The four Gospels were written after Jesus death by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three gospels are called synoptic because they share a similar synopsis the form of sermons to the Galileans, while the Gospel of John is directed at the Pharisees. The four gospels have different symbols an angel for Matthew, a lion for Mark, a bull for Luke, and an eagle for John.
The Gospel of Matthew was written primarily for the Jews and about the salvation of the Jewish people. Matthew or Levi was a publican disliked by both the people and authorities, so his gospel worships salvation through mercy. Mark was a disciple of Peter, who directed his message to the Romans, and emphasized the fact that Christ was the King of kings, the Lord of the universe (Hindson and Towns 26). The Gospel of Luke is addressed to the Gentiles, and speaks of salvation for non-Jews, and the manly love of Jesus. John was considered the beloved disciple of Jesus, who rested at his chest during the Last Supper. This Gospel is aimed at the Pharisees, emphasizing the superhuman qualities of Jesus, his revelations, and miraculous powers.
The History Between the Old and New Testaments
The history between the Old and New Testaments covers almost three centuries before the coming of Jesus Christ, and its events are described in the Old Testament Apocrypha. The appearance of John the Baptist is considered a significant event of this time. Still, the Old Testament Apocrypha contains many other references and predictions of the coming of Messiah. The Old Testament Apocrypha first appeared at the turn of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC.
These works include the Midrash, the Apocalypse, the Psalms, the Writings in the style of the Sages, and the Testaments. Midrash includes the Book of Jubilees or Small Genesis, which contains legends based on the stories of Genesis and Exodus. The author of this book says that the Law was written on the heavenly tablets before the world creation. The author suggests dividing history into cycles of 50 years anniversaries.
The book of the life of Adam and Eve includes an artistic account of the life of the first people in Eden, their exile, life on earth, the death of Adam, and the fall of Satan. This book contains words about the future cleansing of sins by water, which is a testimony to the influence of the preaching of John the Baptist. Further, the Apocrypha of the Book of Genesis is a retelling of its chapters 12-15, and the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah. Apocalypses include the Book of Enoch, which contains prophecies about the coming of Messiah and other world events. The Messiah is called the Son of Man, the Son of the Virgin, the chosen lord who was hidden before the world was created.
The book contains the parts introduction, angels and the universe, parables, heavenly bodies, visions, a call to righteousness, and a conclusion with the Book of Noah. This book presents the most complete description of the hopes of the Jews in the intertestamental period. There are three books of Enoch, and other apocalypses the Ascension of Moses, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Qumran Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of the Prophet Elijah, the Prophecies of the Sibyl, and the Apocalypse of Baruch.
The Apocrypha contains the Psalms of Solomon where unworthy rulers are exposed, and the coming of the Messiah is described as a supernatural but political event. Psalms also include the Odes or Songs of Solomon, Christian hymns, and hymns of thanksgiving. The Writings in the style of the Sages include the four Books of Maccabees on the Rule of Mind, which contain philosophical discussions. Finally, the Apocrypha include the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Adam, and the Testament of Isaac.
Prayer Emphasis and Worshipful Exaltation Textbook
Prayer emphasis and worshipful exaltation are seen as two distinct concepts in the Gospel of Luke. Prayer emphasis is understood as the importance of the close connection of Christ with God, while worshipful exaltation glorifies God as the Heavenly Father through whom Christ came down to earth (Hindson and Towns 378). In the Gospel of Luke, he often addresses the reader with references to prayers. Luke sought to express the human nature of Christ and emphasized his prayer life. At the same time, Luke interprets prayer as raising the heart to God and a form of communication with him.
Prayer was important to Jesus as he sought to fulfill the will of his Father, and prayer was a form of communication with God. This relationship was very personal, and Jesus, according to the Gospel of Luke, usually prayed alone. A clear example that reveals the purpose of prayer is Jesus conversation with God in the Garden of Gethsemane. Other episodes are the prayer of Jesus after baptism and receiving strength from the Holy Spirit, the prayer before choosing the twelve disciples, and the prayer when Jesus faces death on the cross.
Work Cited
Hindson, Ed, and Elmer L. Towns. Illustrated Bible Survey: An Introduction. B&H Publishing Group, 2013.
The question of a worldview is an essential factor in explaining peoples actions and behavior. In the context of religion, worldview serves even a greater purpose, providing not only motivation but moral guidance as well. This paper will focus on assessing two religions regarding the five main worldview questions: origin, identity, meaning, morality, and destiny. Discovered differences and similarities will strengthen critical thinking and allow a better understanding of the diversity of worldviews.
Hinduism Perspective
Origin
Generally, Hinduism does not consider any specific moment of origin. In other words, Hinduists see everything as always existing and timeless (Long, 2019). Hinduisms oldest religious text contains hymns of various sun, moon, night, sky, wind, and earth deities. They are not considered the creators; instead, they are the parts of Brahman all in one force (Long, 2019). In turn, Brahman is referred to as the source of everything existent and non-existent, which means responsible for establishing the sky, earth, and atmosphere, and is generally the creator of reality.
