Category: Christianity

Introduction

The term continental philosophy was first widely used to describe university courses in the 1970s, emerging as a collective name for the philosophies then widespread in France and Germany, such as phenomenology, existentialism, structuralism, and post structuralism. It thus came to be adopted by English-speaking philosophers influenced by such schools. Continental philosophy encompasses a distinct set of philosophical traditions and practices, with a compelling range of problems all too often ignored by the analytic tradition.

He discusses the ideas and approaches of philosophers such as Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Habermas, Foucault, and Derrida, and introduces key concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and phenomenology by explaining their place in the Continental tradition.They is kind of inter-related. Ancient Greek philosophy gave the early Christians the vocabulary to describe the experience of Christianity; and Christianity gave Philosophy some ideas it hadnt thought of before. For example, the Christological controversies in the first few centuries (i.e. the arguing about how could Jesus be both God and Man) allowed philosophers to better conceptualize what having personhood and having human nature meant.

More over, the over whelming majority of educated and uneducated Christians through  out history have been dualists in two senses: they have embraced interactionist dual ism regarding God and the material world, and they have accepted the reality of the souls of men and beasts, as it used to be put. Thus, theologian H. D. Lewis felt free to say with out qualification: Through out the centuries Christians have believed that each human per son consists in a soul and body; that the soul survived the death of the body; and that its future life will be immortal.

The rise of Christianity in philosophy

Constantine and the Rise of Christianity

By the second century A.D., Christianity and Hellenism had come into close contact in the eastern Mediterranean. In the early fourth century, the policies of Emperor Constantine the Great institutionalized the connection and lent a lasting Greek influence to the church that emerged. Although Christianity was initially practiced within Semitic populations of the Roman Empire, by the first century A.D. Greeks also had learned of the teachings of Christ. In that period, the epistles of Paul to the Ephesians and the Corinthians and his preaching to the Athenians were all aimed at a Greek audience.

Other early Christian theological writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Origin attempted to fuse Christian belief with Greek philosophy, establishing the Greek world as the home of gentile Christianity.

I personally dont think that there is much room in organized religion of any kind for philosophy, the question is not the rise of Christianity in philosophy but the rise of philosophy in Christianity because the ability to philosophize-to be able to think of any and all possibilities, to think outside the box and more, to be calm and logical, to think for yourself- is not really something that most organized religions are able to do well as they believe what they are told is true, and dont always question it and dont endorse questioning as you will tell from organized religions history of violence and forcing of beliefs philosophy by its very nature and description can not have any religion rise in its views, it would not be philosophy then it would just be another version of organized religion however i see that there are many individuals branching out from their religions and adapting philosophical views as well as their religious ones and this includes Christians, this is where the rise of philosophy is in play in Christianity, more and more people are willing to go out and see and learn for themselves instead of being told and simply believing, more and more people question, its part of human nature to question, to want to learn more and no organized religion in the world is capable of taking that away from people.

Key contributors to Christianitys impact on philosophy

Vicos intellectual development

Plato was deeply impressed with the clarity and absolute certainty of the truths of mathematics, so much so that he would allow only men who respected Mathematics to enter his academy. But the application of mathematics to empirical subject-matters did not interest him at all. He considered the study of empirical science, such as, astronomy, merely as a stepping-stone to the study of mathematics.

Hence his (from a modern point of view) peculiar insistence that the proper way of studying astronomy is not to look at the heavens and the positions of the celestial bodies, but to contemplate with the intellectual eye the geometrical forms which astronomical constellations imperfectly embody. But as we have seen in the preceding chapter, the propositions of mathematics have, in so far as they are reducible to tautologies, no special subject-matter consisting of physically unobservable abstract entities.

Scientific knowledge, in the modern sense of the term, begins only when our logical and mathematical tools are applied to descriptive sentences which refer to observable phenomena and hence are empirically testable. All empirical testing involves sense-perception. Hence the analysis of linguistically formulated knowledge, which has stood in the foreground of the attention of analytic philosophers since Descartes (epistemology, so-called) leads us to the analysis of sense perception.

Principle Christianized philosophical issues

Christianity has its roots in Judaism which is based on Gods Law as given to Moses. The Mosaic or ceremonial laws were the old system of feasts and sacraments (animal sacrifices) which foreshadowed the coming of Messiah (Jesus). Human philosophy was a product of the Greek empire which had fallen to Roman rule around 330 BC. The teachings and beliefs of both the Greeks and the Romans posed a threat the Judaism belief system. All of Jesus teachings were based solely on the Law. During the time of the Roman occupation, tee Christian movement found its way back into Rome and Greece, primarily through Saul of Tarsus (who re-named himself Paul the Apostle). Saul was a Jewish Pharisee who was converted to Christianity by a vision from God.

Reference

• Burke, P. Vico, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985.
• Lemon.M.C Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students. Contributors Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 168.

In his book Gagging of God, D.A. Carson argues that Jesus Christ is still the one and only valid means of reaching salvation and being reunited with God. Far from the antiquated concepts of traditionalism, Carson presents his ideas from a very modern context by introducing the concept of pluralism. As he introduces it, pluralism is a natural outgrowth of the modern confusion of the postmodern world that is based on illusionary fallacies. In pointing out what these fallacies are, Carson begins to help his readers trace their way back to Christianity within the modern context. Throughout his book, D.A. Carson examines the philosophical issues of our day through a contemporary pluralist approach, finding Christianity as the answer to each of the fallacies that are revealed.

One of the elements of pluralism that has served to confuse todays secular culture is the various approaches that have been taken to the true faith. According to Carson, a great deal of the confusion felt by would-be Christians today is brought about as a result of the thousands of Christian interpretations of the Bible they are given from numerous, equally valid sources. As various evangelists focus their attention more upon growing their church body in the form of growing in physical size of the buildings and metaphysical reach of the pulpit, the original message of the Bible has been lost and seems impossible to find for the average layperson.

In pointing out how these various conflicting messages have served to confuse the congregation, Carson insists evangelists must return to the text of the Bible and its obvious intentions as a means of finding clarity of message. However, this presents a problem as the Bible itself presents a number of contradictions and ambiguous passages, forcing a degree of interpretation no matter how careful the interpreter and thus introducing the possibility of numerous possibilities, all valid and within a potential intention of the original writer.

