Herbert McCabe’s essay provides a vivid description of James Cone’s view and approaches to the theological problem of evil through The Cross and Lynching tree. James H. Cone explores how the lives and minds of black people are connected to the images depicted in these photographs (McCabe, 2005). Both the lynching tree and the cross represent the worst that people are capable of doing, but they also represent a yearning for a life that refuses to allow the worst to define who we are (Cone, 2021). In contrast to the lynching tree, which means white superiority and the termination of black life, the cross represents divine power and the continuation of black life. James Cone approaches the theological problem of evil in Christian American today by bolstering the African American community’s belief in a benevolent God who stood by them and comforted them throughout the times of lynching.
In light of McCabe’s essay describing evil, Awareness of sin and suffering profoundly affect people’s conceptions of God, at least in the Western tradition. The lack of religious belief in God in today’s bourgeois society can be traced mainly to the deliberate suppression of Awareness of evil. Commercial advertising also avoids depicting hardship because the liberal imagination protects individuals from actual sin. The concepts of suffering and evil are combined, since evil, from the point of view of Cone, is a metaphysical and theological concept, sometimes associated with the theme of sin. When asked to provide an example of moral evil, English moral philosophers were formerly limited to breaking promises (Cone, 2021). Penal institutions and medical facilities are known for being safe havens where criminals and the sick can be concealed. According to him, this desire for life is symbolized by the cross.
Leaving this comfort zone and seeing the world as it might elicit contrasting feelings in people. They can say that God is too childish, insensitive, or heartless to care about the plight of those who must endure pain in this life. On the other hand, they may learn from Job’s example and come to appreciate the mystery of God more deeply if they see that their conception of God was juvenile. The atheist’s initial reaction may have a bearing on their subsequent one. No one here is trying to help new atheist expand their worldview to include a more sophisticated understanding of God. Humans have assigned themselves the minor task of removing one barrier. Failure to make this shift may occur if they become preoccupied with the philosopher’s problem of evil.
To explore the mysterious universe of God solemnly, it is helpful first to problematize or study the mystery of evil. Individuals have not yet encountered the love of God if this does not cause them to be disturbed and hindered in some way. One should not let the fact that there is a conceptual knot between God and Evil give any stress or confusion in any way. Whether people label their worldview as atheism or a more nuanced sense of mystery, Herbert McCabe’s essay is not meant to serve as a guide for to help navigate the enigma of evil. The article is a philosophical refutation to the view that evil’s existence proves that selfless love and compassion cannot be the universe’s origin and ultimate purpose.
Herbert McCabe appears as a lawyer and acts as though he is in a courtroom to defend God against philosophical critics. As a result, all he does is attempt to answer the arguments they present. Accordingly, Herbert McCabe’s work on liberation theology is essential to comprehending Christian theology as a public message. The result suggests that black liberation theology liberates Christian theology from racial bias, imperialism, and oppression. With this work, Cone hopes to promote a new way of looking at his ideas and using them in novel contexts (Cone, 2021). The dominant white theological tradition is being shaken up by Cone’s public theology, which offers a fresh perspective on the discipline in the twenty-first century.
Herbert McCabe describes James Cone’s theological approach to evil through a symbolic Cross and Lynch tree. Cone’s work presents Christian theology in public dialogue and as a witness to God’s continuous liberating processes and empowering presence in society. To set the oppressed and the weak free, the universe was readjusted in the direction of divine justice and peace. The role of Christian theology as public testimony was visioned in furthering God’s liberating agenda and reconciliatory purpose. Modern contexts and the postcolonial era accomplishment is through applying anti-imperialist, liberatory, and postcolonial hermeneutic lenses and methods.
References
Cone, J. H. (2021). The cross and the lynching tree. Highbridge Audio and Blackstone Publishing.
The sacred has always been the opposite of profane. The profane views show that the existence of humans is totally a natural phenomenon. On the other hand, the holy scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam exhibit the sacred as all-powerful that has complete power over all humans, humans have to obey God, and they cannot do anything without his will.
Human mind is incapable and insufficient to understand the existence of God. Based on the evidences from the texts of the Holy Scriptures, this essay demonstrates some indicators, which differentiate God from humans and present God as a sacred reality. It also shows how God is portrayed in the sacred scriptures, and how is it different from the traditional philosophies.
The dichotomy between the sacred and profane are not new, both are opposite from each other. The traditional philosophies presented by Kant (1854) in his book called “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” have suggested that the nature of God is similar to that of the humans.
Moreover, if the humans have weakness, disorder and disturbance than the nature of God is also not free from these weaknesses. Kant’s book “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” questions that if God is the one who puts everything in order, than who puts God in order.
Other traditional philosophies about the idea of God suggest that human existence in this world occurred because of a coincidence. Darwinian philosophy is one such example, who believes that humans are going through biological evolution. Cunningham and Kelsay, suggest that there are some factors, which indicate the sacred as real. They argue that the features of the God are “Specially Distinctive” from that of the humans. God is distinctive from the human nature because he controls the humans.
The prime reason that the God is distinctive from others is that he is the creator. Even the creation of a very minute thing needs a maker, and it is not possible that things come in complete harmony without God. Humans are also creators but only of their own social world, their creation is finite and they could not provide any thing to others without the help of God. This is the theology mainly demonstrated in the Holy Scriptures.
Holy Scriptures shows that God is distinctive because he has the supernatural powers he is infinite, and in complete harmony. The Book of Genesis maintains that God send a ram through his angle from the sky when Abraham was about to sacrifice his son (Genesis: 22, 13). Similarly, when the God was about to descend on Mount Sinai there was a thick cloud over the mountain and there was a loud thunder and lightning (Exodus: 19, 16).
