Abstract I offer a new, limited solution to divine hiddenness based on a particular epistemic paradox: sometimes, agents knowing about a desired outcome or relevant features of that desired outcome would prevent the outcome in question from occurring. I call these cases epistemically self-defeating situations. This solution, in essence, says that divine hiddenness or silence is a necessary feature of at least some morally excellent or desirable states of affairs. Given the nature of the paradox, an omniscient being cannot completely eliminate hiddenness, just as an omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift it. Epistemically self-defeating situations provide an undercutting defeater for the assumption that any nonresistant nonbeliever could always, at any time, be in conscious relationship with a perfectly loving God. Thankfully, silence is a temporary feature of epistemically self-defeating situations: once the outcome is achieved, agents can know in full.
{"title":"Epistemic Paradox as a Solution to Divine Hiddenness","authors":"Amy Seymour","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0033","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I offer a new, limited solution to divine hiddenness based on a particular epistemic paradox: sometimes, agents knowing about a desired outcome or relevant features of that desired outcome would prevent the outcome in question from occurring. I call these cases epistemically self-defeating situations. This solution, in essence, says that divine hiddenness or silence is a necessary feature of at least some morally excellent or desirable states of affairs. Given the nature of the paradox, an omniscient being cannot completely eliminate hiddenness, just as an omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift it. Epistemically self-defeating situations provide an undercutting defeater for the assumption that any nonresistant nonbeliever could always, at any time, be in conscious relationship with a perfectly loving God. Thankfully, silence is a temporary feature of epistemically self-defeating situations: once the outcome is achieved, agents can know in full.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139240529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract J.L. Schellenberg and likeminded philosophers have offered a compelling argument against the existence of God known as the hiddenness argument. The idea that a loving God would not permit nonresistant nonbelief seems intuitive at first. Many theists have provided strong rebuttals to the hiddenness argument, attacking one or more of its controversial premises. I attempt to provide a new way forward in rebutting the hiddenness argument by challenging the assumed understanding of love that motivates many of the intuitions behind the hiddenness argument. I offer objections to the account of love that Schellenberg uncritically assumes and applies to divine-human relationships, and then go on to reconstruct the hiddenness argument with other accounts of love that are offered in contemporary philosophical literature discussion. In each case, the hiddenness argument is rendered unsuccessful. Throughout the essay, I comment on the theological merits of these various accounts of love as they are applied to divine-human relationships in order to show that, while not all of them are equally viable, Christian theists have several plausible ways of avoiding the conclusion of the hiddenness argument by adopting a different account of divine love.
{"title":"Philosophy of Love and the Hiddenness Argument","authors":"Randall J. Price","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0031","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract J.L. Schellenberg and likeminded philosophers have offered a compelling argument against the existence of God known as the hiddenness argument. The idea that a loving God would not permit nonresistant nonbelief seems intuitive at first. Many theists have provided strong rebuttals to the hiddenness argument, attacking one or more of its controversial premises. I attempt to provide a new way forward in rebutting the hiddenness argument by challenging the assumed understanding of love that motivates many of the intuitions behind the hiddenness argument. I offer objections to the account of love that Schellenberg uncritically assumes and applies to divine-human relationships, and then go on to reconstruct the hiddenness argument with other accounts of love that are offered in contemporary philosophical literature discussion. In each case, the hiddenness argument is rendered unsuccessful. Throughout the essay, I comment on the theological merits of these various accounts of love as they are applied to divine-human relationships in order to show that, while not all of them are equally viable, Christian theists have several plausible ways of avoiding the conclusion of the hiddenness argument by adopting a different account of divine love.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139241381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract How can the Biblical God be the Lord and King who, being typically unseen and even self-veiled at times, authoritatively leads people for divine purposes? This article’s main thesis is that the answer is in divine moral leading via human moral experience of God (of a kind to be clarified). The Hebrew Bible speaks of God as ‘king,’ including for a time prior to the Jewish human monarchy. Ancient Judaism, as Martin Buber has observed, acknowledged direct and indirect forms of divine rule and thus of theocracy. This article explores the importance of divine rule as divine direct leading, particularly in moral matters, without reliance on indirect theocracy supervised by humans. It thus considers a role for God as Über-King superior to any human king, maintaining a direct moral theocracy without a need for indirect theocracy. The divine goal, in this perspective, is a universal commonwealth in righteousness, while allowing for variation in political structure. The article identifies the importance in the Hebrew Bible of letting God be God as an Über-King who, although self-veiled at times, leads willing people directly and thereby rules over them uncoercively. It also clarifies a purpose for divine self-veiling neglected by Buber and many others, and it offers a morally sensitive test for unveiled authenticity in divine moral leading.
