoherent Society.” Linacre Quarterly 57, no. 2 (1990): 59..
13. Jones, L. Gregory. “A Pathology of Medical Ethics: Economic Medical Rationing in a Morally Incoherent Society.” Linacre Quarterly 57, no. 2 (1990): 64..
14. Veatch, R. M. Basics of Bioethics, The (2nd Edition). (Prentice Hall; 2 edition, 2002) 77.
15. Veatch, R. M. Basics of Bioethics, The (2nd Edition). (Prentice Hall; 2 edition, 2002), 98.
16. Lammers, S. E., Verhey, A. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives In Medical Ethics 2nd. Ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans (Publishing Company, 1998), 98.
17. Lammers, S. E., Verhey, A. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives In Medical Ethics 2nd. Ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans (Publishing Company, 1998), 969.
18. Lammers, S. E., Verhey, A. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives In Medical Ethics 2nd. Ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans (Publishing Company, 1998), 969.

The Scripture contains valuable insights into the role of Christians as peacemakers. In regard to geopolitics, Christians have a variety of responsibilities, which are all connected to their devotion to God. Firstly, followers of Christ should not regard history as a phenomenon isolated from their faith. Instead, they have to examine geopolitical occurrences under the prism of Christendom as if not to eliminate the role of God. Even the government is essentially ordained by God, which is why Christians have to respect its decisions (Sproul, 2016). Despite that, another simple truth in regard to geopolitics that Christians ought to accept is that all governments are inherently evil. However, Romans 13 elaborates on this notion and acknowledges that governmental institutions are a necessary evil as they are better at exercising the will of God and protecting the sanctity of life than disorganized followers ever could. Although this idea suggests submission, it is limited to the decisions and actions of authorities, which do not go against what God intends. If the Lord forbids a certain kind of abuse or deviance, Christians have the right to disobey their civil magistrates. When it comes to global conflict, followers of Christ have the responsibility to pressure their government to react in a certain way.

Another important responsibility toward geopolitics Christians have is the obligation to grow spiritually. Some followers live in earthly cities where war, violence, and abuse are inevitable. However, they should not be satisfied with what they have. They must strive to improve themselves as they make themselves worthy of the heavenly city. The notion of internal transformation is one of the key traits of Christianity, which differentiates it from other religions. Christians cannot simply follow outward laws mentioned in the Scripture. Their role in the system of geopolitics starts with individualized self-improvement and inward transformation.

Furthermore, Christians have the responsibility to merge forces in order to ensure there is a unified Christian ethical response to global conflict. In the context of modern-day globalization, it is now easier than ever for followers of Christ from different countries to connect. Nowadays, the borders are slowly disappearing, which makes it even more crucial for Christians to create a coalition acting on behalf of the community in response to international crises. Beckwith (2016) notes that when the efforts of individual members of the Christian community are combined, the effect is tremendous, with the ripples reaching all spheres of social, economic, and political activity. Gbotoe and Kgatla (2017) further note that Christianity plays an exceptionally important role in protecting fragile societal structures.

In conclusion, Christians should not regard the reality of modern-day geopolitics and history as something that does not concern them. In fact, they have sacred obligations to spread the word of God and ensure that society functions in accordance with the values and laws described in the Scripture. Thus, while followers of Christ must accept submission from the civil magistrates governing them, Christian principles have to be prioritized. Christians have an important task of disobeying or pressuring authorities if the state of events or possible projections of what is going to happen stands in opposition to core Christian beliefs. In addition, they have the responsibility to constantly improve themselves and engage in inward transformation, even if they are a part of an earthly city destined for war and violence. Furthermore, Christians ought to unite and offer a unified response once the global community faces a crisis.

References

Beckwith, LaSharnda. “An Empirical Study: How Christians Influence Global Markets.” Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 8, no. 2 (2016): 7-21. Web.

Gbotoe, Eric, & Kgatla, Selaelo T.. “The Role of Christianity in Mending Societal Fragility and Quelling Violence in Liberia.” Verbum et Ecclesia 38, no. 1(2017): 1-10.

Sproul, Robert C. “What Is a Christian’s Responsibility to Government?” Web.

Introduction

The depiction of the same phenomenon, figure, or process undoubtedly leads to different interpretations. This is quite natural since the personal perception of the observed object cannot be the same for people with different cultural, ethnic, and worldview views. One fundamental example of variation is the fact that there are four different gospels as forms of description of the life and life of Jesus Christ.

The four canonical Christologies of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John are different versions of the same story of how Jesus lived and performed miracles. However, it should be clearly understood that the Gospels, while fundamental and sacred, are not exhaustive teachings on the life of Christ, for they leave out many details of Jesus’ domestic activities. For example, readers and listeners of the New Testament are well aware of how Jesus walked on water and healed a leper but are not familiar with such details of his life as a detailed description of his appearance and his marital status (Matt. 14:22-33; Matt. 8:1-4).