God is also beyond the volitional control of human beings. Although, the traditional philosophies could argue against it, the Holy Scriptures form the major faiths of the world show that God is beyond human aspirations. One such example could be found in ‘The book of Genesis’.
In order to test the faith of Abraham, God ordered him to sacrifice his only son (Genesis: 22, 1-20). Of course, this was against Abraham’s will, because why would anyone want to sacrifice his only son. Abraham succeeded in sacrificing his son Isaac, God greatly approved his act, and told him that he only wanted to test his faith.
It is proved in the example that God loves those who succeed in sacrificing their beloved for the sake of God. However, no one can go against his intention. The God wants humans to obey his commands. The book of Exodus also expresses that if the humans obey his command, and will work according to his intentions, then God will render his blessing over him. God does not want anyone to cross the limits of his commands. The humans are powerless before God (Exodus: 20, 1-24).
Cunningham and Kelsay have also suggested that God is also concerned with the welfare of the humans. God through his providence provide guidance to the humans so that they could live with peace in the world. God called Moses on Mount Sinai and passed down the guidance for the Israelites, known as the “Ten Commandments.”
If the context of these commandments is explored, one could indicate that they are so well defined in terms of welfare of the human beings that if humans only conform to these ten rules provided by God, there will be a complete peace in the world. These commandments prohibit murders, adultery, and theft and so on. God also asks to honour the father and mother, and ask not to make any other god beside him (Exodus: 20, 1-24).
Similar, the idea of the reward and the punishment of the God is also related to the welfare of the humans. If there is no punishment for the wrong actions of the humans, there will be complete chaos in the world. Similarly, the reward is also necessary. All the scriptures of the major faiths of the world show that God rewards his beloved in the form of blessings. In addition, God promises reward for them in the after world.
God is determinative of human existence. God arranges the livelihood of the humans, he provides him food and shelter, and if he wishes, he could withhold it from them.
In Quran, the example of Joseph is provided, their brothers plotted against Joseph. Initially they succeed, and they removed Joseph from his parents. However, in the longer run they failed. Because God provided Joseph was provided with power to control the wealth. It is written in Quran that God established Joseph in Egypt and gave him knowledge and wisdom when he reached his youth.
In the end of Joseph’s story, he was in possession of the wealth of whole of Egypt, at a time when the whole of Egypt was facing drought. His brothers were completely helpless as they asked mercy form Joseph without realizing him as their brother. Quran suggest that this story is provided as an example that God has complete control of all the possession and the wealth of the world and provide it to only those he wishes (Quran: 12, 1-111).
Holy scriptures present God as sacred reality. Humans have very limited powers in the world and they could not do anything in this world without free will. On the other hand, God is free from all kind of bounds. God could use his power with free will. God is the determinative of the human existence, and provide humans with guidance for their welfare, and God rewards those who fulfil his wishes. Hence, the Holy scriptures present the reality of God as completely different from the traditional philosophies.
Works Cited
Cunningham, Lawrence S. and John Kelsay. The Sacred Quest An Invitation to the Study of Religion. Prentice Hall, 2009
It is necessary to note that Christian ethics is a crucial part of the Christian religion that defines appropriate and wrong behaviors, and is based on several sources. The focus on particular virtues such as restraint and prudence is vital. The role of God also should not be overlooked in this case because the primary goal of this branch of theology is to ensure that individuals are aware of what actions would be supported or disapproved. Christian ethics can be viewed as a particular form of divine prescription. The moral stance of God does not change, and each believer has a set of responsibilities. Some of these duties are absolute, and some are dependent on the circumstances of place and time (Geisler 16).
Followers of the Catholic Church regard God as an example, and it helps them to lead better lives. Moreover, they hold that such beliefs should be spread to ensure that sins are avoided, and people treat each other according to the word of God. One could think that some of these teachings are not complicated. However, many individuals act unethically without being aware of it (Kim 36). Some of the behaviors are learned by a person subconsciously because they are a part of natural law, and a person who is focused on ethics would be capable of making reasonable decisions. Therefore, the role of conscience is critical in this case. We have learned various aspects of morality during the semester, and information regarding some of the controversial topics was especially important. Also, now I have a better understanding of the fact that there are several perspectives on moral theology, and it would be reasonable to review the works of several authors.
Others
The way Christianity has affected the life of Martin Luther King Jr. needs to be highlighted. It is suggested that the knowledge he gained in theological seminary caused him to look for ways in which racism and discrimination can be eliminated (Longtin and Peach 110). It is quite evident that he was incredibly motivated by the ideas suggested by various theologians. He analyzed many works and looked for possible solutions that would help to resolve social injustice. The pacifist tradition was one of the central aspects of his approach, and it was based on Christian beliefs. He believed that it was his mission to address discrimination, and did not use violence because he understood that it is not the right way to deal with such conflicts.
One of his central beliefs was that it is necessary to love every individual equally without being focused on such aspects as a race. Moreover, he blessed his enemies even when their actions were questionable. The fact that he frequently cited the Bible during his speeches is also worth mentioning, and it is possible to state that Christianity changed his life dramatically. Also, it is one of the core reasons his efforts to address racism were so successful. The role of ethics was particularly important, and he learned some of the behaviors from his parents (Burrow 18). It is clear that he believed all individuals are connected with each other through God, making racism and mistreatment seem extremely unreasonable. He understood that he had numerous weaknesses, but religion helped him to combat his earthly lusts, and he was actively looking for God’s forgiveness.
Self
It is imperative to mention that morality is vital to me, and I have devoted enormous attention to ethics over the years. I acknowledge the fact that the role of ethics has been increasing in all areas, and such moral philosophy is changing our society for the better. I am focused on continuous improvement because I understand that some aspects of my life may have to be altered. The most significant aspect that should be highlighted is that it is necessary to treat every individual equally and with respect (Clarke and Linzey 296). I am going to devote enormous attention to friends and family because I am loyal, and many people suggest that I am reliable. Also, I am going to support people who are in need of help, and I will look at situations from various perspectives when making decisions to ensure that the principles of Catholic ethics are respected.