{"title":"God as Über-King of Moral Leading: Veiled and Unveiled","authors":"Paul K. Moser","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0032","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How can the Biblical God be the Lord and King who, being typically unseen and even self-veiled at times, authoritatively leads people for divine purposes? This article’s main thesis is that the answer is in divine moral leading via human moral experience of God (of a kind to be clarified). The Hebrew Bible speaks of God as ‘king,’ including for a time prior to the Jewish human monarchy. Ancient Judaism, as Martin Buber has observed, acknowledged direct and indirect forms of divine rule and thus of theocracy. This article explores the importance of divine rule as divine direct leading, particularly in moral matters, without reliance on indirect theocracy supervised by humans. It thus considers a role for God as Über-King superior to any human king, maintaining a direct moral theocracy without a need for indirect theocracy. The divine goal, in this perspective, is a universal commonwealth in righteousness, while allowing for variation in political structure. The article identifies the importance in the Hebrew Bible of letting God be God as an Über-King who, although self-veiled at times, leads willing people directly and thereby rules over them uncoercively. It also clarifies a purpose for divine self-veiling neglected by Buber and many others, and it offers a morally sensitive test for unveiled authenticity in divine moral leading.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139238631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article makes the case that the Jeremianic tradition construes the divine word as a mode of divine presence—indeed, a locus of hostile divine presence. This oft-neglected biblical conceptualisation of divine presence has the potential to call into question our submerged assumptions about the nature of divine presence, absence, and hiddenness. The investigation traces the echoes of the mīs pî pīt pî rituals in Jeremiah 1 as well as the relationship between the word of Yhwh and the written word. The book of Jeremiah itself emerges as an embodiment of hostile divine presence. Jeremiah’s Deus Inimicus mysteriously abides in the Jeremianic scroll.
摘要 本文论证了耶利米传统将神谕解释为神性临在的一种模式--事实上，是敌对的神性临在的场所。这种经常被忽视的《圣经》中关于神性临在的概念，有可能使我们对神性临在、缺席和隐藏的本质的假设产生疑问。调查追溯了耶利米书第一章中 mīs pî pīt pî 仪式的回声，以及耶和华的话语与书面文字之间的关系。耶利米书本身就是敌对的神性存在的体现。耶利米的 Deus Inimicus 神秘地存在于耶利米书卷中。
{"title":"Deus Inimicus: Divine Word and Hostile Divine Presence in the Book of Jeremiah","authors":"O. Fabrikant-Burke","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article makes the case that the Jeremianic tradition construes the divine word as a mode of divine presence—indeed, a locus of hostile divine presence. This oft-neglected biblical conceptualisation of divine presence has the potential to call into question our submerged assumptions about the nature of divine presence, absence, and hiddenness. The investigation traces the echoes of the mīs pî pīt pî rituals in Jeremiah 1 as well as the relationship between the word of Yhwh and the written word. The book of Jeremiah itself emerges as an embodiment of hostile divine presence. Jeremiah’s Deus Inimicus mysteriously abides in the Jeremianic scroll.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139240278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Aaron Rizzieri has recently argued that the problem of hell is a complicating factor for the issue of divine hiddenness. In particular, the problem of divine hiddenness is made much worse if anyone is threatened by negative afterlife consequences. While Rizzieri’s argument suffers from lack of theological nuance, there is a serious objection to Christian theism lurking in the vicinity of his argument. I offer what I take to be the best response to that objection.
{"title":"Divine Hiddenness and the Afterlife: A Response to Aaron Rizzieri","authors":"James Beilby","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0029","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Aaron Rizzieri has recently argued that the problem of hell is a complicating factor for the issue of divine hiddenness. In particular, the problem of divine hiddenness is made much worse if anyone is threatened by negative afterlife consequences. While Rizzieri’s argument suffers from lack of theological nuance, there is a serious objection to Christian theism lurking in the vicinity of his argument. I offer what I take to be the best response to that objection.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139239418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Kevin Vanhoozer’s authorial analogy for the God-World relation is a strong explanatory analogy which can aid Christians in thinking deeply, fruitfully, and systematically about the God they worship and His relationship to His creation. According to this analogy, God relates to His world in an analogous fashion to that of an author to his or her novel. However, the absolute sovereignty at play in the authorial analogy might serve to exacerbate the problems of divine hiddenness and divine neglect. Taken together and applied to the authorial analogy, I will call this the Absentee Author problem. The Author is absent from those characters who are open to relationship with Him and is likewise absent in situations wherein we would expect Him to lovingly intervene in His story, and furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for His absence. If Vanhoozer’s authorial analogy does in fact produce the Absentee Author problem and can offer no defense against it, then perhaps we ought to countermand its use, or at least severally limit its proposed explanatory scope. In this paper, I will argue that while Vanhoozer’s authorial analogy might appear to exacerbate the problems of hiddenness and neglect at first glance, ultimately Vanhoozer’s particular model can provide unique and orthodox answers to these problems which not only exculpate the analogy but commends its further use in theology and philosophy of religion.
