OCR H573 Potential Questions… the very long list!

/ vardycharlotte

If you read the OCR H573 specification closely, you will see that as well as the main specification content there are a series of issues which students “should have had the opportunity to discuss”.  The wording of these issues can be used by those setting questions.

Here is my very long list of exam questions, each created out of a main specification content point or an “issue” for discussion, listed on the specification.

WARNING: Some of them are VERY challenging, and probably unlikely to be set in the examinations… but worth considering nonetheless. 

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

1a. Ancient Philosophical Influences

  1. Critically evaluate Plato’s reliance on reason as a means of making sense of reality. [40]
  2. Assess Plato’s theory of the forms. [40]
  3. To what extent is Plato’s allegory of the cave a helpful means of explaining his theory of Forms? [40]
  4. How useful is Plato’s allegory of the cave to Philosophers today? [40]
  5. Critically assess Plato’s concept of the Form of the Good. [40]
  6. “Aristotle’s Prime Mover is more like the Christian God than Plato’s Form of the Good.” Discuss [40]
  7. Critically compare Plato’s Form of the Good and Aristotle’s Prime Mover [40]
  8. Critically compare Plato’s rationalism and Aristotle’s empiricism as attempts to make sense of reality. [40]
  9. To what extent is Aristotle’s use of the senses to make sense of reality more convincing than Plato’s reliance on reason? [40]
  10. Critically assess Aristotle’s teleological view of the universe and human nature. [40]
  11. “There is no evidence to support the claim that the universe is teleological.” Discuss [40]
  12. Critically evaluate Aristotle’s four causes as a means of making sense of reality. [40]
  13. “There was no need for Aristotle to propose a Prime Mover to explain teleology in nature.” Discuss [40]

1b. Soul, Mind & Body

  1. Critically compare Plato’s and Aristotle’s views of the soul. [40]
  2. “There is no evidence for substance dualism” Discuss [40]
  3. Critically assess Plato’s arguments for substance dualism. [40]
  4. Critically evaluate the claim that Descartes improved on Plato’s arguments for substance dualism. [40]
  5. To what extent are the mind and the soul the same thing? [40]
  6. “The soul and the body might be separate, but they are not separable.” Discuss [40]
  7. “The word ‘soul’ is best understood as a metaphor.” Critically evaluate this claim. [40]
  8. “Talk about a separate soul rests on a category error.” Evaluate this statement. [40]
  9. “Human consciousness can be fully explained by physical or material interactions.”Assess this claim. [40]

2a. Arguments from Observation

  1. Critically assess Aquinas first way. [40]
  2. To what extent does David Hume succeed in defeating the cosmological argument for God’s existence? [40]
  3. To what extent is a necessary God needed to explain the contingency of things in the universe? [40]
  4. It is more likely that the universe came about by chance than that God designed it. Discuss this statement. [40]
  5. To what extent does Aquinas provide sufficient explanation for his conclusion “and this is what everybody calls God”? Discuss with reference to the Third Way. [40]
  6. “Cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator, without sufficient explanation.” Critically evaluate this claim. [40]
  7. The Cosmological Argument is defeated by the fallacy of composition. Discuss. [40]
  8. Hume showed that it is not possible to demonstrate God’s existence from observations. Do you agree? [40]
  9. “Hume was right: we can’t make claims about movement, causation, contingency, order or purpose across the whole universe on the basis of our limited experience.” Assess this claim. [40]
  10. Paley’s teleological argument is more persuasive than Aquinas’ fifth way. Discuss. [40]

2b. Arguments from Reason

  1. Critically assess the view that the Ontological Argument is the most persuasive argument for the existence of God. [40]
  2. “Existence is not a predicate.” Discuss [40]
  3. To what extent does Anselm’s ontological argument justify people in having Christian faith? [40]
  4. Critically evaluate Gaunilo’s criticisms of Anselm’s Ontological Argument. [40]
  5. The ontological argument fails because it can be reduced to absurdity: it is obvious that perfect islands don’t exist by definition, so God can’t. To what extent is this judgement fair? [40]
  6. To what extent are a posteriori arguments are more persuasive than a priori arguments for God? [40]
  7. The ontological argument justifies belief. Discuss [40]
  8. A priori is the more persuasive style of argument than a posteriori. Do you agree? [40]
  9. Critically evaluate the claim that Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument conclusively destroy attempts to prove God’s existence from reason. [40]

