"Give an outline of Jewish beliefs about the qualities of God" In this essay I am going to discuss the Jewish beliefs about Hashem and what Jews think his qualities are. I will be using examples from a famous religious scholar called Maimonides and quotes from the Torah to give evidence for my answers. Jews believe that God is omnipotent, which is to have unlimited power or authority. In the 13 Principles of Maimonides, Jews believe that Point 7 shows Gods unlimited power over humans and the universe. The point explains how Moses experienced the presence of God through a burning bush and how God revealed his purpose for the Israelites to be taken to the Promised Land. This is a clear example of Gods omnipotency. We can also see an example of Gods unlimited power in Genesis 6, with the story of God creating a huge flood to kill every human being, animal, or bird on earth. We also see Gods unlimited power in the 10 commandments as God must be very powerful if he can give such restraining orders and have people follow them. We also see this in the Shema, as again God gives an order a whole race of people follow. The above reasons therefore explain why Jewish people think God is omnipotent. In Judaism, God is also seen as being omniscient, which is to have total knowledge. Jews believe this as at Yom Kippur we can see an obvious example of God being omniscient as he knows
AO3 "If God really loved humanity we would never have to suffer" James Quinn 4F An Atheists view is usually "That if there is a God then there would be no suffering therefore there must be no God". There are many single incidents, which back up this belief such as, the holocaust in the Second World War, the attack on the World Trade Centres by Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network. Also all the wars that have ever taken place in History also back up this argument that if there was a God would he not have stopped all this mass suffering before it happened. Also another reason to back this theory is called the "problem of evil". This is the theory that God is Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omni benevolent (all loving) then why does God let evil happen. If you take one of these away then you can see that God could let evil happen, e.g. if you take away Omnipotent then God is not all powerful and would not be able to stop evil. This makes Atheists think that there must be no God. A Christian would be able to find the solution in the bible and from other people's views. The bible would give a few different answers, one of them being in the chapter Job, and this chapter will give you three solutions; ) Suffering is a Test 2) Suffering is a Punishment for Sin 3) Suffering is a Part of God's plan, which is beyond human understanding Other
Matthew Pitt L6W 9/2/2003 "Is God on the side of the poor?" Is God on the side of the poor? There are obviously many different views and answers given to this question, either derived from the Bible, from one's own opinion or a cohesion of both. But how can it be answered from the simple form of this question? Further Biblical knowledge as well as a greater understanding of Liberation Theology is required to provide a substantial answer to this, which can be obtained by looking at the individual aspects that arise when questioning God's position in relation to the poor. These are things such as the concern God had for the poor at the Exodus, The Exile and the Incarnation; The sense in which God identifies with the poor; Gods frequent work through the poor and the oppressed; The Biblical teachings that God constantly demolishes the rich and elevates the poor; and the question of whether God commands his people to have a special concern for the poor and oppressed but not the rich. There are three main points or stories in the Bible when God uses his power to intervene and Liberate the poor and oppressed, they are 1) The Exodus, 2) The Exile and 3) The Incarnation. The Exodus is the story of Moses, the burning bush, the ten plagues and the Ten Commandments. In this God shows his power by freeing oppressed slaves from the Egyptians. God refers to these poor and oppressed
"God may have separated the heavens from the earth - He did not separate astronomy from marine biology" (Jonathan Levy) - To what extent are the classifications separating areas of knowledge justified?
Gianmarco Viale von Beckh Widmanstetter "God may have separated the heavens from the earth. He did not separate astronomy from marine biology." (Jonathan Levy) To what extent are the classifications separating Areas of Knowledge justified? 2002-2003 B.B.I.S Both astronomy and marine biology are autonomous areas of knowledge and both are sciences in the accepted definition of the term. Etymologically -this means the origin of the word- science or "scientia" meant knowledge. Today, it is accepted that science encompasses a very definite area of knowledge, but not all of it. To a certain extent, all areas of knowledge are associated between each other and sometimes and in some circumstances, the intrusion of one in the other, such as the influence of religion in Ethics, can be misleading. Classifications between these areas are man made, it is one of the methods that man has established in order to progress and further his knowledge, but it is only a tool. Classifications are arbitrary. While specialising in a certain topic, it is important to understand its context and place and its history in order to predict its development. Too much specialisation can lead to narrowness and lack of understanding. There is no significant distinction between common knowledge and areas of knowledge: It only means that one is the widening and rigorous organisation of the other. The method
Television and Religion - Give your response to the view that television always presents religious people as out of touch with the modern world.