All virtues are connected with each other, and I understand that every aspect needs to be developed to reach an ideal (Kim 107). Self-exploration is going to be an important part of my life, and I will continue to examine the literature on this subject matter to improve my understanding of ethics. It is hard to predict what will happen in the future, but my devotion to religion is never going to change. I am determined to become a highly ethical person, and I hope that I will motivate others to change their lives, and focus on morality. I strive to act appropriately, regardless of the situation, and I am dedicated to becoming an honest person who would not cause harm to others.
Works Cited
Clarke, Paul B., and Andrew Linzey. Dictionary of Ethics, Theology, and Society, New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Kim, Andrew. An Introduction to Catholic Ethics since Vatican II, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Print.
Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. 2nd ed. 2010. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Print.
Burrow, Rufus. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Theology of Resistance, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2014. Print.
Longtin, Lucien J., and Andrew Peach. An Introduction to Catholic Ethics, Arlington, VA: National Catholic Educational Association, 2012. Print.
The book The Mission of God’s People is a biblical context of how Christians should understand the meaning of mission based on God’s purpose in the world. The book’s main point is to enlighten the church on study, teaching, and ministry for devoted people in doing God’s work in the world. The book was written by Christopher Wright in 2010 and helps the reader encompass biblical theology. The Mission of God’s People addresses why people are called to care for God’s creation, the key duty of human beings who have been called to bless the nations, and rebuke ungodly matters such as idolatry, among others.
Description of the Book
The Mission of God’s People is significantly important because it enriches the Christian faithful on the practical matters of contemporary ministry. Through the book, pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and other servants of God can fulfill the will of God by following the guidelines that the author uses through his literary presentation of factors required for spiritual growth and commitment to God’s work. The importance can be seen through the author’s assertions that “There should be no mission of the church carried on without deep theological roots in the soil of the Bible. No theology without missional impact; no mission without theological foundations” (Wright, 2010 p.20). That statement is a key guideline that helps people understand that God’s expectation in the mission is that His people must read the Bible to succeed in His missions.
Additionally, the book is important through a central theme of the mission Christians have to preach to the whole world about God’s message concerning contemporary living. The author has highlighted that evil and sin separate human beings and God because that is not what God waits for from His people while on earth. Thus, the importance is evident through understanding how the mission is critical due to the obligations incorporated for theological growth.
I have learned that God created people to transform the world through sharing and preaching godly messages that are comprised in the Bible. I have as well realized that the mission field can be anywhere, such as the estates surrounding me or the entire world. Wright (2010, p. 28) says, “…mission field is everywhere, including your own street – wherever there is ignorance or rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” That means I do not have to limit myself due to challenges that may hinder me from reaching many people in various places.
I would want other people to know that the book has been written and supported by biblical verses, not the author’s intelligence only. For example, Wright expounds on Paul’s mission to the people of Corinth on the way to worship God. He quotes 1 Corinthians 14: 25, which says, “fall down and worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you” (Wright, 2010 p. 43). That perspective of basing arguments from the Bible is important to help other readers have confidence and trust in the content since the key objective is to assist people to know more about their mission. Lastly, I would like to inform other people that the book was inspired by the author’s pioneer book, The Mission of God (Wright, 2010). The initial boom gave an understanding of missions and drew critical points that enabled Wright to expand more about the mission people have theologically.
Conclusion
The Mission of God’s People is a book written by Christopher Wright. The author’s main theme is to help Christians to understand their duty to work for God through preaching, studying, and ministering from a global perspective. The book is important because it offers biblical perspectives that help people to follow godly ways as they commit themselves to God through mission work. I have learned that human beings were created to share the gospel worldwide. People need to know that the book is based on biblical views, and the author was inspired by his pioneer book to write about the mission people have for God’s work.
Reference
Wright, C. J. (2010). The mission of God’s people: A biblical theology of the church’s mission. Zondervan.
It is significant to mention that a covenant is a contract between two parties. Unconditional is an agreement between two parties in which only one undertakes to accomplish specific actions, and the other side is not required to do any work. Therefore, the covenant with Abraham is an unconditional covenant because God had made promises to Abraham that needed absolutely nothing from the other party. Hence, it is essential to establish the meaning and peculiarities of God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12-22, its relationship to other parts of Scripture, and to people’s lives today.
The Meaning and Characteristics
It is significant to mention the peculiarities of God’s covenant with Abraham and its meaning. It is contained in Genesis 12:1-3 and the ceremony recorded in Genesis chapter 15 indicates the unconditional nature of the covenant. If both sides of the covenant passed between the animal parts, it would mean that the covenant’s fulfillment depended on both sides’ fulfillment. However, only the “there was a flame, and behold a smoking furnace and lamps of fire, which passed between these divided pieces” representing God passed between the dismembered animals. This one-sided action of His indicates that the covenant is solely His promise.
He placed a dream on Abraham to prevent him from passing between the two parts of the animals, and only God was to fulfill the covenant. Afterward, the Lord gave Abraham the rite of circumcision as a special sign of the covenant (Gen 17:9-14). All the men in the patriarch’s line were to be circumcised and thereby wear the sign of being part of God’s physical blessing in the world all their lives. A member of Abraham’s family who declined to be circumcised proclaimed himself excluded from the testament. This is the reason why God was displeased with Moses when he refused to circumcise his child.
The Lord chose to separate a special people for Himself, and through them, He was determined to bring blessing to all nations. The covenant with Abraham is of primary relevance to a correct interpretation of the concept of the kingdom and is basic to Old Testament doctrine. First, there are no conditions attached to this covenant, the fulfillment of which is dependent on human beings. Second, it is a literal covenant in which the promises are to be understood accordingly. The Promised Land is to be taken literally; it is not an image of heaven. Third, it is also an endless covenant; God’s promises to Israel are eternal.