A consistent and systematic study of the books of the New Testament allows us to summarize the data and compile the complete portrait from fragments of information. However, it is a theological fact that each of the gospels has its own view of Christology, which means that the story of Jesus has been “passed through” the filter of perception of the author who authored the sacred book. At the same time, it is clear that each of the four authors viewed the Son of God through the paradigm of the dominant image: Jesus could be presented as Savior, Servant, or Miracle Worker.

For the purposes of this study, the Gospel of Matthew was assigned as the central book of the New Testament, the first among the four sacred books. It is known for a fact that this gospel was written to fit the context of the Jewish communities, and therefore this book is characterized by an excess of references to Old Testament texts, probably as a way to motivate the Jewish population to read the Gospel of Matthew.

As one carefully reads this book of the New Testament, it becomes clear that Matthew sees Jesus as the Messiah (the teacher) who came to save the people. The second part of this study will show that academic and theological literature agrees with this interpretation. Thus, the overall purpose of this paper is to examine the image of Jesus Christ as Messiah through the lens of Matthew’s perception as the author of one of the canonical gospels.

Summary of the Features of the Gospel of Matthew

In discussing the central prism used by the author during his description of Christology, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the gospels differ from one another. Only a comparative analysis with a focus on the Gospel of Matthew becomes a crucial tool to qualitatively answer the question of why Matthew portrays Jesus in a particular light.

Therefore, it is essential to emphasize key unique aspects of this gospel that allow for a deeper understanding of the essence of Christology. The immediate recognition is that Matthew wrote his portion of the New Testament for a Jewish audience in the Jerusalem community. From this comes a second feature, which is the multiplicity of citations of Old Testament texts in his Gospel. An independent count shows that Matthew’s Gospel includes over 120 direct and indirect references, including allusions and paraphrases.

Such a large, but most importantly, unified quotation of the Old Testament with an emphasis on texts dealing with the Messiah is not accidental, but on the contrary, was entirely deliberate on Matthew’s part. Furthermore, unlike the other canonical books of the New Testament, Matthew’s Gospel has no explanation for traditional Jewish rulings and norms since there is no need for the Jerusalem reader to clarify familiar concepts.

It is important to note that the term “God” does not appear — or appears very rarely, depending on the translation — in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, this phenomenon is not coincidental since it is known that the use of this word did not characterize the Old Testament Jews, unlike Christians, for whom, for example, Luke wrote. This does not mean, however, that Matthew completely excludes God’s message from his gospel: keeping the essence of Christology virtually intact, the apostle could not distort the sacred teachings.

For this reason, Matthew replaces the term God with tetragrams or synonyms so as not to emphasize God to his readers, although it is evident to the modern reader what the evangelist has in mind. It is also impossible not to notice the particular use of numbers in this Gospel: Matthew deliberately uses the number “14” to refer to Jesus’ lineage. There are no precise definitions of the meaning the apostle put into this number. It could either be a double “7” as evidence of Jesus’ sacredness or it could be a reference to the Lunar Month lasting precisely 28 days.

Finally, a final aspect important for preliminary discussion in the current research paper is a clear focus on the figure of the apostle Peter, which is not seen in the other gospels. The apostle Peter, aka the first pope, was one of Jesus’ closest disciples during his lifetime, and it was he who, according to Matthew, experienced one of Christ’s most famous miracles. Specifically, Jesus helped Peter, who was drowning, get up on the water and go during the storm at sea. Considering all of the above, it is critical to emphasize that Matthew, who wrote his version of the New Testament for the Jews, accurately recorded the figure of Jesus as a savior and teacher for the whole world.

The Author’s Perception of Matthew’s Gospel

According to the instructions, the primary assignment was to read the assigned book independently and find the dominant image of Jesus described by Matthew without the use of academic literature. In this sense, a careful reading of the Gospels was an essential step in establishing a primary, subjective view of how the apostle was able to portray Jesus. Although there are images of Christ as a teacher, helper, and one of Abraham’s descendants in Matthew’s sacred work, this is especially important for a Jewish audience of readers and hearers. However, according to the author, the primary and predominant portrayal of Jesus was that of the Messiah. Messiah has no unambiguous interpretation for the theological and scholarly communities, and many authors tend to interpret the term differently. In addition, there is no single field of knowledge within which the phenomenon of the Messiah is studied.

More specifically, Figure 1 shows the ten academic categories in which papers with the key term “Messiah” have been published. It can clearly be seen that this includes not only religious sources but also historical, musical, multidisciplinary, literary, philosophical, political, and educational writings by authors. To put it another way, it is impossible to provide a uniform conceptual framework for the term, and so it is necessary to clarify exactly what the author of the current research paper understands it to mean.

