DOCSLIB.ORG

Christian Monotheism God As Personal, God As Father and God As Love the Concept of God in Process Theology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Christian Monotheism God As Personal, God As Father and God As Love the Concept of God in Process Theology God – Part 1 ➢ Christian Monotheism One God, omnipotent creator and controller of all things; transcendent and unknowable; the doctrine of the Trinity and its importance; the meaning and significance of the belief that Jesus is the son of God; the significance of John 10:30; 1 Corinthians 8:6. ➢ God as Personal, God as Father and God as Love The challenge of understanding anthropomorphic and gender specific language about God: God as Father and King, including Christian feminist perspectives. ➢ The concept of God in process theology God as neither omnipotent nor creator. Keywords Keyword Definition anthropomorphism atonement covenant ex - Deo ex nihilo immanent incarnate Monotheism Omnipotent Omniscient Pantheon perichoresis polytheism redemption salvation Salvation History Shema transcendent Yahweh Task: research and fill in keywords table with definitions in your own words. Christian Monotheism Monotheism The belief that only one God exists and is worthy if worship. The Old Testament did not make this distinction straight away. Other Gods were believed to exist, although they had no power. One of the names for God in the Old Testament is ‘Elohim’, which in Hebrew in is a plural form: ‘gods’, this shows that God was seen as a head of a pantheon of God. The different nations were thought to have its own deity, these gods made up Yahweh’s council called the ‘sons of God’. “…I am He. Before me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after me…” (Isaiah 43:10) “ Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god’.” (Isaiah 44:6) Ethical Monotheism ❑ In the Old Testament, good moral behaviour is at the heart of the covenantagreement between Israel and God, where God ‘adopts’ Israel in a special relationship, and in return Israel promises moral and religious obedience (Exodus 19:5-6). The Law given by God to Moses in the ‘text’ of that agreement, and is centred on the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 1-17). ❑ In the New Testament, Jesus tells his followers that whoever weakens in the obeying these commandments, or who teaches others to weaken, shall be called last into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19). Many Christians believe therefore that they are bound by the same moral laws. Others, of course, do not (e.g. those who prefer the approach of Situation Ethics). ❑ In Mark’s Gospel (12:29), Jesus quotes from the preface to the first commandment in Deuteronomy 6:4: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is One’. This phrase forms the heart of the Shema prayer in Judaism, and is said to be the ideal expression of ethical monotheistic belief. This is the full text of Mark 12:28-31: And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered: ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second is this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.’ Many Christians take this text as morally authoritative, depending on their view of the authority of the text itself and Jesus. ❑ Moral obedience is at the heart of salvation. The appearance in the world of Jesus as God’s Son is part of ‘Salvation History’. The ethical teaching of Jesus shows how Christians (by obeying that teaching) can be saved into the Kingdom of God. God (and God alone) has the complete power, authority and love to save humanity from its sins. Again, this is true for some Christians, depending on whether they accept that salvation is by works or by faith, for example. God as the omnipotent Creator For many, to say that God is the only God, means also that he must be omnipotent, the Creator of everything that exists and the controller of all things. Since God is the only God, he cannot be challenged by any other power or authority, so Christians have deduced that God must be omnipotent (all powerful). For example, in Matthew 19:26 Jesus tells his disciples that ‘…with God all things are possible‘. Christians disagree about what it means for God to be omnipotent, because omnipotence can be defined in different ways: 1. For some, to say that God is omnipotent means that He can do absolutely anything, including the logically impossible; so if God wants to make l or to make murder a morally good act, or to make a stone too heavy for Himself to lift, He can do any of these things. 2. Others think that this is just logical nonsense, and that to say God is omnipotent means that He can do anything that is logically possible You will remember that for many Christians, it is important to accept (2) as the right definition because of the problem of evil. If (1) is true, we are faced with the problem of why God does not control evil in the world. Scholars such as Hick and Plantinga maintain that (2) is true, and that it is not logically possible for God to allow humans to be truly free and to get rid of evil at the same time. You will remember, however, that Process Theologians ‘solve’ the problem. of evil by denying that God is omnipotent in any sense, arguing that the sheer extent of evil in the world shows that God cannot be all-powerful You will have to make up your own mind on this. Most Christians argue that if God is omnipotent, then he must be the Creator of everything that exists. Most Christians accept this, although again they disagree about the method of God’s creation: 1. Some Christians believe that the universe comes ex Deo (out of God’s own being), but most reject this idea because it would imply that God and His creation are the same thing whereas most Christians believe that God is transcendent (beyond space and time) and ‘wholly other’ (completely different from the material world). 