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 s...