In addition, it is important to identify three essential characteristics of God’s covenant with Abraham. God invited Abraham from the Ur of the Chaldees to the land He wished to provide for him, this promise is confirmed in Genesis 13:14-18, and the dimensions of the ground are given in Genesis 15:18-21. Thus, it excludes thoughts of the fulfillment of this covenant in heaven. The land element of the Abrahamic covenant is developed in Deuteronomy 30:1-10, where the Palestinian covenant is recorded. The following special feature is the promise of a posterity, God promising Abraham to bring forth from him the beginning of a great nation. Childless, 75-year-old Abraham was promised many generations (Gen 12:4). This statement is extended in Genesis 17:6, where the Lord promised that nations and kings would descend from the aged patriarch. Further, this promise, expanded upon in David’s covenant in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, was to be fulfilled on David’s throne by the Messiah’s dominion over the Jewish people. Moreover, God promised to bless Abraham and, through him, all the nations of the earth. This promise was extended in the New Testament and had a direct bearing on Israel’s spiritual blessing and redemption. It is remarkable that the Lord affirmed these promises regardless of the misdeeds of the patriarchs, which once again highlights the unconditional essence of the agreement with Abraham.
People’s Life Today
It is crucial to recognize that humans today are also inheritors of the blessings and responsibilities of the Abrahamic covenant. Accordingly, people today continue to attend church despite the fast pace of life and technological advances. As a result, when they are baptized in the church, the vow of salvation, which is part of the Abrahamic covenant, is renewed. Even when they visit the church, the promise of exaltation, which is also part of the Abrahamic covenant, is renewed. Therefore, the people will continue to fulfill their covenant obligations and try to follow the established standards of behavior to receive the blessings of the covenant. Humans will continue to meet fundamental responsibilities such as helping their neighbors, which is manifested in the establishment of centers and organizations that are dedicated to helping those in need around the world. Furthermore, the commandments of God that must be fulfilled in the modern world are encapsulated in moral and legal codes of conduct. Hence, people’s lives today are also aimed at observing the Abrahamic covenant.
Conclusion
In summary, God blessed Abram to become the ancestor of many descendants, including kings. Furthermore, He blessed Abraham by providing him with land and, through him, blessed all nations that exist. Additionally, the covenant with Abraham is supplemented by the covenant of David and expanded in the New Testament, which links it to other Holy Books. Moreover, in today’s world, believers will continue to fulfill their obligations before God to receive the blessings of the covenant.
The debate regarding the existence of God may have started since time began. The existence of God has been questioned based on two grounds, first there is so much suffering, injustice, and chaos in the world that it is hard to believe that there is a Supreme Being watching over all mankind.
Secondly, there seems to be no scientific proof that God does exist. It has become a mental and moral problem that requires a solution. It is not just a religious problem but it is also a human problem that has to be resolved for the sake of knowledge and for the sake of those who may have labored in vain serving a God that does not exist. This study will look into arguments made by men of superior intellect to determine if there is basis to the claim that God does exist.
Intelligent People
Intelligent people question the existence of God based on the study of evidence and the use of the power of observation to learn more about human nature and the natural world. A scientist can use the scientific method to discover God, and like a researcher in a laboratory experiment he can create a study to prove that there is no God.
Since there seems to be no physical evidence that a Supreme Being is in existence then it is easy for this scientist to declare that God is non-existent. A philosopher and social thinker on the other hand look at human history and declare the same thing. Karl Marx epitomized this view as he cannot reconcile the fact that a Sovereign Lord has no power to change the plight of the needy and the oppressed.
It is not surprising to discover that there are many intelligent men who believed in the existence of a Supreme Being. They also seek evidence and they also use their power of observation to understand human nature and human history. They offer a dissenting view as what was proposed by atheists like Marx and Freud.
According to a well-known Bavarian philosopher named Feuerbach, “religion is not an absurdity, nor pure illusion, as our conception of God reflects the being of man” (Schirmacher, 1997, p.1). Although Feuerbach’s statement is not an outright admission on the existence of God, his comment is a typical response for those who are not prepared to make absolute judgments regarding the existence of God.
Feuerbach knew how to stay in the middle, but the same thing cannot be said about Freud and Marx. Freud argued on the basis of religion and he believed that religion is an illusion created to serve a desperate need for protection and he wrote:
As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father; and the recognition that this helplessness lasts throughout life made it necessary to cling to the existence of a father, but this time a more powerful one (Plantinga, 2007, p. 50).
Freud looked into human nature and he discovered an insecure human being.
He formulated various theories regarding the cause and implications of this insecurity. Finally, he turned his attention to religion and concluded that it is the byproduct of deep-seated insecurities and fears. He provided a good argument against religion but it is not enough to contend that there is no God because religion is not equal to God.
At the same time his theory is full of holes because there are people who are secure and unafraid and yet they worship a Supreme Being. Take for instance an innocent child who is secure in the care of loving parents and yet this same child offers a prayer every night before he goes to sleep.
Karl Marx, another famous thinker who shook the world with his ideas about economics, provided a strong counter-argument against the existence of God and he wrote:
The basis of irreligious criticism is man makes religion, religion does not make man. In other words, religion is the self-consciousness and the self-feeling of the man who has either not yet found himself, or else having found himself, has lost himself once more. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society (Pantinga, 2000, p.60).
Freud said that believers are insecure and fearful. Marx on the other hand asserted that believers are weak-minded. However, hurling insults at those who profess belief in God is not enough. Marx knew that by declaring that God does not exist he has created a power vacuum and that someone must occupy that throne. Thus, Marx had to say that man is the highest being and that there is none that compares to man – he is society and he is the state.
