The Devil Has His Christs Essay Research

The Devil Has His Christs Essay, Research Paper The Devil has his Christs “Krishina”, which is actually Sanskrit for “Dark God”, predated Jesus the Christ in the works of two Greek historians, Arrian and Strabo (Daleiden 105). Then there is Buddha, who predates Jesus by more than five centuries (Daleiden 105). There are many other religions, cults and superstitions after Jesus walked among chosen sinners. If so why has Christianity become such a big issue over the years in moral and political aspects in the world? Is God a “woman” or an “African American?” Should prayers and crucifixes be allowed in public elementary schools? Do Aliens follow God? There are hundreds of questions that could be asked from everyday life to futuristic premonitions. The question

that really needs to be clarified is, “Should we believe in a God whose nonexistence can be proven?” If you are to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God s fiat, because God s fiat are good and bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God (Russell 19). “Seeing is believing.” To this old saying one could argue that human emotions such as love, fear, and joy are vaguely visible but still do exist. These emotions are acknowledged by senses other than vision. The only evidence of the existence of

God is through “”blind” faith. William K. Clifford, in his famous essay ” The Ethics of Belief,” argued that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence (Martin 19).” Clifford maintains that believing on insufficient evidence has a variety of harmful consequences; it corrupts our character, undermines public confidence, leads to irresponsible action, and fosters self-deception (Martin 19). Then why do people rely on a God that is more of a make-believe character? The many really religious and do not regard religion simply as “moral values” but use religious discourse seriously to make distinctively religious claims they commit themselves to what believers take to be a certain general view about “the ultimate

basis of the universe.” This could backed up by the very use of certain religious utterances: (1) God is my Creator to whom everything is owed, and (2) God is the God of mercy of whose forgiveness I stand in need (Nielsen 77). On the other hand, the many other churchgoers seek some different kind of redemption; Socialization of a certain stability symbolizing clique or in seek of a false comfort from some sort of grief, sorrow, and pain. Whatever the reason for the reliance of God, God cannot give us comfort or be the ultimate answers to this imperfect world. By definition, God s love is the essence of perfect love. It is pretty easy to prove something false on the basis of being “perfect,” for humans created the concept. So trying to be perfect in all or many ways has only

made God into an omni-incompetent God. J. L. Schellenberg, in his book titled “Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason,” makes a summation of the case: (1) If there is a God, he is perfectly loving. (2) If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur. Some examples of reasonable nonbeliefs are evolution, some animal activists (people who regard animal life just as much as their own) beliefs, and atheism. But (3) Reasonable nonbelief occurs. For that (4) No perfectly loving God exists. Therefore (5) There is no God (83). Why believe in a hypothesis that is proven wrong? People have an inexplicable craving to come up with answers for almost everything in every aspect of life. Limitation of science encouraged people to find other alternatives to answer