Within the framework of the gospel understudy, the Messiah is identified with Jesus Christ; a synonymous sign is placed between the two. In Matthew’s perception, the Messiah is the Son of God who came into this world to make a great sacrifice for the salvation of all humanity. He is a spiritual leader who inspires people to do good deeds, and in doing so, he himself does good, even if the price for those deeds is the Messiah’s own self-interest. This is the context in which Matthew understands the Jesus he described in his lifetime: the holy man is the Messiah in a sense indicated and was sent down by God to deliver humankind from suffering. This is the paramount understanding, for it does not coincide with the perceptions of Mark and Luke. For example, Mark described Christ as a servant of the people, suffering and enduring, while Luke denoted Jesus as the high priest. Both of these perceptions do not fit Matthew’s feelings, who sees the Son of God as a rule through the prism of the Savior.

In support of the above argument, the wording that Matthew cites in his Gospel is evident. One such episode is the case of the salvation of the paralyzed man: Jesus only had to point out to the sick man the possibilities of “getting up and walking” for him to realize it at the exact moment (Matt. 9:6-7). This situation perfectly illustrates the apostle’s attitude toward Jesus: he is a mighty but merciful messiah. Furthermore, Jesus in Matthew’s description is wise, for not all words can actually save a person from sickness.

On the contrary, the Messiah knows exactly that healing is only possible when one is found to be sinless, and that is why the Savior does not simply cure the sick man but says that all his sins are forgiven (Matt. 9:5). In turn, it is evident that the power to forgive sins is not vested in ordinary people: instead, a good cure for sins is only possible by the will of God, of which Jesus is the messenger. Hidden in this chapter of Matthew’s Gospel is another important message whose epistemological analysis allows us to confirm the Messianic nature of Jesus. After the episode of the forgiveness of sins, Jesus meets Matthew, who was sitting outside (Matt. 9:9).

When the apostle invited Jesus into his house, one of the pressing questions was to determine why the Messiah was spending time with sinners despised by his own people. Matthew makes it clear that Jesus’ decision to spend time with such people was not motivated by sacrifice or patience but by a desire to save them as long as they themselves needed the Messiah (Matt. 9:12). As a consequence, Matthew implicitly shows that Jesus is to be seen as the Messiah who has a part of God’s authority on earth.

One of the most meaningful scenes in which the divine origin of the Savior is not questioned in any way is the episode of the Transfiguration of the Lord. Matthew writes that Jesus was transfigured over his disciples, and his face and silhouette shone in blindingly white light (Matt. 17:2). Jesus’s role as Messiah becomes even more evident when the parallel between Christ’s transfiguration and the observers is drawn. Seeing the metamorphosis of Christ is one of the manifestations of salvation, for, at that moment, the beholder is also transformed (2Cor. 3:17-18; Heb. 12:2).

Consequently, witnessing such a miracle helps the apostles to be transformed for the better through the abandonment of earthly attachments. When the Pharisees came for Jesus of Nazareth, he surrendered to them, not for his salvation, but the salvation of all humanity. Jesus is severely mutilated, stripped, and humiliated before his execution, but the Messiah endures it all as long as it is part of his global mission in this world, according to Matthew (Matt. 27:27-31). It is noteworthy that even in describing the mockery of Jesus, Matthew points out: “Hail, King of the Jews!” (Matt. 27:29). Although the Pharisees’ words in this passage are seen as a mockery of Jesus’ title, the use of this particular epithet reinforces in the minds of the readers (listeners) the idea of whom Matthew saw the Messiah to be.

Finally, it is well known that each of the gospels ends in a distinctive way; by examining the structure of this ending, one can gauge the evangelist’s overall view of what Jesus was sent into the world to do. For example, Luke writes about Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, but before that, he left an important message for his disciples (Lk. 24:49). This underscores the view. that for Luke, Jesus is primarily a holy man who is concerned about humans relationships and concern for his disciples. Mark does not talk about Christ’s after-death instruction, dwelling only on the resurrection and ascension — in this interpretation, the evangelist views Jesus as the son of God and something more than an ordinary man (Mk. 16:19).

In John’s gospel, Jesus’ death is not indicated literally, but the leitmotif seems to be the view that Jesus will yet return (Jh. 21:22). This is consistent with John’s notion that Jesus is both human and Logos. It is only in Matthew’s interpretation that Jesus is given an authority not discussed by the other authors. In the words of the Messiah, Matthew writes, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth,” pointing to the infinity of Jesus even after his death (Matt. 28:18). The Messiah’s instructions to teach and help other nations underscores the globality of the Son of God as the Messiah who came one day to save all humanity, not just specific communities.

Consistency with Academic Sources

The academic community is characterized by a study of Jesus’ role as Messiah and the Son of God who was called into the world to make the Great Sacrifice. For example, Subramanian explores a particular theological approach to reading the New Testament that involves filtering evangelistic knowledge through the lens of cultural readings of various ethnic communities. Subramanian cites a passage from the concluding chapters of Matthew showing the divine role of Jesus. In particular, Subramanian quotes Christ’s words in which the latter actually confesses his Messianic identity before the judgment (Matt. 26: 64).