2. Most Christians think that God created the universe literally ‘from nothing’, ex nihilo. This might suggest that the universe is some kind of mental construct by God. Many Christian theologians insist that the idea of ‘creation from nothing’ can be found in the creation narrative of Genesis 1, where God ‘brings forth’ the universe by words of creative power: God simple says: ‘Let there be…’ (for example, verses 3,6,9). In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters, And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. It may be true that God created the universe from nothing. The problem is that Genesis does not show this to be the case, because the Revised Standard Version's translation here is almost certainly wrong. A more likely translation of the Hebrew is this: In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth, the earth being without form and void, and darkness being upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moving over the face of the waters, God said, Let there be light': and there was light. The words in bold are describing an already-existing. dark, watery chaos God's creative acts are to bring order to this chaos, hence his first act is to create light to banish the darkness. 3. Those Christians who accept the second translation therefore believe that God created the universe by using already existing chaotic matter, which he put into an ordered state. You will remember that this the view of Process theologians who think that God/the material universe have always existed together. Of the three views explained here, this is the closest to the text of Genesis not least because the Genesis texts reflect the Babylonian account of creation, the Enuma Elis, which also assumes primeval chaos. Lines 1-5 of the Enuma Elis refers to the mingled waters of heaven and earth, and to ‘chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both’. In Genesis 1:2, Tiamat is reflected in the word Tehom, which in the Revised Standard Version translation is ‘the deep’, referring the formless primeval waters surrounding the world. The mythological elements are subdued in Genesis, nevertheless the language reflects them. None of this shows that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is not true - it is just that the Bible makes little effort to make a case for it. It is an idea which, like many others in Christian thinking, has evolved during the ongoing life of the Church. Balanced against that, the idea of creation as God ordering pre-existent chaos is much closer to the ideas of Process Theology. The important point is that for most Christians, God is the all-powerful Creator of everything. There are clear links with the problem of evil here, because if God is perceived as the all- powerful Creator of everything, then he must have created evil. Augustine addressed this problem by denying that evil exists as a thing in itself, whereas others claim that what we perceive as evil is created by humanity, so God is not the sole creator of evil.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Invention Of
    How Did God Get Started? COLIN WELLS the usual suspects One day in the Middle East about four thousand years ago, an elderly but still rather astonishingly spry gentleman took his son for a walk up a hill. The young man carried on his back some wood that his father had told him they would use at the top to make an altar, upon which they would then perform the ritual sacrifice of a burnt offering. Unbeknownst to the son, however, the father had another sort of sacrifice in mind altogether. Abraham, the father, had been commanded, by the God he worshipped as supreme above all others, to sacrifice the young man himself, his beloved and only legitimate son, Isaac. We all know how things turned out, of course. An angel appeared, together with a ram, letting Abraham know that God didn’t really want him to kill his son, that he should sacrifice the ram instead, and that the whole thing had merely been a test. And to modern observers, at least, it’s abundantly clear what exactly was being tested. Should we pose the question to most people familiar with one of the three “Abrahamic” religious traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), all of which trace their origins to this misty figure, and which together claim half the world’s population, the answer would come without hesitation. God was testing Abraham’s faith. If we could ask someone from a much earlier time, however, a time closer to that of Abraham himself, the answer might be different. The usual story we tell ourselves about faith and reason says that faith was invented by the ancient Jews, whose monotheistic tradition goes back to Abraham.