Identity
In terms of individual identity, Hinduism considers the concept of individuality as an imperfect state. All humanity is regarded as a part of the ultimate reality with little to no distinction in between them (Frazier, 2022). Both men and women represent the manifestations of Brahmans male and female aspects. The mens aspect is called Shiva, whereas the womens is Shakti. In this context, the ultimate goal of human identity is to realize the individual self, which will lead to losing the separate identity in the universal self.
Meaning
The life purpose in Hinduism is organized into four main aspects: Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Firstly, Dharma dually emphasizes ones virtue and responsibilities (Frazier, 2022). Secondly, Artha refers to pursuing wealth and prosperity in life (Frazier, 2022). Thirdly, Hinduists pursue the Kama, defined as seeking joy in life (Frazier, 2022). Finally, a person should seek enlightenment to obtain Moksha or freedom (Frazier, 2022). It is considered the most challenging purpose, especially in the context of reincarnation, since even the whole life might not be enough.
Morality
In Hinduism, morality is defined by the idea of Dharma, which teaches that everyone has their own duties and responsibilities. Particular examples include values and attitudes, such as the absence of conceit and hypocrisy. However, the difference between right and wrong is determined by a general moral imperative to act dharmically (appropriately) in a given situation (Frazier, 2022). In other words, a person subjectively evaluates the situation and decides whether adhering to specific values will be appropriate.
Destiny
The Hindu concept of reincarnation is crucial to understanding their perception of destiny. Hinduists believe in Karma a sum of individual deeds that determine their fate (Frazier, 2022). People with positive Karma will be awarded a better life after reincarnation. Conversely, negative Karma implies punishment for past sins and an increased incarnation number. Only the souls with positive Karma have the ability to achieve Moksha and be liberated from the rebirth cycle.
Comparison and Contrast with Christianity
Origin
In the question of origin, Christian and Hindu worldviews contrast in terms of theistic and pantheistic approaches, respectively. According to the NIV Bible (Gen 1:1), God created the heavens and the earth. In turn, Hinduism states that an all-inclusive Brahman force is responsible for the worlds creation. Consequently, the belief in the divinity of realitys source is the same, whereas the nature of the source is different.
Identity
Regarding identity, Christianity and Hinduism have different views on humanitys position in the world. According to NIV, people were Gods beloved creations, being a little lower than the angels (Ps 8:5). They were given the responsibility to take care of other Gods creations (Gen 2:15). Conversely, Hinduism does not anyhow emphasize human souls compared to other living beings, referring to their unity. Nevertheless, the idea of responsibility for the environment is present in Hinduism as well.
Meaning
The purpose of life in both Christianity and Hinduism can be generalized as reaching enlightenment. Christians aim to know God, while Hinduists pursue a genuine understanding of the rebirth cycle (Weider & Gutierrez, 2013). Regarding the former, John (NIV, 17:3) comments that humanitys purpose is to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. In turn, the latter implies freedom from lifes illusion and an end to the cycle.
Morality
The question of morality is the topic where Christian and Hindu ideals align the most. Both religions establish a set of norms and moral values. Moreover, both religions imply rewards for sinless lives and punishments in the opposite case (Frazier, 2022; Weider & Gutierrez, 2013). However, morality is stricter and plays a more decisive role in Christianity, with the Bible directly defining right and wrong (NIV, 2 Timothy 3:16). Conversely, Hinduisms Dharma is rather subjective and depends on individual interpretation.
Destiny
In terms of destiny, Christianity and Hinduism have different opinions on life and death. Christians believe in a single life that leads either to heaven or hell (Weider & Gutierrez, 2013). In heaven, people are blessed by His eternal presence (NIV, Rev 21:17), while in hell, they are punished by the eternal separation from Him (NIV, Rev 20:1115). Conversely, the central idea of Hinduism is the reincarnation cycle, when the soul will continue to be trapped inside a body until it is able to achieve enlightenment.
Conclusion
Critical analysis of Christianity and Hinduism from the perspective of worldview questions has uncovered many differences and some similarities. Particularly, Christians and Hinduists have entirely different views regarding human destiny. Regarding origin, identity, and meaning, religious concepts align in a general sense but differ on a more narrow scope. The chosen religions align only in terms of morality, with the differences in values being rather irrelevant.
References
Frazier, J. (2022). The classical worldview: Early foundations of Hindu philosophy. In G. Flood (ed.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to Hinduism (pp. 415-447). John Wiley & Sons.
Christianity and Islam are the major world religions. Christianity started in the 1st Century CE, while Islam started in the 7th Century CE. Christianity is based on the teachings, death, and resurrection of their savior, Jesus Christ. Islam is based on the teachings of Muhammad, which require one to submit to Gods will. Followers of Christianity are called Christians, while the followers of Islam are called Muslims. Christianity and Islam are persistent religions of the world because of the high fertility rate, age, and location of the adherents, most of whom are in developing countries.