The arguments of atheists, agnostics and critics of religion can be easily obliterated if these philosophers begin to accept the fact that man is not the most powerful being in the whole universe. If they allow a certain level of humility then they will realize that they have not proven and may not be able to prove the non-existence of God. It is one thing to say that religion has destroyed civilizations and that religious leaders and shamans had created a system to enslave mankind; but it is quite another to disprove the existence of God.
The ability to disprove the existence of God requires not only superior intellect but also the ability to think and move like God. A human being must be able to travel at the speed of light and cross the expanse of the universe to make a final judgment that he can prove the non-existence of a Supreme Being. Therefore humans must become God first before he can accurately declare that there is no God.
It can be argued that Anselm of Canterbury began his analysis from the perspective of humility and as a result he was able to figure out that the mere thought of God is enough proof that God exists. Anselm wrote the following:
The definition of God is indeed so true that it cannot be thought of as not being true. For it is quite possible to think of something whose non-existence cannot be thought of. This must be greater than something whose non-existence can be thought of (McGrath, 1999, p.90).
It is important to believe that the mind has limitations. Anselm has pointed out one major limitation of the mind and that is it cannot conceive beyond the truth. Even if the thought of man is defective, the ideas that spring forth from his thinking are based on something truthful.
For example, man cannot think of an island if there is no such thing as an island. He can exaggerate his conception of an island but the basic premise is present which is: a body of land surrounded by water. Since God is not like any other physical thing or being man’s thoughts about God are different and yet follows the same principle described by Anselm.
Anselm’s argument however can only stand if critics are willing to submit to the idea that man is not the most powerful being in the Universe. Pascal adheres to this thought and according to one commentary, “For Pascal, knowing God requires acknowledging God’s supremacy and confessing our own human powerlessness to embrace God through our own resources alone” (Peters, 2009, p. 184).
It is not only Anselm who believed in the existence of God. There are other like-minded people like him who through the use of their intellect had to agree that there is a Supreme Being. Plato a man who was ahead of his time and credited with revolutionary ideas could not help but declare that God is the reason for everything.
According to a biographer who carefully studied the life and works of Plato, this world-renown philosopher said that: “no human affair is worth serious consideration, but God alone is worth serious thought, God the measure of all things” (Mueller, 1936, p. 457). When Plato knew that the end of his life was near, he made the concession that without the knowledge of God the mind can only encounter chaos instead of clarity.
Aside from Plato, Anselm, and Pascal another famous thinker was unafraid to declare his belief regarding a Supreme Being. He is none other than Aquinas. Just like Pascal, Aquinas understood that the path to the knowledge of God can only be discovered through humility because he said that it can only be attained through faith and revelation.
Faith is a stumbling block for many atheists and agnostics because they believe that it is similar to asking a person to believe without reason. But in the case of Aquinas faith is not a blind obedience to a certain creed. He proved that he is not weak-minded as Karl Marx would label a believer. Faith is an acknowledgement that there is something out there that is beyond the capability of the human mind to comprehend and appreciate.
Aquinas asserted that God can be known by faith and by revelation (McInerny & O’Callaghan, 2009, p. 1). Faith is submission to a higher power and the self is not made the center of the universe. But humility can also be found in the acknowledgment that man can only realize the existence of God through revelation that comes from him. Therefore, Karl Marx does not know God not because he is weak-minded. Karl Marx does not know God because it was not revealed to him.
The Methodology
It is foolish to argue that intelligent people are atheists and agnostics while intellectually inferior people believe in the existence of God. The arguments of critics were examined earlier and it was found to be overly simplified as compared to the solutions provided by those who believe that there is indeed a Supreme Being that created the heavens and the Earth.
In other words there are many intelligent people who are passionate believers and willing to defend what they believe in. Anselm used the ontological approach which is the contention that God is a priori argument. It is an idea clarified by Anselm when he said “that being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Warburton, 1999, p.19).
Aquinas on the other hand used the cosmological and teleological argument to prove the existence of God. Aquinas said that there are five ways to prove the existence of God. The first way is to argue that an object in motion cannot be in motion unless something or someone has moved it (Magee, 2007, p.1). Aquinas said that this phenomenon cannot go on forever because the object cannot be the mover and the object of the force at the same time. There must be someone who caused the object to move.
Aquinas also said that there is the concept of the efficient cause because an object cannot be the cause of its existence. In other words there is a source of all the physical things that can be perceived in the natural world. The third and fourth way is related to the first and second argument because it is Aquinas cosmological view of the universe. It pertains to the idea about the origin of all things and that God is the highest standard which objects must be compared with (Magee, 2007, p.1).
The fifth way however is understood from a teleological perspective. It can be appreciated if one looks at the perfect order of this planet and the Universe. It is clear that there is a Supreme Being that controlled these things. Aquinas clarified his argument even further when he said that “there are objects and things in this world that lack intelligence and yet they move with purpose” (Magee, 2007, p.1).
The critics must produce a similar type of argument that does not only rely on the criticism on the failure of religion and the boastful conclusion that believers are fools and does not have the mental capability to disprove the existence of God.
Personal Opinion
It requires a great degree of hubris to proclaim that he can prove the non-existence of God. This is the reason why it is hard to adhere to the belief system developed by Freud and Marx when it comes to the existence of God. They try to disprove the existence of the Supreme Being by exposing the failure of religion.
But what if God is more than religion? Although Freud and Marx focused their attack on the hypocrisy of religious leaders and the failure of religion to address the problems of humanity, the most significant hurdle that they may not be able to overcome is the overreliance on their mental capabilities.