In his study, Johnson takes a similar view, often replacing Jesus’ name with the synonymous “Messiah.” For example, Johnson provides the following information in the notes section for the reader: “and though Jesus is a peaceable messiah in the passion narrative, Matthew forecasts violence upon his return.” The fact that the author casually points out the identity between Jesus and the Messiah makes it clear that Johnson’s perception of Christ as the Messiah is inherent.

Holdsworth’s Christological study of the genealogy of Christ is also accompanied by a clear agreement that there is no difference between the Messiah and Jesus: Holdsworth writes in the preface to his work that “Jesus is presented as… the Messiah, whose arrival at an auspicious time is about to set a new direction in religious history.” This reading also makes it possible to unequivocally accept the authors’ view that Jesus is the Messiah with a particular, measurable purpose for the New Testament.

In discussing the meaning of Matthew’s Gospel through commentary on specific aspects of it, Ward-Hall literally repeats the thoughts indicated by the author of the current research paper in the previous sections. In particular, Ward-Hall writes that Matthew’s purpose as a writer was to create an image of Jesus as the Messiah who came to save all humankind and to help the Jewish people in particular. Finally, of particular epistemological interest may be Novakovic’s book, in which the author focuses on the use of the image of the Apostle Mark in Matthew’s Gospel. Regarding Jesus, Novakovic explicitly points out in several places that for Matthew, Jesus is the Messiah.

Novakovic uses several specific episodes from the New Testament as arguments, which was typical of this research paper as well. Thus, a brief review of five independent academic sources reliably shows that each of them views Matthew’s perception of Jesus primarily as the son of God and the Messiah who came into the world for the salvation of humanity. This is a good indication of a proper independent reading of Matthew’s gospel and a definition of the dominant image of Jesus as seen by one of the first apostles.

Conclusion

To summarize, each of the four canonical Gospels reveals Christology from a particular perspective from which the Evangelists perceived the image of Jesus Christ. The focus of this paper was on Matthew as one of the chief apostles of Jesus and the first writer of the canonical book on the life and miracles of Christ. It has been shown that Matthew perceives Jesus as the Messiah, as repeatedly reported in twenty-eight chapters of the Gospel.

The paper reviewed the features of this book and showed that the primary audience for whom the apostle was describing Christology was the Jewish communities: it may be for this reason that Matthew seeks to portray Jesus as the Messiah since the theme of the messenger of God sent to save humanity is iconic to the Old Testament.

The third section of the research paper describes in detail why Matthew viewed the person of Jesus as the Messiah and gives examples that directly or indirectly support this argument. These ideas were formed based only on a careful reading of Matthew’s gospel. The following section discussed five academic sources (articles and books) that confirmed the author’s findings: each of the researchers proved that the perceptions of Jesus as Messiah are accurate Matthew.

Bibliography

Foster, Paul. “Harmonization in the Synoptic Gospels.” The Expository Times (2019): 37–38.

Holdsworth, John. “Family Trees: Who Is Baby Jesus?” Supporting A-level Religious Studies. The St Maryʼs and St Gilesʼ Centre 17 (2020): 2–41.

Johnson, Nathan C. “The Passion According to David: Matthew’s Arrest Narrative, the Absalom Revolt, and Militant Messianism.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 80, no. 2 (2018): 247–272.

Novakovic, Lidija. “Matthew’s “Messianization” of Mark.” In A Temple Not Made with Hands: Essays in Honor of Naymond H. Keathley, ed. Mikeal C. Parsons, Richard Walsh (Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018), 15-26.

Rosik, Mariusz. “C. Mitch, E. Sri, Ewangelia według św. Mateusza. Katolicki Komentarz do Pisma Świętego.” Wrocławski Przegląd Teologiczny 28, no. 1 (2020): 363-365.

Subramanian, J. Samuel. “Tribals, Empire and God: A Tribal Reading of the Birth of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, Written by Zhodi Angami, 2017.” Biblical Interpretation 27, no. 3 (2019): 467–469.

Ward-Hall, Jane. What Faith Looks. The Kingdom of God, 2000. PDF e-book: 1–3.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three religions, which appeared separately, but developed in the same world. The very appearance of these religions may be discussed from different perspectives, such as from the fact that they have the same roots and have formed the same system, but then, in the result of some considerations, have been changed in a way that differs them now, or that these three religions have usually been three different branches and have never collaborated in any way.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam formed single religious system in Middle Ages

There is an opinion that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam formed single religious system in Middle Ages, and this opinion may be proved by a raw of facts, which are going to be introduced in the current paper. Considering medieval Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,” it is not enough to study meanings; we also need to consider values” (Brague and Cochrane 41). Moreover, these religions should be considered as the system, in order to evaluate them in a whole way. Starting with the main feature, which is the base for all three religions, which are discussed and that adds to the idea that they are a system, is that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic religions, the center of which is the only God (Paterson 118). Moreover, the following feature as the Judgment Day, the fight with sins and other features are distinctive and allow us to create a system out of these religions, which show that these religions have the common ideas, the main features. The existence of prophets, the Bible and other facts, even if the names are different, sign that there was the common start for these religions, that the common roots directed these religions to be main people’s consideration.