Why Christianity and Islam have remained the Major World Religions
Christianity and Islam have continued to be the major world regions over the years. According to Hackett and McClendon (2017), as of 2015, Christians made up 31% of the world population (7.3b); their numbers increased by 116 million over the previous 5 years. This is a significant increase over the 5 years, greater than that of Muslims. As of 2015, Muslims formed about 24% (1.8b) of the worlds population (Hackett & McClendon (2017). The significant increase in the number of Christians and Muslims is attributed to the high fertility rate.
The number of deaths and births per given time determines the population growth. Fertility determines the number of births, while natural factors like diseases and accidents decrease population through death. Over the past decade, the number of Muslims has grown consistently because Muslims have the most fertile population of all religious groups, with a fertility rate of 2.9 children per woman (WorldAtlas, 2022). The fertility rate among Muslims may see the number grow to catch up with that of Christians (Hackett & McClendon, 2017). The Christian population is a result of the second-highest fertility rate of 2.6 children per woman. Other than births and dates, the age of the population confessing to a given religion will influence their numbers.
The age of adherents of religion determines their population. Hackett $ McClendon (2017) argue that a younger generation of women has many years of childbearing ahead. According to them, Muslims have the youngest median age among all religions, standing at 24 years. Christians have a median age of 30 years against the world median of 30 years (Hackett $ McClendon, 2017). Apart from Hindus median age of 24 years, other religions medians are greater than 30 years. This means Christians and Muslims have the potential to increase or sustain their population. Despite the younger median compared to Christians, the Hindu population had been small since the early years of religion, and therefore difficult for their population to catch up with that of Christians and Muslims.
Other than age, the region where most adherents are located will also influence the population of a religious group. Many of the adherents to Muslim ad Christianity are in developing nations where birth rates are high (Hackett $ McClendon, 2017). According to them, the infant mortality rate in developing nations has been falling, meaning their population will keep increasing. Hackett $ McClendon (2017) estimate that Christianity and Muslim religions will continue to grow in Sub-Saharan Africa while the unaffiliated population will continue to grow in Europe, North America, China, and Japan in favour of the two major religions.
Conclusion
Christianity and Muslim have remained the major world religions since the beginning of religion. The main reasons behind their persistence are high fertility rates compared to other religions, relatively young generation with many child-bearing years, and their location which is mainly in developing countries with high fertility rates. It is anticipated that their population will continue to rise in the coming years given the current population trends.
Christianity and Judaism are two distinct religions whose foundations are linked to Hellenistic Judaism. Although the two groups differ in their understanding of biblical concepts related to the Messiah, both rose from a combination of Greek philosophies and Jewish religion that advocated for morality and decent living. An evaluation of the split between Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judaism and the differences between Christianity and Judaism reveals how the diverse views shaped crucial early debates and divisions.
Christianity and Judaism
The link between Christianity and Judaism can be traced back to the second temple of Judaism before the two split in the early years of the Christian movement. In reference to faith and the way of life, Christianity represented a brand of Hellenic Judaism in the sense that as Christianity spread, religious leaders were educated in Greek philosophy, which formed a crucial part of Hellenic Judaism. Elements such as Stoicism and Platonism were incorporated into Christian theology. The main difference between Christianity and contemporary Judaism is their views of the Messiahs identity. While Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah sent to redeem the church, Jews rejected this view, although they believed in Gods promise to send a savior.
Christianity and the Roman Society
Christians were considered a huge threat to Roman society to the extent that warranted their persecution and martyrdom. This was mainly due to their refusal to worship the Roman gods and their attempts to convert many people to Christianity, which threatened the empires stability. The Greco-Roman culture was associated with rituals that marked the transition, although the Greeks did not associate much significance with death. In contrast, Christians viewed this culture as hopeless as they believed in resurrection after death, a concept that significantly shaped early debates and further contributed to the division between the two religions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Christianity and Jewish faiths share a common belief in Hellenistic Judaism that united the people under one God before they split after the second temple of Judaism. The main difference between the two religions is the diverse views of the Messiah. Romans viewed Christians as significant threats to the empire due to their firm beliefs and refusal to worship Roman gods. As Christians considered the Greco-Roman culture hopeless, they intensified their beliefs in life after death, creating further divisions.
Psychological counseling has become one of the essential elements of modern living since it incorporates various tools and practices to help people with mental health issues heal. Indeed, a therapists office seems to be a sanctuary for the salvation of individuals who want to restore their positive perceptions of life (Frunza, 2022). Depending on a persons spiritual values and religious beliefs, one can continue thinking that human existence is aimless or has a profound purpose (Knight, 2010).
However, the decision should ultimately be made by an individual, and counselors can only help one uncover some past traumas and provide guidance for improving mental state. The robust allies of counseling in helping clients to cope with their cognitive struggles are philosophy and religion because they are the fundamental forces that shape peoples identities and viewpoints.