Although it would seem like a self-defining term in many cases, the truth is that pluralism itself has created confusion in many fields, including Christianity. The only absolute creed is the creed of pluralism. No religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true, and the others false, or even (in the majority view) relatively inferior & In particular it is bound up with the new hermeneutic and with its stepchild, deconstruction. The outlook that it spawns is often labeled postmodernism (19).

The three general categories of pluralism Carson identifies are classified as empirical pluralism, cherished pluralism and philosophical pluralism. Empirical pluralism refers to the central physical realities of American society. This form of pluralism refers to the level of protected diversity within the modern culture. Cherished pluralism refers to the cultural sense of pride Americans take in this sort of diversity. They truly believe themselves to be the only free nation on earth that permits such individualism and take a great deal of pride in this idea.

Carson identifies philosophical pluralism as the parent of deconstructionism. This philosophy insists that there are no right or wrong answers, only different ways of looking at things. The flip side of this concept, though, is that there is no security or meaning to be found, leaving individuals free-floating and with no direction. The simplest understanding of pluralism, then, is that meaning is only based on the interpreters understanding and there is no meaning beyond this.

However, Carson argues against this idea. He points out that a strict interpretation of this theory would refute any intended meaning on the part of the author or any shared general understanding of cultural concepts and ideas. Because people in a given society do have certain shared concepts, at least in general terms, and authors use familiar terms of expression and communication to share their ideas, Carson suggests that original intention can be inferred to a great degree.

As this is true, pluralism must also be relative. This means that it has different validity to a given situation or may have no validity at all and can therefore be dismissed from consideration. Using the techniques of pluralism itself, then, Carson illustrates how the central idea is flawed forcing confusion where only clarity should be found.

To illustrate his conception of the ability to determine author intention, including Gods intention in writing the Bible, Carson insists one must take a long view rather than allowing oneself to become lost in the analysis of minute parts to the point of abstraction and meaningless. Through this discussion, he reveals that even the Bible presents a strong plot-line, through which one can accurately interpret its various subplots and stories. By including in this discussion the various ways in which pluralism has been used to create political spin and confuse issues to the point where Americans no longer understand what they are voting for and in other aspects of real life, such as in the legal and business worlds, Carson ensures he touches on some nerve for most of his readers.

By breaking down meaning into its component parts of meaningless sounds, pluralism has effectively removed any sense of solidity in the world, whether one is discussing politics, law, business or religion. However, examining pluralism as it is manifested provides the sought-for escape from madness. Carson continues to point out how a Christian perspective and response, based on information presented in the Bible itself as it was intended to be read, are the most effective means of dealing with these issues.

References

Carson, D.A. (1996). Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

For centuries, perhaps even dating to the original compilation of the Bible, it has been recognized that the Good Book has a number of inconsistencies and ambiguities. This introduces the element of uncertainty into any interpretation and forces faithful and unfaithful alike to seek another means of bringing their lives into sharper definition.

This sharper definition is essential to truly live the enlightened life of the faithful, as one must have a clear idea of ones beliefs and their basis if one is to live in harmony with them, but the problem remains how to attain the necessary clarity. Philosophy has arisen as the answer. In their book, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, JP Moreland and William Lane Craig outline the various ways in which philosophy has helped bolster the Christian worldview.

To start, the authors illustrate how philosophy provides doubting hearts with better proof of Gods existence than that offered by the assertions made in the Bible itself. While many Christians tend to look upon philosophy as a practice that attacks the faith and is thus an enemy, Moreland and Craig suggest that it is only through philosophy that the questions thrown up against Christianity can be answered. Understanding the Christian perspective from a philosophical point of view not only helps the Christian understand his own faith better, but enables him to engage in thoughtful conversation with others, believers or non-believers, on a more intellectual and therefore supported level. Make no mistake about it. Ideas matter.

The ideas one really believes largely determine the kind of person one becomes. Everyone has a philosophy of life. That is not optional. What is optional and, thus, of extreme importance is the adequacy of ones philosophy of life (11). Although the authors admit that the use of philosophy has tapered off in recent years as the church continuously backs away from it, they offer up several historical references in which philosophy has been actively employed by leaders of the church, including John Wesley, as a means of supporting their doctrine.

Each of the six parts of the book explores how some element of philosophy affects or supports the Christian worldview. The first segment is epistemology. Basically, epistemology refers to the study of knowledge. As they discuss the seeming contention between science, which depends upon certain logical proofs, and religion, which operates almost exclusively on faith, Moreland and Craig illustrate the need for a more scientific or proved consideration of the basic tenets of faith in an increasingly globalized world in which many faiths must co-exist.

One the primary stumbling blocks in attempting to come to an intellectual understanding of faith remains lodged in the realm of skepticism. As the authors launch into a more detailed discussion of this, they offer foundationalism as a possible solution and illustrate verificationism as merely a self-refuting logical loop.

Rather than deny the fascinating possibilities of metaphysics, Moreland and Craig embrace the study of the inner essence of things through another entire segment. This branch of philosophy considers such ideas as the dualism between mind and body suggested by Descartes and the more recent ideas that have been brought forward as a response to increased scientific understanding. For example, physicalism, the idea that the soul cannot exist because the individual is actually a sum of its physical parts and the impressions they receive, is presented and rejected with metaphysical evidence regarding what happens after death.

This discussion also explores the concepts of determinism and free will that eventually works its way around to proving that life after death is a distinct possibility as much of the human personality is not actually based upon the physical sensations, but instead on the metaphysical impressions, thus housing the soul somewhere independent from physical extinction.

Moving from the world of pure thought into more active science, the authors also bring forward the scientific method as it applies to defining the Christian worldview. The philosophy of science is highly concerned with the question of realism/anti-realism, but the authors point out that the elements measurable by science are not necessarily all of the elements that must be considered in determining the truth.

Because these elements, as has already been shown, exist within the metaphysical and therefore immeasurable realm, this method cannot offer the types of irrefutable proof that it promises either. The only two things that the authors hold as constant are time and space, but the fact that they are not able to convincingly argue their support for their particular theories highlights the difficulty of attempting to develop a hard and solid scientific understanding and reinforces the authors contention that only philosophy is capable of addressing the questions of the modern age.