The only way that a human being can declare with finality that there is no God is for him to investigate the outer realms of the Universe and using his senses examine from end-to-end that there is no sign of God. However, this may not even be enough because he also needed to be endowed with the attributes of God to know for a fact that there is nothing beyond the physical realm.
He has to be like God in the same way that Karl Marx has exalted the value of man and debased the position of God. Nevertheless, this is not enough and therefore it is wise be humble and acknowledge that the human mind has limitations and that without revelation there is no way to know God.
Conclusion
It is easier to believe in God rather than to believe that God does not exist. The declaration that there is no God is similar to the declaration that man knows everything. The declaration of unbelief is the same as the acknowledgement that mankind has figured out everything there is to know about this planet, the Universe and the realms beyond the physical.
Critics like Freud and Marx failed to provide a convincing argument because they simply equated religion with God. But even a person with an average intelligent quotient can tell them that religion is not synonymous to God. But those who are humble enough to acknowledge that they are not yet aware of everything there is to know, they were given the revelation about a Universe that could never have been possible without the existence of God.
References
McGrath, A. (1999). Science & religion: an introduction. MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Peters, J. (2009). The logic of the heart: Augustine, Pascal, and the rationality of faith. MI: Baker Academic.
Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian belief. New York: Oxford University Press Schirmacher, W. (1997). German socialist philosophy: Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
Warburton, N. (1999). Philosophy the basics. New York: Routledge.
The reading talks of how to lead a religious (Islam) way of life. The word ‘path’ suggests that the only way to attain religious righteousness is through following the words of the Lord. The article states clearly that there is no other way to God except through the path. The path (also known as tariqa) is the path on which mystiques walk.
It is the path that comes from the sharia. This is the God-given highway on which every Muslim is supposed to walk. The book also states or rather concludes that all religious foundations (be it Christianity or any other) have a path set out and on which all must walk in order to reach their intended spiritual destination.
Most important points
One important concept that is expressed in the reading is repentance. Schimmel states that “when you seek God, seek him in your heart. He is not in Jerusalem, in Mecca or in the Hajj” (106). The author also states that “one has to work day and night to plough and to clean the soul” (Schimmel 107).
Explanation
The article talks of the importance of repentance to the soul. One should repent from deep within and repentance should not be an external entity. God does not exist in a particular place such as in a building. God dwells in the soul. One needs spiritual cleansing to ensure freedom from the ills of the world.
The article states that without the mystical or rather the conviction of the soul, all exercises towards achieving religious cleanliness is futile. The pilgrimage to the ‘qaaba’ in Mecca is only a sign of conviction but it should never be taken as a complete act of gaining purity before God.
This is because those who Know God best are those who struggle most to follow his commands and religiously follow the laws of the prophets of the lord. The very beginning of the path is the tauba. It means to turn away from sin and to desist from every worldly demand. The reading speaks of ‘ikhlas’. This means absolute sincerity before the lord. The adept should turn with their entire beings towards the lord God.
The statement that one has to work day and night to plough and clean the soul is of great significance. It speaks of absolute conviction. Turning away from sin (also referred to as tauba) is a quality that, according to the reading, can be attained through external sources such as reading the works of the prophets or those written by saints on pieces of papers. Tauba can even be gained from listening to profane words, which are understood in religious sense.
Every form that is hidden in a person’s heart will be exposed on that Day of Judgment. On this day, only those who have been serving in truth and sincerity shall be upheld as conquerors of the world and gainers of spiritual eternity.
Even though hell and heaven did not matter to the devotees of the mystical love, they were very aware that their deeds would be laid bare on that fateful day when all men shall be held accountable for their deeds. God never rejects his people even if repentance is done severally. The article states that people should never exhaust from repenting since God never tires from forgiving his people’s sins.
Works Cited
Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975. Print.
Classical Understanding of God as per David B. Hart
David B. Hart introduces a profound perspective on the understanding of God. According to the philosopher, the classical understanding of God should be revisited in order to reinforce traditional Christian values (Hart, 2013). As a result, Hart insists that theologians should return to the classical definition of God as a “Spirit, incorporeal, not an object located somewhere in space, not subject to the limitations of time” (Hart, 2013, p. 9). Therefore, Hart’s perspective on the understanding of God implies returning to the roots of the notion.
How Hart’s Perspective Shapes a Theological Understanding of God
The idea of considering the traditional definition of God as the being that cannot be comprehended allows altering the theological understanding of the Creator. Specifically, the author’s definition of God helps to combine present reality and the primordial one, thus allowing multiple opponents to reconcile and embrace a single concept of God as the notion that is “more inward to me than my inmost depths” (Hart, 2013, p. 10). Thus, the perception of God that Hart provides offers to introduce the idea of unity into Christianity and allow opponents supporting different ideas of God to agree upon the crucial definition.
Challenging the Criticisms of the New Atheists and Forming a Church in a World of Atheism
The argument that Hart introduces to the realm of theology also allows challenging the theory of New Atheism suggested by Richard Dawkins. For instance, Hart outlines that the statements made by New Atheists dramatically lack intellectual curiosity, which betrays their theory in itself (Hart, 2013). In addition, the philosopher posits that the claims of scientists, such as Victor Strenger, contain fundamental logical flaws in their assumptions. As a result, Hart has managed to form a new church in the world of atheism.
Helping the Church Evangelize and Address an Increasingly Atheist World
Due to the meticulous analysis of the problems in the contemporary atheistic discourse, Hart (2013) has created the platform for the Church to evangelize and unite in the face of an evident threat that the atheist world poses. With the help of profoundly philosophical criticism of the most famous atheist works, Hart (2013) has provided the chance to convince people that Christianity offers a substantial philosophy that will help them to develop introspect into the world and themselves. Thus, the philosopher has made it possible for people to consider Christian thought as an important philosophy.