Confirming the systemic nature of three religions, the following words may be introduced, that “during the medieval period there existed a continuous and mutually profitable conversation amongst some of the intellectual giants of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam” (Neusner 209), that confirmed the collaboration of these three religions. The possibility to exist together, to be able to interact and provide some common decision, is a great step, and if there was nothing in common for these three religions, if there was no similar issues to identify, these religions could never be able to cope and exist side by side with each other.

Furthermore, there are some scholars, who consider these three religions as one system, and the reason why they are different now is explained that they just went different ways one moment. The causes for these religions ways division is explained by three strong facts. First, the fluidity of religious identity is highlighted, second, the prolonged interaction between these religions to the contrary of the elites considerations, and third, the exegetical influence between the religions was confirmed by the raw of facts. It was also confirmed that the representatives of these religions continued “to mix and mingle” (Becker and Reed 61), even after the different ways choice, that could be supportive argument to the fact that these religions have come from the same roots and were the system before they have chosen their different ways and became to be considered different religions with various considerations, beliefs and systems.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam formed three very different religions in Middle Ages

Disregarding the facts, introduced above, most scholars still consider Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as three different religions, which have never been identified as one system and have through their development separately. There are a great many of facts and confirmations, which support this idea, and are going to be discussed further. The first fact, which should be discussed, is that when Islam has entered the world, Christianity has been on its firm foots and continued its development. Having appeared in different times and during different circumstances is the main feature which rejects the systemic development of these religions and adds to their different functioning. Moreover, the collaboration of these three theories occurred so rare, that there are no any reasons to enforce of the commonness of these religions (Bragu, and Cochrane 199).

The development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as three different religions may be supported by the following facts, unlike in Christianity and Islam, in Judaism the marriages had to be arranged by the third party, the divorce was possible in Judaism, but because of some sufficient reasons, in Christianity was forbidden at all, and in Judaism was always possible. The mix of religions in the marriage was allowed in Islam and Christianity, but was firmly forbidden in Judaism. In Judaism, children came through maternal line, while in other two religions through paternal (Mitchell 86).

The philosophical views of these religions are absolutely different. Taking Old Testament, people are considered to be sinful and the Book teaches how to avoid sins and live happy life under the God’s supervision, in addition, God is mentioned in the Book, Jesus and other saints. Taking Koran, Muslims are introduced as people without sins, and Muhammad, the most significant prophet, is not mentioned at all (Catherwood 58). What does it mean? The priorities of these religions are different, the philosophy is not similar, and so, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three absolutely different religions, which can never be considered as coming out of the same roots or being the same system. These three religions, even if pursue the same aims (to be closer to their Gods), still have different methods to reach them, different visions of this closeness and various opinions about whether the person has reached God or not. These are the very distinctive features, which make these religions not alike (Koslowski 54). Furthermore, “the wide range of cultural diversity within Christianity is perhaps one of the most striking differences between Christianity” (McGrath 317), Islam and Judaism. The meaning of the said, that there are a lot of branches of Christianity, such as Protestantism, the Orthodoxy, the Catholicism and others, which do not exist in any other religion, that tells about the ancientry of Christianity, its separate development from others religions.

In conclusion, the two points of view were introduced, whether consider Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the result of development from the same roots and the introduction as the same system before, or to consider Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as three absolutely different religions, which never coincided. The strict answer was not given, as there are supportive arguments for both sides, and the scientists can not decide for sure which part of the discussion to support. He similarity in the religious canons may be considered as their differences. The same aim is reached by different methods and the time of development is different, as well as different the circumstances, when these religions developed.

Works Cited

Becker, Adam H. and Annette Yoshiko Reed. The ways that never parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Print.

Brague, Rémi and Lydia G. Cochrane. The Legend of the middle ages: philosophical explorations of medieval Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Print.

Catherwood, Christopher. A God Divided: Understanding the Differences Between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. New Jersey: David C. Cook, 2007.

Koslowski, Peter. Philosophy Bridging the World Religions. New York: Springer Science & Business, 2003. Print.

McGrath, Alister E. Christianity: an introduction. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. Print.

Mitchell, Linda Elizabeth. Family life in the Middle Ages. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. Print.

Neusner, Jacob. Religious foundations of Western Civilization: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Nashville: Abigdon Press, 2006. Print.

Paterson, Andrea C. An analysis and brief history of the three great monotheistic faiths Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Xulon Press, 2004. Print.

