Search results
He did much to persuade Christians influenced by pacifism to support the war against Hitler. He himself had been a pacifist as a result of his revulsion against World War I, but during the 1930s he became the strongest theological opponent of any form of pacifism that claimed to have universally applicable nonviolent solutions of political ...
May 19, 2017 · How shall he think of himself?” By page 2, he was pondering “the admitted evils of human history,” “the question of the value of human life,” and “whether life is worth living.” These are not...
Niebuhr began to distance himself from the pacifism of his more liberal colleagues and became a staunch advocate for the war. Niebuhr soon left the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a peace-oriented group of theologians and ministers, and became one of their harshest critics.
4 days ago · As it happens, between the hammer of realism and the Jello bowl of idealism, between the too hard-edged and the too soft-minded, there was an alternative. And its name, from the 1920s through the 1960s, was Reinhold Niebuhr. There does exist a general definition of his Christian realism. It’s a political theory based on three Christian ideas ...
Niebuhr never wearies of pointing out that man is a sinner. He points out that such modern thinkers as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud, in their explorations of the dark depths of the human heart, confirm afresh the biblical doctrine of the sinfullness of man.
Feb 10, 2021 · James and Niebuhr were equally committed to progressive causes, but Niebuhr had a passion that fuelled a hope for justice James did not possess. If there was anyone who exemplified what James identified as healthy-minded it was Niebuhr.
People also ask
What were Niebuhr's contributions to political philosophy?
What does Niebuhr say about the human situation?
What does Niebuhr think about sin?
What did King say about Niebuhr?
What if Niebuhr were writing today?
What does Niebuhr believe about God?
Aug 5, 2009 · We have seen that Niebuhr himself does not furnish any reasons why the transcendent can be known only through symbols. His arguments against philosophical inquiry rest on the supposition that all philosophy is of a rationalistic type; they do not therefore imply any conception of the ontological relationship between the world and the transcendent.