3a. Religious Experience

  1. Critically assess William James’ definition of mystical experiences. [40]
  2. “Religious experiences are best understood as union with a higher power.” Discuss [40]
  3. To what extent do you agree with William James that conversion experiences “by self-surrender” are more likely to be valid than other types of religious experience? [40]
  4. “Conversion experiences are a psychological illusion.” Do you agree? [40]
  5. There is no way to establish the validity of religious experiences, so they are not a reliable basis for faith in God. Discuss. [40]
  6. Religious experience is a good pointer towards the existence of God, but it is not a sufficient basis for belief in God in itself. Discuss this statement. [40]
  7. “Personal testimony is never enough to support the validity of religious experiences.”  Discuss [40]
  8. “Religious experiences provide a basis for belief in a higher power.” Evaluate this claim. [40]
  9. “All individual religious experiences can be explained away as physiological effects.” Discuss [40]
  10. “Corporate religious experiences might be considered more reliable, but are less likely to be valid than individual experiences” Discuss. [40]

3b. Problem of Evil

  1. Critically compare the logical and evidential aspects of the problem of evil in terms of their effects on faith. [40]
  2. Critically evaluate the evidential problem of evil as a disproof of God’s exstence. [40]
  3. To what extent does Augustine’s theodicy succeed in defending God against the charge of allowing evil and the suffering it causes? [40]
  4. Critically evaluate John Hick’s Irenaean theodicy as a solution to the logical problem of evil. [40]
  5. Would a perfect God need to put people through a ‘vale of soul-making’? [40]
  6. To what extent is the evidential problem of evil a greater challenge to Classical Theism than the logical problem of evil? [40]
  7. Is it possible to successfully defend monotheism in the face of evil? [40]
  8. “St Augustine’s view of the Fall as the origin of both moral and natural evils is enough to spare God from blame for evils in the world.” Discuss [40]

4. The Nature and Attributes of God

  1. The Christian concept of God is incoherent. Discuss. [40]
  2. Is it possible to defend God’s omnipotence in the face of evil? [40]
  3. To what extent is St Anselm’s four dimensionalism a more persuasive understanding of God’s relationship with time than Boethius’ presentism? [40]
  4. Critically compare the explanations of divine omnipotence provided by St Anselm and Richard Swinburne. [40]
  5. Critically evaluate the claim that Richard Swinburne provides the most useful understanding of the relationship between divinity and time. [40]
  6. To what extent is God’s omnibenevolence meaningful if God is eternal? [40]
  7. To what extent does Boethius succeed in resolving the problems of divine knowledge, benevolence, justice, eternity and human free will? [40]
  8. God can only do what is logically possible. Discuss. [40]
  9. Divine self-limitation is the best way to make sense of God’s attributes, given the existence of evil and suffering in the world. Assess this claim. [40]
  10. Is it possible to resolve the apparent conflict between the divine attributes of omniscience and omnibenevolence? [40]
  11. Is it necessary to resolve the apparent conflicts between the divine attributes? [40]

5. Religious Language: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic?

  1. The cataphatic way is more useful as an approach to religious language than the apophatic way. Discuss [40]
  2. Critically compare symbol and analogy as approaches to religious language. [40]
  3. “Theological language is best approached by negation” Discuss [40]
  4. The Via Negativa is an unhelpful way of approaching religious language. Discuss. [40]
  5. “The apophatic way does not enable effective understanding of theological discussion.” Do you agree? [40]
  6. Meaningful theological discussion depends on the Cataphatic approach to language; it is impossible through the Apophatic way. Critically assess this claim. [40]
  7. Aquinas’ analogical approach to religious language is too limiting to support religion. Discuss. [40]
  8. Aquinas’ analogies of proportion and attribution are the best ways to make sense of the claim that God is good. Assess this claim. [40]
  9. Aquinas’ analogical approaches support effective expression of language about God. Do you agree? [40]
  10. Critically assess Tillich’s approach to religious language. [40]
  11. A symbolic understanding of religious language renders religious discourse incomprehensible. Critically evaluate this claim. [40]

6. 20th Century Approaches to Religious Language. [40]