    [Show full text]
  • Monism and Monotheism in Al-Ghaz Lı's Mishk T Al-Anw R
    Monism and Monotheism in al-Ghaz�lı’s Mishk�t al-anw�r Alexander Treiger YALE UNIVERSITY It is appropriate to begin a study on the problem of Monism versus Monotheism in Abü ˘�mid al-Ghaz�lı’s (d. 505/1111) thought by juxtaposing two passages from his famous treatise Mishk�t al-anw�r (‘The Niche of Lights’) which is devoted to an interpretation of the Light Verse (Q. 24:35) and of the Veils ˘adıth (to be discussed below).1 As I will try to show, the two passages represent monistic and monotheistic perspectives respectively. For the purposes of the present study, the term ‘monism’ refers to the theory, put forward by al-Ghaz�lı in a number of contexts, that God is the only existent in existence and the world, considered in itself, is ‘sheer non-existence’ (fiadam ma˛∂); while ‘monotheism’ refers to the view that God is the one of the totality of existents which is the source of existence for the rest of existents. The fundamental difference between the two views lies in their respective assessments of God’s granting existence to what is other than He: the monistic paradigm views the granting of existence as essentially virtual so that in the last analysis God alone exists, whereas the monotheistic paradigm sees the granting of existence as real.2 Let us now turn to the passages in question. Passage A: Mishk�t, Part 1, §§52–43 [§52] The entire world is permeated by external visual and internal intellectual lights … Lower [lights] emanate from one another the way light emanates from a lamp [sir�j, cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge, Belief, and the Impulse to Natural Theology
    Science in Context 20(3), 381–400 (2007). Copyright C Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0269889707001354 Printed in the United Kingdom Introduction: Knowledge, Belief, and the Impulse to Natural Theology Fernando Vidal Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin Bernhard Kleeberg Justus-Liebig-Universitat¨ Giessen The title of this issue of Science in Context – “Believing Nature, Knowing God” – is intended to suggest the moral, emotional, and cognitive conditions in which the historical alliance of “nature” and “God” operated, and to make a more general point about knowing and believing. The production of scientific knowledge includes mechanisms for bringing about acceptance that such knowledge is true, and thus for generating a psychological state of belief. Toclaim to have knowledge of nature involves an attitude of belief in certain epistemic values, in the procedures associated with them, and in the results to which they lead.1 “Nature,” both as a totality to be known, and as the sum of the results of research directed towards it, turns out to be an object of belief. Reciprocally, even when the operations of nature are ultimately attributed to the action or will of a transcendent power, the production of justified statements about the existence, properties, and intentions of such power entails evidentiary and argumentative practices of the sort associated with the production of knowledge. Hence, whether we accept certain rational propositions and ways of reasoning because we adhere to the epistemic values of modern science or because we trust divine wisdom and benevolence, what is crucial for the validity of an argument is not that it rests on “knowledge” or “belief,” but the authority we ascribe to the relevant practices of substantiating claims, be they in the laboratory or the church.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Theology and Natural History in Darwin’S Time: Design
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ETD - Electronic Theses & Dissertations NATURAL THEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY IN DARWIN’S TIME: DESIGN, DIRECTION, SUPERINTENEDENCE AND UNIFORMITY IN BRITISH THOUGHT, 1818-1876 By Boyd Barnes Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Religion May, 2008 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor James Hudnut-Beumler Professor Dale A. Johnson Professor Eugene A. TeSelle Professor Richard F. Haglund Professor James P. Byrd William Buckland “The evidences afforded by the sister sciences exhibit indeed the most admirable proofs of design originally exerted at the Creation: but many who admit these proofs still doubt the continued superintendence of that intelligence, maintaining that the system of the Universe is carried on by the force of the laws originally impressed upon matter…. Such an opinion … nowhere meets with a more direct and palpable refutation, than is afforded by the subserviency of the present structure of the earth’s surface to final causes; for that structure is evidently the result of many and violent convulsions subsequent to its original formation. When therefore we perceive that the secondary causes producing these convulsions have operated at successive epochs, not blindly and at random, but with a direction to beneficial ends, we see at once the proofs of an overruling Intelligence continuing to superintend, direct, modify, and control the operation of the agents, which he originally ordained.” – The Very Reverend William Buckland (1784-1856), DD, FRS, Reader in Geology and Canon of Christ Church at the University of Oxford, President of the Geological Society of London, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Dean of Westminster.