Television and Religion - Give your response to the view that television always presents religious people as out of touch with the modern world. I do not agree with this statement. At first glance, I would say that some television writers do stereotype religious leaders and people as out of touch but some on the other hand do not. There are many examples of both sides of the story from soaps to comedies and from dramas to films. I appreciate that some television writers have to make a religious person act in a certain way for the purpose of their production. It is easy for people to say that religious people are out of touch with the modern world, but what is the modern world? I would say that the modern world is the one we live in reality today, where religion is not such an issue for many people compared to 50 or 100 years ago. Out of touch could mean a number of things, but the basic idea is that of being old-fashioned and not being capable of understanding the major issues of modern Society such as relationships, crime and politics. In the soap opera Eastenders, a character called Alex was a protestant priest. The writers depicted Alex's character as someone being committed to his job, a workaholic and out of touch with the modern world. Alex also had a friend called Sarah, a young teenage Christian who acted like Alex in terms of faith. She was very committed,
Problems with Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics. The issue in question is one with regards to morality, the problem of answering such questions as how does one live the good life? What is the good? How does one determine which actions are right and which actions are wrong? It is interesting from the get go that humans seek to answer these questions, one could assume that our own intuition could answer these questions for us, or turn to the respective religions that are overflowing with rules of morality and life laws. Nevertheless, throughout history theorists and philosophers alike have attempted to answer these questions through analysis and occasionally under the influence of their particular religions as well. Today we study a range of philosophies from Plato to Peter Singer, and in most cases we find that the moment a theory seems to be adaptable and just to our own lives, a flaw surfaces and is usually followed by many more which make us question our faith in such a theory initially. Kantian ethics and utilitarianism do just that. The biggest debate in ethics today seems to be between Kant's categorical imperative and the utilitarian's greatest happiness principle. To realistically examine these theories we must recognize that there are significant problems with both ideas, which lead us back to the questions we started with. It is apparent however, that alternatives
The issue of free will and determinism creates problems for religious belief. Traditional theistic belief
To what extent are human beings free? Freedom is the most important aspect of human life - some people take it for granted, some dream of it, and others fight wars over it. However, if God exists, how can humans be free, as He knows everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen? And if we are not determined, how can God be omnipotent? The issue of free will and determinism creates problems for religious belief. Traditional theistic belief involves a Creator God, which is both omnipotent and omniscient. Thus He can do anything. The problem here is that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. His knowledge cannot be wrong. There is not a single event that He has not foreseen. Given that He created the Universe the way He did, do we have free will? Consider that when God made the Universe He could see every possible result of what it was doing. Which means He could not create something without knowing what the results would be, and without knowing how it would be affect the things around it. So therefore He created the Universe knowing every single choice every single human being would make. As a result, everything we will ever do is known by God and therefore predestined. For example, let's say that Fred has a choice that will save his life, and the final choice is to be made tomorrow. God knows already what choice he will make -
"'God is life' and 'God is love' are meaningless statements" Examine the reasons why some philosophers might agree with this statement.
a) "'God is life' and 'God is love' are meaningless statements" Examine the reasons why some philosophers might agree with this statement. b) Explain and assess the claim that such statements as 'God is life' and 'God is love' have meaning for a believer. A plain factual statement is usually easy to understand for example; 'my dad is a man', this is easy to understand because the listener would know what a dad is because they have one as well, and they know what a man is, and it shows that my dad is alive at the time of me speaking about him. People, may however, argue about the concepts behind every word, for speaker and listener, but common sense tells us that the majority of people would know what is meant by this. However, religious concepts are not bound by these rules; there can be no such thing as 'a plain factual religious statement'. There are two philosophers in particular that wrote about religious language in relation to statements such as; 'God is life' and 'God is love', these are AJ Ayer and Anthony Flew. To answer this question it is necessary to bring in the verification principle. This states that; a meaningful statement can be proven to be so by either being an analytical statement which means it is true by definition, or by being a synthetic statement which has to be verified by experience. If it cannot be subjected to either then it is meaningless.
"'Right' and 'wrong' are just expressions of preference; they do not refer to any absolute set of values." Discuss.
"'Right' and 'wrong' are just expressions of preference; they do not refer to any absolute set of values." Discuss. (17 marks) The question of the existence of absolute 'rights' and 'wrongs' is a much-debated topic in society. Many argue there is no such thing and that all moral judgements are made by order of preference rather than following a set of moral rules or guidelines. It is natural for us as humans who were built to think for ourselves, to want to portray our viewpoint to others on topics of great discussion. Therefore we can expect personal opinions or preferences to take an important role in decision-making. However, many argue this way of thinking has no moral value at all. It is merely stating what you feel rather than what is morally 'right'. Expressions of preference are ideas that people are inclined to believe to be correct. They are based on our emotions and feelings, and what we would like to see happen as a consequence to our preference. This key idea is mainly reflected in Emotivism, which is in opposition to absolutism. This is where something is seen as intrinsically right regardless of different situations. We need to however ask ourselves whether Emotivism is a useful theory? Should we solely think with our mind, logic and reason rather than the feelings and emotions of our heart? We could view Universability a more useful as well as logical
TOK Essay "A belief is what we accept as the truth" (J. W. Apps) Is this a claim that you could defend? Let us start this essay by defining the two keywords in the question; belief and truth. What is a belief? The dictionary1 defines belief as an ideology. It is an idea that has not been scientifically proven. It is the persuasion of religious truths. Now, what is truth? Again, the dictionary1 defines truth as an agreement with reality. It is an established principle. It is that which has been scientifically proven. This essay will involve the analysis of certain common beliefs and to see whether they are actually true. I chose this topic because I felt a need to clearly distinguish between truths and beliefs. The first belief is the Existence of God. The existence of God has been a popular belief for a very long time. However, how do we know the truth? For that matter what is the truth? How do we know that God actually existed? Has anyone seen him, spoken to him? The Qu'ran says that Prophet Mohammed rode on a mystical creature to see God. The Qu'ran was written and compiled over 1200 yrs ago. For that matter the Qu'ran was compiled about 200 yrs after the Prophet died. In those 200 yrs the story was passed down by word of mouth, very easily misinterpreted. Then you could say "what about the mystical healing powers and other strange phenomena?" Those could have been