Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

Journal Entries
Student Name
University
Course
Professor Name
Date
Journal Entries
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism
The reading on moralistic therapeutic deism raises very serious issues regarding the social reproduction of religion. One of the main arguments supporting the observation that modern youth are inarticulate about their religion is that the educators are failing. Such a position is quite bold, in my opinion, though I do not consider it to be entirely untrue. The rationale is that if educators were more competent, then the youth would be more religious and would have a better understanding of the religion. However, there is a question that needs to be addressed regarding who the religious educators are. In religion, the educators could be the religious institutions responsible for instilling the beliefs and practices into the community. Churches and the relevant schools could justifiably be blamed for the lax religiousness of the modern youth. Such theories as secularization have been mentioned, and I consider them appropriate for describing the current situation.
However, the whole idea of social reproduction depends on more than the religious educators. Christian Smith may have done the most sensible thing to research the youth. At their age, I can argue that the youth are simply recipients of the cultural aspects being socially reproduced. In other words, I believe that the inarticulacy of the youth is a reflection of problems in the larger society. The reading quotes from such philosophers as Charles Taylor, who argues that articulacy fosters reality and that practice and commitment are needed to support religion. In terms of social reproduction, it implies that the modern youth have not been exposed to proper religious practices due to the disintegration of religious traditions and norms. The parents could also have been studied since their stance on religion, and their practices could easily reflect on their children.
God the Father
The lecture reading on God the Father has some interesting views on why creeds have been developed by Christians for centuries and why Christians call God the Father. Admittedly, most of these views are new to me, and since the explanations are given hardly appear in the Bible or church sermons. Personally, the most interesting element of the lecture is the position that creeds developed from incorrect Christian teachings. In this case, it can be argued that Christians have appeared desperate to maintain the original view of the Bible and Christian teachings. Today, it can be argued that the many church dominions are the result of a division within the institution often caused by differences in interpreting the Bible. Failure to agree on the correct meanings and interpretations could result in sending the wrong message, which justifies the need for the creeds. However, it is difficult to assess whether the creeds have achieved the intended objectives.
The topic of God the Father is equally interesting from a personal opinion. It is a common thing for believers in most churches to refer to God as the Father. It can be argued that not many people have bothered to seek the reasons for this reference. Of the three explanations, that of the creator makes the most sense since the acts of God in the creation and caring for his creatures can easily be likened to the role a father plays in the family. The reference may have resulted from a biblical interpretation, but it makes much sense to refer to a creator as the father of his creation.
The Father's Love Overflows
Michael Reeves puts creation into the perspective of what God intended and uses love as the main rationale for why God created the universe. The most interesting part of this reading is the use of other gods to illustrate that creation was done for a reason. Marduk's lead is followed by most gods not just as a matter of personal preference but also since the reasoning is plain and simple. The gods need slaves who can work for them, and all they have to do is live off the labor of these slaves. Even in Christianity, I believe the term 'servant' has been flaunted severally in the Bible and Christian teachings, which illustrates that the main idea behind creation is servitude. I also believe that the Bible is clear that humans were created to fulfill the will of God. In this, I slightly deviate from the notion of love as the main reason for creation.
While other gods are depicted to have been lonely, I believe the book of Genesis illustrates that God and the angels decided to create a human in God's image. This information reveals that God was not lonely since he had angels. The reading also backs this position by arguing that God was not essentially lonely but had been loving all eternity. Therefore, I do not entirely dismiss the idea of God's love since the Bible has made it clear severally that God loves his creation. As a creator, God plays the role of a father, who is expected to be loving and caring. I also believe that the same love is extended to all that God has created and not just the humans.
The Apostle's Creed vs. Gnosticism
The focus of this reading is differentiating between the Apostle's Creed and Gnosticism. The reading supports another reading, God the Father, in explaining that creeds develop to counter what is considered wrongful interpretation of the Bible. The Apostle's Creed is contrasted to the Gnostics in that the Christians believe in God the Father who made heaven and earth. On the contrary, the belief among the Gnostics is that the physical universe is evil and God did not make it. In this regard, I believe there is a need to explore the reason behind these differences, something which the lecture has not explored. Therefore, I consider gaining an understanding of Gnosticism as the starting point for understanding the differences. First, the most important difference is that Gnostics worshiped more than one God. In this case, it can be argued that some of their beliefs came from the other religion they support.
As dualists, it is possible that the Gnostics chose what to believe about the Christian God based on what the other religion held. For example, the reading expresses that the Gnostics believed that the orthodox Christians were wrong in supposing that God had taken the human body and nature. This is in reference to Jesus Christ, who is described in the Bible as God's son, which meant that He was God. Gnostics oppose this idea by holding the position that Jesus was the man and was distinguished from the divine Christ and that Crist simply used Jesus as an instrument through which He spoke. This is inherently wrong from what Christians believe, and the Apostle's Creed is seemingly keen to rectify this arguably wrongful interpretation of the Bible.
Peter Kreeft Justification by Faith
This reading has explored the theme of justification by faith and the role played by such figures as Luther, a catholic monk, in spearheading this teaching. It is easy to agree with the ideas of the reading regarding the origin of the reformation. However, my attention has been turned to two major concerns: religious conflict and the misuse of religious power. The reason for this is that modern society experiences these things, and the reading has only served to explain that such incidences are embedded within t...