Evaluating a piece of information's validity is an essential Twenty-First Century skill with society simultaneously experiencing an information age and rise in anti-intellectualism. Google searches produce hordes of pieces written by pseudo-professionals doling out medical advice, commentary on international affairs, and capitalizing on historical conspiracy theories, like the TV series, Hunting Hitler.
I am often asked why I defend the doctrine of universalism, the idea that all people will eventually be saved. As a philosophy student, I do not count myself as qualified to, engage with universalism as a strategy of biblical study or as the correct interpretation of the historic thought of certain theologians. Rather, this article will be successful in so far as I have provided you with reasons to believe that several problems in philosophy can be weakened – or even solved – by postulating universal salvation.
Two weeks after the Parkland school shooting in Florida, a poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University, revealing that 62% of Florida voters supported a nationwide ban on the sale of “assault weapons,” and 53% of Florida voters supported a nationwide ban on the sale of all “semi-automatic rifles.”
All doctrines and all biblical interpretations are traditions. The doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement as the interpretation of Romans is a traditional interpretation. So tradition is not something imported from the outside without roots in the Bible or not subject to reform by biblical revelation. Tradition is not a rival to the Bible or an alternative to it.
Movie-goers reason that “this is a movie, it is not meant to be an accurate representation of history, that’s for a documentary or a book.” However, historical inaccuracies in films can have a dangerous impact on their audiences, and there are two factors that make them far more dangerous than historical inaccuracies in most other types of medium.
The present era of reactionary institutional responses to violations of political correctness is exposing the fact that “academic freedom”, of both professors and students, does not really mean much, except what it has always meant.
Does the fact that there aren’t any federal laws indicate that the abortion debate is over? The debate is certainly over if it is true that morality follows law. However, morality doesn’t and can’t follow law, law follows morality—or at least it should.