  1. Critically assess AJ Ayer’s approach to religious language. [40]
  2. Religious language is meaningless. Discuss [40]
  3. “Both strong and weak versions of the verification principle render religious language as meaningless.” Discuss. [40]
  4. Critically assess the claim that Religious Language is necessarily non-cognitive. [40]
  5. The meaning of claims comes from usage, not from reference. Discuss the implications of this claim with reference to religious language. [40]
  6. To what extent can Scripture mean anything if religious language is understood to be non-cognitive? [40]
  7. How far is Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language valuable in the philosophy of religion? [40]
  8. “Religious language can be both meaningful and non-cognitive” Do you agree? [40]
  9. “Flew was right: Religious claims have no factual quality, given the fact that they are unfalsifiable.” Discuss [40]
  10. Critically compare the views of Flew, Hare and Mitchell on the factual quality of religious claims. [40]
  11. Hare’s parable of the lunatic does little to establish the meaningfulness of religious language. Do you agree? [40]
  12. “No participant in the falsification symposium presented a convincing approach to the understanding of religious language.” Discuss [40]
  13. “How far does Aquinas’ analogical view of theological language remain valuable in the philosophy of religion today?” [40]
  14. Assess the influence of non-cognitive approaches on the interpretation of religious texts. [40]
  15. Critically compare the ideas of Aquinas and Wittgenstein on religious language. [40]
  16. A cognitive approach is a better approach to making sense of religious language than a non-cognitive approach.” Discuss with reference to Aquinas and Wittgenstein. [40]

 

ETHICS

1a. Natural Law

  1. Critically assess Aquinas’ four tiers of law. [40]
  2. To what extent was Aquinas right that human beings are naturally inclined to do good and avoid evil? [40]
  3. “The moral law is discoverable by everybody through reason.” Do you agree? [40]
  4. The primary precepts are the most important part of Natural Law. Discuss [40]
  5. In natural law, primary precepts are not changeable, but secondary precepts are. Critically assess this claim. [40]
  6. To what extent is Aquinas’ natural law a helpful method of moral decision-making when it comes to Assisted Dying? [40]
  7. Critically assess the view that something or someone being good depends on its success or failure in achieving its telos. [40]
  8. To what extent is it fair to say that the universe as a whole – including human nature – is inclined towards the good? [40]
  9. Is  the principle of double effect an adequate defense? [40]

1b. Situation Ethics

  1. Situation ethics provides the most helpful method of moral decision-making. Discuss. [40]
  2. Situation ethics is more practical than Natural Law when it comes to making decisions about euthanasia. Do you agree? [40]
  3. Fletcher’s six propositions show that he misunderstands the concept of agape. Evaluate this claim. [40]
  4. To what extent does something being good, bad, right or wrong depend on the extent to which, in any given situation, agape is best served? [40]
  5. Is it fair to say that Fletcher’s Situation Ethics is merely a Christian version of Utilitarianism? [40]
  6. Situation ethics is an unhelpful approach because it renders decision-making entirely individualistic and subjective. Discuss. [40]
  7. Situation Ethics is not a Christian approach to decision-making. Discuss [40]
  8. Given the working principle of personalism, there is no way that situation ethics could justify active euthanasia. Critically evaluate this claim. [40]
  9. “Conscience is a verb, not a noun.” Discuss. [40]

2a. Kantian Ethics

  1. Critically evaluate Kantian duty-based-ethics. [40]
  2. Kantian Ethics does not depend on faith in God. Discuss [40]
  3. Critically assess the importance of the three postulates – God, freedom and immortality – for Kant’s ethics. [40]
  4. Whether a maxim can be established as a universal law is the universal command of reason in ethical decisions. Critically assess this claim [40]
  5. Kantian ethics provides a helpful method of moral decision-making when it comes to Business. Discuss. [40]
  6. Does goodness depend on doing one’s duty? [40]
  7. Critically assess the view that Kantian ethics is too abstract to be applicable to practical moral decision-making. [40]
  8. “Kantian ethics is so reliant on reason that it unduly rejects the importance of other factors, such as sympathy, empathy and love in moral decision-making.” Evaluate this claim. [40]
  9. “An ethical judgement about something being good, bad, right or wrong can be based on the extent to which duty is best served.” Discuss [40]

2b. Utilitarianism

  1. Utilitarianism is unhelpful when making decisions about sex. Discuss. [40]
  2. The concept of utility is the most important part of utilitarian approaches to ethics. Discuss [40]
  3. The hedonic calculus is a useful means of deciding how to behave. Do you agree? [40]
  4. Rule Utilitarianism is more practical than Act Utilitarianism. Discuss [40]
  5. The right action is always that action which makes most people happy. Discuss. [40]
  6. Utilitarianism fails because it is impossible to measure pleasure. Critically evaluate this view. [40]
  7. All pleasures should be equal in value when it comes to making a utilitarian decision. Assess this claim. [40]