Philosophy is an extensive field that includes a range of different theories that may or may not be religious or spiritual in nature but definitely abstract. Still, these philosophical teachings serve as a foundation for forming an individuals worldview. In a way, philosophy and counseling are similar because both use the strategy of asking questions rather than providing answers to help a person attain truth (Knight, 2010). The three categories of philosophical teaching are metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology, which correspond to questioning the nature of reality, the nature of truth, and the understanding of values, respectively.
Metaphysics offers people who study it to view the world from different angles. When it comes to religion and God, believers are given the choice of unconditional faith or doubt, while atheists deny the existence of higher power completely. For example, in the biblical realm, people are always provided with evidence of Gods existence (Knight, 2010). Nevertheless, they have an equal number of facts to doubt His power, but the only difference is in their personal choice (Knight, 2010).
Counselors may use these theories to help clients acknowledge their critical situations and help them alter their views of their issues. In fact, individuals can be convinced to perceive the Universe as a friendly or hostile place (Knight, 2010). Every challenge or obstacle is an opportunity, and the goal of therapy is to drive patients from the latter type of thinking to the former. It can be attained with or without religious context; still, religion and therapy aim to attain the same goal of healing a persons soul and mind (Entwistle, 2021). At the same time, connecting a clients journey toward mental health to spirituality can make it more effective.
The importance of philosophy and theology to psychological counseling is undeniable since it provides additional techniques into a therapeutic toolbox. Philosophical counseling can indeed help people find answers through dialogue and questions, untangling a clients inner world that may contain the answers, which may aid resolve conflicts and problems (Frunza, 2022). Notably, this approach was found to be more effective for helping someone in an acute crisis because engaging in an equal conversation removes an individuals perception of being a patient with a significant mental health issue (Frunza, 2022).
Instead, philosophical dialogue is crucial for returning power to the client over ones reality. Moreover, for Christians, faith in the kingdom of God is essential for people to regain the belief that life has meaning and purpose; therefore, lifes challenges are given by a higher power to initiate growth.
In conclusion, philosophy and a biblical worldview are crucial for counseling because both enable healing. Philosophy uses dialogue and questions to answer questions about a persons critical situation. Religious faith or spirituality can help restore ones belief in the importance of lifes obstacles and difficulties for personal development and growth. These specific assets counselors utilize can be related to two learning outcomes of this course. Specifically, the definitions of the worldview apply to philosophical counseling, while evaluating the value system in the light of biblical worldview can be related to the use of religious faith.
References
Entwistle, D. N. (2021). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Frunza, S. (2022). Philosophical counseling-a useful tool for our daily life. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 97114.
Knight, G. A. (2010). Redemptive education part I: A philosophic foundation. The Journal of Adventist Education, 421.
History has proved that since the dawn of mankind, people have had the tendency to make theories about the world around them, and to try to explain their own relationship to that world. Such theories, or creation stories, as we usually call them, are usually so speculative that at the beginning of the 21st century, we are often perplexed by the mere boldness of the claims with so little factual grounding.
Because of the wide implications of claims that all of those theories make, they enter into a logical conflict with each other, and if a person wants to maintain a necessary degree of intellectual honesty, they would have to admit that all of them cannot be true at the same time. In fact, if we want to say that any of these theories is true, we then need to specify only one of them, and justify our reasons for believing it.
In addition, the results of modern empirical sciences also have their implication for some of the claims about the creation of the universe and human nature which enter into a conflict with at least some of those theories . Nevertheless, these theories are still very interesting to consider.
Christianity and Hinduism are certainly at the top of the list of important attempts at explaining the origin of the universe and human nature, since approximately 47% of the worlds population belongs to these two religions (World Population and Religious Statistics).
Even though these two religions are similar with respect to such claims as mind-body dualism, the origin of man from matter and Gods reason for creation, they also show some crucial differences such as the way of earning salvation, the nature of post-death experience, and the existence of free will.
First off, these two religions offer quite similar explanations of human nature in terms of mind body dualism. In Hinduism, the basic description of human nature is that human beings consist of two parts which they call ahamkara and atman. Ahamkara, according to Hindu scriptures, is the worldly manifestation of a person mirrored in their position in the social structure, physical characteristics, worldly possessions etc. Atman is the autonomous entity described as the experiencer of all experience .
It is the center of human consciousness which is ultimately connected to the Being or Brahman (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, pp. 50-52). In Christianity, on the other hand, the notion of soul was first clearly outlined by Thomas Aquinas in his theological discussions.
In the Old Testament, there is little reference to the soul, in fact, the Apostles usually talk about bodies being resurrected in the afterlife. Aquinas uses the concept to explain how the persons identity is preserved form the moment of death until the Judgment day (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, pp. 74-77).
This essentially one claim about dualism stands very poorly when measured against scientific evidence accumulated by modern cognitive and neuroscience.