    [Show full text]
  • David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2020 David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance Jarrett Delozier [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Delozier, Jarrett, "David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance" (2020). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/2382 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DeLozier 1 Introduction In the history of philosophy of religion and natural theology, David Hume is an immensely influential contributor. One of his most important works in the field is his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which contains his greatest treatment of natural theology, specifically the design argument. However, there’s a big problem which the Dialogues present to understanding Hume. Eleven of the twelve parts of the Dialogues contain Hume’s sharp criticisms and attacks on the Design argument. But in the final part, in what is often called “Philo’s Reversal,” he seems to completely reverse course by renouncing his skepticism and endorsing the Design argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn't: Explaining Theological Incorrectness in South Asia and America
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 8-2002 Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn't: Explaining Theological Incorrectness in South Asia and America D. Jason Slone Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons, and the Sociology of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Slone, D. Jason, "Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn't: Explaining Theological Incorrectness in South Asia and America" (2002). Dissertations. 1333. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1333 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THEY SHOULDN’T: EXPLAINING THEOLOGICAL INCORRECTNESS IN SOUTH ASIA AND AMERICA by D. Jason Slone A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Comparative Religion Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan August 2002 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. WHY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THEY SHOULDN’T: EXPLAINING THEOLOGICAL INCORRECTNESS IN SOUTH ASIA AND AMERICA D. Jason Slone, Phi). Western Michigan University, 2002 Cross-cultural descriptions of religious thought and behavior in South Asia and America show that people commonly hold ideas and perform actions that seem to be not only conceptually incoherent but also “theologically incorrect” by the standards of their own traditions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heritage of Non-Theistic Belief in China
    The Heritage of Non-theistic Belief in China Joseph A. Adler Kenyon College Presented to the international conference, "Toward a Reasonable World: The Heritage of Western Humanism, Skepticism, and Freethought" (San Diego, September 2011) Naturalism and humanism have long histories in China, side-by-side with a long history of theistic belief. In this paper I will first sketch the early naturalistic and humanistic traditions in Chinese thought. I will then focus on the synthesis of these perspectives in Neo-Confucian religious thought. I will argue that these forms of non-theistic belief should be considered aspects of Chinese religion, not a separate realm of philosophy. Confucianism, in other words, is a fully religious humanism, not a "secular humanism." The religion of China has traditionally been characterized as having three major strands, the "three religions" (literally "three teachings" or san jiao) of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism. Buddhism, of course, originated in India in the 5th century BCE and first began to take root in China in the 1st century CE, so in terms of early Chinese thought it is something of a latecomer. Confucianism and Daoism began to take shape between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE. But these traditions developed in the context of Chinese "popular religion" (also called folk religion or local religion), which may be considered a fourth strand of Chinese religion. And until the early 20th century there was yet a fifth: state religion, or the "state cult," which had close relations very early with both Daoism and Confucianism, but after the 2nd century BCE became associated primarily (but loosely) with Confucianism.
    [Show full text]
  • I. the Word of God Is Everything We Need II. God Has Given Us
    What people need to understand today is that the truth is important. What you beLieve to be true is important, because it wiLL determine how you see Life and how you Live your Life. It wiLL determine your abiLity to understand Life and obey God. Truth exists because God is trustworthy. The biblical understanding of truth is that all truth comes from God. God has breathed life into all of Scripture. It is useful for teaching us The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your what is true. It is useful for correcting our mistakes. It is useful for righteous judgments endures forever. PsaLm 119:160 making our lives whole again. It is useful for training us to do what is right. By using Scripture, a man of God can be completely prepared Truth is a gift that God gives to mankind. As we honor that to do every good thing. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIRV truth by believing in it and living by it we are blessed and preserved because of it. I. The Word of God is Everything We Need 4. God’s Word is to be obeyed as God directLy telling us what to do. It has been written, Man shall not live and be upheld and sustained by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of When God commands, we are to obey. When he asserts, we are God. Matthew 4:4 (AMP) to believe Him. When he promises, we are to embrace and trust those promises; thus, we respond to the sheer authority of For the Christian, the Bible is the measuring rod, and final word God’s word.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiencing God: God Speaks by the Holy Spirit Through Bible and Prayer
    • OCTOBER 5 • EXPERIENCING GOD: GOD SPEAKS BY THE HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH BIBLE AND PRAYER Reality #4: God speaks by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, prayer, circumstances, and the church to reveal Himself, His purposes, and His ways. Hebrews 1:1, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets…” When God spoke: 1. It was usually unique to that individual 2. He gave enough specific directions to do something now (Exodus 3:16-22) God speaks by the Holy Spirit 1 Corinthians 3:16, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 16:13-14, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” 1. God reveals Himself - because He wants you to have faith to believe He can do what He says. Leviticus 19:1-2, “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.’” 2.