3a. Euthanasia

  1. Critically evaluate the claim that Natural Law is a useful guide when making decisions about non-voluntary euthanasia. [40]
  2. To what extent is Situation Ethics practical as an approach to making decisions about voluntary euthanasia? [40]
  3. Assess the view that Natural law is a more helpful approach to euthanasia than situation ethics. [40]
  4. The religious concept of sanctity of life has no meaning in twenty-first century medical ethics. Discuss. [40]
  5. To what extent should a person have complete autonomy in medical decision-making? [40]
  6. Is there really a moral difference between killing somebody and letting somebody die? [40]
  7. Should people in PVS routinely be subject to non-voluntary euthanasia?

3b. Business Ethics

  1. Critically assess Kantian Ethics as a means of making decisions about whistleblowing. [40]
  2. To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful guide when making decisions about corporate social responsibility? [40]
  3. “Utilitarianism a more practical way of making decisions in business ethics than Kantian Ethics!” Discuss [40]
  4. The only responsibility of a business is to make profits for its shareholders. Discuss [40]
  5. The concept of corporate social responsibility is nothing more than ‘hypocritical window-dressing’ covering the greed of a business intent on making profits. Critically assess this view. [40]
  6. Capitalism stands against human flourishing. Discuss. [40]
  7. To what extent is good ethics, good business today? [40]
  8. To what extent does globalisation encourage the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business? [40]

4. Meta-Ethics

  1. Critically evaluate ethical intuitionism as a basis for knowing what is right and what is wrong. [40]
  2. To what extent is ethical naturalism a credible basis for ethics in the 21st century? [40]
  3. Emotivism is better understood as a critique of normative ethics than as a practical approach to decision-making. Discuss. [40]
  4. Is “what does “good” mean?” the most important question for the 21st Century Moral Philosopher? [40]
  5. Saying that an action is “wrong” is meaningless! Discuss. [40]
  6. Ethical terms such as good, bad, right and wrong have an objective factual basis that makes them true or false in describing
    something. Do you agree? [40]
  7. “Right” and “Wrong” reflect only what is in the mind of the person using such terms. Evaluate this claim. [40]
  8. “From a common sense approach, people just know within themselves what is good, bad, right and wrong” Discuss [40]

5. Conscience

  1. Conscience is best understood as a person’s reason making moral judgements. Do you agree? [40]
  2. A person is more guilty when they do something wrong as a result of vincible ignorance. Discuss [40]
  3. Critically evaluate Freud’s psychological approach to the conscience. [40]
  4. Critically compare Aquinas and Freud on the concept of guilt. [40]
  5. “God is not present within the workings of the conscience.” Assess this claim. [40]
  6. To what extent is Freud’s account of conscience more convincing than that of Aquinas?
  7. Is the voice of conscience the same as the voice of reason? [40]
  8. To what extent is conscience the product of the unconscious mind? [40]
  9. “Conscience is best understood as an umbrella term covering various factors involved in moral decision-making, such as culture, environment, genetic predisposition and education.” Do you agree? [40]

6. Sexual Ethics

  1. Critically evaluate Natural Law as a means of making decisions about homosexuality. [40]
  2. Assess the practicality of Situation Ethics as a means of making decisions about pre-marital sex. [40]
  3. Kantian Ethics is the most useful approach to making decisions about extra-marital sex. Discuss [40]
  4. Religion should have no place in 21st Century sexual ethics. Evaluate this claim. [40]
  5. Religions should resist the influence of secularisation when it comes to their teachings about sexual ethics. Discuss [40]
  6. “Decisions about sex are personal and private; they are nobody else’s business.” Critically assess this statement. [40]
  7. Decisions about sex should be subject to societal norms and legislation. Discuss [40]
  8. To what extent are normative theories useful in making decisions in sexual ethics? [40]

 