Reflection Journal: How David B. Hart’s Description of God Has Challenged or Enhanced My Personal Understanding of the Being of God
The concept of God as the almighty being that created the universe is often taken for granted, especially by general audiences. As a Minister, I have to pay close attention to how I understand the idea of God and how my perception of Him changes throughout my development as a person and a spiritual leader. By scrutinizing different sources that address the question at hand, I gain new insights into how God can be represented. However, of all the resources that I have considered so far in order to shape my understanding of God, I have found David B. Hart’s ideas particularly interesting.
It is noteworthy that, apart from challenging the traditional concept of an almighty being in the Christian philosophy, Hart’s definition of God also helps to understand the specifics of the discourse about the problem at hand. Specifically, by examining the existing opinions on the idea of God and the definition thereof, one will realize that there is a surprising lack of coordination in the analysis and the very subject of discussion.
Put differently, there are indications that there is a substantial lack of what one would call a meaningful disagreement on the subject under scrutiny (Simpson, 2016). Thus, the reading of Hart allowed me to understand the core of the problem that theologians need to resolve in order to approach the process of defining God. Specifically, the philosophical foundation for the definition of God.
Therefore, the analysis provided by Hart showed me that there are numerous complications even at the stage of approaching the process of defining God. Introducing a lexicographical perspective on the problem, Hart offers to simplify the process, yet he also discovers concealed layers of complexity. While one might argue that, since “the existence of God is not something that can be proven,” defining God is pointless, yet the search for the definition of the Creator is one of the approaches to exploring one’s own spirituality (McGrath, 2018, p. 7). Herein lies the importance of Hart’s work for me as a Christian and a minister.
The notion of unity that Hart introduces to Christianity by offering a chance at a homogenous, even if somewhat simplistic, definition of God, is also worth mentioning as one of the key notions that shaped my perception of God. The disparities between different congregations in their discussions of the subject matter and the search for the correct way of envisioning God seem to introduce a significant amount of disruption into their communication. As a result, the very existence of Christian unity as a notion is jeopardized, with people of the same faith debating about the foundational idea of their theological beliefs.
Therefore, the focus on a homogenous concept of God with which every Christian could agree and that could potentially imply the basis for reconciliation and unity is a doubtless advantage. Thus, Hart should be credited for purporting the message of unity and togetherness as the principles using which Christians could collaborate and communicate freely.
Moreover, the perspective that Hart offers by addressing the limitations of language in regard to the task of defining God needs to be mentioned as one of the ideas that have affected my spiritual development. There is a criticism of Hart’s approach toward defining God as the method that is rooted purely in the linguistic complexities is quite common and, to the credit of its proponents, rather substantial (Hart, 2013). Indeed, Hart does tend to focus on the language-related specifics that limit the opportunity to understand the notion of God and define it without any inherent biases involved (Hart, 2013).
For instance, Hart delineates the specifics of defining God through the prism of modern languages, including English (Hart, 2013). In addition, the philosopher compares his discoveries of the current linguistic analysis to the ones of the time when the Scriptures were written: “All things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom (to use the language of the Christian scriptures” (Hart, 2013, p. 30). As a result, Hart shapes his readers’ understanding of God through linguistic analysis, which ostensibly introduces only one perspective.
However, I would argue that the use of the linguistic assessment that Hart performs does not narrow the analytical perspective but, instead, broadens it. Personally, I managed to incorporate the cultural interpretation of the perception of God into the rest of the definitions that I have discovered so far. As a result, Hart’s interpretation of God did not reduce my understanding of the nature of Jehovah but also expanded it by showing how the subject matter has been affected by changes in the language and alterations that the Biblical text has experienced after multiple translations. Overall, my perception of God and the understanding of Him has been broadened significantly after reading Hart’s argument concerning the search for a simpler definition.
References
Hart, D. B. (2013). The experience of God: Being, God, bliss. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
McGrath, A. (2018). Theology: The basics (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Simpson, C. (2016). Modern Christian theology. New York, NY: T&T Clark.
Although both Adoptionists and Gnostics were Christians and in general their beliefs were closely connected, some of the Christian ideas had been considered in the different way. According to Oxtoby and Amore, the ideas and statements present in Bible were treated by people differently (138). A number of religious groups arose. Thus, the main postulates of Christianity such as the view of God, Jesus, and Salvation among the representatives of those two groups of Christians as Adoptionists and Gnostics were absolutely different.
The view of God of Adoptionists is based on the idea of monotheistic essence of God-father and God-son. They considered God as the supreme power; however, Jesus was seen as the part of this power. Adoptionists were not considered the dogma of Trinity. For Gnostics, this world is full of evil power and it could not be created by God. According to their beliefs, God is the supreme essence that has the universal knowledge. People also can get this knowledge by using of the spiritual practices.
For Adoptionists, Jesus is adopted as God’s Son, while Gnostics believe that Jesus came to earth in order to bring gnosis – supreme and universal knowledge. According to Oxtoby and Amore (2010), Adoptionists believe that from his birth Jesus was not Son of God and he was adopted only after the process of baptism. Besides, Adoptionists emphasized pre-existence of Jesus, they believed in several Logos of God where Jesus was only one of the incarnations.
Thus, Jesus was a good sinless man who was adopted by God. On the other hand, Gnostics also believed that Jesus was not God’s Son and they even considered Jesus as a false messiah. This principle is based on the idea of importance education, intellectual knowledge and self-development. Agnostics believed that only intellectually rich man can achieve the supreme knowledge. In this case, Jesus could not be God’s Son as well as he could not help people to achieve this pure and universal knowledge.
Salvation for Adoptionists was the main reason of why God sent Jesus to people. Jesus had to save all people on the earth and give them changes to get the salvation. Gnostics believed that God wanted to make a favor for people, providing them the chance to be saved. They also believed that the real existence is not physical, but spiritual.