Religion is a system of beliefs and practices that relate to the supernatural. Eastern religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, and Shintoism, while western religions include Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Hinduism encourages its followers to believe in Henotheism, practice dharma and achieves moksha. In contrast, Christianity believes in one God who created the world and all that exists. Hinduism and Christianity are respectively eastern and western religions that share few similarities and differences in terms of origins, core beliefs and doctrines, historical and geographic, and core rituals and practices.

There are a few similarities between Hinduism and Christianity in terms of core beliefs and doctrines. For one, they both have holy texts central to their respective religions. The Vedas are a key part of Hinduism and contain all of the teachings of the religion, while the Bible is Christianity’s central text (Unit One, n.d.). Similarly, both Hinduism and Christianity emphasize the importance of doing good to others. In Hinduism, karma holds that good actions lead to positive experiences, while Christianity considers loving the highest virtue and crucifies selfishness.

Concerning the historical perspective, both religions are based on monotheism since Hinduism believes in Henotheism while Christianity believes in monotheism. The two religions, therefore, share monotheistic elements as a common feature. In addition, Hinduism and Christianity are both old religions. Hinduism is thought to have originated approximately 4,000 years ago, while Christianity emerged a few years after Hinduism (Unit One, n.d.). Concerning core rituals and practices, both religions exercise sacramental belief. Many protestant churches believe that only two sacraments are essential for salvation, compared to the seven that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view as necessary. Hinduism considers the ritual of offering food to a deity, known as Prasad, as a sacrament that helps people reach emancipation and enlightenment.

In contrarily, there are key differences between the two religions. In terms of core beliefs and doctrines, Hindus believe in reincarnation, which holds that the soul is reborn into another body after death. On the other hand, Christians believe in resurrection, which is the belief that the body is raised from the dead and reunited with the soul. In addition, Hindus have a Murti, a statue of their deity, used in worship. Conversely, Christians do not typically use physical objects in their worship rituals (Unit Two, n.d.). Regarding ritual practices, there are Christian pilgrimages and Hindu pilgrimages. For Christians, pilgrimages entail traveling to a holy site associated with their religion, such as Jesus’s birthplace, while Hindus visit any number of holy places, including temples, Kumbh Mela, Diwali, and Varanasi (Unit Two, n.d.). Concerning geographic differences, Hinduism was founded in India, while Christianity started in the Middle East. Similarly, Hinduism is mainly found in Eastern countries, while Christianity has historically been more prevalent in Western countries. As a result, Hindus tend to be more concentrated in Asia, while Christians are more widespread throughout Europe and America.

In conclusion, there are many similarities and differences between Hinduism and Christianity. Both religions have much to offer in terms of ethical and moral guidance, regardless of their fundamental differences. Christianity is based on the belief in a single God, while Hinduism is considered Henotheism. We learn that Hinduism is far more complex than Christianity, with a vast array of deities and rituals that can be difficult to understand without extensive teaching. We can learn about religion in general by studying different faiths, which can aid us in better understanding our religions.

References

Unit 1 Tutorials, (n.d.). In Major Approaches to Studying Religion. Sofia Learning. Web.

Unit 2 Tutorials, (n.d.). In Common Elements of Religions. Sofia Learning. Web.

Introduction

In Hebrews, the word messiah refers to ‘anointed one’ or someone sent on divine mission with reference Jewish perspective. Particularly, biblical presentation of Messiah revolves around someone ‘holy and righteous’, sent to redeem human nature from sin.

In this regard, Christians believe on the Old Testament prophesy about the birth of ‘a Messiah’, who turned out as Jesus Christ. More precisely, the Old Testament prophesy about Messiah is fulfilled in the new testament when Jesus is born, who subsequently started His Messianic mission.

According to the teachings of the New Testament, Jesus fits the Old Testament. On the other hand, Jewish believe on Jesus seems different from Christians since, Jewish religion does not accord Jesus as Messiah.

As it has been revealed, Jews perceive Jesus as lacking the capacity to meet the descriptions of ‘Messiah’ as the Hebrews Bible describes it. On this basis, this paper will focus on the main reasons why the Jewish perception of Messiah differs from that of Christians, despite the two religions having common divine scripture book.

Comparison of Messianic Prophesies Between Christians and Jews

According to Isaiah (9: 6, NIV), “A child will be born and his name would be wonderful counselor…” With reference to Christians’ perception of this verse, the child being prophesized by Isaiah was Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, Jews interpret this verse to refer to King Hezekiah, the great reformer who eradicated idolatry in Judah. Further, the phrase ‘wonder of a counselor, Mighty God’ is considered by Jews as referring to God, who did miraculous things during King Hezekiah’s reign including his victory over the Assyrians who had attacked Judah.