    [Show full text]
  • JOSHUA L. MOSS Source: Melilah: Atheism, Scepticism and Challenges to Mono
    EDITOR Daniel R. Langton ASSISTANT EDITOR Simon Mayers Title: Satire, Monotheism and Scepticism Author(s): JOSHUA L. MOSS Source: Melilah: Atheism, Scepticism and Challenges to Monotheism, Vol. 12 (2015), pp. 14-21 Published by: University of Manchester and Gorgias Press URL: http://www.melilahjournal.org/p/2015.html ISBN: 978-1-4632-0622-2 ISSN: 1759-1953 A publication of the Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Co-published by SATIRE, MONOTHEISM AND SCEPTICISM Joshua L. Moss* ABSTRACT: The habits of mind which gave Israel’s ancestors cause to doubt the existence of the pagan deities sometimes lead their descendants to doubt the existence of any personal God, however conceived. Monotheism was and is a powerful form of Scepticism. The Hebrew Bible contains notable satires of Paganism, such as Psalm 115 and Isaiah 44 with their biting mockery of idols. Elijah challenged the worshippers of Ba’al to a demonstration of divine power, using satire. The reader knows that nothing will happen in response to the cries of Baal’s worshippers, and laughs. Yet, the worshippers of Israel’s God must also be aware that their own cries for help often go unanswered. The insight that caused Abraham to smash the idols in his father’s shop also shakes the altar erected by Elijah. Doubt, once unleashed, is not easily contained. Scepticism is a natural part of the Jewish experience. In the middle ages Jews were non-believers and dissenters as far as the dominant religions were concerned. With the advent of modernity, those sceptical habits of mind could be applied to religion generally, including Judaism.
    [Show full text]
  • Hinduism and Hindu Philosophy
    Essays on Indian Philosophy UNIVE'aSITY OF HAWAII Uf,FU:{ Essays on Indian Philosophy SHRI KRISHNA SAKSENA UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII PRESS HONOLULU 1970 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 78·114209 Standard Book Number 87022-726-2 Copyright © 1970 by University of Hawaii Press All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America Contents The Story of Indian Philosophy 3 Basic Tenets of Indian Philosophy 18 Testimony in Indian Philosophy 24 Hinduism 37 Hinduism and Hindu Philosophy 51 The Jain Religion 54 Some Riddles in the Behavior of Gods and Sages in the Epics and the Puranas 64 Autobiography of a Yogi 71 Jainism 73 Svapramanatva and Svapraka!;>atva: An Inconsistency in Kumarila's Philosophy 77 The Nature of Buddhi according to Sankhya-Yoga 82 The Individual in Social Thought and Practice in India 88 Professor Zaehner and the Comparison of Religions 102 A Comparison between the Eastern and Western Portraits of Man in Our Time 117 Acknowledgments The author wishes to make the following acknowledgments for permission to reprint previously published essays: "The Story of Indian Philosophy," in A History of Philosophical Systems. edited by Vergilius Ferm. New York:The Philosophical Library, 1950. "Basic Tenets of Indian Philosophy," previously published as "Are There Any Basic Tenets of Indian Philosophy?" in The Philosophical Quarterly. "Testimony in Indian Philosophy," previously published as "Authority in Indian Philosophy," in Ph ilosophyEast and West. vo!.l,no. 3 (October 1951). "Hinduism," in Studium Generale. no. 10 (1962). "The Jain Religion," previously published as "Jainism," in Religion in the Twentieth Century. edited by Vergilius Ferm.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Monotheism: a Signal of Transcendence Challenging
    Liberty University Original Monotheism: A Signal of Transcendence Challenging Naturalism and New Ageism A Thesis Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Divinity in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Ministry Department of Christian Leadership and Church Ministries by Daniel R. Cote Lynchburg, Virginia April 5, 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Daniel R. Cote All Rights Reserved ii Liberty University School of Divinity Thesis Project Approval Sheet Dr. T. Michael Christ Adjunct Faculty School of Divinity Dr. Phil Gifford Adjunct Faculty School of Divinity iii THE DOCTOR OF MINISTRY THESIS PROJECT ABSTRACT Daniel R. Cote Liberty University School of Divinity, 2020 Mentor: Dr. T. Michael Christ Where once in America, belief in Christian theism was shared by a large majority of the population, over the last 70 years belief in Christian theism has significantly eroded. From 1948 to 2018, the percent of Americans identifying as Catholic or Christians dropped from 91 percent to 67 percent, with virtually all the drop coming from protestant denominations.1 Naturalism and new ageism increasingly provide alternative means for understanding existential reality without the moral imperatives and the belief in the divine associated with Christian theism. The ironic aspect of the shifting of worldviews underway in western culture is that it continues with little regard for strong evidence for the truth of Christian theism emerging from historical, cultural, and scientific research. One reality long overlooked in this regard is the research of Wilhelm Schmidt and others, which indicates that the earliest religion of humanity is monotheism. Original monotheism is a strong indicator of the existence of a transcendent God who revealed Himself as portrayed in Genesis 1-11, thus affirming the truth of essential elements of Christian theism and the falsity of naturalism and new ageism.
    [Show full text]