It seems very unlikely that there can exist anything similar to soul for several reasons. Firstly, if we consider the fact that it is possible for a person to suffer damage to different areas of the brain and gradually lose their cognitive capacities one by one, it is highly unlikely that at the moment when the last function is lost, they are somehow reassembled and then the person wakes up in the afterlife.
In addition, the fact that there are people born without any cognitive capacities, but they are still alive would suggest that the soul can only be this isolated entity devoid of all experience and self-consciousness. Then the question is: if soul is precisely that, why should people care about it at all?
Next similarity between the two religions is the claim that man originates from matter. In Hinduism, it is claimed that ahamkara or the worldly part of a man originates from the same elements as other beings and dead matter, which makes people essentially connected to the universe (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, p. 50). On the other hand, in the Book of Genesis of the Old Testament, it is said that God made Adam from dust, and then breathed life into him. This also suggests that origin of life is, in fact, divine.
When we consider these claims from todays perspective, we can conclude that it is probably true that human beings are constituted from the same material as everything else in the universe.
Modern cosmology suggests that the higher chemical elements where produced in the reactions of nuclear fusion that took place within stars, and then once these stars exploded, this precious material disseminated through space, and finally ended up within human organisms. When we think about it, this theory may certainly seem almost mystical, but it fits perfectly with the claims about essential oneness of the man and universe. Of course, the Christian claim about the divine origin of life is not addressed under this account.
The third similarity of these two religions is the way in which they explain Gods reason for creation. In the Hindu tradition, it is believed that in the beginning there was nothing and this nothing was Brahman.
Since Brahman was that nothing, it was at the same time everything, but it was lonely, so it decided to divide itself into male and female parts, and from their relationship the multitude of phenomena were born (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, p. 51).
In Christianity, in the beginning there was only God, and he also decided that he needs some kind of projection of himself so he created the sky and the land and finally Adam. Therefore, the reason for creation in both cases in divine insufficiency, as one might put it.
Now, interestingly, this part of the theories is very hard to assess on any ground. From my perspective it is absurd to talk about the reason for creation of the universe intuitively since from what we know, the age of the universe must be around 13 billion years (Wollack, 2010).
Quantum theory gives us an account of what might have happened during the Big Bang, but we cannot know for sure why that happened. For now, science gives us an impersonal probabilistic explanation claiming that due to the vastness of time, it had to happen sometime.
In addition to these similarities, there are also some crucial differences whose implications render the compatibility and truthfulness of both of them together impossible.
First off, the practical sides of the two religions, which are related to the way in which we should live our lives in order to earn salvation, are crucially different. Hinduism holds that knowledge of Brahman is the ultimate value in this life. The teachings say that people should renounce the worldly side of their personalities, and turn to their inner consciousness or atman in the search of knowledge of Brahman.
This knowledge is thought to be unattainable, but the person who comes close to that knowledge fulfills their purpose in this life. This implies that the highest value of Hinduism is wisdom (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, p. 55). On the other hand, Christianity holds almost an opposite view. In the Sermon on the Mountain, Christ says, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven . We see that Christianity does not demand any knowledge or wisdom.
It rather sees knowledge as a great danger since it might cause pride which is the ultimate sin in Christian doctrine. The way to fulfill ones purpose in this life is to serve God. This means that one need only believe in God and love him, and they will be accepted in the Kingdom of Heaven. Many philosophers have found this unacceptable since it means that it does not really matter what one does in this life, as long as they love God (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, p. 78).
Addressing the issue of what the purpose of human life is is an unusually demanding task, and it would probably require forming a complete philosophical system. Nevertheless, from todays perspective it seems quite reasonable to agree with Sartre on the idea that Existence precedes Essence, which means that people are free to construct their own purpose in life.
This is a stance of radical freedom, and as such, it has some undesirable consequences, but it seems to be closer to truth than the two religious claims. I can just mention in passing that the Christian doctrine about belief in God as sufficient for salvation appears to be morally deficient. This is because God that values love of him and belief in him more than morality of a person is more egoistic than moral.
The next in the line of differences is the description of the post-death experience. In Hinduism, there exist two possible epilogs to a persons life. While their body is being burned after their death, those who have renounced the worldly distractions and focused on gaining knowledge of Brahman pass into the fire, and from there to the Sun, which is a gate towards Brahman. After that they continue their existence, but Hindu sages are agnostic about the type of experience they have.
The other option is that those who have spent their lives focusing on worldly things will pass into smoke and from there to the Moon. After that, they will be reborn in this world. This means that reincarnation is for those people who do not gain the knowledge of Brahman (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, pp. 52-53).
Christian doctrine is, again, quite different. Christians believe that those who spend their lives believing in and serving God will spend the eternity in Heaven reunited with their ancestors. Those who are proud and reject God will spend the eternity in the flames of Hell with Satan.
A detailed description of the nature of the experience in Heaven seems to be lacking, and one might ask what kind of experience is good enough to be pleasant eternally (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, p. 84). One explanation offered by Aquinas is that the eternal bliss of those in Heaven is caused by their ability to see the sufferings of those in Hell.