Perhaps, according to the Jews, Isaiah’s prophesy referred to the extraordinary events that God would accomplish during Hezekiah’s reign. According to McDowell (1997, p. 147), ‘The Old Testament… contains several hundred references to the Messiah……in which they were all fulfilled in Christ and they establish a solid confirmation of his credentials as the Messiah.”

This argument proclaims on the confirmation of Jesus Christ as the long waited Messiah as prophesized by prophet Isaiah. It is also important to note that, the prophesized Messiah in the book of Isaiah is described as having a kingdom, where he will be able to judge all the people.

In the words of Paine (1995, p. 206) “I have examined all the passages in the New Testament quoted from the Old, … and I find no such thing as a prophecy of any such person described as Jesus Christ as the Messiah..”

In this regard, Chazan (2004) considers Hezekiah as the ultimate individual to fit in this category of ‘Messiah’, since he was a wonderful religious leader and also had a kingdom.

On the other hand, the perception of Christians considering Jesus as the ultimate promised Messiah seems baseless, since Jesus had no kingdom. Precisely, God used King Hezekiah to show His mightiness while Jesus came on earth to reconcile human kind with God.

According to Laooard (2004), the prophesy of Messiah as revealed in the book of Daniel does not conform to the Christian view of Jesus as the anticipated Messiah.

According to Paine (1995),the book of Daniel talks of a king coming to restore Jerusalem within a period of seven weeks or 483 years, which seems too early for the birth of Jesus Christ.

In this regard, the equation relating the calculation of this period prophesized by Daniel on the coming of a Messiah disregards Jesus as the expected Messiah on the basis of His time of birth.

On the other hand, the Jewish perception of Hezekiah as the ultimate Messiah seems coherent with these prophesies of Daniel, since his time of reign in the kingdom of Judah falls within the 483 years talked about by Daniel. On this basis, the birth prophesies of Messiah with regard to the Christians’ interpretation of the bible seems unreliable and baseless.

However, Christians believe that, the words spoken by Jesus in John (12:32, NIV) echo Isaiah’s prophesy about the role of the Messiah to unite the whole world. Notably, prophet Isaiah had prophesied on the role of the anticipated Messiah of gathering together all nations from the four corners of the earth.

According to Chazan (2004), Jesus acknowledged his mission of bringing peace and unity to the earth, and that all the people should worship God alone who had sent Him. Similarly, the book of Romans (15: 12, NIV) reveals the quotes of Isaiah’s prophesies about the worship of Christ by the Gentiles (Robinson, 2008).

This is a true implication that, Jesus is the ultimate Messiah awaited to reconcile the whole world and facilitate unity across the world. The New Testament further explains how the prophesy came to pass with the death of Jesus seeing that Jesus body was the temple which after destruction rose on the third day.

Unlike Christians, Jews base their identity and expectations on Tanakh, Talmud and Rabbinic writings. One of the most common believes in these writings is that, all of them talk about two messiahs, where one is being referred to as Messiah ben Joseph or son of Joseph while the other is called Messiah ben David or son of David.

As revealed by Netfirms (2000), Messiah ben Joseph will help Israel to defeat its nations and the people will kill him later. On the other hand, messiah ben David on the other hand will overthrow enemies of Israel and also raise Messiah Joseph from the dead.

Christians on the other hand believe in one Messiah and He will come to the world twice. Based on the Bible and Tanakh teachings, they believe that the Messiah Joseph has already appeared and paid for the sins of the world through His death in Calvary.

His penalty was to be crucified on the cross in order to save all those people who would believe in Him. On the other hand, he will return as a ruling king, overthrow His enemies and establish a righteous kingdom on earth.

In Isaiah 53 for example, Christians depict a picture of a Messiah who would die on the cross in order to save the nation of Israel while Jews believe that Isaiah was prophesying about the sufferings of the Jews at the hand of Gentile nations.

The difference in interpretations is explained in terms of diverse prophesies is that the prophesies are applicable to both the Messiah and the Israel nation (Robinson, 2008).

Though Christians relate the words of Mathew (1:22-23, NIV), to the prophesies of Isaiah about a young woman conceiving and subsequently giving birth to the ‘Messiah’, there still exists controversy in these two readings.

Despite that Jesus was born by Virgin Mary, Isaiah’s prophesies talked of a young woman, but did not specify on the virginity condition. Particularly, the word virgin was not in the Tanakh, the real Hebrew text, and hence Christians should not use the verse to support their claim on the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah (Chazan, 2004).

Nevertheless, Christians and Jews still agree on the accomplishment of Messianic age at the end of history. In this case, Christians consider Jesus’ ministry as being due to be accomplished when He comes the second time. On the other hand, Rabbinic prophesy regards Jesus as an imposter and that, the real Messiah will arrive in the future.

Conclusion

Generally, it is evident that Jews and Christians believe in the promise of a messiah. However, some conflict on the particular individual regarded as the Messiah seems to exist in the Christianity and Jewish perception of the Messiah.