The book ends with a consideration of ethics and theology. Although the opposite has been argued by scholars everywhere, Moreland and Craig assert that there are some universal ethical and moral absolutes. They point out how numerous cultures have certain taboos against unwarranted killing, even though the rules regarding what constitutes warranted killing are sometimes flexible. They reject the concepts of utilitarianism, in which ethical decisions are made based upon the end consequences alone rather than the means taken to get there.

Although the end goal of this approach is to bring about the greatest good for the largest number of individuals, the authors suggest the only true path is to adopt the deontological point of view in which each action is judged in and of itself as they are tempered by virtue ethics, in which people make decisions based on what a virtuous person would do. The final discussion regarding theology is then an attempt to bring all of these ideas together into a coherent message of having logically proved in the probability of God.

Throughout their discussion, Moreland and Craig present compelling reasons why philosophy should not be considered the enemy of Christianity, but rather its buttress in the modern age of skepticism, cynicism and widespread intellectualism. The old excuses of the Bible tells me so are no longer sufficient reasons for a thinking public to believe in something they cannot see, feel, hear, touch, taste, smell or even fully be proved to exist at all. However, philosophy, in all its branches, continues to point out those areas in which belief in God is not only possible, but can emerge as the most logical and probable response. By studying philosophy, then, the true Christian can gain a more complete understanding of his or her own faith and have a better chance of helping others understand it as well.

References

Moreland, J.P. & William Lane Craig. (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downer Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

The beginning step is for one to live by Gods grace. Christianity is based more on faith than on seeing. The bible talks about how by faith people do please God. Gods word says that it is not by strength but rather by the spirit of God. It also adds that the people of God shall live because of faith. I strongly agree that as a Christian you need to acknowledge the Gods grace.

Personally, I have realized that though you may not be as competent in carrying out duties yet when you trust in God He gives you the supernatural ability to work much better. The church needs to encourage the member to live by the Gods grace by trusting more on God than in their own abilities

Bonding with your people is the second point. God made humans in His likeness and image so that He could fellowship with them. This simply implies that we being in the nature of God should be people who relate well with others since our creator loves fellowship. Relating well with people leads to formation of bonds.

As a Christian that is serving God, you will only be able to know people very well after bonding well with them. This leads to creation of a good rapport between you. Through knowing people, they with time do develop confidence in you and can start opening up to you and even start sharing with you on issues that do affect them

Personally when people do share with me I use my God given abilities to just counsel them according to the bible and to encourage them by assuring them that God is watching over them and knows what they are going through. At the end of it all I realize that I am fulfilling the purpose of God over my life by being an instrument He can use to reach his people.

The third point is where one is supposed to exercise gift evoking leadership. I believe that God created all people as leaders in different ways. However, at some point, people have never exploited their leadership potentials. As leaders when we are anywhere and things seem not to be working out we need not just sit back in our places of comfort and wait for others to give solutions. As life-giving pastors or Christians, we should step out and exercise the leadership gifts that God has given us.

Personally, I am a pro-active individual, I use this ability to ensure that every time I am a participant in any activity I dont wait for things to move from bad to worse before I move in. If Christians embraced this notion then there would be more order in the church. This is because if everyone is a leader in their own way there would no be shifting of blame as people will learn to own up responsibilities.

The fourth point talks of people being lifelong pastors. We as Christians can at times be compared to shepherds who have a mandate over the flocks that they do tend. Being a pastor should not be viewed as any type of career that earns one cash for a good living. It should on contrary be seen as a calling from God that should remain as long as one is still living.

As a pastor-to-be, I purpose to remain a pastor for the rest of my life because I strongly feel that with the dawning of every new day so do there come more responsibilities on me to take care of Gods people. This can not be a temporary event but rather a lifetime. Even after I retire from the position I still will not stop playing the role of being a pastor to people. For them, I will remain the pastor to whom they look up to.

The fifth habit for effective ministry is having something to say and saying it well. One should not lack something to say as a servant in Gods kingdom. You should always have something to say so that when opportunities avail themselves you do not squander them but rather utilize them very well.

In the bible many people that met Jesus never lacked what to say, for example, the blind man at the well, told Jesus that he wanted to receive his sight back and he received exactly that. Personally, I always purpose to know what I really want so that when opportunities arise I do not miss out.

The sixth habit for effective ministry is for one to be the good steward of time. Time will never wait for any man and it is said to be a precious commodity. God likes people who are well organized especially regarding time. In Proverbs, we are encouraged to copy the ants that gather their food in good time and store them well so that in seasons of scarcity they may not lack anything.

As Christians, we should be good planners so that we do things at the right time. Personally, I endeavor to be a good master over time. I manage this through having a diary and planning my schedules early enough so as to minimize time loss. By being a good manager of time you do also make people appreciate you more because they know that you are an organized person.

Picking the battles we fight wisely and fighting them well is described as the seventh point. We should not rush to engage in every battle that comes before us. We have to be strategic in what we do. Even the Israelites in the bible, never just rushed for a battle unless God had first given them the go-ahead.

When confronted with situations I usually do not just plunge myself in them but do take time to seek counsel from God even as I think deeply about the consequences that do come along. I then do weigh the options as I try forging the best way forward. I then do lay down strategies that will help me emerge a victor at the end of it all.

The eighth point according to Lowell is that one should not just be prophetic but pastoral as well. Being pastoral only is not enough but you also need divine revelation to enable you to lead the church well. Issues relating to God are very complex and thus by your own human understanding, you may struggle very much to know what God really requires of you especially when you are undertaking His assignments.

As a pastor, I do really need divine revelation from God to know the right direction to follow. This is necessitated by the fact that in this time and age there are many things happening that affect the Christian lifestyle. It thus would be very hard for one to specify what a Christian should or should not do unless you have the divine revelation.

The ninth habit to effective leadership is for one to respect boundaries. One needs to have well-set boundaries in their Christian life if they are to remain effective. The bible says that you are to remain either cold or warm, God says that He detests lukewarm people and that He will spit them out of His mouth.

Lack of clear set boundaries leads to much compromise in Christian principles thus rendering the Christian faith ineffective. Personally, I have clearly outlined what is befitting and non-befitting for a Christian so as to avoid getting myself in compromising situations. For example, with alcohol no matter the amount is taken its consumption shall always remain sinful to me.