Thinking critically about these ideas, I find myself unable to give any evidence in support of any of the claims. It seems that there is no empirical grounding for any theory about afterlife, and I remain agnostic about it. What I might say is that for me, it seems very difficult to imagine any sort of experience for which I would like to last forever. Therefore, the whole concept of Heaven is problematic. I do not even need to mention how morally reprehensive and degrading I find the idea proposed by Aquinas.
Another difference related to the interpretation of human nature in these two religions is when it comes to the existence of free will. The Hindu scriptures make it explicit that the human activity is trapped within a long causal chain, which means that any human action is caused by some prior ones, and causes the next one (Stevenson & Haberman, 1998, p. 54).
However, the Christian doctrine is predicated upon the existence of free will, and theologians also use it to account for the problem of evil. The claim is that people are given free choice of whether they will accept God or not, and that decision is what ultimately determines their destiny.
The idea of free will is for me a notion which is very difficult to accept. It is hard to imagine a universe in which one could step out of the mechanistic causal chain of events. Such an idea would probably require the existence of an immaterial soul, for which we already said that it is quite unlikely.
Furthermore, considering the regular human experience carefully, I find that it is constructed in such a way that ideas and impulses just occur in the consciousness as a product of unconscious functioning of the mind. Which specific ideas and impulses will occur largely depends on the conditions within the organism.
In summary, the two religions I have discussed, namely Christianity and Hinduism, share some similar points, but also differ to a great extent in the way in which they interpret the origin of the universe and human nature.
Similar points are that: both religions claim that humans are of dual nature, which means that they have a material component the body and an immaterial component the soul; people are made of the same material as everything in the universe and that God created the world of phenomena out of the feeling of self-insufficiency.
As far as differences are concerned, Christianity holds that people need only love God to achieve salvation, while Hinduism claims that gaining knowledge of Brahman is the purpose of human life.
In Hinduism, death can lead to reincarnation or unity with Brahman depending on whether the person has achieved the knowledge of him, while Christians believe that Heaven is reserved for those who accept god and those who reject him will spend the eternity in Hell. Finally, the existence of free will is central to the Christian doctrine, while in Hinduism, it is believed that human actions are predetermined.
I have argued and provided evidence that humans are probably material entities and that they are indeed made out of same elements as other entities in the universe.
In addition, I have claimed that the Christian view of the purpose of human life is morally deficient, but I did not accept the Hindu view either. I have remained agnostic towards the description of post-death experience, and argued that there is no such thing as free will. In doing this, I have accepted the scientific approach, and did not address issues which cannot be proven or rejected.
References
Stevenson, L. F., & Haberman, D. L. (1998). Ten theories of human nature (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
In the view of many people, classical philosophy and the Christian doctrine are similar disciplines. It is because in both cases, people are engaged in cognitive activity, comprehend the secrets and laws of the world, and find accurate and reliable answers to their questions. This division in accordance with the principle of the religious component may seem legitimate since people who are close to faith practice theology, and those who do not accept the idea of Christianity hold philosophical views.
However, this feature is not as formal as it seems at a glance. Some fundamental differences exist between the philosophy of classical antiquity and the Christian-based philosophy. In order to give examples of these peculiar features, first, it is essential to describe the basic principles of each of the two philosophical concepts activity. The distinctive features between the two concepts described are in the tools of knowledge, in particular, the subject, methods, and the ways of achieving the truth. The evaluation of these approaches may allow identifying key differences between the two philosophical doctrines and drawing conclusions regarding the basic ideas of these disciplines.
The Primary Differences Between the Two Areas of Philosophy
The philosophy of classical antiquity is a special form of interpreting the world. It developed the system of knowledge about the most common characteristics, ultimately generalizing concepts, the fundamental principles of reality, and the relationship of the human and the world (Plato, 1892/2016). The objectives of this philosophy included the study of both the worlds and societys development and the process of thinking itself. Also, arguments concerning the moral categories and values were given by the representatives of the ancient school.
The Christian-based philosophy is the systematic presentation and interpretation of exclusively religious teachings and dogmas. It is a set of techniques involved in the substantiation and protection of Gods doctrine, his activities in the world, and his revelation, as well as related concepts and the forms of worship. The object of the description in this work is the Christian-based trend since religious directions are unique for each individual faith. To distinguish between the two concepts, such features will be analyzed as the subject of knowledge, the methods of searching for the truth, and ways of interpreting the final results of research. These are the peculiarities that differ in the two considered doctrines and serve as a means of substantiating their specific approaches to the explanation of dogmas.
The Subject of Knowledge
For the Christian-based philosophy in its cognitive activity, God is primary; therefore, sometimes, this discipline is called Gods knowledge. The worlds of nature, humans, and society are also in the field of attention, but these spheres are secondary to divine powers. For an ancient philosopher, the world perceived by human senses was in the first place. Preferences were given to different aspects the natural world, the human, and society. Knowledge also was the subject of ancient philosophical research, but higher powers were secondary to the world. The God presented by ancient philosophers was a speculative structure based on specific ideas about nature, man, society, and thinking (Plato, 1892/2016).