{"title":"Don’t Write Off the Absentee Author: Why the Problems of Divine Hiddenness and Neglect Don’t Destroy Vanhoozer’s Authorial Analogy","authors":"Parker Settecase","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0030","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Kevin Vanhoozer’s authorial analogy for the God-World relation is a strong explanatory analogy which can aid Christians in thinking deeply, fruitfully, and systematically about the God they worship and His relationship to His creation. According to this analogy, God relates to His world in an analogous fashion to that of an author to his or her novel. However, the absolute sovereignty at play in the authorial analogy might serve to exacerbate the problems of divine hiddenness and divine neglect. Taken together and applied to the authorial analogy, I will call this the Absentee Author problem. The Author is absent from those characters who are open to relationship with Him and is likewise absent in situations wherein we would expect Him to lovingly intervene in His story, and furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for His absence. If Vanhoozer’s authorial analogy does in fact produce the Absentee Author problem and can offer no defense against it, then perhaps we ought to countermand its use, or at least severally limit its proposed explanatory scope. In this paper, I will argue that while Vanhoozer’s authorial analogy might appear to exacerbate the problems of hiddenness and neglect at first glance, ultimately Vanhoozer’s particular model can provide unique and orthodox answers to these problems which not only exculpate the analogy but commends its further use in theology and philosophy of religion.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139242118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Hebrew word מִכְתָּם creates a problem because the meaning is controversy. The Hebrew lexicon, BDB (1906) and TWOT lexicon (2003), confirm this difficulty, saying, “the meaning of this word is unknown.” PONS Kompaktwörterbuch Althebräisch (2015) records that this word is untranslated, while the other sources translate as song, prayer, or epigram. Allen P. Ross (2012:48), a Hebrew scholar, indicates that its meaning is disputed. Ibn Ezra (Strickman 2009:112) interprets that this word refers to a very precious Psalm. He compares with ketem paz or the finest gold in Song of Songs 5:11 because both words are derived from the same root. This perplexity also occurs in ancient texts as they differ in their translations. This article, therefore, attempts to study and solve this dilemmatic word in ancient texts with textual criticism of its methodology. This study argues that the word מִכְתָּם is not only different in translation, but also the concept in ancient texts.
希伯来语单词“”产生了一个问题，因为它的意思是有争议的。希伯来语词典BDB(1906)和TWOT词典(2003)证实了这一困难，说:“这个词的意思是未知的。”PONS Kompaktwörterbuch Althebräisch(2015)记录这个词是未翻译的，而其他来源翻译为歌曲，祈祷或警句。希伯来语学者Allen P. Ross(2012:48)指出其含义存在争议。Ibn Ezra (Strickman 2009:112)解释说这个词指的是一篇非常珍贵的诗篇。他将之与《雅歌》5:11中的“精金”作比较，因为这两个词都来自同一个词根。这种困惑也出现在古代文本中，因为它们的翻译不同。因此，本文试图通过对其方法论的考证来研究和解决这一古代文本中的两难词。本文认为，不仅在翻译上存在着差异，而且在古籍中也存在着概念上的差异。
{"title":"Divided by the Translation, But United in the Concept? The Word Study of מִכְתָּם","authors":"P. Chia","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0024","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Hebrew word מִכְתָּם creates a problem because the meaning is controversy. The Hebrew lexicon, BDB (1906) and TWOT lexicon (2003), confirm this difficulty, saying, “the meaning of this word is unknown.” PONS Kompaktwörterbuch Althebräisch (2015) records that this word is untranslated, while the other sources translate as song, prayer, or epigram. Allen P. Ross (2012:48), a Hebrew scholar, indicates that its meaning is disputed. Ibn Ezra (Strickman 2009:112) interprets that this word refers to a very precious Psalm. He compares with ketem paz or the finest gold in Song of Songs 5:11 because both words are derived from the same root. This perplexity also occurs in ancient texts as they differ in their translations. This article, therefore, attempts to study and solve this dilemmatic word in ancient texts with textual criticism of its methodology. This study argues that the word מִכְתָּם is not only different in translation, but also the concept in ancient texts.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78769850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This past decade has seen an increased interest in the nature of Jesus’ atonement. How does a Jewish man’s death from 2000 years ago atone for sin? In this paper, I attempt to provide a model that integrates the best insights from some of the major models put forth and philosophical reflections on the nature of justice. First, I employ Jonathan Edwards to argue that creation’s purpose is to communicate God’s beauty. To live justly is to live along the grain of God’s purposes—to make one’s life a communication (or display) of the beauty of God. I then defend this theory of justice and put forth my model. As I see it, Jesus offers up his life, death, and resurrection as aesthetic icons that uphold and restore the display of God’s beauty in creation. I proceed to show how this model captures the best of several other models. Key Terms: Beauty, Trinity, Atonement, Aesthetics, Justice