DEVELOPMENTS IN CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

1a. St Augustine & Human Nature

  1. St Augustine is too uncritical in his use of the Bible to explain suffering and the flaws in human nature. Discuss [40]
  2. Critically assess the significance of St Augustine’s teaching about human relationships before the Fall. [40]
  3. Assess the importance of St Augustine’s teaching about lust and human relationships after the Fall. [40]
  4. “Both Augustine’s interpretation of the Fall and his doctrine of Original Sin are simply wrong!” Discuss
  5. “Original sin explains why there is a lack of stability and corruption in all human societies. Assess this claim. [40]
  6. Critically assess the view that if Augustine is right, humans can never be morally good. [40]
  7. Augustine’s view of human nature is too pessimistic. Discuss this claim. [40]
  8. “God’s grace is necessary to overcome sin and achieve the summum bonum.” Evaluate this claim with reference to St Augustine’s theology.
  9. Is there a distinctive human nature? [40]

1b. Death & the Afterlife

  1. Critically assess the belief that heaven is an actual place where a person may go after death and experience physical and emotional happiness. [40]
  2. “Hell and purgatory are not places but spiritual states that a person experiences as part of their spiritual journey after death” Assess this claim. [40]
  3. “Heaven, hell and purgatory are just symbols of a person’s spiritual and moral life on Earth, not places or states after death” Do you agree? [40]
  4. Critically evaluate limited election as a view of who will be saved within Christianity. [40]
  5. “All people are called to salvation, but not all are saved” Critically discuss this claim. [40]
  6. “All people will be saved in the end.” Assess this view with reference to Christian doctrine. [40]
  7. Matthew 25:31–46 is a useful guide to Christian beliefs about judgement, heaven and hell. Discuss [40]
  8. God’s judgement takes place immediately after death.  Discuss with reference to Matthew 25:31–46 [40]
  9. Could hell be eternal? Discuss. [40]
  10. “Heaven is the transformation and perfection of the whole of creation” Discuss [40]
  11. Is purgatory a state through which everyone goes? [40]

2a. Knowledge of God

  1. “As all humans are made in God’s image they have an inbuilt capacity and desire to know God.” Discuss [40]
  2. “What can be known of God can be seen in the apparent design and purpose of nature.” Do you agree? [40]
  3. “Natural knowledge is not sufficient to gain full knowledge of God; grace and faith are necessary for salvation.” Discuss [40]
  4. “Assess the view that full and perfect knowledge of God is revealed only in the person of Jesus Christ. [40]
  5. “The Bible is necessary for full knowledge of God.” Critically assess this claim. [40]
  6. “Christians today can gain a full knowledge of God through the life of the Church.” Discuss [40]
  7. To what extent can God can be known through reason alone? [40]
  8. Faith is sufficient reason for belief in God, without reason. Critically evaluate this claim. [40]
  9. “The Fall has completely removed all natural human knowledge of God.” Assess this claim. [40]
  10. To what extent can human beings have natural knowledge of God after the Fall? [40]
  11. Is natural knowledge of God the same as revealed knowledge of God? [40]
  12. Is it wrong to trust in God, when we have no evidence of His existence? [40]

2b. Person of Jesus

  1. To what extent was Jesus the unique son of God? Discuss with reference to Mark 6:47–52. [40]
  2. Did Jesus know that He was God’s son? Discuss with reference to John 9:1–41. [40]
  3. Jesus was only a teacher of wisdom! Discuss with reference to Matthew 5:17–48 and Luke 15:11–32 [40]
  4. To what extent was Jesus was more than just a political liberator? [40]
  5. Was Jesus’ relationship with God truly unique? [40]
  6. Did Jesus think he was divine? Discuss. [40]

3a. Christian Moral Principles

  1. Christian ethics should be based on the Bible, Church and reason, not only on the Bible. Discuss [40]
  2. To what extent are Christian ethics distinctive? [40]
  3. Are Christian ethics are personal or communal? [40]
  4. To what extent is acting with love sufficient to live a good life? [40]
  5. Is the Bible is a comprehensive moral guide? [40]
  6. Critically evaluate the view that Christians should not practise civil disobedience. [40]
  7. Is it always possible always to know God’s will? [40]

3b. Christian Moral Action

  1. Does a Christian’s duty to God always come before their duty to the state? [40]
  2. Christians should practise civil disobedience. Discuss [40]
  3. Critically evaluate Bonhoeffer’s teaching on the relationship of Church and State. [40]
  4. To what extent was Bonhoeffer’s role in the Confessing Church significant in the development of His ethics? [40]
  5. Critically evaluate the significance of Bonhoeffer’s religious community at Finkenwalde for his Ethics. [40]
  6. Must all Christians be poor, in order to act in solidarity with the poor? [40]
  7. Critically evaluate Bonhoeffer’s teaching about the necessity of “costly grace.” [40]
  8. Assess Bonhoeffer’s teaching on leadership and doing God’s will. [40]
  9. Bonhoeffer put too much emphasis on suffering. Discuss [40]
  10. To what extent has Bonhoeffer’s theology relevance today? [40]