In Christianity, the human is the creature of God who is made in the image and likeness of the higher mind; in ancient philosophy, the perception of God was in the image and likeness of the human. Formally, these two directions may have common objects of knowledge, in particular, human essence. Nevertheless, the Christian-based philosophy views it as a divine projection, and ancient doctrine considers it the manifestation of the unique combination of thought processes that can make each individual unusual.
The Method of Knowledge
The method of knowledge in the Christian-based philosophy relies on the Divine Revelation that can be supernatural and universal. The first type is given as a miracle, and the second one is in the form of the Sacred Scripture. In this concept of philosophy, self-knowledge is a typical feature. This method of perception could also be utilized by ancient thinkers. However, unlike theology, in traditional philosophy, self-knowledge was not accompanied by the work of the human in ones correction.
The ancient Greek principle of self-knowledge was the typical feature of thinkers teachings. It became the basis of various concepts based on the understanding of personal mission and role in society. The methods of knowledge were empirical observation, experiment, measurement, comparison, and logical thinking (Plato, 1892/2016). Consequently, information was processed by using such techniques as analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, classification, formalization, and modeling.
Ancient philosophers always felt that such a set of methods was not sufficient to comprehend the metaphysical secrets that were beyond the boundaries of human knowledge. Therefore, they preferred practical methods, while the supporters of the Christian-based philosophy resorted to the spiritual principles of understanding specific concepts.
The Ways of Achieving the Truth
The third difference concerns the presence or absence of the special ways of achieving the truth as the primary object of study. The results of ancient philosophical searches, as a rule, did not have a final authoritative and formal assessment, and it led to the emergence of a large number of theories and opinions. Thinkers themselves sought to rule out false ideas that were expressed in mutual criticism. However, as Plato (1892/2016) notes, in such confrontations, there was usually no single right side since each of the rationales had a certain background. Despite the fact that the choice of a particular concept was individual, there were no clear criteria for selection because the formation of a philosophical idea was new and unfamiliar to ancient citizens.
In the Christian-based doctrine, the results of creative searches have a final assessment. It may not necessarily be positive, and critical and sharply negative reviews are not uncommon. The ideas of theological concepts undergo thorough selection and legalization procedures, and only after their approval, they become accessible to people. This approach essentially distinguishes the Christian-based philosophy from the ancient one and is more orderly.
Conclusion
The differences between the philosophy of classical antiquity and the Christian-based philosophy lie in the subject of knowledge, its methods, and the ways of searching for the truth. The evaluation of specific approaches allows receiving a comprehensive picture of these two doctrines basic terms and identifying the key theories supported by their proponents. According to the information provided, it can be concluded that ancient philosophers concentrated on the knowledge of the human as the central essence of the universe, while the representatives of the Christian idea viewed the person in the context of the divine principle. These differences give an opportunity to determine the primary ways of implementing specific ideas and research methods.
Reference
Plato. (2016). Symposium. (B. Jowett, Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: Enhanced Media. (Original work published 1892).
One of the explanations people give to their belief in God is a possibility to live a good life and have some supernatural protector and a guide. It is necessary to read the Bible or another holy scripture, follow the defined norms, and expect that everything is good. However, as soon as the problem of evil or suffering is raised, many people start questioning a traditional image of God in theism as an all good and powerful creature.
Why Suffering and Evil Exist?
Rowe (2007) introduced different pragmatic definitions, theories, and Christian approaches to contribute to the discussion of evil and God relation and explain why it is normal to believe that God does not exist. People are free to share their opinions and beliefs, but one thing remains the same that the presence of evil and suffering in human life disrupts the idea of Gods supernatural powers.
In Christianity, there are several thoughts about why God makes suffering or evil real and inevitable for all people. On the one hand, the Free Will Defense promotes personal freedoms that may be not up to Gods wish or rule (Rowe, 2007). Another philosophy includes the role of human development, both spiritual and moral, and the inability to control behaviors, which results in the misuse of personal freedoms and the emergence of sins (Rowe, 2007).
Conclusion
Despite the position chosen in this discussion, the problem of evil and its impact on the belief in Gods existence cannot be solved once and forever. There are always some new ideas and approaches, as well as personal opinions, experiences, and traditions. The existence of God is never something material but abstract and eternal, with a great possibility to improve human lives.
Reference
Rowe, W. L. (2007). Philosophy of religion: An introduction (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Chapter seven of Kuppermans book Theories of human nature describes the essentiality of human imperfections to the doctrine of original sin. This chapter is entitled: The Christian Doctrine of Original Sin: Essential Human Imperfection . The author begins by in-depth analysis of original sin and how it affects day-to-day human activities. He argues that from a biblical perspective, original sin is somehow linked to all human beings according to Christian beliefs.