{"title":"Beatific Satisfaction","authors":"Sean Luke","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This past decade has seen an increased interest in the nature of Jesus’ atonement. How does a Jewish man’s death from 2000 years ago atone for sin? In this paper, I attempt to provide a model that integrates the best insights from some of the major models put forth and philosophical reflections on the nature of justice. First, I employ Jonathan Edwards to argue that creation’s purpose is to communicate God’s beauty. To live justly is to live along the grain of God’s purposes—to make one’s life a communication (or display) of the beauty of God. I then defend this theory of justice and put forth my model. As I see it, Jesus offers up his life, death, and resurrection as aesthetic icons that uphold and restore the display of God’s beauty in creation. I proceed to show how this model captures the best of several other models. Key Terms: Beauty, Trinity, Atonement, Aesthetics, Justice","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81911347","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article offers a Christian response to J.L. Schellenberg’s argument for atheism from divine hiddenness. Utilizing the unique theological features of the Christian tradition, I aim to show that Schellenberg’s argument does not undermine belief in Christian theism. The first half of the article focuses on differences between the theological presuppositions of classical theism and those assumed in Schellenberg’s use of perfect being theology. In the remainder of the article, I present a biblical theodicy that pulls from the Old Testament and current trends in religious belief to argue that the experience of divine hiddenness should not be unexpected if Christianity it true.
{"title":"Divine Hiddenness and Christian Theism: A Biblical Theodicy","authors":"Randall J. Price","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0022","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article offers a Christian response to J.L. Schellenberg’s argument for atheism from divine hiddenness. Utilizing the unique theological features of the Christian tradition, I aim to show that Schellenberg’s argument does not undermine belief in Christian theism. The first half of the article focuses on differences between the theological presuppositions of classical theism and those assumed in Schellenberg’s use of perfect being theology. In the remainder of the article, I present a biblical theodicy that pulls from the Old Testament and current trends in religious belief to argue that the experience of divine hiddenness should not be unexpected if Christianity it true.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78100703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study examines how the prosperity gospel has led to an increase in suicide cases in Nigeria. Existing literature has established links between the prosperity gospel and exploitation of the poor, but finding literature that establishes links between the prosperity gospel and suicide is difficult to find. The prosperity gospel preys upon the poor and leads people into suicidal desires for lack of wealth. In Nigeria, the church has consistently continued to base its preaching on prosperity. When congregants see that the promise of provision that the church has been laying emphasis upon is not materializing, they resolve to find any means of ending the controversy. Findings reveal that some of the aphorisms of the Nigerian clergymen include “By next week, month, or year, you shall receive a miracle”, “poverty is a curse”, “I can never be poor”, and “givers never lack.” These aphorisms have made the church members expectant of God’s blessing, and when their poor condition continues, they decide to take their life. In Nigeria, the majority of those who commit suicide have experienced a number of stressful life events in the three months prior to their suicide. This study adopted content and documentary analysis as its research methodology.
{"title":"‘Peace, Peace When there is No Peace’: The Impact of Prosperity Gospel on Suicide Rate among Nigerian Youth","authors":"F. Uroko","doi":"10.2478/perc-2023-0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2023-0025","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examines how the prosperity gospel has led to an increase in suicide cases in Nigeria. Existing literature has established links between the prosperity gospel and exploitation of the poor, but finding literature that establishes links between the prosperity gospel and suicide is difficult to find. The prosperity gospel preys upon the poor and leads people into suicidal desires for lack of wealth. In Nigeria, the church has consistently continued to base its preaching on prosperity. When congregants see that the promise of provision that the church has been laying emphasis upon is not materializing, they resolve to find any means of ending the controversy. Findings reveal that some of the aphorisms of the Nigerian clergymen include “By next week, month, or year, you shall receive a miracle”, “poverty is a curse”, “I can never be poor”, and “givers never lack.” These aphorisms have made the church members expectant of God’s blessing, and when their poor condition continues, they decide to take their life. In Nigeria, the majority of those who commit suicide have experienced a number of stressful life events in the three months prior to their suicide. This study adopted content and documentary analysis as its research methodology.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79691773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：