Jonathan Edwards v. Anne Bradstreet In a number of his writings, specifically “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Jonathan Edwards preaches literal fear of an arbitrary, unpredictable and vengeful God. Anne Bradstreet, on the other hand, believed (with human error) in a loving, trustworthy God. It seems almost impossible that these two views trace their origins to a common source. I will seek in this piece to uncover the fundamental discrepancy in the works of Bradstreet and Edwards. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” Edwards brings into question the salvation of anyone who has not been “born again.” He never directly questions his own salvation, but declares that many in the congregation to which he is speaking will soon find themselves burning in hell.
Leaders such as Reverend Hale and Judge Danforth from Salem, led the intolerant accusations of individuals who differed and opposed the beliefs of their religion. Ironically, the puritans settled in America to find freedom and tolerance, when in fact they created the same form of oppressive government. In “The Crucible” Miller presents intolerance throughout the play through the judgement of judge Danforth and his intolerance of anything that deviates him from his mind-set and his narrow-minded, prejudiced and uncaring attitude. In Act three, scene 1, when Danforth is confronted with evidence that proves the accused to be innocent, intolerance is presented through Danforth opinionated, intolerant and arrogant attitude towards Corey, Proctor and Nurse (as he is reluctant to accept the evidence which he feels contradicts the court). Danforth thinks Corey “must understand, [sir] that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it.
He gives God human characteristics to denounce the image of Him being omnipotent and all-mighty. Suggesting that God was created in our own image, he suggests that God is not much better off than we are. Most of these songs Brock, although admittedly does not believe in God, assumes His existence in order to present flaws in both God and the belief of God. Just as George Carlin and Richard Dawkins, as mentioned previously, mocks God by calling him a “sky-fairy” and speaking about Him as just an ordinary guy that was created by people, Modest Mouse songs satirically represent God as fallible in many of their
One of Vonnegut's best techniques in his stories is using the future as a setting to demonstrate where our world is heading. Welcome to the Monkey House, Vonnegut's popular collection of short stories, contains two such stories. They warn of the dangers of a government with too much power and show how these powers can corrupt good men. The title story of Welcome to the Monkey House is set in a futuristic America with vast overpopulation. In an effort to solve the population problem, the government required that every citizen take pills that made them numb from the waist down, taking all pleasure out of sex.
Sources 7, 8 and 9 all voice their opinions on the matter, both sources 7 and 8 disagree with the hypothesis whilst source 9 remains undecided in the matter. Source 7 highlights the reasons as to why the bible translation is required along with reform. William Tyndale, the author of source, says how ‘the scripture ought to be in the mother tongue’ and that the arguments ‘against’ translation are simply ‘false tricks to make you follow them blindly’. This is suggesting to us that the Christian church, under the pope, is a manipulative order in which the majority of its subjects have no intelligible idea as to what rules and laws they are abiding to. This was recognised by many minor factions within the German lands at the time and new revolutionary protestant ideas were emerging which caught Henry’s eye.
In light of this information they were able to give us answers to questions regarding the modernism of Christianity, and give us a good understanding of the continuing diversity of the Christian movement. According to Ferguson, the specific accusations against Christians were incest, cannibalism, and atheism. A Christian atheist of the second century was someone who did not observe or follow the traditional religious practices, of the Roman culture. Christians insisted that there was only one God. The Romans could not understand the communion or Eucharist and assumed there was cannibalism happening.
In discussion of Pascal’s wager, one issue has been the persuasiveness of Pascal’s argument, as well as the holes in some of his reasoning. On the one hand, Simon Blackburn argues that we know nothing about this “God” we are supposed to believe in, so we do not know whether this is a jealous God who will send people to hell for not believing in Him, or if this “God” is the Christian God that Pascal presents. Blackburn eventually states that regardless of which type of God exists, “a God that punishes belief is just as likely, and a lot more reasonable, than one that punishes disbelief.” On the other hand, Linda Zagzebski contends that Pascal does have a compelling argument, yet his reasoning is flawed. Zagzebski states that it is wrong for people to believe in God because of their self-interest, based around the fact that if they do believe in God and if he does exist, they will be rewarded with infinite gain. Furthermore, Zagzebski employs an intriguing analogy by comparing one who chooses to believe in God just for infinite gain is similar to someone who chooses a mate with a high income, and then tries to love that person.
Idiot Nation In the chapter , “Idiot Nation,” from his book, “Stupid White Men,” Michael Moore’s acerbic style and pandering to his audience, or should I say, preaching to the choir, are both in such exaggerated proportions that, apart from being totally ineffective at winning any new converts to his side and being riddled with logical fallacies, ill-serve his cause by polarizing the discussion to such an extent that constructive dialog becomes impossible. Of course, that’s assuming his purpose it to advance a constructive dialog in the first place. So first, we have to ask ourselves, what is his purpose? What is his cause? On any first impression of Moore, one is so taken aback by his relentless pit-bull attack style of character assassination and gratuitous and mean-spirited insults, that it’s not immediately apparent what his cause is.
Moliere’s Tartuffe In Moliere’s satire, Tartuffe, the author fires his caustic wit upon the social topics of religious hypocrisy and the inability of obsessed characters to hear the voices of reason around them. At first glance, the focus of this work seems to be religious hypocrisy; however, it is the underlying subplots of obsessive behaviors stay in the mind’s eye until end. Moliere’s portrayal of obsessive characters is certainly exaggerated, but there is a clear note of truth that rings through in their powerlessness to hear reason. Until the spell that binds them to their compulsion is broken, these characters are unable to hear the voices of reason that are shouting the truth to them. The main actor of this play who displays the deafness that comes with obsession is Orgon with his religious fervor that blinds him to his responsibility to his family.
Another noteworthy individual is Albert Einstein who was a great physicist but viciously attacked for his beliefs and even had his life threatened for believing in God. On a professional level, he was ridiculed in published articles and attacked in public speeches. 4 One famous quote of Albert Einstein is, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” While this paper is not focused on the history of each topic, it is significant to show how Christians were treated by the secular world. I believe the Christian response to Physics should follow suit to those great Christian predecessors in that the secular world cannot take away your achievements, knowledge or dignity for standing firm in the beliefs in which you base