This chapter concludes on the Christian perspective of sin and how they can be passed on from one generation to another using an example in Noahs case whereby he cursed his grandson over mistakes committed by his son.
The chapter then explores the psychological aspect of human nature, whereby the author puts forward a two-sided view of humanity. In one instance, all humans are seen to be imperfect and are bound to commit mistakes. On the other hand, the author believes that there may be a possibility of perfection among human beings.
The author utilizes psychological knowledge to try to understand the concept of sin. Two points of view on defining sin are offered that eventually result in questionable circumstances. The chapter concludes with the author suggesting that it is difficult to tell whether a temptation to involve oneself in a sinful event is a manifestation of the original sin or it is a normal human act. The moral rectitude case is also mentioned.
The author describes that a perfectly moral individual has to exhibit moral rectitude. The only way original sin can be accepted is by acknowledging that human beings can never be perfect. However, if moral rectitude is brought into context, then the interpretation of the doctrine becomes highly questionable.
This analytical essay presents a critical review of the book Introduction to Philosophy A Christian Perspective , which was written by Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg. The bibliography appends one source in Turabian format.
Introduction
Christianity can stand up to the intellectual challenge mounted against it. The result of such a challenge should not be the loss of faith, but the priceless possession of a well-reasoned and mature faith.
Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg
The book under consideration is known as Introduction to Philosophy A Christian Perspective , which was written by two authors namely Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg who claim to be Christian philosophers in the book. In the book, The authors all-purpose approach is to give details about a view point, put in plain words its sustaining arguments and then the criticism that have been put forward against it. Sporadically, the authors take in an unambiguously Christian viewpoint that integrates all the preceding views into one all-inclusive whole.
Review
As evident by the title of the book, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective is exactly that. It is a Christian point of view on the study and history of philosophy and it makes an attempt to respond the questions of what philosophy is, why it should be premeditated and what its practical impact is.
The authors, Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg, get started to show that philosophy should be appreciated in and of itself, and that Christianity can meet head-on the rigors of philosophy, and should be seen as a philosophically legitimate worldview. For that reason they embark on the task of putting forward the value of philosophy, devoid of glossing over the issues in philosophy which seem to say the opposite to Christianity.
Geisler and Feinberg have understood the fact that some of the principles and main beliefs of philosophy are adversative to Christian doctrine. Still they believe and make other also fall for the fact that this is no reason to eradicate oneself from the study of philosophy.
This is rather hypocritical. Knowing that some of the beliefs of philosophy are opposite to the beliefs of the Christian doctrine and ignoring it is just not acceptable. What has been presented in the book is that instead, as Christians, they have called to take every thought incarcerated to Christ, and said that we need to scrutinize philosophy, and to prove false its errors where and when they occur. What the authors further portray is that we then need to put forward justification for the legitimacy of the Christian worldview, founded on accepted philosophical standards.
A very critical comment about the book is that it presents Suggested Readings that go way back to the days of Plato, Kant etc. at the end of every chapter the authors provide a list of readings as suggested material, but apart from these primary sources, they have put forward suggestions of reading books that are now completely out-dated and one cannot find them even if one tries. Yet another missing point is a list of annotated bibliography which would have helped people understand the references and their points even better.
Another part which can be a bit irritating is that there are certain parts of the book and certain points made in the book by both of the authors. There are a number of points which are just not understandable by a student. For example there are a number of Norman Geislers extremely deep and hard to understand philosophies. This makes it even hard to understand the book. The book requires heavy thinking. A few places are not easy to follow because they are demanding philosophical problems without a solution.
The book under consideration is on the whole a medium level introduction to western philosophy from a conventional Christian point of view. Philosophy is just about always biased and is always done from some sort of partiality to some degree or another. Even though the book has a definite slant towards the Christian belief, it is still pretty good to start to understand philosophy for a bit. The book is good only if you are Christian and only wish to know about the philosophers of the Western world. The book should include philosophers from other times and areas. There is little information on Maimonides.
The book discusses mysticism but totally neglects Averroes, Al-Ghazali, al-Arabi, Avicenna and other Muslim philosophers. The contributions made by these philosophers definitely outweigh that of the Maimonides. Their persuasion on early European philosophers of the medieval era is marvelous. The authors have simply made an effort to examine the Greek philosophers which was heavily used by St. Thomas Aquinas and others. This failure to notice, abandoning or being ignorant of Islamic philosophy deteriorates the book (Geisler and Feinberg, 1987).
Conclusion
In the light of the above discussion we can hereby culminate that even though the book under consideration namely, Introduction to Philosophy A Christian Perspective , which was written by two authors namely Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg presents a Christian point of view, it has somehow failed to intake other philosophers who have worked harder in the field. Also, the references are outdated and can not be taken into consideration.
Bibliography
Geisler, N and Feinberg, P. Introduction to Philosophy A Christian Perspective . United States of America. Baker Academic. Pp. 1- 447.