Growing in Gods grace is the last point that is discussed in effective ministry. God detests Christians who do not want to grow, we should endeavor to grow and become better by day in Gods grace. Paul in his letters asks whether people will sin for grace to abound. We should not be that way, if anything we should make use of grace to ensure that we live right with God and strive to grow in the issue regarding Christian matter.

By Gods grace I appreciate that though am not good enough, God is giving me chance to become better by striving to overcome the weakness that I struggle with. I also do pray and even fast as I meditate on Gods word. With time I find myself growing in issues concerning Gods grace.

References

Habits for Effective Ministry: A Guide for Life-Giving Pastors by Larry O. Erdahl

Positivism

In its simplest sense, positivism is a concept that explores the world through clear and classically defined terms. According to Panhwar et al. (2017), this worldview bases itself on observable and empirical analytic facts (p. 253). The nature of positivism is orthodox and involves knowledge and research using traditional approaches and methods to objectively prove specific ideas and hypotheses, thereby eliminating personal bias and subjectivity.

Post-Positivism

Post-positivism is a philosophical concept that appeared to replace orthodox positivism. Panhwar et al. (2017) describe it as a mixed methodology that utilizes the ideas of both positivism and interpretivism. This philosophical concept proposes to evaluate the set research tasks and allows for pluralism of opinions, which helps expand the boundaries of analysis and, at the same time, assess the infinity of the cognition process.

Constructivism

As a more flexible concept, one can pay attention to constructivism. Fletcher (2017) compares constructivism with positivism and argues that the former is based on viewing reality as entirely constructed through and within human knowledge or discourse (p. 182). Following this approach, the researcher seeks to use individual experience and knowledge to evaluate a particular phenomenon or prove a relevant theory or hypothesis.

Pragmatism

A pragmatic approach to analysis and research involves a variety of methods and tools. As Kaushik and Walsh (2019), these tools can be both classical in nature, such as the work of researchers in the past and modern, which are the result of scientific discoveries. The focus on a particular problem is critical, and the reality in which the work is performed is not seen as a significant criterion.

Comparison

When comparing the concepts presented, one can highlight the pairwise similarities between positivism and post-positivism, where the latter is a refined concept, and constructivism and pragmatism, respectively. The first two visions differ in their scope of research coverage, but they both view reality as a single system (Panhwar et al., 2017). For constructivism and pragmatism, the research process is key, and although the latter concept does not take into account a specific reality, the problem under investigation plays the role of the ultimate objective (Fletcher, 2017). However, despite the similarities, each methodology is individual and involves distinctive techniques and ways of knowing.

For me, the concept of constructivism most closely matches my research perspective and helps analyze the tasks to be performed. I am aware that I myself am responsible for the outcomes I achieve, and in the context of this paradigm, I set goals that I can accomplish due to my experience and knowledge. In general, understanding the connections between philosophical worldviews and research methodology helps me select the best assessment mechanisms and focus on those principles of data evaluation that can be substantiated and proven. As a result, following the idea of constructivism, I act as an observer but not an influencer, which helps me remain open-minded.

Biblical Integration

From a Christian perspective, the philosophical concepts reflect the desire for knowledge. However, for instance, the ideas of positivism and post-positivism are relatively limited, while constructivism gives believers an opportunity to build clear behavioral mechanisms. Pragmatism, in turn, focuses more on earthly truths than biblical ones, which also reduces its value in a Christian context. Christ says the following: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14, n.d., para. 1). This saying emphasizes the unambiguous nature of the relationship between humans and God, which, as Keller and Alsdorf (2014) state, is multidimensional but practical. Therefore, research through a specific concept should take into account Christian values as crucial priorities.

References

Fletcher, A. J. (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: Methodology meets method.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 181-194. Web.

John 14. (n.d.). English Standard Version. Web.

Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research.Social Sciences, 8(9), 255. Web.

Keller, T., & Alsdorf, K. L. (2014). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work to Gods work. Penguin.

Panhwar, A. H., Ansari, S., & Shah, A. A. (2017). Post-positivism: An effective paradigm for social and educational research. International Research Journal of Arts & Humanities (IRJAH), 45(45), 253-260.

Although Socrates lived long before Christ, there are many indications of the philosophers ideas being close to those of Christianity. To some extent, Socrates was Gods prophet who proclaimed the things commanded by the Holy Spirit. There are three ways in which Socrates may be considered a Christian thinker. Firstly, as well as Christ, Socrates disapproved of unfairness and the division of the population in classes. Secondly, he proclaimed the need for reflection in order to find the essence of things. And lastly, Socrates was truly devoted to his people and refused to escape from death, to which he was condemned by those dissatisfied with his preaching.

Socratess attitude towards the government had much in common with Christian beliefs. In his dialogues, Socrates discussed the idea of confronting the government. In the philosophers understanding, the one who opposed the many and tried to prevent unjust and illegal behavior would not survive (Kraut 198). Socrates considered that democracy was vital for the successful existence of people and their good relationships. Also, he defended the idea of justice and thought that injustice must never be done (Kraut 198). These ideas are also reflected in Christianity, which makes it possible to regard Socrates as a Christian thinker.

Jesus Christ also defended the rights of the poor and encouraged everyone to be considerate and helpful, especially to the less fortunate individuals. In Christianity, a large role was given to charity and the need for structural changes in society (Stefon 222). Christ tried to persuade his contemporaries that people should not strive to gain much wealth or power. Rather, they should live in peace with one another and offer support to those who could not earn enough to buy food or provide for their families.

Similarities between Socratess and Christs ideas can also be traced to what concerns charity. In Christianity, it was believed that the division of people in classes had a negative impact on the welfare of some of the citizens (Stefon 222). Socrates, in his turn, argued that democracy was not the best way to develop the world into becoming a better place (Kraut 199). What is more, the philosopher was convinced that moral beliefs were passed to the next generations by their parents, who were responsible for the childrens moral education (Kraut 198). One more concept to be mentioned in this relation is that of charity.

In Christianity, charity was believed to have remedial power and to be able to change the injustice in society (Stefon 222). Socrates also considered that fairness and charity could alter the state of affairs and could eliminate class biases (Kraut 200). Thus, it is possible to consider that Socrates was a Christian thinker in that both philosophies found it crucial that the society should be democratic and that all people should have equal access to resources.

