God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims Vs Epictetus’ God

Natural evil is encompassing reality of pain, suffering, death caused by natural forces/natural disasters (Ford 72). God gives humans freedom and doesn't want to manipulate them like robots and even when the freedom is misused, God offers ways to cope with it such as forgiveness, reconciliation, patience and healing (Ford 73). Sadly, this world has too many accidents and natural disasters that are unavoidable, but through despair and hard times God is always there to offer His love. Although humans suffer from sin and death, God does not allowed it to have the last word by offering faith, hope and love (Ford 73). Wherever there is evil, there will be goodness

Is there a difference between the Christian God and the gods in the famous book known as the Odyssey? Should we really care if God or the gods of the odyssey are better or worse than the other or for that matter be thankful that we are ruled by God rather than the Odyssey gods? In many ways they are very different. Sending his only son to die on the cross God, loving and merciful, showed he cared about his mortals, while the gods of The Odyssey will try to kill you even if you slightly offend their children. No caring for mortals there. Surprisingly that’s just one of the many qualities that separates the Odyssey gods to the real almighty God. While that by itself is a pretty convincing fact that our God, who is prince of peace, is better than

The world in The Giver is not perfect because nothing can really be perfect. It is almost impossible to think of a perfect world, and if you do there will always be a flaw in one way or another to someone. The world can never truly satisfy the needs of everyone. As Hannah Montana once said, “Nobody’s perfect”, I guess she was talking about

As Hephaestus is notified of Thetis’ arrival, he explores what their relationship has meant to him. Hephaestus recalls that “Thetis saved my life when the mortal pain came on me after my great fall…” (P. 480) After Hephaestus falls out of Zeus’ good graces, Thetis is able to lend her helping hand, displaying the hierarchical dynamic between the gods. The gods are indebted to each other, the likely reason that Hephaestus felt as though he needed to make Thetis the ornate shield. The duty and obligation to each other fuels the mutualistic relationships between the gods. Thetis’ motivation to help Hephaestus was not solely out of kindness; rather Thetis saw the opportunity to make a strategic move and put Hephaestus in her debt, knowing that she very well could use his services in her future. Hephaestus describes the pain that he felt as “mortal pain” signifying a distinction between the discomforts and vulnerability of mortals and gods.

Throughout The Iliad, Homer offers us a glimpse into the lifestyles of the ancient Greeks and their beliefs. They are a very spiritual and in many ways superstitious people. The main thing to note throughout The Iliad is the interaction between the gods and the humans. Any way one looks at the situation, they can immediately see that humans are mere pawns to the gods in their game of chess. The success and failures of the humans depends on what god would be helping which group and at what particular time. This essay will explain the three main reasons the gods in The Iliad intervened with humans: Firstly, gods who act on their own personal motives, secondly, gods who act as favors to other gods, and finally gods who act as favors to

The setting of The Giver takes place in a fictional community known as the “Sameness”. Life here is supposed to be "perfect" because there is no pain or suffering. They don’t have to take

In ancient times, gods were a holy image in people’s mind. Each god had its own role in the universe. Such as the role of creation, the controller of the nature, and the role of the destiny control. The gods had extreme powers, and controlled everything in the world. Worshiped gods became a daily routine for ancient people. In the minds of people in ancient times, worshiped their gods were to prevent these gods became furious, and punished them with their extreme power. Even though the gods were extremely powerful, in many epic texts we could see they also had emotions and characteristics that were just like humans. However, there were still some major differences between the gods and humans.

Greek and Roman cultural values pervaded the Western religious society and made it possible for a series of Christian and Muslim religious individuals to be associated with historic figures present in Ancient Greece and Rome. While the modern society has a different understanding of the concept of the traditional hero, society during the early centuries perceived heroes as being individuals who possessed a series of attributes related to religious ideas and to a general attitude that promoted moral behavior. Individuals like Augustine de Hippo and Mohammed have come to be seen as having several attributes that linked them to the idea of the classic Greek hero.

When he was gifted with his liberty, Epictetus started “teaching principles of personal freedom and tranquility” (Traylor, 2004. P 11). His followers became so numerous that it alarmed the Roman Empire rulers. When the emperor requested that he “shave off his beard to show the public his subservience to the emperor”, he declined (Traylor, 2004. P 12). Subsequently, Epictetus was ordered into exile. In Greece, his place of exile, he opened a small school. According to Traylor, this school taught students “how to live a life of serenity and purpose” (p 12). Traylor wrote, “He was said to be a kind and good-hearted man, passing away around the year 130 A.D” (p. 12).

In Richard Swinburne’s Natural Evil, he argues that the free will defense accounts for the existence of evil. Following Swinburne’s example, I will argue that the Problem of Evil does not give us good reason to believe that an omnipotent, benevolent deity does not exist. To do so, I will first summarize Epicurus’ original question of the problem of evil. Then, I will defend my claim by proposing the free will defense. Furthermore, I will discuss how the concepts of benevolence and omnipotence are inconsistent with the definition of God according to the free will defense. Lastly, I will address and respond to a possible objection to my argument.

The plain concept is that without letting some evil, God could not have completed a creation which had any good, because it is unmanageable for good will to exist without evil.

Many authors have employed the religious beliefs of their cultures in literature. The deities contained in Homer’s Odyssey and in the Biblical book of Exodus reflect the nature of the gods in their respective societies. Upon examination of these two works, there are three major areas where the gods of the Greek epic seem to directly contrast the nature of the God of the Israelites: the way problems are solved, the prestige and status that separates the divine from the masses, and the extent of power among the immortal beings.

Simon Blackburn claims that the presence of evil in the world strongly suggests that an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God does not exist. I oppose this claim because I believe that God gave us the choice of free will and he continues to value it. Without free will we would lack autonomy and be considered God’s puppets or programmed Robots. In “God” Simon Blackburn offers two observations. The first observation is that if there were an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God there wouldn’t be any natural disasters.

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who wrote, The Enchiridion, a manual which instructed people on how to live their life ethically and honorably on a social level. His belief was that regardless of personal conditions, people could live with pride and discipline. Epictetus tells us differentiating between what is in our own power to control and what is not is the key to a noble life (281).

God to the people of the big three monotheist religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) see god as an all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful being.