While Christians claim that Jesus is the fulfillment of an ancient prophesy, the writings in the New Testament make them believe fully on Jesus Christ as the fore-told Messiah. On the other hand, Jews believe that, King Hezekiah was the ultimate Messiah, as his time of reign conforms to the prophesies of Daniel on an heir of David to restore Jerusalem.

It is evident that, Jews rely on the Tanakh to bolster their argument despite the fact that it contains less than two prophesies written by Moses. In this case, Christians use the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesies as a central pillar in their argument regarding the accuracy and truth of the Bible.

However, many scholars seem not to believe that Jesus is not the real Messiah, whilst the Christians seem to advocates twisted the scripture, to facilitate the perception of Jesus as the Messiah. Basically, Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophesies seeing that the Messiah was supposed to rebuild the Israel nation and make it a world superpower.

References

Chazan, R. (2004). Fashioning Jewish identity in medieval western Christendom. London: Cambridge University Press.

Laooard, J. (2004). The Fabulous Prophesies of the Messiah. Web.

McDowell, J. (1997). Evidence That Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here’s Life Publishers.

Netfirms. (2000). Jesus is the Rod out ofJesse?…Fulfilled or Unfulfilled? Journal of International Religious Matters, 37(2): 46 – 89.

Paine, T. (1995). “Examination of the Prophecies.” In William, M. (ed.). The Life and Works of Thomas Paine. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Thomas Paine National Historical Association.

Robinson, T. (2008). The Scroll of the Gospel of David. Orlando: Xulon Press.

The Author of “The Shape of Catholic Theology “tries to explain the importance of God in Christianity and how theology relates to philosophy. Philosophy and theology are relevant in explaining some of the basic elements of Christianity.

Although theology is about faith and revelation, it cannot overlook the importance of philosophy in its work. Philosophy is crucial in explain how the revelations relate to the existence of God. Philosophy explains the existence of God using the things that human beings posses. It proves that there is a supernatural being from the activities and habits that human beings adopt.

Philosophy asks questions and attempts to answer them, as does theology. The two relate because both attempt to give answers to the basic questions asked all over the world. The first case in this is the theory that explained the name God. All religions have different names for their higher being, but all of them believe that God is one and only.

Philosophers want to understand where the name originated from and whether it has any connection with reality. The Dogmatic constitution teaches us that a theologian should isolate himself or herself from the philosopher. The reason given by the constitution is the need to connect reason and faith, as well as nature and grace.

Catholicism believes in the grace of God and the ability to change the life of human beings so that they can lead a life that is not as God created. Theology bases their arguments on the fact that God is the one shaping one’s destiny, but a philosopher will want to understand the nature of the being as God created before it undergoes the transformation.

The Catholic Church believes that human beings became corrupt after the fall. Therefore, they argue that philosophers are also the corrupt. However, the fact that Jesus came to save the world means that man is not totally corrupt. They base this on the fact that man has his roots in how God created him.

The church wants to create a philosophy based on Christianity. This is by answering questions about the existence of God. This philosophy will use revelation to explain and answer questions. The key question that needs to be answered is the question of the existence of God.

Theology can answer this based on the realities like Jesus, and the holy sacrament. Theology also explains the existence of God using the theory of perfections. This is evident when a human being strives to do everything perfectly. The inner voice or consciousness is also a true reflection of the existence of a supernatural being.

A philosopher says that human being has the drive to do the correct thing even if there is no one to judge him or her. The conscious feeling that people have in them is an unexplainable phenomenon that cannot be explained only by logic. It is a feeling inside the hearts of human beings that is so powerful that it can only be related to God.

In accordance to the Christian faith, the belief is that God exists. It is this existence that forms the foundation of Christian faith and is unshakable within the realms of this faith. The proof of the existence of God can be found in human nature. An example mentioned in the text is that Christianity is guided by hope, as it is the desire or anticipation for things to occur.

Hope guides Christians into being optimistic that their dreams will be fulfilled through letting God have his way into their lives. The combination of the two aspects i.e. existence of God and hope cultivate into morals within the Christian faith. Another example that was given is the urge and desire to satisfy the internal and bodily needs. Human beings have a never-ending urge to do things over and over again.

The urges never disappear even if the person repeats the action several times. The desires seem to be aimed at finding satisfaction in another place or world. This means that there is another world or body that can satisfy these needs. They believe that heaven is the place where man will find lasting satisfactions of these desires, and find the true meaning of life (Aidan 67). Hope is one of the things that are consistent in the lives human beings.

No matter the situation, they will still hold on to the hope of a good life afterwards. The same applies to the case of an eternal life; human beings belief that there is a place where everything is perfect with no problem. They hope that they will go to heaven and find eternal peace. This is because people believe that God is the determiner of destiny and has good plans for everyone.

Bibliography

Aidan, Nichols. The Shape of Catholic Theology. London: Liturgical Press, 1991, Print.