The next important aspect of the comparison between Socratess beliefs and Christianity is the attitude towards thinking. According to Keats and Shelley, the complete disinterestedness of Mind had been reached perhaps only by Socrates and Christ (qt. in Clubbe and Lovell 148). According to Socrates, people required reflection to find the true essence of things. The teachings of both Christ and Socrates quickly earned popularity with the young audience, which led to the dissatisfaction of the government. Because the state had always tried to govern the activity of the people, especially young ones, Socratess ideas were not gladly accepted.

He was the prophet of his time, just as Christ was the prophet of his. Even though some considered that Socrates had some air of superiority, he was always willing to learn from his audience, even if it was young (Scott 143). Socrates can be regarded as a Christian thinker because he taught others to be kind and generous. Similar to Christ, the philosopher tested and strengthened his beliefs and character through communicating with others (Scott 27). Thus, it is possible to note that Socratess approaches to learning and understanding things allow treating him as a Christian thinker.

The third argument that can be employed to discuss whether Socrates was a Christian thinker is the philosophers loyalty to his people. As well as Christ, Socrates was sentenced to death and accepted his fate. In Wilsons analysis of similarities between the two deaths, it is mentioned that both Socrates and Jesus turned the other cheek and forgave the enemies (141). This major similarity testifies that Socrates lived by Christs rules long before Jesus was born.

Even more, Socrates appears to have been the predecessor of these rules. Many people called Socrates the Jesus Christ of Greece, and Voltaire even said that Jesus was the Socrates of Palestine (Wilson 141). The decision of Socrates to stay in Greece even though he knew that he would be executed reminds of Christs acceptance of his death through crucifixion. Both knew that they had an opportunity to escape, but both were too firm in their beliefs to run away. Thus, the acceptance of ones punishment, though not a fair one, was another aspect of Socratess relation to Christianity.

The notion of loyalty incorporates the idea of sacrifice, which reinforces the role of Socrates as a Christian thinker. This concept involves the Christian demand to love ones enemies (Stefon 231). In the time of Socrates, there was no understanding of love to ones enemy as the immediate emission of Gods love (Stefon 231); the philosopher was living by that rule. An important aspect of understanding sacrifice is that it is self-sacrifice (Nancy and Livingston 22).

As Nancy and Livingston note, the cases of Socratess and Christs death are the outcome of iniquitous condemnation that is represented as a sacrifice neither by executioners nor by victims (22). However, the process of carrying out the sacrifice is, in both situations, represented as a desired sacrifice (Nancy and Livingston 22). Thus, Socratess loyalty to his people, which was reflected in his agreement to die rather than leave the country, is the third substantial argument for considering him as a Christian thinker.

Despite the fact that Socrates lived before Christ, it is possible to find evidence of his being a Christian thinker. The primary argument to defend this position is that Socrates disapproved of dividing people into classes and supported justice. The second idea is that the philosopher endorsed the need for reflecting as a means of searching the essence of things. The third substantial argument is that Socrates, as well as Christ, was loyal to his land and people and did not run away from the death sentence even though it was not justified. In these three ways, it is possible to explain how Socrates was a Christian thinker.

Works Cited

Clubbe, John, and Ernest J. Lovell. English Romanticism: The Grounds of Belief. The Macmillan Press, 1983.

Kraut, Richard. Socrates and the State. Princeton University Press, 1984.

Nancy, Jean-Luc, and Richard Livingston. The Unsacrificeable. Yale French Studies, vol. 79, 1991, pp. 20-38.

Scott, Gary Allan. Platos Socrates as Educator. State University of New York Press, 2000.

Stefon, Matt, editor. Christianity: History, Belief, and Practice. Britannica Educational Publishing, 2012.

Wilson, Emily. The Death of Socrates: Hero, Villain, Chatterbox, Saint. Profile Books, 2007.

What Is a Disciple?

Living our Christian life as it was lived by Jesus Christ is what depicts the meaning of one being a true disciple. This is because the first true believers lived their Christian lives the way Jesus did. In the Bible, Mark 24:14 Jesus told Mathew Follow me. By these words, Jesus meant that to be a true disciple one has to follow the life of Jesus as a whole. All true disciples have to bear fruit and lead by example. The lives of the disciples should be dominated by the love of God and it is only through this that they can forgive others and be forgiven by God. For one to bear fruit, he or she should be in a deep relationship of love with God. All those who will work for the Lord need to be disciplined and have a lot of perseverance and this also applies to worship. One should cultivate the fruits of the Holy Spirit so as to enjoy living in Christ (Laurie 3-6). A trademark of true discipleship is found in John 13:35, Jesus says that By this, all will know that you are my disciples if you have a love for one another.

Are You His Disciple?

Quoting Dwight Pentecost, who highlights what makes a true disciple. He argues that every Christian must have the urge to follow Christ, they should envy the way he lived his life and practiced his teachings. He refers to this as radical Christian living or true discipleship. For one to attain the full status of a disciple, he has to be curious about the Word of the Lord, be convinced then get fully committed to living in the ways of the Lord (Laurie 24).

To be fully committed to Christ, one must deny himself the pleasures of life and give up all his earthly possessions and follow Jesus. In Luke 14:27, Jesus says that those who do not bear his cross and come after him cannot be his disciple, Jesus continues to say that those who desire to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for my sake will be saved (Luke 9:23, 24). If anyone takes up the cross of Jesus and lives in his way and life then he will get the true meaning of being his disciple.

The Cost of Discipleship?

In Luke 9:57-62, Jesus says that no one who puts his hand on the plow and looks back is fit for Gods kingdom. If anyone wants to follow Jesus, it should be immediate (Laurie 36). In his words, Laurie says that all those who want to follow Jesus should be fully committed to His ways and one should never look back no matter the tribulations one undergoes in life (39). All those willing to follow and live in the ways of Christ should fully commit their lives to Him. They should let God control their lives absolutely (41).

The Disciple in the Word

In John 15:7, Jesus gives the true meaning of abiding by him i.e. abiding in him and his word abiding in you. Those who do so will have their hearts desire fulfilled. All the disciples of Christ should use the word of God as their shield, their source of strength and security at all times.