Therefore, only after the death one can get the real life. This idea is similar to the main doctrine of Christianity. However, on the other hand, Gnostics did not considered sin as the significant issue that may prevent one from getting the salvation. For Gnostics, the main issue was to think about the sense of live and attempts to get more knowledge. Only one who seeks for the universal knowledge in this life will get the eternal life after the death.
Works Cited
Oxtoby, Willard G. and Roy Amore. World Religions: Western Traditions, 3rd ed. US; Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
It is necessary to define some technical terms that will be used in this essay to ensure readers understand them. First, the term god refers to a supreme deity that is worshiped by various religious groups; for instance, Christians refer to this being as God while Muslims call him Allah. Suffering refers to unpleasant events that make human life unbearable.
They include hunger, diseases, conflicts and death among others. Existence means being able to be seen or felt in different aspects. This essay will use this term to refer to how God manifests himself in the world. Belief refers to strong convictions that something exists or can cause changes in life. The term perfect means an event or being that is incapable of making mistakes and that has never been associated with evil. This includes the nature of supreme beings and their actions.
David Hume’s Thesis and Argument
This author presents that God does not exist and that is why people suffer. Suffering and benevolence cannot exist and this means that there is no way people will suffer if God existed (Hume 62). Hume argues that most religious teachings portray their supreme deities as benevolent and this contradicts events in real life.
He claims that there is no way God will let people to go hungry yet he has everything they need to alleviate their suffering. There is no way a rich parent can allow his children to lack food, shelter and clothes yet he can afford them (Hume 62). Therefore, he questions the existence of God and claims that it is just a religious fallacy meant to deceive believers. His argument presents that people suffer because there is no way they can get assistance from others or a superior being.
He believes that people should focus on the meaning of the terms good and bad and they should not be taken for granted (Hume 63). It is necessary to explain that he believes that suffering is bad because it undermines the dignity of human beings. The purpose of creating human beings was to make them enjoy life e and glorify the name of their supreme deities.
However, this perception has been proved wrong because people continue to suffer despite the presence of their supreme beings that can offer solutions to their problems (Hudson 91). For instance, Christians believe that they were made in the image and likeness of God, yet they continue suffering without any assistance from their creator.
In addition, he argues that morals exist in humans and not any other forms of life. For instance, he argues that animals are never directed by moral teachings that differentiate between bad and good (Hume 64). That is why they do not suffer like humans. He presents that supreme beings are supposed to be wise and understand the needs of their people.
However, this has never happened and this makes this author to discredit the fact that supreme beings are capable of alleviating human suffering (Hume 64). Therefore, he argues that mental aspects determine the suffering or pleasure that people experience.
Moreover, he argues that people have never understood God’s purpose for the world and this complicates their lives. It is necessary to explain that this author argues that there is unnecessary suffering on earth, yet there is no explanation why this should happen (Hume 65).
He presents that if God is omniscient, there is no way he would allow his people to suffer without letting them know the reason for it. This would be a better way of helping them to understand whether suffering is good or bad and its purpose in life. However, people have a limited understanding of the role of suffering in life and this makes it possible for them to believe that there is no god.
Lastly, he believes that if suffering is important in human life, then God should reduce its severity and not allow children to experience challenges in life (Hume 66).
He argues that people spend a lot of time and money to alleviate their problems and this means that they experience unnecessary challenges that are aimed at final harmony. In addition, the author claims that children suffer out of their free will or abilities and they endure hardships that cannot be explained; moreover, this suffering is a price too high aimed at an unknown final harmony (Hume 67).
My Thesis
God allows people to suffer so that they can understand and appreciate him (Davis 49). The following reasons justify why there is suffering yet God is powerful and able to alleviate this situation. First, Christians believe that suffering brings them closer to God and that is why He allows them to suffer. They believe that temptations are supposed to ensure people seek God’s assistance and company to endure suffering and overcome various tests they experience in life (Hudson 107).
Therefore, this is a good way of ensuring people do not forget their God. Pleasure distracts people from God and makes them think that they do not need assistance from others. Therefore, he allows them to suffer to ensure they seek his assistance regularly and this is a good way of ensuring they do not wander far from Him (Miller 55). This explains why he cannot eliminate suffering from human life.
In addition, suffering has a purpose that must be fulfilled regardless of the prices people pay for this. The role of various religious teachings is to prepare their believers for future roles and this includes being ready to endure suffering. This means that suffering is a right of passage in religious beliefs and nobody is exempted from it (Miller 64).
There is no need of trying to find out why people suffer yet God can alleviate this condition. In addition, all human beings are mortals, and this means that they cannot be exempted from suffering. It is necessary to explain that suffering should be perceived to be positive because of the need to ensure religious beliefs play their roles in preparing their believers for future roles.
In addition, some people suffer because of their actions and God has no role to play in this case. For instance, a man who drinks all his earnings and fails to take care of his family will subject himself to problems like financial difficulties and unemployment. (Keller 74).
People should not blame God for their problems if they do not take care of their lives. People should use their brains and do things that will not affect their lives. They have the freedom to choose between good or bad and this means that they can reduce suffering if they decide to do so (Davis 66). Staunch believers can alleviate their suffering by using common sense and avoiding things that may expose them to problems.
Works Cited
Davis, Jim. Why Me? (And Why That’s the Wrong Question): A Godly View of Suffering. New York: Leafwood Publishers, 2014. Print.
Hudson, Emily. Disorienting Dharma: Ethics and the Aesthetics of Suffering in the Mahabharata (Aar Religions in Translation). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Hume, David. Why does God Let People Suffer? California: Thomson Learning, 2000. Print.
Keller, Timothy. Walking with God through Pain and Suffering. New York: Dutton Adult Press, 2013. Print.
Miller, Richard. Suffering and the Christian Life. New York: Orbis Books, 2013. Print.