4. Pluralism

  1. Critically evaluate theological exclusivism. [40]
  2. If Christ is the ‘truth’, can there be any other means of salvation? [40]
  3. “A good God could not send anybody to an eternal hell!” Discuss. [40]
  4. Will all good people be saved? [40]
  5. ‘Anonymous’ Christians may also receive salvation. Critically assess this claim. [40]
  6. To what extent does theological pluralism undermine central Christian beliefs? [40]
  7. Can a Christian be a theological pluralist? [40]
  8. “There are many ways to salvation, of which Christianity is one path.” Discuss [40]
  9. Critically compare the responses of two Christian Churches to the challenge of encounters with other faiths, with reference to Redemptoris Missio 55–57 and  Sharing the Gospel of Salvation. [40]
  10. Inter-faith dialogue has not contributed practically towards social cohesion. Evaluate this claim. [40]
  11. Should Christians seek to convert people from other faiths? [40]
  12. Christians have a particular mission to convert those of no faith today. Discuss [40]
  13. Christians should try to convert atheists. Discuss. [40]
  14. To what extent does scriptural reasoning relativise religious beliefs? [40]

5. Gender

  1. Critically evaluate Christian teaching on the roles of men and women in the family with reference to Ephesians 5:22–33 and Mulieris Dignitatem 18–19. [40]
  2. Critically assess how Christians have responded to changing views of parenthood. [40]
  3. Have Christians responded positively to secular views concerning different types of family? [40]
  4. The Church cannot change to reflect secular views of gender. Discuss [40]
  5. Official Christian teaching should resist current secular views of gender. Discuss [40]
  6. To what extent have secular views of gender equality undermined Christian gender roles? [40]
  7. Is motherhood is liberating or restricting? [40]
  8. To what extent is the idea of family entirely culturally determined? [40]
  9. Critically compare Ruether’s and Daly’s approaches to sexism and patriarchy within Christianity, as it has developed in the mainstream Churches. [40]
  10. Has Christianity a future? [40]
  11. Christianity is essentially sexist! [40]
  12. Critically assess Ruether’s claim that understandng God as the female wisdom principle would help Christianity to become less sexist. [40]
  13. Critically compare Ruether’s and Daly’s feminist theologies. [40]
  14. Christianity is essentially sexist! Do you agree? [40]
  15. If God is male, then man is God! Discuss [40]
  16. Can a male saviour save women? [40]
  17. Critically assess the view that only women can develop a genuine spirituality. [40]
  18. Can God be described as mother? [40]

6a. Secularism

  1. “Society would be happier without Christianity.” Discuss [40]
  2. “Government should be free from religious influence.” Do you agree? [40]
  3. “Christian belief should play no part in state education and schools.” Do you agree? [40]
  4. Christianity should be a significant contributor to culture and values in the UK. Discuss [40]
  5. Are Christian values just human values? [40]
  6. “Christianity is a major cause of personal and social problems!” Discuss this claim. [40]
  7. “Secularism presents an opportunity for the Church to develop new doctrines and practices.” Critically evaluate this idea. [40]
  8. Should Christianity continue to play a role in public life within the UK? [40]
  9. Are British values actually Christian values? Should they be? [40]

6b. Marx & Liberation Theology

  1. Critically evaluate Marx’ teaching about capitalism as a cause of alienation and exploitation. [40]
  2. Assess liberation theology’s use of Marx to analyse social sin. [40]
  3. To what extent are liberation theologians right to suggest that the causes for sin are mostly structural amongst the world’s poorest peoples? [40]
  4. Christians must give the poor a preferential option in today’s unequal world. Discuss [40]
  5. True Christians cannot be wealthy. Evaluate this claim. [40]
  6. Orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy. Do you agree? [40]
  7. To what extent should Christian theology engage with atheist secular ideologies? [40]
  8. Assess the view that Christianity tackles social issues more effectively than Marxism. [40]
  9. Liberation theology has not engaged with Marxism fully enough! Discuss. [40]
  10. Critically assess the view that Christians should not prioritise one group over another. [40]

Leave a comment