True understanding comes from the Lord and one should pray for it (Laurie 16). The word should be treasured at all times since it is the reference point in our lives. It should be in our memory always and it should dictate all that we do. The Word of the Lord should be seen in our activities and actions in our day-to-day living.

The Disciple in Prayer

The model of the Lords prayer is shown in Matthew 6:5-13 and it shows all disciples how they should pray. Prayers are termed the most crucial thing in a Christians life. It is what connects the Christians to God (Laurie 14). Through prayer, one gets to communicate with God, ask for mercy, forgiveness and protection from evil. This communication draws us near to God. When praying, everyone should avoid having pride in the spirit like the man in the synagogue. All should humble themselves in front of God, believe in Him and should pray genuine prayers. God does not have any interest in our eloquence, rhyme, or ritualized prayers (15). He wants us to be close to Him, glorify His name and then request for our needs from Him. Most people today want their needs to be satisfied without getting intimate with God.

The Disciple in the Church

Christians should consider one another so as to stir up love and good words and not forsake their assembly together, as is the manner of some, but should exhort one another more as the Day [of the Lord] approaches (Hebrews 10:24-25) All the disciples should contribute to the church for the sake of building one another( Laurie 12). Everyone should be responsible for supporting each other in getting spiritual nourishment. The early church relied heavily on devotion, the spirit empowered the disciples and they were passionately devoted to God and his Word. All those who desire to love like Jesus should rely on the power of the Holy Spirit and depend on it entirely till the Lord comes. So the disciples should be able to do according to the will of God, they should be passionate about the Lord and his word. Fellowship is sharing the communion, being together, sharing the word of God, having spiritual intimacy and caring about others as they partner in doing the work of the Lord (18).

The Discipling of Others

Jesus commanded his disciples to go forth onto the rest of the earth and make other people his disciples. This way, they will spread radical Christianity throughout the world. All of his disciples should pray for His boldness in sharing his word as this will lead to many people changing their spiritual destinies. Practical Christianity is emphasized by symbolizing it as Salt, it states that salt is good; but if the salt has lost its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? (Luke 14:34). When Jesus said these words he meant that all his disciples hold to be the salt of the earth (Laurie 14). They are supposed to show the difference by the way they live. They are supposed to spread the Gospel all over the earth.

Jesus said, Let us light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16). Their lives should exemplify the life of Christ and through that others may learn and live like them.

Everyone in the church must be ready to spread the word of the Lord in any circumstance. In evangelism, there should be a great and sincere concern for all those who are lost and wallowing in sin because they do not know God.

In 1 Corinthians 9:20-23, Paul gives us a key to effectively sharing our faith. He writes, And to the Jews, I became a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak, I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men that I might, by all means, save some. One has to identify and recognize the condition of the lost so that he can be able to get onto them (Laurie 22). All evangelists need a lot of strategies for getting into the hearts of the lost without necessarily using words that will offend them (20).

The testimony given to the flock should profess the faith of God and lead others onto believing in the power of God. Romans 3:23 declares all men to be sinners. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. These are the best words that an evangelist should use instead of calling those who are lost, sinners. Calling them sinners may castigate them and they may leave the church.

In nurturing the new disciples, one should help them to grow and mature spiritually in the spirit of God. This will make them be committed, dedicated and faithful disciples. In discipling others, one gets an outlet for sharing, guiding and this will add a new spark to a Christians life. This in turn prevents spiritual stagnation.

Works cited

Laurie, Greg. Discipleship: Giving God your Best. Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.

Pentecost, Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Zondervan, 1965.670.

King James Version Bible. Challenge Press Publications. 1990.

Introduction

A state that does not embody true justice is normally viewed as incomplete and appears not to be a moral state. Philosophers argue that it is Christianity that molds people to become good citizens. Therefore, for a state of being morally upright, then it must uphold Christian values and for it to be regarded as a Christian state.

The State is viewed as an instrument of force; its roots are founded on the original sins, and the original sins and its outcomes can be regarded as an institution. However, a State which is just is out of the blame if only its a Christian state. A state could be considered preserved and perfectly established by assessing its foundations, the bond of its faith and strong concord.

More importantly when the correct and the highest true good, God, is appreciated and loved by everyone and people love each other because of His sake. Thus State could also become informed through higher principles that should be drawn from Christianity (Copleston 89). The paper explores two philosophers and their ideas regarding a good state being intertwined with Christianity.

Luthers View

Luther believed that state displayed Gods work and was involved in preserving, creating and reuniting Gods work. However, Luther also illustrated state as extremely sinful. Also, Luther alleged that State originates from human sociality; therefore, its part of humanity design of Gods creation. Concerning humanity, the state performs its proper role by reflecting the love and divine justice through its role in reconciliation and preservation.

The role of the state is to defend the citizens, particularly as they fight for impartiality and to preserve and create good physical conditions for the whole of humanity as God intended (Tannenbaum and Schultz 67). Luther claimed that a good State is one which its policies assist in establishing economic justice, integration, and an order that is partial and historical manifestations of justice and divine love.

On the other hand, State is regarded as evil if it executes and formulates policies founded on classism, racism, and militarism. State portrayed a kind of force for both good and evil. According to his theological approach, the state was not supposed to be an object whereby people fully rely on or base their loyalty.

However, supreme authority dwells only in God. Moreover, Luther supported democratic states because they respect and maintain human equality and human rights which are freely given by God. Luther also supported social democracies because they well mirrored and offered mutuality network, which God created among people.

As a result of his theology exposure, Luther never represented the state as the redeemer of humanity. Nevertheless, Luther suggested that the state was only a tool, which was limited in the plan of God for mankind salvation (Long 212).

Machiavellis View

According to Machiavelli, it was not the moral rule of God which provided the state its final sanction. However, it was provided by power. The ultimate test of a successful ruler was based on the willingness to execute power judiciously and liberty from the restraint accompanied by moral suasion. A prince was not supposed to maintain the faith to please the citizens, while that was against his interest.

Machiavelli justifies those concepts by arguing that in case everyone was good then that principle would be incorrect. However, since people were bad and did not observe the faith as one, this one was not bound to maintain his/her faith together with them. Machiavelli regards the role of Christianity in the field of politics as a disaster, which ruins the authority of the state to rule (Tannenbaum and Schultz 121).

Therefore, his work emphasizes that the state should restrict the authority of the church, permitting it to execute its power in the spiritual realm only. The prince as the leader of the state should realize that the way to achieve in governing is through exercising the power. Hence power was to be employed with wisdom and heartlessness. According to him, the prince should be sly just like the fox and brutal like the lion.

Most importantly, the prince should not be prevented from performing his role by any deliberation related to morality above that of the authority. That means hypocrisy was permissible, judicious brutality consolidated power and decreased revolution.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the views of these two philosophers were contrasting. Luther argues that a good state is where citizens recognize God as the supreme source of power who should be obeyed and respected. A good State protects its citizens and encourages reconciliation. Moreover, the policies of that state focus on maintaining partiality encourage economic justice and divine love.

Luther claims that bad state executes policies which encourage racism, injustice and militarism. On the other hand, Machiavelli argues that the state is governed through the prince power but not the moral law. Therefore, the prince should exercise power to ensure the state is successful.

The prince must be ruthless and rule with wisdom so that the laws are implemented. Also, the church should only be involved in spiritual matters but never or restricted to state affairs. From the two philosophers discussed, Luther seems to be the closest because his work recognizes thesupremacy of God, unlike Machiavelli who disregards Gods majesty.

Works Cited

Copleston, Frederick, C. History of Philosophy Volume2: Medieval Philosophy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003.

Long, Michael, G. Against us, but for us: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the state. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2002

Tannenbaum, Donald and Schultz, David. Investors of ideas: an introduction of western political philosophy. Tandem Library: New York, 2003

Introduction

Augustine, a prominent philosopher, and religious leader made significant contributions, in various discipline. He played a substantial role in advancing his religion (Christianity) and western civilization (Augustine, 354-430 AD).

Augustine also developed a theory that considerably contributed to the development of the art discipline. The theory entails his understanding of sign and how it is applied in other disciplines.

Summary of Augustine theory

Augustine began by explaining his understanding of the sign. Augustine defined a sign as anything g that could trigger the development of the thoughts, in the brain. He noted signs to be either natural or conventional (Augustine, 354-430 AD).

Augustine explained physical signs as things that are unintended to be used as signs but led to certain conclusions, for instance, smoke which signifies fire.

On the other hand, he explained conventional signs as those exchanged by individuals as a way of expressing their feeling or reactions.

Augustine explained that signs communicated by men are frequently noted by two senses, i.e., the sense of sight and hearing. For instance, common signs such as nodding heads, limb movements and certain words can easily are only via visual and hearing senses.

However, in comparison to the two common senses, the ear is the most used sense by men. This is because; most of the signs used by men are often in spoken form.

The use of spoken words was, however, associated with an incredible disadvantage, i.e., it could not last. As a result, there emerged the use of signs in written word form, which could last for a considerable period.

However, the solving of this problem escalated other problems, i.e., some of these written signs can prove ambiguous or unknown to the recipient.

Comments about the art

In his theory, Augustine also included certain comments about art as a significant discipline. Augustine linked his ideologies of conventional signs to drawings, which is a substantial aspect of art (Augustine, 354-430 AD).

He mentioned that drawings could be used as signs, to pass information or to give his perception about something. This is commendable since it clearly shows the practicality of his ideologies and also the link between his thoughts and art.

In general, I must recognize that Augustines theory significantly contributed to the development of art, in various capacities. For instance, the theory assisted the artist on how to use signs and also in the understanding setbacks associated with signs.

Application of the theory to the visual art

Augustines sign theory can, extensively, be applied in visual art. Augustine explained signs as things that trigger the development of thoughts in mind (Augustine, 354-430 AD). This can be applied to visual art as a way of passing an elaborate message to viewers.

Artists can include certain signs in their paintings, sculptures or drawings to pass or give a more detailed meaning. Written signs from Augustines theory can be applied in certain aspects of visual art such as drawings, sculpture or paintings.

This can be observed when an artist decides to include certain written signs, in some of his artworks, to pass a certain message. Augustines theory also is used to learn and understand the setbacks associated with the sign, when applying them in visual art.

The use of written word signs, for instance, is subject to ambiguity; thus artist can, therefore, learn how to escape it, when using written symbols. Ultimately, the information from Augustines theory can be used to advance the visual artwork when carefully studied.

Conclusion

As an outstanding religious leader and philosopher, Augustine presented a superb theory that entailed his understanding of the term sign. In Augustines theory, there are some comments that can be directly or indirectly associated with art. Also, Augustines theory can also be applied to visual art, in various capacities.

Work cited

Aurelius, Augustine. On Christian doctrine. Calvin College. 354-430 AD. Web.

Introduction

Understanding the meaning of life is often a contentious philosophical issue. Indeed, throughout history, theology, philosophy, and science (among other disciplines) have struggled to explain the meaning of life. However, their views have varied across different cultural and ideological backgrounds. Nonetheless, many scholars say religious and ideological conceptions of human happiness and social ties may describe this issue well.

Others believe that human consciousness and religious conceptions of existence provide the proper direction for understanding the meaning of life. Philosophically, many other issues, such as the symbolic meaning of life and Gods existence, also influence this debate. Comparatively, science has tried to explain the meaning of life by using empirical facts about the world.

It has also strived to explore the scope and context about why life is how it is. Through this framework, science has provided many pieces of evidence about human well-being and the ethical guidelines that influence human actions and beliefs.

This paper explores the meaning of life from a religious perspective. It focuses on how Christianity and Islam explain the concept. Based on the teachings of the two religions, this paper argues that, to the extent that the two religions attribute the meaning of life to Gods service, Islam and Christianity are similar. Although the two religions have methodological differences regarding how their followers should meet their purpose in life, they do not overshadow the overwhelming similarities between the two religions.

Consequently, the overriding argument of this paper is that the Christian and Islamic teachings of life are more similar than they are different. The structure of this paper analyzes the service to God and the perception of the afterlife, as highlights of the differences and similarities about the Christian and Islamic perceptions of life.

Service to God

Christianity and Islam seem to have different religious practices. However, this section of the paper argues that both religions teach their followers to serve God, as the true meaning of life. Christians believe the central point of power is God, while Muslims believe Allah is the creator of all heaven and earth. Islam requires all worshippers to live by the guiding principles of the Quran and follow the traditions of the Prophet Mohammed. It teaches that God created people for a purpose.

The Quran says, I have only created Jinns and men, so that they may serve me. Here, it is crucial to pay close attention to the word, serve because it stems from the Arabic word, Ibadah, which means worship. Based on this analysis, the Arabic Bible Outreach Ministry says the true meaning of life in Islam is the complete obedience to the teachings of Allah. Therefore, Islam teaches that the true meaning of life is serving Allah by obeying his commandments.

Comparatively, Christians believe the true meaning of life lies in seeking divine salvation from God. Indeed, the bible says, For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. This statement stems from biblical teachings that highlight the need for God to have a relationship with his people. However, Christians believe that this relationship cannot exist when God has not forgiven their sins.

Biblical scriptures suggest that all people were born perfect but, because of sin, God doomed man to suffer. Although some Christian groups may hold slightly different views about this issue, all Christians believe in the power of resurrection through Jesus Christ (he is at the center of the Christian meaning of life). Therefore, like Islam, Christianity teaches that the true meaning of life is glorifying and enjoying God. Several biblical excerpts support this claim.

For example, Isaiah 43:7 says, & everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made. Similarly, Psalm 37:4 says, Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart. Based on these verses, Christianity and Islam agree that the meaning of life is obeying God. Moreover, both religions acknowledge that by doing so, people find glory. Although the Christian and Islam meanings of life agree on the need to obey God, Islam does not demand fellowship to God, as a meaning of life.

Furthermore, unlike Christianity, which gives choices to its faithful (to believe in God, or not), Islam requires all its followers to believe in God. The religion requires all believers to show strength, commitment, and obedience to God because they can testify to his oneness this way.

Islam acknowledges that different religions of the world have the same message  worshipping God, but some of them have deviated from this purpose. Malaika attributes the existing differences in the meanings of life among different religions to the lack of writing materials. He says, because of the scarcity of writing materials (in the past) many generations passed on religious teachings to new generations, orally.

Over time, people distorted the messages. Malaika also contemplates that the different meanings between Islam and Christianity stem from the creation of new religious doctrines in both religions. For example, the Christian Trinity Creed developed as a new doctrine in 386 AD. Similarly, some subsets of Islam believe in slightly different meanings of life. For example, Sufi Muslims believe understanding the nature of God is the true purpose of life.

The IRC says the Christian meaning of life has serious conceptual problems because it fails to teach the same meaning of life in all countries. Similarly, it says Christianity fails to answer how some people can fulfill the meaning of life if they have never heard of its teachings in the first place. Since the Christian meaning of life is firmly rooted in Jesus Christ (as the savior) some critics also question why its teachings do not explain if the people who lived before him had a different meaning of life, compared to those who lived after him.

Based on these questions, the IRC says the Christian meaning of life is narrow and fails to concur with the principles of natural justice. Nonetheless, both religions believe the purpose of all creation is to show the true nature of God. Overall, this analysis shows that the service to God is a significant part of Islamic and Christian teachings about the true meaning of life.

Afterlife

Islam and Christianity acknowledge two destinations for humanity  paradise and hell. For example, Islam recognizes hell, as Jahannam, and heaven, as Jannah, because they are the main rewards and punishments for human actions on earth. Both religions also recognize that the human will defines where people end up. Similarly, like Christianity, Islam considers the pursuit of worldly possessions as a test.

It falls short of saying that its faithful should not pursue their worldly desires because they would be doomed to have failed the test. Christianity also adopts the same principle because it explains why it is important to live a modest life (as Jesus did). Similarly, it discourages its believers from pursuing their worldly desires because the true meaning of happiness exists in God, and not the world.

Although Christianity and Islam both believe in paradise and hell, as human destinations, both religions have contrasting views about it. For example, Christians view paradise as a place that does not have any human suffering. This view shows that Christianity perceives heaven as a sacred place, filled with spiritual attributes. Comparatively, Islam conceives paradise as a place that flows with material wealth.

For example, referring to paradise, an excerpt from the Quran reads, They will recline on Carpets, whose inner linings will be of rich brocade. The Fruit of the Gardens will be near (and easy of reach). Similarly, the Quran says, In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched.

The material perception of paradise presents an interesting dynamic to the Islamic meaning of life because many people already have the material wealth, as promised in the Quran. However, many wealthy people are unsatisfied. Relative to this observation, the Arabic Bible Outreach Ministry quotes the words of the worlds richest man when he said he was not satisfied with what he had because he wanted more.

Based on the above observations, I am inclined to agree with the Christian view of life because it is more consistent with peoples greatest need  to live deeply fulfilling lives. People do not only meet such needs through sensual delights and materialism. In fact, people treasure non-monetary things, like family and marriage, because they are important to their lives. Nonetheless, since people are naturally selfish, their needs are often met in an unbalanced way.

The above view does not mean that Islamic teachings about the meaning of life are wrong. In fact, the Arabic Bible Outreach Ministry says that more than 70% of its teachings stem from biblical teachings. This view shows that although both religions may have slightly different views about the purpose of life, they are largely similar.

Conclusion

This paper argues that the meanings of life in Christianity and Islam are largely similar. The two religions say the meaning of life stems from the teachings of a central power  God. However, all the religions differ in the how. For example, Christianity teaches that its faithful can only see the kingdom of God (live an eternal life) if they are reborn (saved).

Islam teaches all its believers to follow the teachings of Allah and live according to his ways if they want to live in paradise (Jannah). Therefore, Islam converges with Christianity by recognizing the need for people to draw closer to God and enjoy their afterlife. Comprehensively, this paper shows that the Christian and Islamic teachings of life are more similar than they are different.

References

Arabic Bible Outreach Ministry. Christianity or Islam, Where Is the Truth? Arabic Bible. 2014. Web.

IRC. The Purpose of Life (part 1 of 3): Reason and Revelation. Islam Religion. Web.

Klemke, Elmer, and Cahn Steven. The Meaning of Life A Reader (3^rd Edition). London: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Malaekah, Mostafa. What is the Purpose of Life? Islam Guide. Web.

Stefon, Matt. Islamic Beliefs and Practices. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2009.

Young, Julian. The Death of God and the Meaning of Life. London: Routledge, 2004.